I was just reading the first chapter in Isaiah Berlin’s book, The Roots of Romanticism, which is titled, “In Search Of A Definition.” After showing how difficult it is to summarize the conflicting ideas and doctrines that came after the Enlightenment, Berlin quotes George Boas, who writes:
There happen to have been a variety of aesthetic doctrines, some of which were logically related to others and some of which were not, all called by the same name [of Romanticism]. But that fact does not imply that they all had a common essence, any more than the fact that hundreds of people are called John Smith means that they are all of the same parentage. This is perhaps the most common and misleading error arising from the confusion of ideas and words.
Now, don’t ask me to connect them (though I can if you do), but this quote reminded me of a question that had been kicking around in my head since the elections in November, when I was seriously looking into what liberal and conservative really mean. It was a question that was connected to the stuff I was thinking about in relation to memes, which I’ve written about on this site.
I’m wondering if the theory of memes gives us another way to think about ourselves as a “species” — or, if you prefer, as a category under which we are all subsumed.
The theory of memetics suggests that there is another entity besides genes that has an effect on our makeup. In a way, memetics is the nurture to genetics’ nature. Memes, like genes, are little entities (possibly imaginary) whose only goal is survival.
Now, back in May of 2003, NewScientist.com reported that gene studies imply that chimps are human:
The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo…
I really don’t care which category we place chimps in, nor where we place ourselves. What I’m interested in is the idea that, if things that seem as different as human and chimps (relatively speaking) can be considered part of the same species, might it work the other way too; that is, if genetics shows that all human beings are part of the same species, could memetics show that all humans are actually different species?
As you can tell, I’m having trouble articulating this thought, which probably shows how sloppy it is, but still…it seems like it might lead to something interesting, so I’m going to run with it for a bit.
What if we discard the idea of genetics for a moment and try to divide our species (as the only entities that seem affected by memes) based not on any physical properties, but on the basis of the memeplexes (the complex of memes that work together in a symbiotic relationship)? These memeplexes would go beyond the traditional ones, such as religions and political ideologies, which are only singular memeplexes, and look at how different memeplexes reside in the same individual, such as a Catholic, liberal, rock and roll nut who prefers action movies, as compared to an atheistic, libertarian, country music fan who likes Woody Allan films. Of course, these are only simple categories, but it’s just an example. The actual theory would have to better worked out, preferably with some sociological testing, but it might be interesting to think of us that way.
The upshot of such a theory would, I think, prevent massive generalizations about “human nature,” as put forward in the romantic period by such thinkers as Rousseau and Voltaire, and in today’s world by people at The Weekly Standard, who ask if human nature has a future; Edward O. Wilson, who wrote a book called What is Human Nature?; and Steven Pinker, who wrote The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature .
(FYI: I have not read either of those last two books; the former is a classic and the latter sounds very interesting, but since I couldn’t stand Pinker’s book, “The Language Instict,” which I found laughable, there is no way I’m about to spend any money on this other one; you can read this review of it, if you like).
Maybe if we stopped trying to explain the universal essence of 6.5 billion unique individuals, and instead looked to understand the more limited number of memeplexes that underlie those creatures, we could discern a better way toward interspecies communication.
It’s basically the idea of: If you want to get to know somebody, read the books he or she has read, listen to the music, watch the movies, and investigate the people they associate with, and then you’ll have a better (though not necessarily correct) idea of their “nature.”
Let’s go back to my simple examples for a minute. We have a Catholic, liberal, rock and roll nut who prefers action movies, and an atheistic, libertarian, country music fan who likes Woody Allan films. Maybe by better defining the structures of those particular memeplexes, we could find a bridge that is common between them.
Let’s take an informal look at rock and roll. I don’t think we should be looking for a structure of rock and roll, but rather, the structuring ability of rock and roll; that is, we should look for what rock and roll does to the memeplexes it comes into contact with (remember, we’re talking affects on memeplexes, not on individuals, who are ultimately free — an assertion, yes, but one we will roll with). We should perhaps look at how rock and roll has an effect on the memeplex of Catholicism (and vice-versa), see how they alter each other, what they strengthen and weaken in the other.
For example, let’s assume for the moment that when rock and roll comes into contact with Catholicism, the rebellious tendencies of Jesus Christ become more accentuated than they would be before the interaction with rock and roll. Going the other way, Catholicism might bring out the spiritual side of rock and roll, where the upbeat rhythms become analogous to the experience of rapture.
Now, if we could do the same thing for liberalism and action movies, and then do it for atheism, libertarianism, country music, and Woody Allan films, we might find something common among the results that would give our two hypothetical individuals a perfect place to start a conversation.
Which sounds great for individuals, but what about for bigger entities, such as entire cultures? If we mapped it out, I think we would find the term “culture” would become problematical (if it isn’t already). It would be as massive a generalization as “human nature.” It would be the arrogant assertion that Said argues against in his classic, Orientalism.
If we could map out the memeplexes (and their effect on each other) the way we have mapped out the planets and stars, perhaps some genius, the memetics equivalent of an Isaac Newton, could come along and show us how they all interact. It would be a tremendous undertaking, of course, but it wouldn’t be any different than starting any other field. These things have to start at some point, right?
I guess the school would be like a history of ideas, which is nothing less than the history of humanity. But the trick in this case would be to look for patterns of ideas and to treat those ideas as the active agents, not the individuals who possess them. The memeplex of Nazism didn’t die with Hitler. Further, we could look at history as the interaction of these ideas. We already do this to some extent (looking at WWII as a war, not between the Axis and the Allies, but as between Fascism and Liberalism), but by mapping the ideas instead of the people/countries, we wouldn’t be fooled if something like, oh, I don’t know, totalitarianism started taking over the United States of America. It wouldn’t be “strange” because our map of the planet wouldn’t have any corollary to the arbitrary borders of the “real” world. This map of the world would probably resemble that map of the “blue archipelagoes” in a “red sea” that showed up in the Seattle magazine, The Stranger, after the November election.
Such a map would seem to make more sense today than it has in the past, especially given the rise of the Internet, which allows for the free flow of ideas without any relation to physical location. Of course, there is a scary extension of this, where “thoughts” are tracked in a way more overt than today; i.e., someone would be watching this blog post, mapping me to my location, and then tracking the spread of my ideas in this geographical location. If an “enemy” got a hold of this information, it might want to kill me before I had the chance to spread my ideas. On the other hand, with the rapid transmission of information nowadays, it would become useless for them to kill me. My ideas would already be out there, and since “I” am not the enemy, but the ideas in my head are, killing me does little to stop the enemy from spreading around the globe.
In my utopian little world, it would seem that the best model of warfare becomes, not killing physical bodies, but education. This is not a new idea. Hell, if America is the most powerful country in the world, it’s not just because of the number of our nuclear weapons, but because of the number of our movie studios and record labels. Reagan didn’t end the Cold War. Rock and Roll and Coca-Cola did. The U.S. has known the power of culture for a very long time. Christ, cultural imperialism is even a method of victory in the computer game Civilization III. This is not a new idea.
But in a world as connected as ours is, it is next to impossible to prevent an active learner from opening their eyes to different information, and for that person to spread the word to thousands of people via his or her blog, mobile phone, e-mail, instant messenger, etc. The education that would become indoctrination would have no chance against such a wave of free information.
Warfare would take place in the schools (if it doesn’t alredy), but I think that is a good thing.
I don’t know. I’m starting to ramble. Basically, I think it seems like an interesting way to look at the world, its history, and its future, and I’d like to join up with whatever group of academics has already started looking at it that way.
3 Comments
Interesting idea kyle but I would be afraid that this would be a way to stereotype people unless it can be proven 100% true 100% of the time. If a person was born and we could disect what memes they had and said you are going to be a rock and roll lover, would that take the choice away from that person if we told them this? I am guessing this could also be a nature vs nurture issue. Just because my memes are the same as ted bundy does that mean I should be locked up before I do anything?
Am I off base with this?
Actually, Justin, I think the benefit of this method of looking at people is that it breaks down the stereotypes. Instead of looking at the memeplexes as single entities (as synecdoches for the individual), we would have to look at the interaction between multiple memeplexes. The process of discovering which memeplexes are present within the individual (I know I’m running fast and lose with the container metaphor here — within the individual — but that’s okay for now) would reveal the complexity of the individual and disassemble any specific stereotype we may harbor towards the person.
Now, you asked about figuring out what memes people have when they are born and using that to predict their future, thus harming their freedom of choice. I must not have explained memes clearly enough though, because this isn’t something you can do with memes. Let me try again.
The best explanation of what a meme is comes from Susan Blackmore’s book, The Meme Machine
. I lent the book out to a friend of mine, so I don’t have the full example here, but I used part of it in a paper for my independent study on memes, so I’ll quote that.
First, you have to know that memes are tied directly to imitation (as genes are), but not simple imitation. If I ask you to copy me, and then pretend to play air guitar, whining my way through some notes to Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven,” you have to reverse engineer the process to do it. You have to decide which aspects of the action are to be copied — does the position of your hands on the air guitar matter, do you need to mime where my hands were or is it only important that you seem to hold something like a guitar? Do you have to “play†the same song, or can you copy me by playing air guitar to a totally different song, perhaps even something by Neil Diamond? After these questions and similar ones have been asked, you must start performing a very difficult set of transformations. Maybe you saw me from the side. Nothing you saw will correspond exactly to the actions you perform from your perspective. Somehow you have to imagine yourself in my shoes in order to understand what I am doing and how it will look once you perform the same actions. As Blackmore writes:
Now because memes are tied directly to imitation, they are not “present” at birth. Blackmore’s book is called The Meme Machine. That’s her way of saying “human.” At birth, we’re like cars without gas. The memes have to be introduced by the outside world before they can have any effect on us.
You are absolutely right, Justin, it is kind of like a nature vs. nurture thing, but the nature vs. nurture controversy is only a controversy if you accept the original terms as being mutually exclusive, when the facts seem to point out that we are all a little bit nature, and a lot of bit nurture, but we are all the result of both.
The interesting thing is that using the conglomeration of memes as the basis of our identities (as opposed to the conglomeration of genes) wouldn’t allow you to be the same as Ted Bundy. Physical reality prevents it, because you can never be in the same place as Mr. Bundy, and thus, could not be affected by the same memes. Sure, you both might like rock and roll and Woody Allen movies, but you also listened to the wisdom of your grandmother, heard the folk stories of rural Canadians, participated in Lord knows how many conversations with an Italian family from Saugus, got drunk and shot the shit with the Callahans, etc. In each of those unique interactions, you were exposed to memes that never intersected with Mr. Bundy, and thus, you are necessarily different from Mr. Bundy.
What I’m getting at is that the type of worldview I described in this post forces us to look at individuals as inherently distinct entities who, while capable of conception under the rubric of memeplexes, are not categorizable. By looking at humans as just multiple instances of a single species, we disrespect every single one of us. We lower ourselves to a common denominator when we should be raising ourselves using the addition of the unique nature of our memeplexes, adding to the meaning of our individuality using the raw data of our daily interactions with society.
Damn, that’s a long comment.
Thanks Kyle, I now get it. I associated memes with genes as something we are born with and a are a constant. What you are saying is that we are all snowflakes shaped by not only the type of clouds and temp., but where we land how the wind and outside forces shaped us making us different from each other snowflake. Or something like that.