Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA15054 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:41:10 +0100 Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal culture Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:37:05 -0400 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010608133712.AAA15177@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 06/08/01 09:12, Scott Chase said this-
>The big problem would not be
>in using the word "culture", but employing this term in a way that
>anthropocentrically places humans within a charmed circle, removed from the
Granted, but, that anthropocentricity is where the meaning of 'culture'
_came_ from, not the realms of behaviorism or biology. (Well, 'culture'
in biology means something quite different, although, yeah, the
Backstreet Boys and MTV are sorts of germs, in their own way....)
Culture can easily become 'artistic behavior', 'social behavior', 'tribal
behavior', etc, with no harm to its roots, its expression, or its
Shouldn't we leave culture in its petri dish?
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 2b29 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 14:45:03 BST