Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA19559 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:15:27 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000731100506.02188420@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:11:39 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: memes in minds, or memes in media? In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174596B@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 03:44 PM 7/31/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>Hiya everyone,
>
>I've just been catching up on the debate generated by Derek Gatherer's
>questioning of thought contagions, mind viruses etc. etc. on the journal's
>website.
Vincent,
We have already argued this subject on the memetics list until we were blue
in the face long before you subscribed to the memetics list. Moreover, as
the "What's in a Meme" article that Wade posted indicates, the word "meme"
is now widely known to be both vague and the topic of definitional quibbles
among academics. One can spend a lifetime quibbling and trying to clarify
what one meant when one used the word "meme," or one can simply drop the
term. And, as I have already explained, the 1997 OED definition does not
correspond to how I thought I was using the term: in particular, I do not
wish to discuss items that are already considered "an element of a
culture," but rather, I wish to include the evolutionary epidemiology of
ideas that have not yet gained that status and even ideas will always
remain too tentative or to sparse to have that status.
Given what I consider the enormous discrepancies between what my own 1998
paper said and what has been said about that paper at JOM, and the strident
language accepted by reviewers and editors, one might take that as a hint
that JOM was not a suitable journal for the publication of my 1998 paper.
The matter of where to publish particular papers, however, is a separate
question from the matter of what terminology to use. The notorious
vagueness and controversy surrounding the definition of "meme" suggests
that using the term does considerable damage to the effectiveness of
communication--far more damage than whatever benefit might be gained by
having a short word. Notice that the main article in the August edition of
Fast Company also avoids the term. If you academically study the media
content of that particular journalism outlet, you might suspect that the
problems with the word "meme" are becoming common knowledge. The low
profile web piece on "What's in a Meme" alludes to the definitional
vagueness and controversy, which can be seen as creating the communications
imperatives for Seth Godin to invent his own term "ideavirus" for the high
profile article. Godin is not the only one to take this decision: I have
forthcoming papers that do not even mention "meme," using terms such as
"thought contagion" and "evolutionary epidemiology of ideas" instead.
Malcolm Gladwell also leaves the term out of _The Tipping Point_, and
explains the decision on his web page by again citing the word's
definitional vagueness.
Perhaps when "thought contagion," "ideavirus," "mind virus," etc. are used
without calling them "memes," then even Derek Gatherer will have less
reason to view them as "retarding the progress of memetics." I still don't
expect my work to please everyone, though, and never have. I happen to
think that there are cultural evolution phenomena that cannot be understood
without consideration of brain-stored information, but I have no particular
need to try to impose that view on others. If I am right about that, the
only personal implication for me is that I will have the ability to achieve
insights that are intellectually off limits to others. If I am wrong, the
personal consequence is that I will either make mistakes that others
didn't, block myself from having insights that others can achieve, or both.
Those who do and do not wish to consider internal, brain-stored information
can presumably get on with their work and show the relative merits of their
premises.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 Jul 31 2000 - 17:16:21 BST