Date: Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 02:01:09 GMT
In a message dated 10/29/2002 7:52:26 AM Central Standard
Time, Vincent Campbell <VCampbell@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> (Responding to Aaron's comments, deleted here just to
> make the message small).
> Hi Aaron, interesting comments.
> I think Dawkins' relationship to the term he coined is
> interesting, in that he has tended to be rather diffident
> towards the concept. Perhaps it's because it was only
> a whim and he doesn't seen it as a genuine scientific
> idea, perhaps he'd rather the rest of 'The Selfish Gene'
> was what inspired/excited readers as that was arguably
> his main purpose, and indeed that has occurred to some
Yes, I agree that Dawkins shows much more enthusiasm for
evolutionary genetic replicator theory, and that that was
his main purpose.
Given his diffidence to evolutionary cultural replicator
theories, there seems to be a high price to pay for pinning
such theories on Dawkins's coattails. Scientists on the one
hand see meme theorists attaching their theories to
Dawkins, and on the other hand, they see Dawkins as damning
those theories with faint praise. That's a perception that
some critics of meme theories have expressed to me over the
past several years. There may be others who get the sense
that meme theorists are engaged in outright hero worship of
Dawkins. That seems to include Dawkins himself in his
references to the "St. Dawkin" title. One can get the
impression that it is a personality cult rather than a
scientific movement. Resting too much on Dawkins's weak
support can appear foolish or delusional.
I should hasten to point out that I myself have been one of
those to make the mistake of over-attributing evolutionary
cultural replicator theory to Dawkins, as in my 1996 book.
> I think I agree with you that the "are ideas memes or
> vice versa?" discussion is a bit unnecessary when 'idea'
> seems to work just fine as a category. I suppose one
> might say the same about artifact or behaviour.
> Other writers have covered the same kinds of ground
> without using memes, from Cavalli-sforza's cultural
> traits, to the pop science of gladwell's 'tipping point'.
Yes, good point. My own most recent paper Thought Contagion
in the Dynamics of Mass Conflict
(thoughtcontagion.com/confict.htm) acknowledges the role of Dawkins and the word "meme" in popularising evolutionary cultural replicator theory. But it also points out that he did not define the term clearly, and that he was not really the originator of the concept either. (Others, of course, have also made these points.)
> Still, I agree with Bill, that there is some very broad
> consensus around what the topic of memetics is, even if
> memes are that relevant. The issue of cultural
> transmission/inheritance is a clear one, and an
> evolutionary model is one clear approach, regardless of
There is indeed some general consensus about what memetics
is. However, to skeptics, making too much use of even that
consensus may cause problems. For example, our journal is
called Journal of Memetics -- Evolutionary Models of
Information Transmission. To people familiar with the
definitional problems, it can look as though we are trying
to fudge the definition of "meme" by instead using an
implicit appositive construction to define the word
"memetics." Some may regard that as sneaky or evasive. The Journal could, in my opinion, do fine with the simpler title Journal of Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 02:06:11 GMT