Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09424 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 8 May 2000 13:22:36 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB14D@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:20:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Ah finally something I feel I can comment on, with some degree of expertise.
I would not accept in any way that the processes of journalism production
are solidly defined. There are a number competing theories, each with
different kinds of empirical evidence and theoretical logic, and journalists
themselves tend to reject academic models of how they work and behave.
Indeed, it is memetics that may offer a more fundamental explanation of the
processes of things like news selection, which are highly contested. The
USA's universally market-driven journalism may appear to operate along very
clear principles, but globally journalism operates in very different
ideological systems, from the public service traditions of Europe, to
authoritarian systems elsewhere.
I would also question the criticism of the use of religions as a value-laden
example of memes, or memeplexes. The reason they are good examples is
precisely because their central beliefs either flout the laws of nature such
as virgin birth, and often lack internal logic- on UK television recently,
a documentary featured two architectural historians examining the temple in
Jersualem that supposedly is built on the tomb of Christ. One of the
central problems with proving this, which the programme never acknowledged,
was that if it was really the tomb of Jesus then it should be empty
(apparently they proof they sought was 1st Century AD graffiti). For these
two reasons alone, one can see that memes spread regardless of their being
intrinsically 'right' or 'correct' in some way. The reasons they continue
to spread over time may change. After all, the origins of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam all stem from opposition to the established political
order, and in time became the political order in their birthplaces, and
beyond, and have experiences a resurgence in the 20th Century as a way of
defining oneself in opposition to external or internal threats (in the case
of Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, the Phillines currently, and
elsewhere).
Context and consequences are definately important, but that doesn't change
the basic point that one can see basic flaws in religious beliefs, and yet
they persist. More controversial would be, say, to point out basic flaws in
secular ideologies, from democracy to capitalism. The idea of memetics is
not to consider the rights and wrongs of different memes, in the same way
you can't talk about animals having right or wrong strategies for living,
but to examine what factors are evident in certain memes that make them more
or less likely to be copied. Dawkins may talk about religion (and I for one
agree with him), Chomsky on the other hand (amongst many other things)
focused on American football. Although Chomsky's propaganda model is
contested, he once illustrated his point by saying when at High School he
suddenly found himself wondering why did he care if his school's team won
the game or not? What possible relevance/importance did it have to his
life? His answer was based on views about political elites shaping our
informational environments, but this is another useful, and potentially
equally pejorative way of considering what is in fact a memetic question.
Sport, is in fact an ideal topic for memetics, as it can demonstrate just
how tenuous sociobiology's genetic advantage argument must be. Perhaps it
makes sense for the professional sports people (atheleticism undoubtedly
offers genetic advantages), but what about the rest of us who spend lots of
our time and resources (financial and emotional) simply spectating? I like
sport, I have nothing 'against' it, but I am interested in the level of
investment people place on sport. I'm particularly interested, for example,
in how Americans are able to call the winners of their main national sports
World Champions when apart from the odd Canadian team, no other nations
compete?
Vincent Campbell
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2000 6:58 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
>
>
> Richard Brodie wrote:
>
> > Chuck Palson wrote:
> >
> > <<the answers to most of the questions people within memetics ask can be
> > found in several different fields already - such as linguistics
> (especially
> > psycholinguistics), journalism (try Columbia Journalism Review for lots
> of
> > interesting and current stuff), literary criticism (some of Kenneth
> Burke is
> > interesting for this), and etymology.>>
> >
> > What do you think the questions of memetics are, and what are the
> answers
> > provided by the experimental results in these other fields? I think
> there is
> > a lot of theorizing (in memetics too) but very little in the way of
> > verifiable answers.
>
> I don't know where you get the idea that there is lots of theorizing and
> not
> enough verifiable answers in other fields. For example, there is a lot of
> solid
> information on the factors that lead to whether or not the press covers a
> story,
> yet someone recently posted a message in this list saying they would like
> to
> know. That is straight journalism studies, and the factors are well known.
> There
> is, however, some indeterminacy, but that is to be expected in complex
> systems.
> If you are unaware of these kinds of studies, let me know. If you think
> they are
> just theorizing, let's discuss why.
>
> Now, as to values, I see it all the time. Choice of metaphors is always
> revealing, and the notion that memes are "viruses" that can "infect" tells
> me
> something about the point of view. An example: Blackmore in Meme Machine
> writes
> that two memes that have infected our brains are the fax and the windows
> OS. She
> says that the only reason these memes have been widely accepted is that
> they
> have been mindlessly copied because they are useless. How does she know
> they are
> useless? Because she finds them useless, period. This ability to copy
> accounts
> for the spread of inventions according to her. She does not once mention
> the
> possibility that people find inventions usefull because they solve
> problems by
> multplying efficiencies of our efforts -- which happens to be the actual
> reason
> why most inventions are eventually accepted. She then spends the last two
> chapters picturing memes as nasty little viruses that she is trying to get
> rid
> of, and makes suggestions on how to do this. She never makes it clear why
> they
> are nasty, and one gets the impression it is just that she doesn't like
> them.
> Again, the choice of the virus and disease metaphors are chosen for what
> appears
> to me to be an ideological reason. If not, why are these metaphors chosen?
>
> It seems to me that people who call themselves memologists make this
> mistake
> time and time again. They simply don't look very closely at the use value
> of
> certain cultural behaviors; they simply assume whatever is convenient. For
> example, to Dawkins, the only thing that matters in regards religion is
> that
> there is no God, and therefore religion is a lie. That is far too facile
> and, I
> dare say, straight ideology. He ignores the fact that the adoption of
> religion
> has HISTORICALLY had material consequences. That is easy to demonstrate by
> examining how and why religions change to adapt to new technologies (they
> always
> change AFTER the appearance of the technology). Just why humans adopt the
> religious metaphors they do to guide their behavior is the interesting
> question,
> and you need to know how they mind functions and what the function of
> religion
> is - that is the starting point, not that religion is "false". (by the
> way, I am
> an atheist)
>
> >
> >
> > I think some of the central questions of memetics are:
> >
> > - what makes some ideas spread more successfully than others?
>
> As I said, there is plenty of information on, say, why news stories
> spread. In
> one reference to a story in this listing, a comment was made that people
> still
> believe that Eskimos have many names for snow - and they don't. The lesson
> was
> evidently that people can remember the wrong information, and how come
> that
> information sticks. After all, it's another virus that clogs our brain
> (the
> implied meaning). That is far too facile. People often believe wrong
> information
> because it does no harm and is a kind of parable. People like to point out
> that
> language is a tool for understanding reality. It's as simple as that --
> although
> there may be more. If they need to make accurate names for different kinds
> of
> snow, they always do without any difficulty. Then they like to comment how
> the
> Eskimos do it differently as a way of commenting on the usefulness of
> their own
> classification. It's also a way to say that culture is materially useful -
> which
> seems to be lost on lots of people who think it's just a party for doing
> things
> differently.
>
> >
> > - how does culture evolve, given the model of Darwinian selection of
> memes?
>
> You are assuming the Darwinian selection of memes a la Dawkins, Blackmore
> etc.
> The whole model is, as far as I can see, based on the faulty methodolgy
> and
> value judgements I have described above. People choose to hold on to memes
> because of some well described reasons. And they get rid of them for other
> well
> understood reasons. As far as I can see, describing them as having a life
> of
> their own simply mystifies the problem.
>
> >
> > - What methods can we use to shape the future of culture, given what we
> know
> > about human psychology and what we learn about packaging ideas so they
> > spread well?
> >
>
> First, by finding ideas and technologies1 that work to solve actual
> problems.
> The trick is how well these ideas fit into how people think and what their
> social organization is. I don't see how positing memes as having a life of
> their
> own helps out - or could. So if you think so, maybe you can clarify why
> the
> concept of memes would help.
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 13:22:58 BST