Some twenty years ago the burgeoning field known as memetics died. Only recently with the modern internet meme has there been renewed interest in the field. But why did it die in the first place? Its sister fields of Advertising, Persuasion, Propaganda and Sociology have all thrived in the past several decades.
To avoid another premature death we must look back upon the previous failures of the field to move forward.
Memetics died partly for these reasons:
Definition
Vagueness of Concepts
Inability to Measure
No Unified Theory
Definition
The term Meme has not had a consensus definition since the field began. The most widely used one is "a meme is a cultural unit of transmission” and that is fairly vague. The inability to have a standard definition caused confusion. Moreover no one could contribute because the definitional variation caused large experimental variation or nullification.
Vagueness of Concepts
Any concepts memetics does have, have not been rigorously thought out, nor tested. They are vague abstractions copied from other fields and grafted onto memetics. Being a creation of Dawkins concepts such as Darwinism, fitness, selective pressures etc. have all been adopted without question.
The blind adoption of these theories have partly lead to the field hitting a wall. Rather than thinking from or finding first principles, Memetics attached itself to similar theories in an effort to gain momentum. This haphazard “if it fits use it” mentality lead to itself being built upon shifting sands of other theories. When those theories were questioned or changed, memetics couldn’t adapt.
Inability to Measure
The ability to measure the spread of ideas or memes is a difficult one. However this is necessary if the field continues to expand. During the founding of the field it was incredibly difficult to track memes and their origin. Ownership and Plagiarism is a significant problem for the field as memetic replication obscures the true understanding of how memes evolve.
Without metrics or a methodological framework the field was destined for obscurity.
No Unified Theory
Partly why the counterpart theory of Mimetics has done so well in comparison to memetics is the fact that everyone has built upon the shoulders of a Giant. Rene Girard. Memetics has no such person yet. Mimesis is a fairly accepted concept because Girard laid the groundwork of theory for others to build upon. Dawkins abandoned his theory like a medieval bastard.
Without a unified theory many scholars have proposed and imposed ideas without worrying about the need for coherency. Trying to leave a mark more so than trying to further the field. This has lead to what can be seen as flailing rather than a concerted effort. Early science indeed was groping in the dark, it at-least had fully coherent theories which could be tested or refuted. So far memetics has none of that.
Going Forward
The aim of this newsletter and other projects is to rectify these problems listed above. To suggest and set out frameworks, definitions, concepts and experiments for the field of memetics. To build from first principles so that we can come to clear insights not only for this generation, but the next aswell.
Without fundamentals memetics will continue to languish in obsecurity.
Well, I would add one more problem: reinventing the wheel. Memetics has actually not discovered anything new, but the language to retell discoveries already made. It was not able to push forward any the fields it has touched - communication, semiotics etc. Therefore, it has died pitfuly as an another 'fashionable nonsense'.