Table Of ContentIntroduction
CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION
TRADITION AND CIVILIZATION
HINDUISM AND INDIAN CIVILIZATION
ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSIC
MUSICAL TRADITION AND INDIAN CIVILIZATION
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
SELECTION OF FIELD SITES AND DURATION OF FIELDWORK
TECHNIQUES ADOPTED IN DOING FIELDWORK
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
2
Introduction
CULTURE AND C!VILIZATION
In cultural anthropology, Tylor (1871) is the first anthropologist to
introduce the term 'civilization'. But in his use, the term stands synonymous
to the term 'culture'. Kroeber emphasizes the difference in meaning for these
two terms. Though he did not define the term civilization but put forward
some of its characteristics. For him, every culture is a composite historical
growth out of elements most of which have been borrowed from other
cultures. Thus he meant the grand complex of cultures as civilization. In his
definition of civilization, Kroeber writes " Civilization is the assemblage of
the styles followed by the inhabitants of certain duration of time could then
consist of a style of manner of government added to a style of law and another
of social relations, further a characteristic manner of production and economy
of religious belief organisation plus what we ordinarily call its style of
literature, art, music and architecttire " (Kroeber, 1963, p. 40. Quoted from
Singer, 1972, p. 252). Kroeber's approach is essentially telescopic,
diachronic, and cultural. (Singer, 1972, p. 254).
In 1950's Redfield has attempted to maintain parity· between culture and
society in the context of studying a civilization, which has both great regional
scope and great historic depth. " It is a great whole, in space and in time, by
virtue of complexity of the organization which maintains and cultivates its
tradition and communicates them from the great tradition to many and varied
local societies within it" (Redfield, 1973, p. 59). Unlike Kroeber, Redfield's
approach is essentially microscopic, synchronic, and social-cultural (Singer,
1972, p. 255). Redfield has further stated that each civilization has got two
characteristic structures - 'societal structure' and structure'. The
~cultural
'societal structure' consists of the total network of social relations that
connects the communities of different kinds to one another over a long period
3
of time. The networks of marriage and kin, trade and work, religious
pilgrimage and political administration and organization form this structure.
The 'cultural structure' is the structure of ideas and the products of the ideas,
that is its cultural traditions. This structure is compound and complex as is the
societal structure for in every civilization there are the 'high' cultural
traditions of the 'reflective few' (great tradition) and the low folk traditions of
the 'unreflective many' (little tradition). These different levels or dimensions
of a civilization's cultural structure interact constantly with each other
(Redfield, 1956, p. 41; also Singer, 1972, p. 255). So it appears that
civilization as a method of social cultural anthropology offers a scope to the
heterogeneity of a complex society.
TRADITION AND CIVILIZATION
The term 'tradition' refers to the similarity in cultural elements, which
persists through a considerable span of time in a relatively restricted
geographical area. It is commonly employed at an intermediate level of
generalization to refer to the complexities of related traits. Traditions are used
in culture-historical reconstruction as indicators of significant cultural
.. continuity through time and .o f genetic· r~~ationships between cultures.
Cultural similarity, which is restricted to a narrow time span, covers a large
geographical area.
Traditions are values, beliefs, rules, and behavioral patterns that are shared by
a group of people and passed on to the generation next as part of the
socialization process. Tradition provides pattern of daily behavior to the
society as well as the concept of morality. A tradition tells to the members of
the society what kinds of behaviors are expected from them. It also provides
an explanation for doing the same. The dictionaries mention almost the same
meaning under the entry of tradition. "Tradition also refers to the transmission
of knowledge, practices, etc., from generation to generation originally in oral
4
forms. Tradition is that which is so transmitted, a body of beliefs and usage
handed down from generation to generatiqn: Ii is~ a custom so long continued
that it has almost the force of law." (Webster Comprehensive Dictionary,
1995, p. 1330). "Tradition also is a long established and generally accepted
. custom or method of procedure, having almost the force of a law; an
immemorial usage, the body of the experiences and usage of any branch or
school of art or literature, handed down by predecessors and .generally
followed. It is the embodiment of an old established custom or institution of
'relic' (Oxford Dictionary, 1965, p. 226).
·In relatively homo:genous :societies, the ·tradition often provides only one
acceptable way of doing things. Traditions are followed because that is what
the ancestors did. Hence, the tradition acquires a sacred quality. The traditions
of primitive groups are oral and can be reworked to justify the new situations.
In complex societies, various subgroups perpetuate different traditions and
there is a greater tendency to question the validity of a given tradition as the
only system of explanation under the written (Hunter. & Whitten, 1976, p.
391).
Redfield (1958) has used the term 'tradition' with an anthropological bearing.
He defines civilization on the basis of his concept of tradition. In a civilization
there is a 'great tradition' of the reflective few, and there is a little tradition of
the largely 'unreflective many'. The great tradition is cultivated in schools or
temples while the little tradition works itself out and keeps itself going in the
lives of the unlettered in their village communities. The tradition of the
philosophers, theologians, literary persons, and intelligentsia is such a
tradition that is consciously cultivated and handed down. The little tradition
is taken for granted and is not submitted under scrutiny or refinement and
improvement. Tradition flows from the masters to disciples who cultivate
their work within their own circles. The great and little traditions are
5
interdependent and continue to do so by affecting each other over a longer
period of time.
Every great tradition has its masters and the humanistic scholars of that
tradition are in a position to tell us about them how their teachings reach to
the common people. The civilization contains thought, which is expressed
through the symbolic action. Also, the civilization is compound in the sense
that it has parts or levels, each present in some of the people who carry on that
part more than the others. Apart from the commoners, tpese people live
notably different lives in villages, cities or shrine:.centers; temples or
monasteries. These parts or levels of civilization are something other than
local (regional) cultures. They are something different from the subcultures
characterizing the occupational groups concerned with the secular specialist.
They are different because the learning of the great tradition is an outgrowth
of the little tradition and an exemplar for the people who carry the little
tradition. The great and little traditions are dimensions of one another. The
people who carry on the lower layer and those who maintain the high alike
recognize the same order of 'highness' and 'lowliness'.
When the anthropologist studies an isolated primitive community, the context
is only that community and its local and immediate culture. When the peasant
community and its culture are taken under study, the context becomes
widened to include the elements of the great tradition that intersects what is
local and immediate. The interaction of the great and little traditions can be
regarded as a part of the social structure of the peasant community in its
enlarged context. From such a point of view, a civilization is an organization
of the specialists and their roles in characteristic relations to one another and
to the lay people. This organization the functions tha.t concern
characterize~
the transmission of tradition from the great to the little ones (Singer, 1972, pp.
46-8, 170-2, 182- 85, Cohn & Marriott, 1958, pp. 1-9).
6
HINDUISM AND INDIAN CIVILIZATION
Civilizational approach, as stated by Redfield, may be very helpful for
study of multiple realities of Indian societies and cultures, but it requires
certain modifications. Majumder has used the term 'Hindu civilization' as a
synonym of Indian civilization. He narrates that the word 'Hindu' is not
available in the Veda, puran or in the other ancient religious scriptures written
in the Sanskrit. The Muslim first used the term 'Hindu' (when they conquered
the northern India and settled there) to distinguish themselves from the
defeated inhabitants of India. Originally the term. was of territorial
.. significance. •The western 'invaders who in,/aded India by the western land
bridge and occupied the territory of the bank of river Sindhu (Indus) began to
call the people of the Indian side of the Sindhu as Hindu after the name of the
river. In their language, 's' used to be pronounced as 'h'. Thus the term Hindu
was formulated (Majumdar, 1977, pp. 1-2). So from the perspective of
history, the Hindus and Indians are the same people. On the one hand, the
contributions of the Hindus are traceable in material, social and religious
ways of life and on the other, the Hindu way of life is the dominant feature of
the Indian social cultural life.
Indian culture is extremely composite. There are innumerable diversities in
ecology and habitat, language and ethnicity, social and cultural forms. Instead
of the diversities, Hinduism provides the common cultural identity for most of
the Indians. It offers a spirit of metaphysical dimension in the form of certain
norms, values, and ethics that shapes the civilization. Therefore,
anthropologically the term Indian civilization seems to be more suitable for it
offers a scope to study the extreme complexities of Indian social cultural life.
From the dawn of Indian history, amalgamations of different races and
cultures took place in Indian soil. Hinduism has survived because it has
shown a considerable degree of flexibility and adaptability. It has absorbed
. and assimilated the traits of different cultures with which it comes into
· .c ontact.. As a result, it shows a variety of beliefs, loosely held together by an
attitud.e of mutual tolerance and by .the unique Hindu convention that all
approaches ultimately lead towards the God. If religion is defined as the
sacred belief and practices in relation to the supernatural, then Hinduism is a
'synthesis of religions' as it embraces a large variety of forms, practices,
institutions and cults and internalize them. The Hindu attitude of religion is
thus very interesting. Unlike any other religion it is a unique combination of
religion and philosophy. It teaches the idea of the ultimate and absolute
reality, which is manifested in different forms.
The Hindu way of life appears as a result-of confluence of the autochthonous
Indian communities and the Aryan-speaking people. In this confluence the
religious traits are the main elements. To understand the exact nature of the
confluence, a detail analysis of the nature of elements is necessary. The
society of the invader Aryans has been governed by the Brahmins (priests)
and kshatriyas (warriors). When the Hinduism developed as a formal religion,
the conquerors (Brahmins and kshatriyas) occupied the upper status and the
autochthonous people were ranked in lower categories like vaisya (settler,
husbandman) and the sudra (helots). In later part of the history, this hierarchy
continues to be maintained in the resultant mixed population.
In the Hindu way of life, two traditions have become dominant. One is the
shastriya and the other is laukik. The shastriya tradition in the total Hindu
way of life stands for the formal aspects whereas the laukik tradition keeps
alive the local indigenous customs. For example, in marriage rites, the
function of the priest, which is associated with the shastriya cults are few in
number whereas for the bulk of the marriage rituals i.e. laukik achars or
performances are done by the women only or by a group of non-Brahmin
persons.
8
ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSIC
Since its formulation, the term ethnomusicology has passed through
conceptual changes. Early in the twentieth century the term has referred the
comparative musicology particularly the study of primitive and oriental
musical forms. Later it starts to mean the musical traditions outside the
western civilization. The prefix 'ethno' of ethnomusicology refers music as a
field of knowledge that which is continuously vanishing from the earth. The
purpose of the folk I ethnomusicological study is to record the vanishing
musical form as far as possible that fails to appreciate that every musical form
· .. changes in courses of time. In· order to remove the. conceptual deficiency,
Merriam suggests that it should be defined as " the study of music in culture "
and thereby the aspects of the social sciences and humanities could be welded
together (Merriam, 1964, pp. 5-16). Understanding music as an integral part
of culture. The world-view of a particular culture that is reflected through the
music, can be taken as a point of departure from ehnomusicology to
anthropology of music.
Music is a cultural trait (Herskovits, 1955, p. 10); but characteristically, it
differs from other cultural traits. It is not that aspect upon which man depends
for mere survival. It is essentially a body of ideas and aesthetic, which is
related to the style of life. Redfield describes that these aspects of music are
related to the social structure (Redfield, 1969, p. 50). Music as a variety of
human behaviors can be classed as one of the most highly patterned cultural
activities. As a part of culture, it shows three relevant principles. First,
whatever music a particular society produces, it is highly ordered. Second,
wherever it appears music is always connected with a set of ritual. And third,
music is always context sensitive.
One important characteristic of music may help solving the problem of the
relationship between music and various types of human activity. As a vast
number of constraints inherent in it, one may assume that music is like a ritual
9
speech, which is clearly the most redundant form of human behavior. It is
thus not surprising to find music associated with ritual where other forms of
human behavior become similarly redundant. However, music is also
associated with recreation, which is theoretically less organized than ritual. If
the redundancy of music is a reutilization of behavior, then music should not
appear in recreational contexts. Music has two simultaneous functions. One, it
engages a group of people into meaningful activity; and second, within that
activity, it demonstrates certain core-concepts that represent a skeletal
statement of the major values of a society.
Music is a form of communication in the sense that it communicates cultural
patterns in specific symbolic ways. Music is thoroughly a group activity,
which tends to support cultural norms displaying them in symbolic form. By
forcing their performance in a public arena through the agency of activity, it
ensures the acceptance of a basic ethos by the culture-bearers (Lomax, 1978,
p.111 ). The study of music and music making can be useful as a model for the
more general study of the anthropology of culture. Culture as the 'organized
systems of significant symbols persists in communities over a period of time.
Music can only be produced by performance and the individuals impose
meaning upon it. Culture is invoked and reinvented by social interactions.
Thus, music and other cultural phenomena can be said to have no intrinsic
meanings. It ought to be possible to assign any meaning to them.
In the sphere of music making, musical behavior and action, there is nothing
particularly anthropological or sociological. It could be studied as any other
social activity and its symbols, which could be treated in the same way as the
rules of a game. The anthropologists and sociologist need not concern
themselves with the music so much as the use to which _it is a.nd attach the
p~t
values to it in the course of social interaction. Music would therefore be
anthropologically and sociologically neutral, as Nadel suggested, an 'action
autonomous' (Nadel, 1951, p. 87).
10
The anthropological study of music and music making therefore concerns the
products of man as music maker, and the processes by which feelings and
ideas are expressed in patterns of sound that evokes emotions and sentiments.
The symbolic load often arbitrarily assigned to the music may be relevant in
this inquiry. The performers' and listeners' views of music and musical
experience are crucial data in the identification of significant musical
parameters and the analysis of musical meaning. The study of the symbolic
load of music itself, and especially of the effectiveness of musical symbols, is
the most challenging aspect. Because music is a mediator between feeling and
form, a link between the innate, generalized automatic complexity of the body
as well as the particular cultural arrangements of bodies that have been
achieved through the medium of social interaction. Music is, therefore, an
ideal field for the study of relationships between patterns of social interaction
and the invention of the cultural forms. Nadel may be correct in arguing that
such relationships do not and need not exist, but their case· has neither been
proved nor disproved. The explanation of cultural forms remains a key
problem in the social sciences, and the study of music and music making can
contribute much to its solution (Nadel, 1951, p. 87). This view has been well
expressed by Levi-Strauss. In comparing the special resemblance of music to
the myth in both freezing and unfolding in time, Levi-Strauss emphasizes its
role in relating the inner experience of organic rhythms to the external
rhythms of the music. He claims that " ....m usic is the supreme mystery of the
science of man, a mystery that all the various disciplines come up against and
which holds the key to their progress" (Levi-Strauss, 1969, p. 18).
Music is not intelligible unless it is 'grammatical'. Its code is its message, and
·it is.inc?herent u~less it is logically structured. Yet, muskal stru~tures seem
to spring from the feelings as often as they evoke them. The point is that the
human feelings are also structured and in the transformation of feelings into
patterns of sound and vice versa. The innate structures of the body play a part
