Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA21290 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:22:21 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174596E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: memes in minds, or memes in media? Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:20:08 +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
Hmm...
Firstly, apologies for being behind the times, but I do feel I was trying to
address an element which I don't think has really been addressed properly in
memetic circles, not really the concept of meme itself.
What problems exactly does dropping the term actually solve?
Does it stop people accusing a writer of mis-understanding, mis-using the
term, because it seems to me that the end result of that is that people use
idiolectic terms that they can defend to the hilt because only they know
exactly what they mean by it. I don't see how that benefits anyone, as
anyone trying to make sense of all these terms isn't necessarily going to
get anywhere (and even if they do they are probably going to come up with
their own new name that supposedly synthesises all the previous terms).
The consequences of what one means by meme is important in terms of
empirical practice, but that was not really my point. My point was about
trying to reclaim inherently problematic research (a la Phillips) just by
changing whatever terms have been used in the past with meme, or by aping
their methodologies because they seem to do memetics-like things. In this
sense I quite agree the term may appear more trouble than its worth.
However, I feel the term does have potential merit, and since this is a
memetics listserv, I see no problem in continuing to use it here. At this
point the merit comes from what the term represents in terms of process- the
idea that memes (whatever people think they are) are replicators, and thus
spread because they are good at spreading and no more. Whether memes are
thus beliefs, ideas, instructions, strategies, mind viruses or cultural
artefacts or whatever else people have defined them as, this is the common
element we surely all agree upon?
Vincent
[BTW, you'll be pleased to know that I finally received a copy of your book,
and I am currently in the middle of it]
> ----------
> From: Aaron Lynch
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 5:11 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: memes in minds, or memes in media?
>
> 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 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 : Tue Aug 01 2000 - 12:23:16 BST