Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA16105 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:29:57 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BCA@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia? Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:28:28 -0000 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
> >>
> So why is religion so widespread? And, more particulary, why are
> some religions significantly more widespread than others? Why do people
> follow one religion over another? Why do people persistently engage in
> practices which they can often be consciously aware of as being
> irrational,
> e.g. reading one's horoscope? Why do people engage in practices that seem
> antithetical to adaptive behaviour e.g. giving up your child or yourself
> for
> sacrifice, or celibacy?>>
>
<Well, on these last, Freudian and Jungian psychology has quite a
bit to say,
> as do other psychologies. and there's quite a bit of
> psycholgically-oriented
> anthropology. I find some of that stuff quite useful. If you've read it
> and reject it, there's nothing I can do about that, but I don't intend to
> try to summarize those kinds of arguments. It is clear to me, however,
> that
> most memeticists have not read that literature and have not formulated any
> principled objections to those ideas.>
>
But on what are Freud and Jung basing their schema for explaining
such behaviour? Their models ,at the very least have been contested, at
worst have been rejected completely by various threads of contemporary
psychology. For example, Freud's creation of the Oedipus complex in denial
of both female sexuality, and widespread child sexual abuse in polite
Viennese society (so one criticism goes). As for Jung and his collective
unconscious, nobody really believes that anymore do they? That's not to say
they haven't played a formative role in psychology and are important
thinkers to be aware of, but they don't offer genuinely cogent answers to
these kinds of questions.
<On why some religions are more widespread, etc. you might try
reading some
> of the standard literature on the origins of the state, not to mention
> some
> standard histories of religion. I'm not terribly interested in this
> subject, so I can't give you references. But at least some of this surely
> involves historical conquest. That may not be all there is to it, but it
> is
> part of the story.>
>
Of course historical conquest is part of the picture, but there's
more to it than that. For example, Benedict Anderson's famous work on
nations as 'imagined communities' offers the view that the 'nation' isn't
something physically measurable, but is a social construction, in which
symbolism and ritual etc. play a significant part.
But conquest isn't by any means the whole picture, and the specific
issue that has been discussed on this list is an inherently non-conquest
oriented transition in the Roman Empire.
<As is the result that Derek reported about the correlation between
> agriculturalism and monotheism. There is a standard literature on that
> subject, some of it couched in terms of cultural evolution. You should at
> least read some of it so you can formulate principled objections. The
> Hays
> book I mentioned would be one place to start, though it's not focused on
> religion.>
>
I don't disagree here, and thanks again for the reference.
<I'm not claiming that anyone has unequivocal answers. I'm claiming
that you
> are inventing new and, to my mind, trivial, answers without having
> examined
> and arrived at principled rejections of existing answers.>
>
Some existing answers aren't necessarily being rejected, but are
being reinterpreted through memetics. Do they need to be? Well, maybe,
maybe not. I don't know, time will tell.
<Such a defensive move would only, in principle, apply to people who
hold
> religious beliefs. It doesn't hold water against those of us who reject
> both religion and orthodox internalist memetics.>
>
Not at all. This is precisely the kind of thing Bourdieu's habitus
refers to- people confident and secure in their discipline's paradigms,
suddenly finding people from outside talking about their subject as though
they know better, and even challenging basic conceptions, as happened when
Wilson's sociobiology first came on the scene.
Besides, I reject both religion and internalist memetics also.
<There are obviously lots of ways to have substantial knowledge of
these
> disciplines. I don't have quick and easy answers. But I've been looking
> at
> these issues for some time. You can find some of what I know in the
> library; see the list at the end of this reply.>
>
> >>
> Like sociobiology, there will be communities of researchers and
> disciplines that will entirely ignore memetics perhaps feeling that it
> threatens their authority and autonomy.>>
>
<Or perhaps feeling it is of little consequence.>
Perhaps, indeed. But feelings aren't the acid test of theory's
validity.
<... the questions are very important. I just don't see that
orthodox
> memetics has yet produced any worthwhile answers and I don't think it will
> because it's basic assumption -- memes in the head -- is wrong.
>
> That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't think about culture as an
> evolutionary phenomenon. I've been doing that for 25 years (see the
> publication list below) and I don't intend to stop any time soon.>
>
Well, I wouldn't substantively disagree here, save perhaps the
prediction that nothing will come out of memetics. Thanks for your list of
references, very interesting stuff it looks too. Interesting to see some
structuralist work in there, as that's something that has gone kind of out
of vogue lately, even attracting the ire of some social scientists.
Vincent
===============================================================
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 Jan 15 2001 - 11:31:31 GMT