If Richard Dawkins spends much time in the blogosphere, he's probably quite pleased with himself these days on account of the success of the meme meme. By that, I mean the "unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another" that describes the idea of a meme itself, something Dawkins proposed in The Selfish Gene 30 years ago.
These days, it's hard not to stumble across a reference to one alleged meme or another. A common one seems to be the "book meme," a ten-part list in which bloggers share their favorite reads, beginning with "One book that changed your life," and proceeding to books that changed your life, that you've read more than once, etc. Such lists have appeared at Scienceblogs. Another variation, which has been picked up by PZ, is the Quote Meme, in which bloggers are asked to mine a motherload of random quotes for their favorite five.
Among the more curious so-called memes can be found at the site of my friend John Gushue at his Dot Dot Dot... blog, from where he recently spread the idea of finding songs that are 3 minutes and 30 seconds long. (It's easy to do if you have iTunes -- just sort your library by song length. The dubious premise is there's an unusual number of pop tunes running 3:30.)
All in good fun, I suppose. Makes for easy blogging, when you run out of something substantial or original to write. But there is a problem, and it has to do with what truly constitutes a meme.
As described by Dawkins, memes are supposed to spread by themselves, without any deliberate help by the carrier. A few astute bloggers have figured this out, including our own John Wilkins, who plays along anyway. As does Shamus Young at Twenty-Sided. Shamus completes his list of book meme selections with a comment on the habit of one blogger "tagging" another with a request to produce an appropriate list:
FURTHER REFLECTION: Doesn't this "tagging" business go counter to the idea of a meme? A meme is supposed to spread on its own, because people find the idea attractive or interesting. The "tag" thing seems to be a way to artificially spread a meme that wouldn't otherwise cut it.
John and Shamus are right and this is a good point. The essential characteristic of a meme is that it should inspire imitation in another brain, not actively seek out replication. I suppose one could argue that disqualifying conscious (or intentional) propagation and but allowing for unconscious (or unintentional) propagation is a distinction of no real consequence, but I don't want to wander into that particular minefield.
At a deeper level, however, there is a genuine memetic process at work, but not the superficial notion of book-list-propagation. It appears to me that the meta-meme meme, if I may call it that, has figured out how to transcend the evolutionary biology community, and the entire scientific field in general, by attaching itself to non-memetic vectors such as "your favorite books." By this method, more and more people who would never read The Selfish Gene (let alone The Extended Phenotype), are being exposed to the idea of memes, even if they are getting a slightly erronenous (mutated?) version of idea.
Even more curious is the fact that these blog memes are now appearing on blogs run by creationists who would no doubt be appalled to learn that they are employing the language of their arch-enemy. There is a certain degree of irony in seeing a reference to "memes" on a blog that includes links to James Dobson's creationism-friendly Focus on the Family and other fundamentalist websites.
I think this is wonderful. In a way, it's a validation of Dawkin's original idea. Memes, as the cultural equivalent of genes, don't care where they go and how they get there; they're only interested in propagating. It's also a reminder that we're human, and so all come from a common ancestor, whether we believe we do or not.
- Log in to post comments
Well, James, thanks for some extra traffic to my blog today,( even though they arent the sorts of readers that I normally attract!)
There are a few things that I would like to say about this post, thought I can agree with you on the incorrect use by many bloggers of the meme.
HOWEVER, I think that you are (obviously) operating under the assumption that I (though I cannot speak for any other bloggers) am ignorant as to the origination of the meme. Upon my introduction to the blogosphere, I began seeing these memes all over the place, and was very curious as to what the term actually meant. A fellow blogger made a brief reference to their inception, so I began to do a bit of research. A bit of research that led me to the very doorstep, if you will, of the biologist Mr. Dawkins. It was WITH that knowledge that I participated in my first meme. I think that at this point I have participated in 2 of them (though would have to check archives to confirm and am too busy to undertake that task at the present), and in neither meme did I tag another specific person to participate. I did put at statement at the bottom, inviting anyone who, as you said, thought the idea was attractive or interesting to participate; thus staying true to the original idea of the meme. Perhaps I fit into that category of the few astute bloggers that have figured this out?? . Did I participate in those I was tagged for? Sure why not? Its all in good fun, and I see no reason to belabor the point of their origination with fellow bloggers, or even admonish them for not staying true to the intended reason (for), or idea of the meme.
Have I read The Selfish Gene? No. Will I? Probably not. Am I appalled to learn that I am employing the language of my arch enemy? Of course not! I already knew, and chose to participate anyway. And arch-enemy? Quite harsh, I think, to again make an assumption that since I am a Christian, I automatically deem those that do not agree with me the enemy and seek to squelch any and all ideas that they may have. I am not so small-minded as to believe that you (or anyone else) should be forced to participate in my belief system against your will. Is that not the very principle that our country was founded on religious freedom? Freedom from being forced to participate in what you did not ascribe to, and freedom to worship in the way one saw fit. Do I think you are wrong? Of course I do! Do you think I am wrong? Of course you do! Are we arch-enemies? I sincerely hope not.
Just for laughs (and I KNOW you will get a laugh out of this because I AM a Christian) you DID know that you are talking to the girl that achieved a perfect score not once, but twice on the Science Reasoning portion of the ACT? (One of the handful in the region (when I took it) that did.). AND the girl that consistently had the highest average in the sciences in her high school and college courses. AND the girl that year after year received excellence scores in the science portion in the gifted program (program for students with high IQs) I was enrolled in. My studies in the sciences only served to affirm and solidify my belief in my God and Savior. The perfect order of HIS universe was a testament to his might, wisdom and power.
Fundamentalist Christian I may be, but dummy I am not.
In closing, I do think that you are an excellent blogger. You love and passion for the sciences is so apparent in all that you write. You are true to yourself and stand for what you personally believe in, and, while most times I do not agree, I DO indeed respect you. Blog on, James!
Jennifer (Mississippi Girl)
Postscript.... I realize that you may or may not post this.. and that is okay!! I just wanted to communicate my views on this subject as well. Thanks!!
The universe is perfect? I think there's room for improvement.
"As described by Dawkins, memes are supposed to spread by themselves, without any deliberate help by the carrier. "
Perhaps initially, but Dawkins' views on this changed ("evolved" could be a misleading word here). Revisiting the topic of memes in The Extended Phenotype, he wrote "New mutations may be "directed" rather than random with respect to evolutionary trends... there may be "Lamarckian " causal arrows leading from phenotype to replicator, as well as the other way around. These differences may prove sufficient to render the analogy with genetic natural selection to be worthless or even positively misleading."(p. 112)
I've long sought the best way to profitably use the immensely powerful but dauntingly open-ended idea of memes. Isolating the differences with genetic evolution is a vital first step, one that too few users have bothered to make. Aside from certain immunological characteristics, each individual genome is created without any influence from the parent's life experience. Adaptive evolution, then, can only be advanced by differential reproductive success among each generation.
The Lamarckian possibility means many differences with respect to memetic evolution. It tells us that over the course of a lifetime, the bearer of a meme will alter the form of the meme that they carry and propagate, and that they will respond to their experience as they do so. Memes will mutate as they reside in a single person, as well as when they pass from individual to individual.
The gene/phenotype distinction is at the heart of Dawkins work, and it is the basis of a compelling model of how genetic evolution works. But if an individual's phenotype could alter their genes (eg: a taste for canopy leaves giving a giraffe a longer neck, and this gene being passed to the offspring), genes would lose their centrality in any account of genetic evolution. Genes are central, for Dawkins, precisely because they are capable or retaining the integrity of their form across hundreds of millions of successive generations; this is why Dawkins refers to everything else (genome, organism, group, species etc) as a "vehicle".
Now, how do we distinguish between a meme and its phenotype? How is the "idea" of, say "christianity" to be separated from such memes as prayer, soup kitchens, choral singing, illuminated manuscripts, repressed sexuality, nativity plays, religious architecture, Augustinian tautologies, Aquinas' semantics, European imperalism, identity politics, wafers and big pointy hats? How can we conclusively say that the meme of Christianity has EVER been transmitted at all (differing gospel accounts, and intense early infighting, suggest that Christ's message was reproduced badly by some, if not all, of his earliest followers)? As Dawkins stresses, it is the "blending" aspect of memes, and the likelihood that every copying event involves mutation, that may render analogies with natural selection to be useless (as above, p. 112).
I use memes this way: imagine a land where most new species were developed on farms, by farmers trying to maximise particular qualities in their herds and crops through all available techniques (including hybridisation, grafting, selective breeding and genetic engineering etc). Every once in a while, some of these creations escape and propagate in the wild, eventually giving rise to new species that no one intended. A visiting biologist, in trying to explain the origins of the different organisms he finds in that region, would find that Darwinian natural selection does not adequately explain the ecology. Modelling the ecosystem and its interactions would not account for the genes he find there; asking the farmer would be necessary. Similarly, don't look to random evolution to explain the existence of most of the memes around you, and to explain the forms that you find. The degree of directed evolution is far too high; most memes are created and culled by self-interested humans acting more or less consciously.
Thanks for taking the time to swallow this stack of memes.