Journal of Memetics -
Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/panel_discussion.html

Report on the Panel Discussion
that occurred at the Symposium on Memetics

At the end of the three day "Symposium on Memetics" which took place as part of the 15^th International Conference on Cybernetics in Namur Belgium (24-29^th of August 1998) a panel discussion took place. The theme of the discussion was the current state of memetics and its future as a field.

Panel members:

• Chair: Garry Boyd, Educational Technology Graduate Programme, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, boydg@vax2.concordia.ca
• Hans-Cees Speel, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, hanss@sepa.tudelt.nl
• Francis Heylighen, Center Leo Apostle, Free University of Brussels, Krijgskundestr. 33, 1160 Brussels, Belgium, fheyligh@vub.ac.be
• Paul Marsden, Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences, University of Sussex, PaulMarsden@msn.com
• Mario Vaneechoutte, Department Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology & Immunology, University Hospital Ghent, Belgium, Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be

Discussion:

• Boyd: The workshop has functioned as a forum for researchers from diverse backgrounds working in the field of memetics. The presentations and discussions have allowed us to clarify the aims and boundaries of this emerging new field. It is the first time in my own experience that such a workshop has taken place. Each panel member is now asked to make a position statement based on their experience of the workshop.
• Marsden: At this early stage in the formation of memetics as a discipline we must be tolerant of the many approaches and terminologies that we all bring from our respective disciplines. We should not restrict ourselves to technical definitions based on a desire for apparent and superficial clarity. Superficial and misguided clarity has been one of the major features of previous applications of Darwinian thought to culture, eugenics and Social Darwinism; memetics should not make the same mistakes. "Good" memetic research should generate and test falsifiable hypotheses upon which "heuristically evocative" and parsimonious explanations of culture from within the selectionist paradigm can be made. In this way, defining a meme as an operationalisable tool such as "`the locus of the point of research' to be explained within the selectionist paradigm" (as suggested by Rogan Jacobson) seems to offer an appropriate the level and degree of abstraction required at this stage. Additionally, since the Oxford English Dictionary defines a meme as "a unit of imitation", we should make sure that our use of the concept is at the very least cogent with this definition. Some people have attempted to define the meme in more restrictive ways which, although offering superficial precision, actually rule-out vast areas of existing work where memetics might be usefully employed. Technical definitions are not critical to the development of memetics, we all agree that memetics is essentially a stance where cultural objects are understood as evolving through the production of variation and the application of selection at some level. Definitional debates will no doubt continue (as in other disciplines) but this should not stand in the way of operationalising the paradigm in order to produce theoretically informed empirical research. We do not all need to agree on a single definition in order to produce, evaluate, understand and critique good memetic research.
• Heylighen: JoM-EMIT has established memetics as a field in its own right. It is hoped that this field can now become a science. It appears that progress is being made. The attendees at this workshop seem to understand each other which is an achievement in any multi-disciplinary gathering. However, memetics tends receive resistance from the established social sciences. A more positive reception has been received from the computational, biological and natural sciences. Perhaps one reason for this is a fear from the social sciences that the natural sciences are attempting to "invade their domain". The humanities are often resistant to formal systems such as computer programs and mathematical models. Psychology and Sociology use and accept statistical tools and evidence. Memetics currently needs empirical work using such techniques which can be used to justify it to these disciplines. It is important to note that rash claims can damage the discipline. Memetics is not physics, memeticists need to learn methods, techniques and bodies of work from the social sciences, make models and simulations and attempt to bridge the gap.
• Vaneechoutte: Science is currently in a state of reduction and specialisation. Here an attempt is being made to bring the parts back together again to explain and understand social phenomena. Memetics is a multi-level, multi-disciplinary enterprise. Encouragingly we see similar world-views emerging around memetics in different disciplines. However, often we are unaware of the terminology used by other disciplines. Definitional issues may be more important than has been stated. The danger is reaching a point where we see everything as a meme. The OED defines a meme as a "unit of imitation". Perhaps the current usage is too general to be useful. The issues that need to be addressed are: What are memes competing for? Memory space? Computation time? What makes a meme successful? What makes things interesting? My intention is to raise the quality of life by understanding memetic processes. To understand the relationship between memes and emotion and to illuminate the analysis of religions.
• Speel: The workshop has evidenced that we have moved forward. We understand each other. Certainly we disagree on some points but we understand what we disagree about and consequently have witnessed productive debate over the last few days. We aim to build memetics into a scientific community and as such the emphasis on methodology is correct at this stage. This workshop has been significant in the building of that community. In order to move forward we need to clarify just what we want memetics to be. We need to begin to plan the next memetics conference but we need to be clear as to what is to be achieved. It is important to involve those academics who have shown interest in memetics but currently are not part of the community. At this time, we need to discuss how we can take these next crucial steps.
• Boyd: A major issue here is just what constitutes a scientific field. A scientific field comprises teams of people who do work. Their work is represented in conference abstracts and includes people with recognised academic credentials. The publication of papers allows others to evaluate and enter the field. From this a positive feedback loop is established allowing the field to grow and attract high quality research. It appears that the JoM-EMIT has provided the initial kick to get this process underway. This workshop is part of that process and certainly has helped. The panel are now open to questions from the floor.
• Floor: Do we need a definition of meme in order to proceed? It appears there is still some disagreement about the significance of this. Is there a compromise position possible here? Is it possible to allow multiple definitions say four or five from which we can operationalise?
• Speel: Ultimately strict definitions can be a distraction, the logic of evolutionary replicators should be enough.
• Floor: Speel is correct. Other fields use words like "belief" and "idea" and can still understand each other. They don't need a definition of these terms in order to produce useful and good research. In many fields the terms used have no fixed definition and change over time anyway.
• Floor: This is certainly true in the management sciences. The concepts of "institution" and "design" produced long and hard debate and searches for definitions. Still there are no agreed definitions of these concepts but this does not stop work proceeding. The work which uses these concepts clearly and usefully becomes an example to others.
• Boyd: This last point is important. It indicates that we often work from prototypes and exemplars based on existing work rather than starting from cut-and-dried definitions from the outset.
• Marsden: We need not get bogged down in definitional debates. Memetics is the selectionist paradigm applied to culture and as such, it is concerned with replication by imitation, selection and variation at the cultural level. Work within this paradigm is memetic work.
• Floor: It is this issue of the central paradigm of memetics which we need to focus on most of all, more than just debate terminological and definitional issues. We need to avoid making naive epistemological mistakes at this stage in whatever methodology we end up using. For instance, a major example is the need to emphasise that memetics is a non-homuncular paradigm, and that it will fit in as just one level of some future, more integrated view of culture.
• Floor: Going back to the concept of exemplars, it is important to include negative and positive examples of work. It seems for example, that many of those here view some of the strict definitional terminology and symbolic formalisms introduced by Lynch(**) as an example of how not to proceed. The identification of what is bad as well as good work is useful and part of the on-going debate.
• Boyd: We can certainly proceed without an agreed single definition. We can as a community hold-up some good ones and hold-up some bad ones.
• Heylighen: Perhaps we can begin to produce a taxonomy of terminology in this area. If we can produce this then the different kinds of memetic work can be placed into a broader scheme.
• Boyd: Certainly a taxonomy and methodology are important tools to produce co-ordinated and exchangeable ideas and work. However, we should be careful not to insist on a single taxonomy.
• Floor: Surely we already have a basic division to include in any taxonomy. The distinction between micro and macro memetics. The one concerning individuals the other concerning populations.
• Floor: But a taxonomy may or many not be useful. If a taxonomy proves useful as a tool then we should attempt to converge on one but this may not be the case.
• Floor: It is certainly not our intention to produce some fixed and definite taxonomy. It should be allowed to evolve as and when this becomes useful.
• Floor: We should aim within two weeks of this workshop to produce a taxonomy in which memetic work can be placed.
• Heylighen: We should be careful in rushing into producing a complex taxonomy. What can be done now is to produce a set of distinctions, such as micro and macro memetics and then combine these simple distinctions to produce a taxonomy.
• Marsden: (on ways forward) We should try and exploit the fact that 1999 will be a good year for memetics. The publication of "The Meme Machine" by Sue Blackmore of Meme Lab by OUP next year will raise the public and academic profile and awareness of memetics. The book will no doubt be heavily promoted by both OUP and Blackmore, and we should exploit this as a publication opportunity for us in our own fields to further our common objective of establishing memetics as a successful and respected discipline.
• Boyd: I think that the Artificial Society and Artificial Life methodology my help to bridge the gap between theoretical memetics, other fields and the popular understanding. This route seems initially attractive. However, there is a problem with communicating complex algorithms to those who are not practitioners within these areas.
• Floor: There is certainly a growing public understanding of the word "meme". Promoted by popularises such as Lynch and the popular press such as "Wired" magazine. As has been stated the word "meme" is now officially part of the language, being listed in the OED. Certainly with the publication of "meme machine" in 1999 by Sue Blackmore of the meme lab, this understanding will grow.
• Heylighen: But this may not be all good news for serious researchers. When a concept or area becomes too popular, too hyped, this can be a problem. It can often lead to academic institutions with funding not taking work in this area seriously. We should be careful of this hype.
• Floor: Surely the important issue is to facilitate the production of research and publication of high quality memetic work. We need to organise to promote and nurture this work. Names and individuals are not important in the long run.
• Floor: It is important therefore to harness any popular understanding of memes and ensure that the serious work is there such that those who become interested can go further and enter the field.
• Floor: We need to be aware of the existing journals (other then JoM-EMIT) who publish memetic work. We also need to encourage criticism of our work from outside since this will help us to focus and strengthen our concepts and direction.
• Floor: Memetics is a new paradigm or stance that can be taken towards cultural and social issues. Currently however there is little real theory and even less solid empirical work. These areas need to be addressed now.
• Boyd: I think three broad issues have arisen here: definitions, terminology and methodology. I feel that the consensus is that the definitional problem has been solved and I'll say no more about this. Terminology and taxonomy still requires more work and views on methodology appear to be converging (though not unanimously).
• Floor: We would all like to thank the organisers of this workshop for the time and effort they have donated. It has been a stimulating and productive three days. We hope this is not the last but the first of many memetics workshops.

Brainstorm of Activities

It was then decided before the workshop broke-up to brainstorm a list of activities that the attendees should involve themselves in over the next few months in order to achieve the goals that had been discussed during the discussion.

Agreed actions:-

• Publish the main points raised in the panel discussion.
• Produce a list of related journals (those interested in memetics).
• Publish memetically-stanced material in the related journals in order to gain recognition fort he validity and use of the memetic approach in traditional problem domains.
• Formulate and list some real-world applications of memetics.
• Produce a JoM-EMIT related meme FAQ.
• List and seek funding possibilities.
• Invite evolutionary researchers, academics and thinkers to make a comment in JoM-EMIT concerning where they feel memetics is as a field.
• List a set of memetics research proposal that can be of use to students looking for projects.

Back to Issue 2 Volume 2