Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA15253 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:06:48 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [220.127.116.11] From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal culture Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:02:52 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F122mz6UuEhjJ8uT6Ss00011f60@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2001 15:02:52.0428 (UTC) FILETIME=[172AC4C0:01C0F02C] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal
>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:23:21 -0400
>>From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>To: "memetics list" <email@example.com>
>>Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal
>>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:37:05 -0400
>>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
>> >"lowly" animals.
>>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....)
>Well, I'm grappling with this word "culture" and trying to see it in
>different lights, thinking WAY outside the box and trying to clip the
>pro-human biased roots. I could forgive you for mentioning behaviorism,
>I could have done without another exposure to the "Backstreet Boys" virus
>this early in the morning.
>>Culture can easily become 'artistic behavior', 'social behavior', 'tribal
>>behavior', etc, with no harm to its roots, its expression, or its
>Maybe sticking with the baseline of "non-genetic behavioral transmission"
>would be the better option and then working from there one might consider
>all the possible variations on this theme, "memes" included.
>Culture does have some deep seated human connotations when applied to
>I dunno. I'll see what develops on this thread and go from there.
>>Shouldn't we leave culture in its petri dish?
>Well there's a difference between microbial populations living in cultural
>media (maybe we should leave media to the microbiologists too?...sorry
>Vincent) and the phenomenon of "non-genetic behavioral transmission" or the
>more typical charmed circle of "accumulated knowledge, customs, beliefs,
>arts, and other human products that are socially transmitted over the
>generations" (from page 756 of the Campbell, Mitchell, and Reece's
>Concepts & Connections_. 1997. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. New York). This
>comes from an introductory biology text.
My microbiology text (Brock, Madigan, Martinko, and Parker's _Biology of
Microorganisms_. 1994. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ) defines culture
in terms of a strain in a medium where the microbial population in a medium
definition I used above comes from Tammy S Race Mc Cormick's _The Essentials
of Microbiology_ (1995. Research and Education Association. Piscataway, NJ).
Both books cast media in terms of nutrient solution or broth.
I wonder how media studies defines "media".
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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 - 16:10:36 BST