The anthropologist Robert Redfield once reminded us that when studying complex societies, attention should be paid to the distinctions and relationships between peasants and gentry, rural and urban areas, as well as the “Little Tradition” and the “Great Tradition”. This dichotomous framework has been widely embraced by Chinese historians in recent years and has contributed to a methodological shift in the study of Chinese social history toward focusing on lower-level perspectives. However, overall, this transformation has been achieved within the context of modernization theory. Most studies have not avoided but have instead inherited the theoretical shortcomings of Redfield’s framework, viewing the “Little Tradition” as a passive, disorganized and backward factor, while the “Great Tradition” is seen as dominant over it. When discussing folk religion, previous researchers often preferred to frame their arguments in correspondence with the “Great Tradition”. From the perspective of the “Great” and “Little” classification, they have subconsciously relegated peasants’ religious beliefs and ways of thinking to a secondary status, while regarding the “Great Tradition” as the primary driving force for social evolution and survival.