The Idea of Meme - Literature review Example

Looking at the idea of “meme”; does it make sense?                 We humans are more than the sum of our parts. We have higher brain function than animals, we can rationalize and even have our environment adapt to suit our needs. This is how we have changed our planet and how we have adapted. But despite this, our basic parts and components are still what drive us. Generally, we have accepted DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic acid as the basics of how we inherited our physical traits, but this paper aims to discus a theory about another kind of transmission and inheritance; the “meme”, which, like the gene, focuses on transmission, but on a mental level. The transmission of ideas from person to person, or culture to culture.                   Looking at the idea of “meme”; does it make sense? In science class, back when we were in school, we were taught that our genes are what indicate what our hair color would be, how tall we would be, and what our other physical features were. We were taught that they were passed on from our parents and that our genes are unique; no one had the same genes as ours. This is what indicated what we would turn out to be physically, but it is generally accepted that they do not have much effect on how we think, nor how we are as a people. Richard Dawkins tried to explain this in his theory regarding the “meme”. He explained how though patterns travel and how they survive time, and after his explanation, there have been others who have tried to either justify, or contradict the meme, its validity and measurability. This paper’s aim is to look at Dawkins’ theory, as well as other sources and provide further insight into the topic of the meme. It will also provide a definite statement as to weather the meme is a valid phenomenon or not. It will be presented here as such: Summary of Richard Dawkins’ idea of  the “meme” A look at “meme” through supporting literature A look at literature that challenges the idea of “memes” Conclusion Summary of Richard Dawkins’ idea of the “meme” In reviewing Dawkins’ paper, “Memes: The New Replicators,” we can see that he compares the meme to the gene in terms of similar use. He also sees both as replicators but with the act of replicating different things; the gene, being responsible for replicating human physical traits while the meme, in charge of replicating our ideas. He presents the gene as the primary, known and initially accepted replicator for our world. He stresses that life maintains it’s self and evolves by replication, and this process has mostly been dominated by the gene on our planet, but he also presents that lately, another kind of replicator has emerged and is available for scrutiny. He declares this new replicator is human culture, and tried to give it a name and thus, a term that projects the theory’s message. He then created the word “meme” in order to sound similar to “gene”, possibly because they are both replicators, and used the term as a unit of measure to describe “cultural transmission”. He did indicate that cultural transmission is not exclusive to humans, as, in the given study, animals are also capable of it. He then goes on to provide examples of memes, as well as how memes spread and even how they evolve while spreading. He explained that ideas in the “meme pool” differ in the sense that some do not last to long, others stay and spread for a moderate amount of time while others still are rock solid in terms of longevity. He called this a meme’s “survivable value”. The paper further examines and explains the meme and its components, attributes and success rate.  His idea of the meme is quite substantial because, ideally, any idea that is replicated and imitated is a meme, and he also hinted that it is measurable. This gives us a good insight into how we can determine if the idea of a meme is valid or not. A look at “meme” through supporting literature A look at Susan Blackmore’s article “The Theory [of Memes] is Promising and Testable,” provides us with further insight into Dawkins’ theory regarding memes. This paper attempts to defend the idea and the validity of the meme as an actual occurrence in human society, as well as a valid replicator that is able to affect and influence humanity as a whole. She states that in its basic form, any idea that is imitated is a meme, and if this is the case, that memes are certain to exist. She also differentiates kinds of memes from each other, and how they are involved with our life, including the viral kind, as well as the memes that make up our basic pattern of thought. The paper also goes on to provide insight of scientific selection, and that this sets science apart from other ideas such as religion, and stresses that this is also applicable to memes. She indicates that in the use of memes, it is only accepted if it is useful and the rest of the information is dropped. This, in my opinion, makes the meme a constantly changing and adapting idea. It is dynamic enough to fit the situation. Although the paper does recognize that there are contradictions that have been created against the idea of the meme, it does go on to stress that they are not fatal to the idea of memetics. One of the criticisms that memetics receives is that it does not have any physical or chemical evidence. The paper’s defense is that DNA, in comparison, was not discovered until after Charles Darwin.  The paper calls this criticism “immature”. Another driving point of the paper that supports the validity of memetics is that the meme provides a new insight on human behavior, and that memes are a necessary vehicle to understand human origins. Another paper in support of memes is one by Daniel C. Dennett called “Memes and the Exploitation of Imagination,” This particular work confirms memes as replicators similar to genes. It does try to put a bit of scrutiny on memes regarding free will to critic ideas, as well as recycling of ideas, but it still highlights that memes “a new way of thinking about ideas” and mentions that this new way is also a good way. The paper also clarifies that while the memes themselves are immaterial; the meme vehicles are very much visible and material. The paper also provides examples on the type of meme vehicles, as well as an explanation of the relationship between the meme and its corresponding meme vehicle. This gives us a way to visualize the spread of memes across space and time. In a way, we can use these meme vehicles as “tick marks” for measuring memes. Another point that the paper touched on is that memes, like genes have the potential to be “immortal” but this depends on the transmission of the meme from one vehicle to another, and not so much on how steadfast a single vehicle can be. All in all, this information that has been gathered from 2 different sources tries to establish the fact that memes exist and that they are relevant to humanity. Although the information does recognize criticism, which is normal of any theory or idea, it does give solid information that establishes memes as valid and existent. A look at literature that challenges the idea of “memes”.             The literature that either promote or confirm the idea of memes has lots of great points that were stresses or detailed, but in contrast, the literature that seeks to challenge the idea are also quite detailed and provide their own fair and idea-based insight. Take for example Michael Bradie’s paper “Saying it doesn’t make it so,” This particular paper challenges or refutes memes on different levels. Initially, it questions weather memes even exist or not, as the founding idea or principle behind memes is said to be flawed. The paper goes on to challenge both its analogy to genes, was well as its validity as a science. This work basically scrutinizes the theory’s claims and tries to point out that these claims are either empty promises or claims staked on the wrong assumption. An example of this is when the work criticizes the meme’s ability to provide additional insight on discussed information. The example used in the article is the same one that was tackled by Blackmore, religion. Religion was tackled by Blackmore and described as a viral meme, however, Bradie refutes that the study of religion in the context of memes alone does not provide any additional insight. In a slight contrast, the paper does indicate that it is not in a position to conclude on weather the science of memetics is valid or not. It is too young to be able to be judged as a science; however, it does indicate that at this time, we are not aware of what position we are in terms of memetics. We do not know if we are going about it the right way, or if we are looking at it all wrong. Another paper that we need to pay attention to is written by Nick Rose, entitled “Controversies in meme theory”. This particular paper, although not completely in opposition to the meme theory, does present critical analysis, criticism, and challenges to the theory. The focus of the paper was on the four areas of meme theory, looking at the difficulties, as well as the good points of the theory. Initially, it compares the meme theory to Darwinism and takes lead from Dawkins and other writers in their initial comparison of the same topics. However, it then presents criticism on this comparison and healthy analysis and rationalizations. After providing multiple known definitions to the term “meme”, the paper begins to rationalize that because there is no concrete meaning that has been defined for the word, this may mean that the word “becomes almost meaningless”. It then tries to reconcile the meanings and definitions provided by multiple authors and tries to provide a solid meaning to the term. This maybe in order for us to have a baseline definition to work with as it is quite challenging to scrutinize something that you don’t know the meaning to. It put an amount of emphasis on the replicator/phenotype distinction which was, according to the paper, rarely done in other works that supported the theory. Most other works, especially older works do not show this type of distinction or definition for one reason or another. In the end, after the paper is done trying to reconcile different theories, approaches, and ideas or definitions regarding meme, the question still remains. Does the idea of meme make sense? We are faced with a question that begs even more argument and proof-finding. No definite answer has yet to be given, but analysis of the literature provided can give us great insight in order for us to create our own theory. It is left to the reader as to weather they feel that the meme is a valid idea, if it is useful to humanity, or if it even exists. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. Tickling your brain in order to fish out theories, ideas and rationalizations is how we come up with these types of ideas in the first place. From my stand point, I will try to reconcile the information presented in order to form a valid conclusion. Conclusion Looking back at both approaches, we can see that they both have valid points that are used in order to defend their stand point. On the one hand, we have the approach that agrees to the idea of the meme, and uses information such as imitation in humans and such in order to support their claim, while on the other hand still, we have the approach that challenges and criticizes the meme theory with information such as gene-meme comparison corrections and unclear definition point outs in order to stand their ground. Although the articles that challenge the theory do have valid points, I would agree with Dawkins point that the meme is definitely a valid and existent phenomenon. I support this theory as I also feel that imitation is definitely a major way of disseminating information. We can witness this in our everyday lives. I definitely recognize that the science in its self is quite young and would need lots of refining, just as was said in Michael Bradie’s paper, but it is definitely existent. I would go on to say that despite it being young, it has made great strides in trying to explain mans evolution and even its beginning. Blackmore definitely made great points in her paper in support of this theory. I feel that she made great points such as that the theory is definitely testable. We can see that this phenomenon is evident in areas such as fashion in terms of imitation. We can see a fashion trend spread from on person to another, and one country to another because people think its a good idea and then imitates it. Another thought to consider is the support that was made by Daniel C. Dennett. He made a good point in saying that memes in themselves are immaterial and that they are in need of vehicles in order to propagate themselves in the meme pool. The fact that something has components supports the idea and fact that it exists. We cannot deny that Nick Rose in his paper, “Controversies in meme theory” made good points to challenge this theory however, just because something is defined in a shaky manner, does not mean that it does not exist. Most theories we now know and respect started in this same manner. I would go back to saying that this science is still very young and needs to be refined, but it still definitely exists. In conclusion, I feel that this theory, the theory of memes and memetics is an excellent way of explaining how we refine our though process and ideology as humans. I feel that it definitely needs to be refined as a solid science but as with other sciences, it starts as an idea, then is refined into a theory, and now is in the process of being refined.             References Blackmore, S. (2000) “The Theory [of Memes] is Promising and Testable.” Free Inquiry. September 23, 2011. Bradie, M. (2000) “Saying it Doesn’t Make it So.” Free Inquiry. September 23, 2011 Dawkins, R. (2006. ) “Memes: The New Replicators.” The Selfish Gene. (30th Anniversary Ed.) Oxford UP September 23, 2011 Dennett, D. C. (1990) “Memes and the Exploitation of Imagination.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. September 23, 2011 Rose, N., “Controversies in Meme Theory.” Journal of Memetics  Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission.  September 23, 2011 http://jom‐cfpm.org/1998/vol2/rose_n.html.                                                                                       Read More