44

CHAPTER-II

CULTURE, CIVILIZATION, TRADITION AND

CREATIVITY

Analysing, describing and understanding collective

creations and seekings of humans is a rather difficult task as

they reflect all the ambiguities of human existence. It is

almost a truism to say that there are various aspects of

human existence ranging from facticity to transcendence;

equally true to say that being human consists in the flight of

human consciousness from facticity to transcendence, but

relation between these aspects -rather than being simple

unilinear one- is a complex dialectical relationship. This gives

rise to various ambiguities in concrete historical contexts and

situations. These ambiguities find their echoes in the

collective creations of human beings. Just as human beings

cannot be understood in terms of any one of the dimensions

that they reveal, realm of collective human creations too

cannot be reduced to some master domain of the creations.

These are related but not necessarily harmonious domains as

they sometimes consist of rather dissonant dimensions.

The ambiguities stemming out of the nature of human

existence as well as collective human creations have found

45

expression in different formulations with some thinkers

giving more importance to facticity and others to the

transcendence. In the process they tend to reduce

complexity, multiplicity and hetrogeniety of the phenomena

to a few homogenous simpler phenomena. By doing so these

approaches fail to capture the richness of realm of human

creations. In this chapter we intend to explore various

dimensions and levels of collective human creations and

seekings. Effort will be made to analyse the categories used

to capture the domain of human creations. It would be seen

how these categories and phenomena relate to one another. It

would also be analysed where they overlap and how they

differ.

Culture, Civilization and tradition are some of the

significant categories and domains of phenomena that have

captured the attention of almost all the thinkers intending to

study collective human seekings and creations. Of these,

culture and civilization refer to the realms of human

creations, and tradition implies how these creations are

transferred through the generations. The usage of the terms

culture and civilization requires a thorough deliberation as

more often than not these terms have been used

46

interchangeably. For example Herskovits holds that ‘‘one

synonym for culture is tradition and another is civilization’’.1

In one of the most quoted passages which is considered to

provide a definition of culture, Tylor also uses the terms as

synonyms. He holds that ‘‘culture or civilization is that

complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals,

law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired

by man as a member of society’’.2

Among those who differentiate between the two, there is

a divergence of opinion regarding the relation between

culture and civilization. One extreme consists of the thinkers

who consider civilization to be a higher form of culture. Prof.

Daya Krishna’s Prolegomena to any future historiography of

Cultures and Civilizations is one such example.3 Malinowaski

also reserved the use of term civilization for a special aspect

of more advanced cultures.4 On the other extreme lies

Oswald Spengler who holds civilization to be inevitable

destiny of every culture as culture becomes civilization in its

decay.5 Maclver and Page too, consider civilization to be

antithetical to culture in several ways.6

The divergence of views pertaining to usage of terms

culture and civilization, as also regarding their relationship,

47

has its roots in the fact that culture and civilization do not

refer to the entities lying out there in the world. They are not

descriptive categories representing the realities of the world.

Rather they are complex concepts employed to explore the

realm of human creativity as well as the nature of human

achievements. The delineation of these concepts illuminates

various aspects, dimensions and levels of human creativity

as well as collective seekings of humans -ranging from the

factual to valueational. It also renders intelligible the

relations between them.

In history of ideas, attempts to understand the nature

of collective human creations have been made from divergent

perspectives. More often than not such attempts reflect the

general intellectual atmosphere of the times. The first kind of

such attempts that we intend to explore demarcated the

surroundings and entites being confronted by humans into

broad categories of nature and culture.

Nature and Culture

Initial demarcation of environment surrounding human

beings into natural and cultural holds key to understanding

the nature of human creations. The world in which human

beings have been created is demarcated as natural world

48

whereas the world that is created by humans has been

understood as the cultural realm.

In this perspective the entire non-human reality that

includes physical and biological domains is categorized as

nature. Prior to human existence events and processes

taking place on planet earth fell in natural domain and

formed a part of natural causal nexus. The processes of

evoluotion have also been explained to a reasonable extent by

the principles of natural selection. In order to survive, species

had to adapt themselves to the changes taking place in the

surroundings. Only those species survived which adapted

themselves. Those which failed to do so, vanished from

surface of this planet. Homo-sapiens are considered members

of first species that intervened in processes of nature on a

significant scale, produced changes in the environment, and

tried to tailor it to suit their needs. With this, the era of

evolution is supposed to give way to the era of human

history. This usage has its roots in the common sense view of

the genesis of culture.

Common sense does not associate term culture with

early humanoids -who primarily were food gatherers and

hunters- as they were using the products of nature more or

49

less in the form in which they appeared in nature. The term

culture is employed in the context of societies which started

domasticating animals and began producing agricultural

crops. Thus cultural realm -as opposed to the natural

domain- is illuminated by human intervention. This usage

gains strength by invoking the fact that flori-culture, tissue-

culture, etc. all involve human intervention -and it is because

of this intervention that they acquire all the significance that

they have. The etimological roots of the word culture also

point in this direction as it is taken to be associated with

tending of something, basically crops or animals. Thus,

tending humanizes the process and culture differentiates

human creations from natural objects, events and process.

The demarcation between evolution and history should

not be postulated as a sharp division in which nature created

humans through evolution -as they more or less presently

are- and droped them at the doorsteps of history where they

took their own charge. Rather, as they acquired somewhat

erect posture and some capacity to conceptualise, they

increasingly participated in their self-creation through

creative interaction with surroundings. Almost all peculiarly

human capacities are products of such dialectics with

50

nature. In this way human intervention in the processes of

nature not only differentiated them profoundly from lower

animals, rather through it they created a world of their own,

which includes not only objects, but meanings and values as

well. Culture in this broad connotation means that which is

socially rather than genetically transmitted, and consists of

the whole edifice comprising of human creations.

This finds expression in definitions of culture provided

by earlier thinkers and anthropologists. Malinowaski defined

culture as social heritage comprising ‘‘inherited artifacts,

goods, technical processes, ideas, habits, and values”.7

Herskovits defined culture as man’s ‘‘learned behaviour...

(that includes) the things people have, the things they do and

what they think’’.8 And Sorokin defined it as ‘‘the sum total of

everything which is created or modified by the conscious or

unconscious activity of two or more individuals interacting

with one another or conditioning one another’s behaviour”.9

Thus, the category of culture was used to differentiate

human creations from mere givenness of the nature. In this

way it helped understand the nature of human creations as

opposed to the phenomena of nature. But it did not throw

51

much light on the finer distinctions within those creations

which illuminate various dimensions of human existence.

Material and Ideational Culture

Initial steps in the direction of noting distinctions

within the realm of collective human creations, and their

bearings on human destiny were sought to be taken by

approaches seeking to demarcate culture into material and

ideational aspects. They have their roots in the classification

of Ogburn.10

Material culture refers to the realm of human creations

that are observable and are of corporeal nature. All that

human beings invented on the basis of their experiences and

efforts has been classified as material culture. Humans have

been creating cultural objects in material form almost from

the beginning. Initially these creations were in the form of

arrows, tools and utensils, whereas in present era their

usefulness has increased rather qualitatively. Ogburn has

stressed the aspect of change in the realm of material

culture. The form of material culture undergoes changes in

accordance with the change of interest, capacities and

environment of the people. This gets reflected in the fact that

52

even in traditional societies, where belief-structures and

ideas of the people remain more or less stable, the material

dimension of the culture does not remain static or

unchanged. Material aspects being concrete are taken to be

measurable and are considered to be relatively simpler.

Hence parts of material culture of one society can be adapted

by other groups with relative ease. Material culture is

considered to be consisting of the things created by humans

that are important to them because of their usefulness.

Ideational culture on the other hand refers to that

aspect of culture which does not has a corporeal form and

effects human behaviour through ideas. The beliefs, norms,

traditions and customs that develop as a result of social

heritage are considered to be elements of ideational culture.

This domain of culture is considered more effective in

influencing human society. People face much more resistence

if they do not follow ideational culture of a society, whereas

the opposition in case of material aspects is much less. As a

result ideational culture is considered to be of relatively

stable character.

Against this approach, it may be pointed out that

dichotomy of material and ideational is not tenable in

53

cultural context owing the fact that even material cultural

objects are either embodiments of some idea, or they may be

conceived as mean for the realisation of some idea. Thus, if

contrast between realm of material cultural objects and realm

of ideas is analysed, we find that material objects are serving

the purpose of realization of some idea. Material objects are

part of culture not only in their materiality -which is of

secondary importance- rather they are more so in terms of

their meaning, sense and significance.

Thus demarcation of culture into material and

ideational not being tenable fails to throw much light on

understanding of human condition and processes pertaining

to human destiny. Thinkers of late have tried to analyse the

realm of collective human creations through the categories of

culture and civilization.

Culture and Civilisation

Humans, like other creatures live and die, but whereas

other organisms neither know that they are living nor that

they will die, human existence is unique in the sense that

they are aware of the fact that they are living and also know

that one day they will die. Humans know and think of life

54

and death whereas other organisms merely undergo whatever

is happening to them. Humans have a reflexive awareness of

themselves and aspire to go beyond the immediacy of

biological life. With being human a new paradox emerged on

the planet, the ambiguity and ambivalence of rational animal.

They transcend their natural condition without ceasing to be

a part of it. They still are part of this world on which they act

and reflect. But they do not understand themselves merely as

organisms, rather they perpetually aspire to reach beyond

themselves, towards the horizons of sense, significance and

value. In this sense being human is flight of human

consciousness from facts of nature towards possibility in the

realm of sense, significance and ideals. Being human has

value not merely as a fact of nature but more so as a creator

of meaning and value. They care for their biological survival,

but they care more for the values and ideals, for the sake of

which they do not hesitate to put even their biological well

being at stake. The examples of countless martyrs are before

us who sacrificed their lives for the ideals that they upheld.

This clearly shows that there are various levels and aspects

of human existence which cannot be reduced to mere

biological survival or well being. Corresponding to these

55

levels and aspects there are different realms and dimensions

of human creations and seekings as well. Historiographers,

thinkers, academicians and intellectuals studying the

processes, expressions and embodiments of human creativity

have analysed the products of human creativity under the

concepts of culture and civilization.

Culture and civilization both are embodiments and

expressions of creative activity of human beings. They are

results of creative human seekings and aspirations. Physical

and biological aspects of human existence and seekings are

taken to be embodied in civilization, whereas spiritual and

transcendence related aspects and aspirations are taken to

be reflected and expressed in culture. Civilization is supposed

to be related primarily to the physical and objective

dimensions of the society whereas culture is taken to be

related to subjective and spiritual realm of human existence.

Civilization is conceived more as related to survival and

preservation. Culture on the other hand is seen as enriching

realm that opens up new dimensions to human

consciousness and existence. Thus, when human creativity is

directed towards pragmatic and utilitarian ends, it is

considered to produce civilization; and when it is directed

56

towards expanding the horizon of human consciousness, it is

said to be creating culture.

Culture is not to be confused with the arrangements

that ensure survival of human collectivity. Cultural activity is

much more than an activity aimed at mere physical

adjustment as human aspirations and cravings are

profoundly different and deeper than physical ones. The

thirst of human intellect and seekings of human

consciousness cannot be quenched by physical adjustments

alone. Cultural activity differentiates human person from

mere animal organism by breaking the shakels of domain of

natural causal necessity. Through culture humans enter the

threashold of symbols and meanings, which is the domain of

freedom. Thus although culture is related to civilization but it

is of a different orientation.

In civilization there is a necessary element of physical,

biological and social adjustment. Civilizational achievements

and attainments endow human beings with minimum level of

physical comfort, ensuring survival and preservation. In

contrast to the virtues of the spirit -that are reflected in

culture– civilization reflects bio-physical aspects of human

existence. But it would be pertinent to note here that it has

57

almost unanimously been accepted that necessary

pre-condition for inculcation of mind in case of human

collectivity is a minimum level of welfare at the level of

bio-physical existence. This minimum level of comfort is

managed through civilizational arrangements. Civilization is

taken to be primarily associated with material well being and

is considered to be consisting of those elements which are

useful for human existence. They are significant mainly

because of their functional aspects as they fulfill some need

rooted in bio-physical dimension of human existence. It

consists mainly of means useful to master the forces of

nature. Civilizational attainments are taken to be of help in

human ‘victory’ over nature. In a way they are considered to

be the responses of animal in man to the challenges of

nature. It is with these responses that crystallization of

civilization is considered to lie. The dialectics of these

responses with cultural progress transformed them into acts

of collective human will being actualized into embodiments of

civilizational attainments. This includes social and

institutional frameworks into which humans enter in order to

ensure survival and preservation of the group, as also to

control the external conditions of their lives. These aspects of

58

civilization are even more closely related to culture, but they

still are distinguishable from it. Civilization is considered to

be corresponding to the domain of utilities, mechanisms and

apparatus which humans use in order to control the

conditions of their life in the outside world. Maclver insists

that ‘‘our culture is what we are, our civilization is what we

use’’.11 Thus civilization is considered to be concerned with

utilitarian dimensions of human creations that serve as

means to fulfill our needs and desires.

When means for somewhat secure bio-social life are

secured, human creativity turns towards realm transcending

the world of mere utilities. This domain of non-utilitarian but

meaningful and significant creations that is important to

humans not as means to something else, but as end-in- itself

-is the realm of culture. In culture there is a definite

movement away from bodily and material, towards spiritual.

It is not merely a response of animal in man to a challenge of

nature, but a pursuit of human will and consciousness that

is profoundly different. It is a voyage aimed at discovering

moments of bliss that are of intrinsic value as opposed to any

pragmatic and utilitarian price tag attached to them. Human

existence reveals itself in various types of activities. Culture

59

is related more to those human aspirations, expressions and

seekings that are considered important as ends-in-

themselves. It consists of those moments of human life which

are considered intrinsically important. In moments of life

considered to be forming a part of civilized life, we reach out

to the outer world in search of things, techniques and

institutions which are considered useful. But it is an

important aspect of the ontology of human existence that

they constitute and venture into a realm that is

trans-biological and trans-natural, and does not has much

relevance for their bio-physical and even social needs.

Human being is a being that seeks a relation of reflexive

awareness vis-à-vis the totality of existence. As Sartre puts it

rather eligently, being human "is a being such that in its

being, its being is in question".12 They not only try to find

meaning of human existence by questioning their own being,

rather when they fail to find any pre-given meaning, they

make it meaningful through pursuits aimed at open horizon

of future. These pursuits are flights of human consciousness

in the contra-factual realm of ideals, symbols, values, etc.

No doubt human being is a citizen of the natural world

and also of the civilization. This citizenship is a sort of

60

ascribed citizenship that he or she lives with, but only as part

of an achieved citizenship of the entire universe, which is

achieved by making the entire existence an object of his/her

reflection. Humans try not only to make sense of their own

existence, rather they attempt to understand meaning of the

whole existence. As Heidegger puts it, human being is a being

such that “in its very being that Being is an issue for it”.13

Humans are citizens of the realm of meanings also, and

it is this meaningful manner of being a citizen of domain of

sense, significance and value that they belong to the cultural

world as a citizen. Thus they take their life of facticity of

being a creature with needs and desires, and also their

belonging to a civilization, only as a part of their life as a

resident of cultural realm constituted by pursuits of ideals,

values, etc. -i.e. seekings and aspirations which are not part

of domain of utilities, but are meaningful and significant

nevertheless. It is not a mere accident or a coincidence that

in human realm pursuits of non-material nature such as

seeking truth, goodness and beauty are considered more

blissfull as compared to pleasures that are related more to

the satisfaction of bio-physiological needs. For a citizen of

cultural realm, being human consists not in pursuing the

61

business of living by divorcing it from realm of values, but in

an unrelenting quest for apprehension and realization of

values that do not contribute only towards the nitty-gritty of

biological living, to which mere animal form of life is

condemned. Human creativity in the domain of culture

breaks new grounds and enriches human existence by

expanding the horizon of human consciousness constituting

new realms hitherto non-existing.

Thus culture is related more to non-utilitarian aspects

of human creations. But their being non-utilitarian does not

mean that they are unimportant. Rather they are significant

as they are blissful and satisfying in themselves. They

provide humans a self-satisfaction of a profoundly different

kind that imparts hitherto unexisting meanings to human

life. It seems plausible to say that culture is related to

non-utilitarian aspects of human creations that are

important not as means to something else, but are more

significant as they are self-satisfying for human intellect.

Being aware, self-conscious, reflective and imaginative

creatures, humans refuse to slumber in the domain of entites

that are immediately useful to them for fulfillment of their

naturalistic needs. Mediated by culture, human

62

consciousness liberates itself from the chain of causal

necessity and enters the realm of sense, significance, ideals

and values. Human plunge into this realm is guided by

creative aspirations, seekings and longings which inform the

uniqueness of human self. It would be pertinent to note here

that these higher seekings and aspirations are as real in the

context of human ontology as are the needs and desires

normally associated with animal nature. Cultural

consciousness, though it deals with meanings, symbols and

values, has an important bearing on real life of humans. Any

aspect or phenomenon related to human existence does not

remain isolated from others. Rather more often than not they

mutually call one another. They reflect and inform, and are

reflected and embodied in human creations. Everyday

life-situations involve a dialectical interaction of functional

and significant; of useful and meaningful; of pragmatic and

non-utilitarian but important. A cultured person satisfies his

or her needs in a manner that goes a long way in the

realization of values. Lives of such persons are living

examples of how utilitarian activities can become a part of

reflectively choosen values. Thus, culture imparts significant

and transcendent worth to every-day life-activities of human

63

individuals. A more detailed account of relationship between

culture and civilization, and its effect on the direction of

human destiny will be taken up in conjuction with the

concept of value in the chapter IV. Now let us discuss how

cultural and civilizational heritage is passed on from

generation to generation.

Tradition

Culture and civilization represent complex concepts

whose analysis reveals significant insights illuminating the

nature and meaning of processes as well as attainments of

collective human seekings and creativity. Rather than

referring to natural entities existing out there in the world,

they have a necessary reference not only to trans-biological

aspects of being human, but also to trans-natural domains of

human condition and reality in which present human

generations find themselves. They have to be maintained,

reproduced, modified and passed on to successive

generations in order that fruits of collective human seekings

and creativity are not lost into oblivion. Cultures and

civilizations in order to continue as embodiments and

expressions of human creativity, device some techniques and

ways for their maintenance and transmission. Like culture

64

and civilization these techniques and ways themselves are

results of human creativity, because culture and civilization

not being biological or natural entity, cannot be transmitted

through natural process found in living beings. As opposed to

natural domain, trans-natural aspects cannot be transmitted

genetically through the generations, rather mode of their

transmission is social in nature. Tradition is considered to be

the medium of this social transmission through which

cultural and civilizational creations and attainments are

transferred down the generations.

The term tradition has its roots in the Latin world

traders which has the connotations of handing down, passing

on and to deliver. In this sense tradition refers to all the

social inheritance of the group and collectivity. Present

generations cannot undermine the past of society as present

institutions or learning does not begin anew in the absolute

sense. Present generations find themselves surrounded by

the results and consequences of prior choices of previous

generations. Educational and institutional processes keep

alive the fruits of experiences and learnings of previous

generations that have relevance not only for the present but,

more often than not, for the future as well. There is no doubt

65

about the fact that present generations re-interpret the social

heritage handed down to them in the light of their vision of

the future and modify it; but the rules of interpretation,

though may themselves be modified by the present

generations, nevertheless are transferred by the previous

generations. Tradition in this sense is like collective memory

of the group.

G.C. Pande has summed up the view that draws

analogy between tradition and memory by insisting that

‘‘tradition plays the same role in social life as memory does in

individual life”.14 The metaphor of memory contains

important and significant insights not only about the role of

tradition but also about its nature.

Tradition like memory is not something that is

prefabricated and stagnant, rather human acts weave the

fabric of both memory as well as tradition. Memory creates a

sense of identity in the individual, similarly tradition also

serves the purpose of creating a sense of cultural identity.

Just as a person without memory will lead an abnormal

life -worst than a schizophrenic- similarly people without a

tradition will have no sense of identity and purpose. They will

lack a sense of direction, and hence no destiny or future.

66

Memory is an integral part of the process of self-creation of a

person, similarly tradition also is an integral part of

processes of human self-creation that are related to the

creation of culture. Constituents of the memory are

particular choices that an individual makes, through which

he or she creates himself or herself. On the same lines,

tradition as collective memory is also constituted by the

choices made by successive generations. These choices that

have already been made play an important role in forming

the self-image of a person as well as of a culture and a

civilization. Thus tradition forms an integral part of the

self-image of society, group and the community that helps

provide direction to the various spheres of life in everyday

situations.

Tradition lives through its enactments. It is constituted

by a series of enactments that are not only regular in nature

but are also passed on to the successive generations. The

passing on is associated with the idea of respect for

traditions and a sense of duty not only towards them, but

also for passing them on to next generations. The elements of

tradition that loose respect of some generations do not evoke

the sense of duty for passing them on, and are thereby

67

reduced to the memory of historians from the status of

collective memory of the society.

Regularities in the domain of tradition and its

enactments are to be distinguished from natural regularities

based upon causation. As opposed to them, regularities in

the realm of tradition are results of human interventions, and

as such are based on deliberations. They are intentional and

are not enforced through coercion or sanctions. Coercion or

fear of sanctions may result in some form of forced social

practices. But once the force is removed, the practice will

wither away and vanish. Thus the respect and sense of duty

that tradition commands is based not on some external

power, but on the authority of the tradition which is internal

to it.

But everyday life situations are not so crystal clear. For

example, rather long use of force and pressure may mould

the will of people and they may internalize the practice. Such

practices are sometimes considered to be a part of tradition.

But they are not results of free human choices. It is this type

of cases that give rise to ambiguities in understanding the

role of tradition. These ambiguities are reflected particularly

in the consideration of the role of tradition in bringing about

68

change i.e. whether it cramps and binds human creativity; or

if the energy of tradition can be used for change.

Tradition, Change and Human Creativity

Being human is almost co-terminus with meaning,

significance and value. Human beings are not only value

creating, choosing and seeking beings, rather they associate

value with being human as well as with circumstances and

surroundings in and through which they perform their

everyday life-activities. They evaluate the present situation

and circumstances, and it is seldom that they find them to be

satisfactory. The dissatisfaction with the present has more

often than not found expression in apprehending values the

realization of which points towards a better future. But

sometimes it so happens that this dissatisfaction with the

present has sought refuge in the perceived golden past. Such

views consider problems of the present to be a result of the

society moving away from the tradition.

Thus some thinkers have been concerned more about

the elements of change and future while others have laid

more stress on the elements of continuity with tradition.

People have strong attitudes towards role of tradition vis-a-vis

69

change in the society. Radicals are more inclined towards

taking tradition to be something that hinders energies the

free flow of which could result in a better future.

Conservatives on the other hand take tradition to be

something that is natural and as such worthy of continuation

as it helps maintain social order and stability.

Such criticisms as well as defences of tradition are

based on a misunderstanding of the nature of tradition. The

stress on either change divorced from continuity, or

continuity sans change stems from an incorrect

understanding of not only the processes of human history

but also of the role of tradition in society. Tradition contains

elements of both continuity as well as change in the realm of

culture and civilization. Rather it needs to be stressed that

tradition represents the dialectics of continuity and change.

It does not refer to some rigid and unchanging reality as

traditions do not continue despite human choices but only

through such choices. The most fundamental error that forms

backdrop of misconceptions regarding tradition from both

radical as well as conservative perspective is to consider it as

preformed, given and unchanging. Traditions do not remain

untouched or unaffected by various processes pertaining to

70

human reality and society. Various traditions are in constant

dialogue with one another. There is an exchange of ideas,

values, beliefs, etc. that takes place between them. This

facilitates the cultures to evaluate their traditions and mould

them accordingly. Changing contexts also help reinterpret

the traditions. Traditions keep evaluating themselves in order

to keep pace with times. It is rather difficult to understand

tradition without understanding its internal dynamics. As

has been seen, traditions are part of the collective memory of

the society, but society itself chooses its traditions keeping in

mind the immediate needs of the present in conjunction with

the projected vision of the future. In certain special

circumstances even collective but selective amenesia may

become the need of the hour and selectively some traditions

are erased from the collective memory of the society. The

need to bring changes in traditions also stems from the fact

that traditions are for human beings and not vice-versa. They

should be seen as means of transferring experiences and

achievements of previous generations rather than becoming

ends-in-themselves.

Seen in this perspective there seems no inherent

contradiction between tradition and change. Tradition and

71

change should not be viewed as opposite poles of cultural

realm. Change is an integral part of the nature of tradition.

Traditions do change and grow. They have a role to play in

continuity as well as change in the cultural realm. Changing

and modifying a tradition is itself an important element of

most of the traditions. Thus tradition of change is itself an

important tradition. In this sense energy of tradition can be

harnessed for the purpose of growth and renewal of a culture

through its inner logic.

If there is any conflict, it is not between tradition and

change, but between tradition and changing the tradition in

the sense of replacing one tradition by another tradition. This

implies that if some values or ideas are found worthwhile in

certain other culture or tradition, it should be adapted by

moulding it in accordance with the inner nature of one’s own

tradition so as to make it an intergral part of the tradition.

Meaning thereby that if it is imitation then it should not be

blind imitation, rather aspects of other cultures and

traditions should be imitated creatively.

In any case passing on of tradition from one generation

to another involves imitation. But this imitation is, and

should be creative imitation as the present generations make

72

necessary changes in accordance with their enriching life

experiences. And it is handed down to the next generations

along with the changes. The next generations again, imitate it

creatively.

Thus it becomes clear that tradition like culture and

civilization is a product of human creativity. At the same time

tradition harnesses the energies of human creativity to

provide a direction to human destiny. Tradition and change

are involved in a dialectical relationship as traditions on the

one hand effect the processes of growth and decline of

cultures, and on the other they themselves are effected by

such processes.

In the next chapter we propose to analyse the processes

of growth and decline of cultures.

73

REFERENCES

1. Herskovits, M.J. (1948) Man and His Works : The

Science of Cultural Anthropology, New York:

Knopf, p.17.

2. Tylor, E.B. (1903) Primitive Culture, Vol. I, Gloucester:

Smith, p.1.

3. Daya Krishna (1997) Prolegomena to Any Future

Histirography of Cultures and Civilzations,

New Delhi: PHISPC, pp. 217-233.

4. Malinowaski, B (1931) ‘Culture’ in Encyclopedia of

Social Science, Vol IV, New York: Macmillan,

p. 621.

5. Spengler, O. (1961) The Decline of the West, ab. ed.

Arthur Helps trans. Atkison, London George

Allen & Unwin, p. 90.

6. Maclver, R.M. and Page, C.H. (1949) Society: An

Introductory Analysis, New York: Macmillion,

p.498.

7. Malinowaski, B. (1931 ) op. cit., p. 621.

8. Herskovits, M.J. (1948) op. cit., p. 625.

9. Sorokin, P.A. (1962) Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol

I, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Bedminster Piess,

p. 3.

74

10. Ogburn, (1930) ‘‘Social Change’’ in Encyclopedia of

Social Sciences, Vol III, New York:

Macmillan, pp. 330-34.

11. Maclver, R.M. (1955) The Modern States, Oxford: The

Oxford University Press, p. 325.

12. Sartre, J.P. (1962) Being and Nothingness, trans. Hazel

Barnes, London : Methuen, p. 630.

13. Heidegger, M. (1978) Being and Time, trans. John

Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, New

York: Harper and Row, p. 12.

14. Pande, G.C., (1999) The Meaning and Process of Culture,

Allahabad: Raka Prakashan, p. 103.