Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA24077 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:35:13 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745974@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: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:32:54 +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
It's funny you should say this-
'Yes, I am pleased that you finally have a copy of TC. If you find a good
example of something in it that really needed to be expressed with the word
"meme" instead of some alternative wording, do let me know.'
As I was continuing to read your book last night, with your previous post in
mind, I started wondering pretty much the opposite to this, in other words,
what term would you use to replace the term 'meme' as it appears in the
book, which after all is quite a lot.
I'm sure you're right that there is disagreement over the replicator part of
the theory, as much as any other part. Avoiding the term meme, and
favouring the term 'thought contagion', doesn't take away such problems
though does it? You still have to identify the process by which though
contagions spread, and the mechanism/agent of that process.
I think there is a clear difference in emphasis, in your book at least, in
that you seem to focus heavily on thought contagia (is that the right
grammar? meme to memes is easy, contagion to contagia or should it be
contagions?) that influence birth rates. I personally don't think this is
the interesting part, rather too close to evolutionary psychology or
sociobiology for my tastes (and therefore potentially unncessary to have any
new term). For me, the interesting part is horizontal transmission. After
all, name me a religion than began through vertical parent to offspring
transmission- not judaism, not christianity, not islam, not buddhism.
Indeed, I'd argue that vertical transmission of thought contagia only
emerges (and cannot be relied upon, hence most religions demand ritual
behaviours than bring people into contact with proseltyisers e.g. going to
church), once it has spread horizontally to the majority of a population.
That's why the Amish aren't going to take over the world- they are
isolationist and aren't into evangelism or proseltyism, or for that matter
into holy wars.
Finally, I found this statement of yours very interesting:-
'I have some original things to say about important subjects'
hmm... well I'm sure we all think that about ourselves. (The problem is that
we can't all be correct in thinking that, and it is for others to judge in
the long run).
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Aaron Lynch
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2000 5:08 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: memes in minds, or memes in media?
>
> At 12:20 PM 8/1/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> Vincent,
>
> To me, the real question is what problems does using the new term "meme"
> solve. If you read my 1998 paper, you will see that I had thought I was
> getting a word that could be more specific than old words such as "idea,"
> "thought," "belief," etc.
>
> Another communications nightmare I wish to avoid is explaining over and
> over that I do not mean what the word "meme" has come to mean to all sorts
> of other people. Take the following sentence from John Hoult's article
> "What's in a Meme," forwarded by Wade Smith: "The fundamental components
> of ideas act just like genes, competing for brain space the same way
> organisms vie for breathing space." First, I do not know what Hoult means
> by "the fundamental components of ideas." It has a nice technological and
> scientific sound for popular audiences, but that does not really help me.
> Then I have to explain to readers that, unlike Hoult, I do not claim that
> memes "act just like genes." There are some similarities, but I do not
> want people reading such a strong statement between the lines of what I
> write. Likewise for the notion that memes compete for brain space "the
> same way organisms vie for breathing space." I also don't want readers
> assuming that I must be tacitly repeating Dawkins's claim that memes
> "literally parasitize" the brain. I have some original things to say about
> important subjects, and would really prefer if readers did not get
> distracted and thrown off course by unnecessary concerns that I might be
> saying memes should always be considered as life forms, as parasites, etc.
>
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
> As it happens, I have also been using the term "thought contagion" for a
> long time, and have had less problem with people seriously misreading what
> I mean by it, especially in more recent works. The term is composed of two
> much older words that have long-established meanings to readers, so it
> does not require readers to make sense of another neologism--although the
> conjunction of the two words is still new to many readers. Once readers
> make it past any fears they may have about combining two abstract nouns,
> they seem to find "thought contagion" to be fairly self-explanatory.
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> Actually, there is not even consensus on whether memes are replicators.
> But even if there were, having the term refer to such a broad class as
> beliefs, ideas, instructions, strategies, mind viruses, cultural
> artifacts, behaviors, etc. can itself create some unexpected consequences.
> If you write up what is called a memetic analysis of a subject, you might
> be faulted for not discussing all the cultural evolution aspects,
> including those that involve beliefs, ideas, instructions, strategies,
> mind viruses, cultural artifacts, behaviors, etc. Having the word mean so
> many different things may make it more difficult to limit your objectives
> to something less ambitious but more attainable, such as analyzing the
> contagious beliefs component of a phenomenon with the understanding that
> there are more aspects to it than just beliefs.
>
>
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
> Yes, I am pleased that you finally have a copy of TC. If you find a good
> example of something in it that really needed to be expressed with the
> word "meme" instead of some alternative wording, do let me know.
>
> --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 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 12:36:10 BST