>By now it's the theory of social/cultural exchange. Active, bidirectional
exchange involving the "class" and the "non-class", emulations and
incorporations.

 

Why by now? When processes such as Sanskritization were being discussed,  the opposite direction processes were also being discussed just along side. So the bidirectional view was always there. But the explanations such as Sanskritization were focussed on one of the directions within the bidirectional complex.

 

But what probably are new are approaches such as "third cultures"  (Useem, John, Ruth Hill Useem, and John Donoghue (1963). "Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The Roles of American and Non-Western People in Cross-Cultural Administration," Human Organization ), (Useem, John (1971). "The Study of Cultures." Originally published in Sociological Focus; reprinted in Studies of Third Cultures: A Continuing Series, No. 6. East Lansing: Institute for International Studies in Education, Michigan State University, no date.)

 

This approach is being looked at as "  a radical democratic political theory which goes beyond both traditional liberalism and Marxism" (The Concept of "Third Cultures" in Intercultural Ethics - Richard Evanoff , Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 10 (2000), 126-129. )

 

Can we see puranic/agamic etc. as "third cultures" emerging as a result of intercultural interactions between Vedic and folk , Vedic and tribal etc. ?

 

--