Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gadams]

Hi Guys,
I was recently watching a television show called the Big Bang Theory and in one of the episodes two of the characters discuss 'gossip' as a meme. We haven't really discussed this in our seminars so thought about it more and a meme is a thought, idea or catch phrase. Gossip is an idea about someone - it is a living thing that seeks to reproduce using us as there host. These mems of gossip are reproduce through us and therefore spread how gossip spreads. I thought this was a different way of thinking about mems.

[09071540]

I don't think that by Dawkins classifying it as a meme it negates the beliefs and values people hold with the idea of God.

I agree with you adubz and to answer Paolo's initial question, I do not think that one needs to reject religion to accept the ideas of propagating memes in culture. Many people who are religious, and I can speak specifically regarding Christians, accept certain concepts of evolution such as, maybe, natural selection. The key thing however, is that God is believed to be the Creator of all living things and that he is sovereign over nature. I believe that God gives humans and living beings freedom of choice and therefore, as people evolve, as the world becomes more globalised, as different species become extinct and as the environment changes, mutation is bound to occur.

If memes are cultural thoughts or ideas (Dawkins, 1976) then to some extent religion is able to be transmitted from generation to generation because of certain customs and means of worship that are passed down as customary. For example, the truth of the gospel is communicated to people through hymns, worship music, to some it's the meaning behind liturgy or doctrine such as communion, which resounds with people.

Another example of how religion can be "memetic" is seen in going to a church service. In charismatic churches, where the raising of hands in worship is accepted and normal, people will be more inclined to imitate others and to raise their hands (whereas in a context outside of church, this would not be considered normal or worthy of imitation). And, in more conservative churches where raising hands is not generally accepted practice, people who might like to worship with their hands will restrain themselves from doing so. This, therefore, underlines how imitation, the way in which memes are transmitted (Dawkins, 1976) is relevant even within religious circles.

Lastly, I'd like to refer to BJRushy's quote:

as adressed by many others a contributing factor to the survival value of the God meme is that of faith; blind faith - an unquestionning acceptance of the existance of god with no need for evidence.
I personally believe that for many people in modern society, evidence is essential when considering justifications of beliefs, and for this reason it could be argued that in the coming centuries religion may be subject to a certain level of demise. This is not to say that I believe religion, specifically the God meme, will ever be completely redundant, but rather will become less widely followed; more widely questioned. I believe that the logic which fuels blind faith comes into contestation with all other notions of postmodern society - notions of always questioning, always demanding evidence and justificcation; something which we as budding academics are prompted to do.

This seems totally believable, that as our society demands more and more evidence to determine truth, that religion, which is based on faith, is bound to experience decline in "popularity". In fact, this is already being seen in the demise of the Christian church around Europe, a Westernised continent where secularism reigns. Nevertheless, I disagree with the concept of "blind faith" because "blind faith is faith without evidence and would therefore be superstition" (http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/is-christianity-based-on-blind-faith). I believe that people who have faith have experienced God and have recognised truth in the gospel therefore, their faith is not blind.

Have a look at this link: http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/is-christianity-based-on-blind-faith. It claims things that may be controversial, but it addresses faith and blind faith. Two quotes that stood out to me from it are here below:
"The claim that belief in Christianity produces an irrational, uneducated, unintelligent, or unintellectual view of life is completely false. And the statement that unbelief produces a rational and intelligent and enlightened view of the universe is equally false"

"As C. S. Lewis said, most of the things you believe are believed on authority, secondary evidence, etc. For example, you may never have actually seen a molecule, but you have no doubt that molecules exist. Even more to the point, we are confident that things like gravity, time, the laws of logic, and true love exist even though we cannot see them. Of course, experience and rational investigation should increase your confidence in what is true."

[HSB]

I agree with gadams, I think it is important to think about how memes can affect us in society today. I think gossip is definitely an example of a meme, a piece of information can be replicated through communication. The media is used to communicate memes to the people. Some choose to replicate the information, others do not.

[zippy]

I hadn't really thought about gossip as a meme but now you've mentioned it, it seems so obvious. Like a lot of memes, gossip relates to Dawkins' idea of how some memes "achieve brilliant short-term success in spreading rapidly, but do not last long in the genes pool" (pg. 209), a point I picked up on when re-reading for the assignment. Gossip is definitely a type of meme that will spread really quickly in a short amount of time but eventually will fade out because people become less and less interested - a bit like the saying "today's news is tomorrow's fish & chips paper".

[mlp1984]

I would agree that Dawkins appears to have a negative view of religion.  This is evident in comments such as ‘I doubt if the priests were that clever’ (Dawkins, 1976, p.212).

My understanding of the memetic perspective is that it is comparable to genetic evolution, only instead of gene replication it refers to cultural transmission.  Meme’s are posited by Dawkins to be the replicating entity that form the basis of the evolutional process by which human culture is passed from one individual to the next, and indeed from one generation to the next. 

Whilst I can of course appreciate that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific argument and thus in contradiction to the biblical creation story, which foretells of how God created the world in seven days - or at least 6 days with one day of rest.

Nonetheless, I still think that there is room for both perspectives: religious and scientific. Dawkins uses God as an example of a meme and whilst he may not believe in the god meme itself, presumably in light of the lack of scientific evidence to support same, that does not necessarily discount it as a possible reality.  Does he, or anyone else for that matter, have any evidence to support the standpoint that there is no God.  I think that it would be silly to discount either perspective.

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to an individual’s ideology.  I try to keep my mind open and am thus of the opinion that whilst these two perspectives may differ, they are both valid.

[hluiz]

In relation to the notion of memes I would suggest that our minds are very much open to accepting thoughts or texts and letting such things affect us. As Zippy stated below some memes such as gossip are very short term and will as such have a short shelf life, whilst others can stand the test of time as it were and as such it could be suggested that the success of a meme can be measured by how long the original thought or concept powering that meme stays relevant in society and culture. The question of whether one can believe in both religious and scientific concepts is an interesting one, to which I would say that the answer is yes as long as people keep open minds on such issues.

[Sammy]

I agree with zippy and some of the other commentators about how the gossip meme quickly disappears. Dawkins (1976, p. 207) does say that a meme's life span depends on their 'survival value', and that is determined by its psychological appeal. So it may be that the gossip was replaced with a more recent one and is no longer interesting.

And to answer Paolo's initial question, I believe that those who believe in memes can also believe in religion. In my opinion, if God or religion were not a meme transferred from one to generation to the next some of us would not be practicing believers of religion. However, in the end it really depends on the individual's personal beliefs. 

[ellip]

This was my favourite reading! I believed we are born with a blank state and memes get planted into our heads daily, its up to us which ones we want to award longevity. As we get older our minds becomes less impenetrable because we have awarded the most space and time to what we want to believe in. People who invest in certain memes may find it offensive when comments are made such as the point he made about God. That IS the ultimate meme, with billions of people sharing the belief regardless of which God they believe in. How can so many people be led by blind faith, and accredit all the good in their lives to an invisible being. Very interesting 

[Sian]

The point Gadams raised about memes and gossip is really interesting and certainly provides another perspective on thinking about memes - one which perhaps we can all relate to? Thinking about Dawkins' view that memes survive due to psychological appeal and essentially other supporting or reinforcing memes, it's interesting to think about the potential for gossip to survive rather than fade or 'die' - could it be that even gossip when subject to reinforcing memes can achieve longevity? For instance, if a person engaged in a particular behaviour that was gossiped about and then later engaged in a similar behaviour or behaviour associated with that 'sort of person' the meme is reinforced and it is more likely to be passed on, replicated and remembered.

We have long standing rumours and urban legends that are passed on through generations and history to the point that no-one knows if there is any truth in the story.. but it still exists and is passed on.

Perhaps looking for evidence as Dawkins suggests can be fatal for particular kinds of meme, where as others can be reinforced. Remembering stories of teachers at school past down through the school years until a particular teacher is known for a particular story and is viewed in light of it, regardless of how, when or by whom the meme started. The discontinuous mind likes to categorise, as do identity seeking consumers in order to make sense of the world, define who are, who we are not, and in attempt to make a given environment predictable. Perhaps in some cases we look for reinforcing memes and actively use them in order to quickly and efficiently define categories.

[AndreaLo]

I found Dawkins' theory of memes being replicated and passed on as a scientific rather than cultural process very interesting; that and how he has raised the idea that memes are 'cultural transmissions' that can ultimately give rise to a form of evolution.

Just in case it might interest anybody, I recently wrote a piece in my blog about the phenomenon of memes on Facebook. I have copied and pasted the entry as follows-

Lately, a number of Facebook statuses began to emerge on my Newsfeed alluding to what city one is moving to, and how long for. I have been informed that this supposedly originated from a chain message encouraging female users on the social networking site to boost breast cancer awareness. Past Facebook status tactics to for 'Breast Cancer Awareness Month' (which actually officially takes place every October) include posting decidedly attention-seeking updates about the colour of one's bra, as well as asking girls to post 'where they like to place their handbags when they get home', resulting in Newsfeeds across the world featuring a number of sexually suggestive statuses at first glance: 'I like it on the floor', 'I like it on my desk', etc.

Let us assume the campaign is real, for the sake of argument (more on the authenticity of similar online campaigns later). Yes, breast cancer is a disease that affects tens of thousands of women a year, and to boost awareness for it could only be a good thing. But why exclude male online users from this, and why turn it into some big, secret joke and laugh when other people ask you what it's all about? Whilst it is not as common, it is entirely possible for men to get breast cancer. Does this mean men who have other forms of cancer somewhat matter less? Furthermore, is posting online what city you would be living in for any amount of time, the colour of your bra, or where you like to place your handbag, doing anything to actually help the breast cancer cause?

Internet memes are by no means a new phenomenon, and especially not to Facebook. Some of you might remember being asked to change your profile picture to one of a cartoon character, circa November/December 2010, supposedly as part of a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) campaign to help combat child abuse. Again, whilst the NSPCC released a statement stating that they did not start the campaign [but added that they welcome any attention drawn to their cause], how simply by making a cartoon your profile picture on Facebook will help to stop child abuse is very debatable. A few weeks after the emergence, messages began to circulate around warning users that the little game that took Facebook by storm is 'actually created by a group of pedophiles' who allegedly wanted to make children more willing to accept them on Facebook. You can read more about this at Snopes, the leading myth-debunking authority online.

I am not against Facebook memes by any means - in fact, I have often jumped on the bandwagon myself. But the question remains as to whether these acts of 'slacktivism' online are actually helping the cause of important issues.

[missrager]

Dawkin's ideas regarding memes are fascinating when you have seen this phenomenon occur without being able to put a name to it. For instance, I don't know if any of you caught on with this - but a few weeks ago a girl named Sharon O'Brien, a supposedly underage girl, uploaded pictures of herself in her underwear onto facebook resulting in virtual uproar. Exactly as Dawkins described, people were mimicking each other's behaviour, commenting relentlessly on her photos (which were made available for the public to see). What puzzles me, however, is why things such as a young girl in underwear spark such a public reaction as opposed to issues such as child hunger? For me, this says a lot about human nature!

[Budgie]

What puzzles me, however, is why things such as a young girl in underwear spark such a public reaction as opposed to issues such as child hunger? For me, this says a lot about human nature!

I wholeheartedly agree! And I think you can look at the Hypodermic Syringe theory/model to see how our passivity affects just what images still shock us and which don't. Sadly, I think it's because your former example just hits closer to home for the public. International news on a mass scale, I believe, is very unfairly neglected and under-reported.

 This is one reading that I think can almost literally be applied to everything, rarely do we realise just how much our actions and words can influence others and see unimaginable creations come to life, and huge political/social/cultural events set into motion globally.
 I always have the quote from the film V for Vendetta pop into mind in particular when I think about memes and how they are passed on and propelled into mass culture and the minds of millions of people around the globe: “Ideas are bulletproof”. Like a super virus, they possess an almost indestructible quality as they hop from person to person.

[jaffacake]

This is indeed one of the most intriguing of all the readings. I was fascinated by the comparison of gene and meme. Infesting the mind with an idea and replicating it over time in comparison with gene, somewhat analogous in the imitating process is mind boggling. I am keen on doing more readings on the subject and by Dawkins.