Some stolen ideas on dynamic memetics

I haven’t actually read Laul Pogan’s “The cultural microbiome” but this essay was partly inspired by a friend’s take on what it was about. Edit: I have now read it. It had a lot less to do with the ideas that I talk about here than my friend’s summary suggested.

You’ve doubtless seen the succession of ideas in subcultures. The hard left for example went through a “check your privilege” phase, but that phrase would now mostly evoke eye-rolls and is now seen as symptomatic of excessive individualism. The liberals on the other hand have taken it up with enthusiasm.

There’s a concept called plant succession. Plant succession suggests that, for example, when an area gets burnt out or clear-felled, and new flora starts growing, there’s a natural order in which it tends to happen. Certain plants, so to speak, specialize in particular stages of the process.

Call this rough idea, applied to memes dynamic memetics. It’s the idea that there’s a process by which ideas replace other ideas. I was thinking about all the explanations from sociology, dialectics, etc. of how to categorize the dynamics of memes, and how one meme follows another- this essay followed. It is a collection of stolen ideas. The terms and concepts I use are taken from areas like sociology, philosophy, biology, etc.

I am not endorsing any of these ideas individually or collectively. My own best guess is that all of these play a role at certain times. No predictions follow from this essay alone, but it gives us a language that could be used to formulate predictions.

I divide these approaches up into two classes. Material factors deal with the lives and circumstances of the people holding and influenced by these memes, and ideal factors which relate to the content of the ideas themselves.

Material factors

1.Functionalist theory- our ideas are selected because they help society work, for example, by holding it together, preventing conflict, and making it resilient. Dynamically speaking, change happens to meet new social needs.

2.Conflict theory- our ideas are selected because they help certain factions, esp dominant factions. Dynamically speaking, change happens to meet new needs in the contest for social power.

3.Individual interests theory- The selection of ideas is best understood in terms of the interests of individuals. As things change (and that change may be partly driven by ideas) the interests of individuals change, and so their ideas change.

4.Standpoint theory- The selection of ideas represents not so much the interests of societies, individuals or groups as their point of encounter with the world, and the terms on which it happens. This can be tied, for example, to conflict theory (ideas represent the way this or that group in the social struggle encounters the world) or individualist theory. As encounters with the world change, ideas change.

5.Symbolic interactionist/interactionist theory- ideas develop in the engagements between people. As those engagements change, memes change. We could understand this in all sorts of subcategories- for example, ideas develop in the conflicts between individuals (a sort of miniaturized conflict theory). Ideas develop in order to facilitate the interaction of individuals (miniaturized functionalism). Or ideas develop to match the standpoints of people in conversations- their joint encounter with the world and not so much their interests (standpoint theory).

Ideal factors

6.Founder theory- The selection of ideas is biased towards whatever ideas were established first. Emphasizes the relative lack of change, and continuity under superficial change.

7.Reaction theory- Opposite of founder theory. The selection of ideas is biased against whatever was previously in vogue. Just as if you see a lot of red for a while your eyes will be biased towards seeing green (opponent processes theory), so we are biased against whatever was in vogue five years ago.

8.Dialectic theory- The selection of ideas in some sense “evolves” like a chain of reasoning, with new ideas a logical progression on old ideas, in some sense. The exact sense of progression will vary, a common idea is that they react to the weaknesses of the old ideas, but not so much by reacting against those old ideas, but by improving on them or synthesizing the insights of ideas once thought incompatible.

9.Truth theory- ideas gradually approach the truth, or in domains where truth isn’t in question (e.g. ethics) a certain comprehensiveness and fullness of perspectives. Individual people may be poorly responsive to evidence, but while the arc of history may be long it bends towards the evidence. This is Similar to dialectic theory, with an added realism that is not essential to the dialectic theory.

10. Dirty competition theory. The succession of ideas tends to favor ideas that compete more ruthlessly, by socially or physically attacking competitors, leading their adherents to band together and support each other against rivals, etc. Think of monotheism sweeping away polytheism and variant monotheisms. This might lead us to think that the competition will get fiercer and fiercer over time. However, there are countervailing factors (contact with reality giving selective advantages, the reaction against stifling orthodoxy, etc.)

Mixed/uncategorizable

11. Downstream theory- Certain subcultures are downstream of other subcultures with respect to ideas. The ‘advanced’ subculture adopts new ideas first, and then the ‘delayed’ subculture takes them on later- sometimes in a modified form. Sometimes, if one is being cynical, once it has found a way to sanitize them and make them safe.