Midgley,M.(2000).Whymemes?In H.RoseEtS.Rose(Eds.),Alas, poorDarwin(pp,67-84).

London:Cape.
Miller,G,(2000).Themating in H o w sexualchoiceshapedtheevolution of htiMannature.
London:Heinemann.
Paul,G. (2005).Cross-nationalcorrelations of quantifiable societal health with popular
religiosityandsecularism in theprosperousdemocracies:A first look.Journal of Religion
andSociety, 7, 1-17.
Plotkin, Ii. (1993).Darwinmachinesandthenature of knowledge.Cambridge,MA:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Pocklington,R.,EtBest,M.(1997).Culturalevolutionandunits of selection in replicating text.
Journal of TheoreticalBiology,188, 79-87.
Richerson,P.,EtBoyd,R.(2005).Notbygenesalone:Howculturetransformedhumanevolution.
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Sherry,D.,EtGalef,B.(1984).Culturaltransmissionwithout imitation: Milk bottleopeningby
birds.AnimalBehavior,32, 937-938.
Sped,H.(1997).A shortcommentfroma biologistonWilliamBenzon'sessay"Cultureasan
evolutionaryarena."Journal of SocialandEvolutionarySystems,20(3),309-322.
Sperber,D.(2000).AnobjectiontothememeticapproachtocultureInR.Aunger(Ed.),Dartvinizing
culture:Thestatus of memeticsasascience(pp.163-173).Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Steels,L.(2000).Languageasacomplexadaptivesystem. In X.Yao,E.Burke,J.A.Lozano,
J.Smith,J.J.Merclo-Guervos,J.A.Bullinaria, et al.(Eds.),Lecturenotes in computerscience:
Parallelproblemsolvingfromnature(pp.679-688). Berlin: Springer.
Steels,1..(2006).Howtodoexperimentsin artificiallanguageevolutionandwhy.InM.Tomasello
(Ed.),Theculturalorigins ofhumancognition(pp.323-332).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Tomasello,M.(1999).Theculturalorigins ofhumancognition.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Wilson,D.(1999).Hyingoverunchartedterritory.AreviewofThemememachinebyS.Blackmore.
Science,285,206.
Wilson,D.(2002).Darwin'scathedral:Evolution, religionandthenature of society.Chicago:
University of ChicagoPress.
Wimsatt, W. (1999),Genes,memes,and cultural heredity. Biology and Philosophy, 14,
279-310.
Wimsatt,W.(2006).Theanalyticgeometry of genetics,part1:Thestructure,function,andearly
evolution of Punnettsquares. in E.Suarez(Ed.),Variedadsin limites:Lasrepresentaciones
enlaciencia(pp.367-380).MexicoCity,Mexico:UniversidadNacionalAutonomadeMexico.
Wright,D.(2000).Translatingscience:Thetransmission ofWesternchemistryinto lateimperial
China,1840-1900.Leiden,TheNetherlands: Brill.

CHAPTER
SIXTEEN

MemeticsDoesNotProAdea
UsefulWayofUnderstanding
CulturalEvolution
ADevelopmentalPerspective
WiliamC.Wimsatt

Arememesuseful in theanalysis of culturalevolution?Yes, in limitedways.But they

don'tcontributemuchto adeeperunderstanding of culturalchange,anddon't point in
ausefuldirection for furthertheoreticaldevelopment. Ifmemesareconceptualizedbroadly
andinclusively(so it is clear thattheyexist), theyprovideonly asuggestive,butcrude,
toolindicatingsomefeatures of thespread of cultural entities: primarily, the factand
consequencesof horizontaltransmission.Theycannot,alone,provide the basis for a
powerfultheory of culturalevolutionandchange.After describingwhatmemescando,
andthecommonassumptionssharedbybothmemeticandnon-memetictheories, I will
discusstheshortcoming of amemeticapproachto cultureandoutlinethestrategy for an
alternativeaccount.Mybasiccontentionis thatthememeticapproachcannotexplainwho
acquireswhatmernesandin whatorder,astheiracquisition is oftenorder-dependentnor
can it giveanyaccount of thecomplexorganization of culture.Thealternative I proposecandoboth of these.In addition,myapproachcanexplainanumber of qualitatively distinctfeatures of culturalandothercomplexorganizationalstructures,as Imake
manydistinctivepredictions thatarelacking in any of thealternativeapproaches.

1Introduction

272

SusanBlackmore

Arememesuseful in theanalysis of culturalevolution?Yes, in limitedways.But

theydon'tcontributemuchto adeeperunderstanding o
nt in a useful direction for further theoreticaldevelopment.' If memesare
.poi
conceptualizedbroadlyandinclusively(so it is clear that theyexist),theyprovide
onlycau
suggesti
toolaindincatin
1
l t uvre,abut
l crude,
c h
ggseome, features of thespreadof cultural
enti
t
i
e
s:
primarily,
the
fact
and
consequences
a
n
d
d o n ' oft horizontaltransmission.They

cannot,alone,providethebasisforapowerfultheoryof culturalevolutionandchange.'
Afterdescribingwhatmemescando,andthecommonassumptionssharedbyboth
rnemeticandnon-rnemetictheories,I willdiscusstheshortcomingofamemeticapproach
tocultureandoutlinethestrategy for analternativeaccount.Mybasiccontention
isthatthememeticapproachcannotexplainwhoacquireswhatmemesandinwhat
order,astheir acquisition is oftenorder-dependentnorcan it giveanyaccount of
thecomplexorganization of culture.Thealternative I proposecandoboth ofthese.
Inaddition,myapproachcanexplainanumberof qualitatively distinctfeatures of
culturalandothercomplexorganizationalstructures,as I makemanydistinctive
predictionsthatarelacking in any of thealternativeapproaches.

2SomeCommonalities
Atsomelevel,theexistenceofmemesisobvious,andparadigmaticallyexemplifiedby
theworditself,asBlackmorepointsout.Google-ingthewordproduced3.29 x10**8
hits(onAugust24,2007);about2.5timesasmanyasgene.(So,frequencyof hitsneed
notmeasureimportance!)And thewordmenu'is spreadinginto ourdiscourse in
otherways.Therearenowbemes(memesspreadbybloggers)andmemetrackers
(sitesandsoftware,notpeople)thatorganizeandclustersimilarnewsstories.Search
engineslikeGooglecanbothmeasurethespreadanddiversity ofrnemes(and,importantly,leadyou to theircontexts),butalso,bybringingthemto ourattention,can
findandmakememes.
andM
thegeneral
icthatanytheory of culturaltransmissionthatisnotgeneticmay
3
e to
mbe
epubl
wellcome
calledamemetictheory.Butthiswouldbeto trivialize thedebate,
iwhischis notaboutnaming.Beforewelookmorecloselyatclaims formemes,there
reassumpt
nsm
thatmemetheoristssharewithotherstudents of culturalevolution.
ba
cnot
oioa
Onee
must
ssumeithatanytheorysharingtheseassumptionsisthereby"memetic."
n Figrst,thebiologicalunderpinning.Humanculturetodayis notdrivenby, ortracesableto,geneti
o csor explicable in terms of naturalselectionalone,butselectionhas
playedanimportantrole in theevolution of differentcomponents of thecapacity
forculiture.d
Theseeincludehumansocialityandsocialstructure,bipedalismleading
w
to
the
evol
u
tion of thehandandtooluse,thebeginnings of thelanguagecapacity,
landthe
y extended
juvenileperiod that facilitated bothbraingrowthandextended
uplasticitys.Weassumethattheseco-evolvedwiththecapacityfor,andproductionof,
turalbehavi
orandartifacts.All oftheseareco-optedto facilitateroledifferentiation
ecul
d sequenti
andextended
al skilldevelopmentwith theemergenceof anincreasingly
bcumulativeanddiverseculture.(Sterelny2009hasaniluminatingdiscussiononthe
stagesof thisevolution.)
ylater
Second,therearetransmissionprocessesoperatingotherthanthroughthegerm-line.
Non-genetia
cculturaltransmission is real, rich,complex,andvaried.Jablonkaand
m
L
a
m
b
(2005)
callydelineatethreesetsofnon-genetictransmissionprocesses
nviz.,epigeneti
y systemati
c,behavioral,andsymbolicandclassifyfurthertypeswithinthem.The
olattertwo, at least,impingeupon,or constitute,thedomain of culture.
Third,someoftheseprocessesatthesocialandculturallevelscanachievesignificant
f "robustness"and"dynamicalautonomy"(Wimsatt,2007)as"vicariousselectorsevolved
i substitutetrial-and-errorprocesses"(Campbell,1974)thatarerelativetogeneticprocesses.
WilliamC.Wimsatt
t1
s2
d7 e
f

Fourth,theseautonomousprocessescanshowpositivefeedbacksthatmayamplify,
redirect,orevenopposeprimarybiologicalselectionprocesses,justassexualselection
can(BoydEtRicherson,1985).Theselast threefacts,together,generateprocesses
claimedbymemeticists,butalsobymostvarieties of "dual-inheritance"theories.
Fifth,culturaltransmissioncanbecomea "runaway"processprimarilybecause
culturecanbetransmittedhorizontally (tonon-relatives)aswellasvertically(from
biologicalparent to offspring).Many of its mostinterestingpropertiesarisefrom
horizontaltransmission.Butjustasafirecansweepacrossaforestedareaofdiverse
species,changingthenicheandselectionconditions forthemall, culturalchanges
canhavegeneticconsequencesaswellasculturalones.Thus,thespreadof herding
amongnorthernEuropeansfavoredthe evolutionarilyrapidspread(within ale last
8,000years)ofgenesforextendedlactosetolerance,butalsotheinvention ofcheeses,
yoghurts,andkefirs(withlowerlactosecontent)amongotherpeopleslackingthe
relevantgenes(Durham,1991).
Sixth, I don'tassumethat culturalelementsmustbemodular,thoughmodularity
increasesevolvability,andcanprovidethebasisfor acombinatorialalgebra for the
construction ofanarray of thingsmadewiththem. It isapowerfuladaptation,both
forthings thatarememe-likeandculturalelementsthat don'tmeettheconditions
formemes.Mostmodularculturalelementsare notmemesbecausetheyare not
self-replicators,butparts of alargerreproductivecomplex.
AsIseeit,memeticsclaimsthreethings: first,memesareautonomousreplicators,
whichactasendosymbioticparasitesthataretransmissibleto otherhumanbeings;
second,theyareselfishlikeotherparasites in that theycanmanipulatetheirhosts
for theirbenefit,eveninwayswhichwouldlowerthehost'swelfareandbiological
fitness;third,theyhaveundergoneanevolutiontowardgreaterefficacyandcomplexity,andareresponsiblefor ourgrowthin corticalcapacity,andfortheincreasing
elaboration of oursocialandtechnologicalcivilization,which,amongotherthings,
hasgiventhemothernewtransmissionchannelssuchastelevisionandtheInternet.
thinkthattheseclaimsarenotrequiredto explainbrainevolution or theevolution
ofourtechnology,socialstructure,orculture. I believethattherearememe-likethings
(MLTs)thatoccasionallymeetthe first condition,rarelymeetthesecond,andare
betterunderstoodnotastheprimarydrivers of culturalandtechnologicalevolution,
butasparts of a largermulti-componentprocessthat betterexplainshow their
transmissionandelaboration aremediated.Now, we mustconsiderhowthese
MLTscan(andcannot)becharacterized.In theprocess, I will elaborateanalternativeaccount.

3Can a MemeticApproachto CulturalChangeWork?

Canweconceptualizemcmesto putthemona firmtheoreticalfooting?Twoobvious
wayslookpromising,at first, butseemtobedeadends,at leastbythemselves:the
geneanalogyandtheviralanalogy.Alessobviouswayispotentialyquitepromising,
butdemotesmemesto one of severaldifferent kinds of elements in a richerand
morecomplextheory.Suchatheorywouldonlyverymisleadinglybecalledmetnetic.
First,thetemptingfailures.Memeticistsoften talk aboutmemesas if theywere
culturalgenesorviruses. If describedasself-replicating"selfish"entitiesthatarelike
Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulturalEvolution 275

eitheragene or a virus(commonassumptions),onemighthopethatgenetics or
epidemiologywouldsuggestusefulframeworksfor buildingtheory, viz., amemetics
ormemology,respectively.Blackmore(thisvolume)warns us againstassuming
analogieswithgenesorviruses,but if wearenot tousesuchanalogies,memeticists
shouldn'teither,andshouldprovideuswithathemywithsomeconceptualandpredictiveclout,Theonlyreasonto look foranalogiesis thattheycangivetheoretical
andpredictivepower. Either of theseapproachescould do this, if successful.
Furthermore, if wecan't get it there,wemustseeka theoreticalstructure or construct it somewhereelse, oracceptthatrnemetiesis of verylimiteduse.Withouta
strongguidingstructuretoarticulatetheoryandguideapplication, it isonlytooeasy
to tell interesting"just-so"storiesthatare difficult totest.Suchclaimsalsodonot
differentiate, critically,betweenmemeticandothertheories of culturalevolution.
I fear that this is thecase for memeticsas it stands.Thealternativeapproach
proposedoesprovidesignificantstructure,predictiveandexplanatorypower,and
observableconsequences.

4MemeticsandGenetics
Memeticistsemphasizetheimportance of self-replication. Butgeneticsdoes not
getits richtheoreticalpowerfromthefact (orclaim')thatgenesareself-replicating.
Genereplicationremainedamystery to classicalgeneticistsbefore1953,andneoDarwinismwasdevelopedwithouthavinganaccount of it.Geneticsis apowerful
componentof evolutionarytheorybecausegeneticinheritanceshowsstrongregularitiesthatallowanimmensevariety oftestable,andtheoretically fruitful,predictions
bothfor individualmatingsand for theselection ofgenesin populations.Genetics
andpopulationgeneticstextsare full of them.'As I haveargued(Wimsatt,1999),
memes(orMLTs)shownoneofthesestructuredpatternsoranyothers ofcomparable
predictivestrength.
Complicationsforagene-likeinterpretation formemesemergesfromacloserlook
atthesestructuralelements.
(1)Biologicalinheritance is normallyobligatelyasexual or bisexual,and, for a
givenspecies,followsthesamepattern,generationaftergeneration.'Diploidorganisms
getoneofeachpair ofchromosomes(and,thus,equalhereditarycontributions)from
eachparent.Culturalinheritance for any trait canbederivedfromone to several
"parents,"which maymakecontributions of varyingsizes, and with differing
impacts,at differentstagesof ontogeneticdevelopment.Thenumberofparentsand
themagnitudes of theircontributionscanvaryfromcasetocaseandgenerationto
generation.Thisvariation,especialy,undercutsthepossibility ofmakingpopulation
genetic-stylemodels, in whichsuchparametersarefixedandenter into recursion
equations,definethemodel,anddeterminethebehaviorpredictablefrom it.
(2)Genesoccupycharacteristicpositions or loci inchromosomes.Thetwogenes
atcorrespondingpositions in pairedchromosomesare allelic. Different allelic
variantsarefound in thebreedingpopulation.Genesat nearby loci in thesame
chromosomeareinheritedtogetherwithcharacteristicfrequenciesthatdeclinewith
increasingdistance.Thisassociation is calledlinkage,and is thebasis for linkage
mapping,whichcandeterminetherelativelocations of allgenesin thechromosome,
276 WilliamC.Wimsatt

andpredictnewfrequencies of association.Thechromosomalsource of prediction

forinheritance in individualsandpopulationshasnoanaloguefor culture.Thereis
nosystematiclinkagebetweencultural factors notcausedby their functional coadaptation.(Thereareothersources of patternedinheritance in co-adaptation,but
thishasnotbeensystematicallyexploitedbymemetics.Thedevelopmentalalternative I proposecandoso.)
(3)Biologicalgenomesare of acharacteristicsize,andarrangement, for agiven
species.Significantdeviationsfromthisarrangementarelethal, orcancauseloss of
genesandsterility in hybridswith othermembersof thebreedingpopulation.'This
causesrelative isolation andmakesgenetransfer from onespecies to another
relativelyrare. It alsomakesit fairly clearwhentwoentitiesarecon-specifics.There
arenosuchsimilarconstraints for culturalentities.Cross-lineagetransfersarecommon,withfewsystematicconstraintsonwhatkinds ofhybridsarepossible.Sospecies,
gametes,chromosomes,andcorrespondingfeatures of geneticandphylogenetic
architecturebecomemuchmoreproblematic.Phylogeniesaremuchharder to disentanglewithoutadditionalkinds of information(Lipo,O'Brien,Collard,EtShennan,
2006).Theunfortunatefact for theory(thoughfortunate,perhaps, for our cultural
adaptation)is that culturalinheritance is unconstrained in wayswewouldexpect
forgeneticinheritance, a fact that is crucial for thepredictivepower of genetics
andpopulationgenetics.Thelack oftheseconstraints, in part,contributesto quickactingplasticity, adaptability,andtolerance for majorchangeof culturalprocesses,
butmakeit difficulttogenerateamemetictheory of co-inheritance,or ofthegrowth
ofcomplexorganization.

5MemeticsandEpidemiology
Couldweexploit thehost-parasiteanalogyfurther in search of a rich predictive
structure?Thinkingofmemesaslikevirusesgivesusmanyfeaturesthatat firstappear
tosupport thememeticpicture.Theseinclude horizontaltransmission,parasite
manipulation of host,andissues of infectivity (of viruses),differential infectibility
(ofhosts),andvirulence.Someof thepoints of analogyseemrich,' butsomecrucial
onesaremissing.
Acrucialdifference is thenumber of distinctelementsthat anepidemiological
processissupposedtohandle.Thismightseemtrivial, but it is not.Epidemiological
modelsfor thespreadofdiseasescoveroneor twodiseases(withoneequationper
parasiteandsomesimpleassumptionsabouthostsusceptibility),anddonot exploit
therichinteractionsbetweeninfectiveagentscharacteristic of culturalelements.By
contrast,theaveragehuman"catches"ontheorder of 50,000memesin a lifetime
fromamuchlargerarray of MLTsavailable in the culture;'' not in a longevolutionaryhistory,but inthecourseofnormaldevelopment.Howthisispossibledemands
explanationandreceivesnoneonthememeticapproach.Andwritingdown50,000
epidemiologicalequations will notsolvetheproblem.
Thearrays ofMLTsthatdifferentpeoplecatchdiffer, butshowhighinternalorder
withinpersonsandwithingrouprelationships.Wecan'tlearnideasoracquireskills
injustanyorder,ManyMLTsareconstrainedtobeacquiredin adevelopmentalorder
becauselateronesrequirethe earlieronesto beintelligible, contextuallyrelevant,
Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulturalEvolution 277

useful,orattractive.Theythusshowstrongdependencyrelationsforacquisition,affect
whichonesweareresistantto,andearlierIVILTsmodulatehowlateronesareinterpreted.
Supposethatwhetheryoucouldcatchagivenvirus,andhow it wasexpressed,
wasacomplexfunction of whatothervirusesyouhadcaughtand in whatorder,
andyouwereforcedtodealwithcomplexinteractions of tensofthousandsof virus
typesperindividual.Whatwouldepidemiologylooklikethen?Thisiscrucialtounderstandlearningand allmodesofdevelopment:cognitive,social,andperceptual,and
educationprocessesfromlanguagelearning to highermathematics.Yet it is totally
ignoredinstandardformulations ofmemetics.Thereisnothinginmemeticstoexplain
ortodealwiththefactthat, orwaysinwhich,culturalelementsarcstructured,either
in theiracquisition or in their action.
Asecondproblemis thatmemeticsignoresthestructuredenvironmentsin which
culturalelementsarepropagated.Culturallyinducedsocialroleanddiscipline-specific
populationstructure"modulatestheacquisition,maintenance,andelaboration ofMLTs.
(Youdomathproblemsin amathclassaspart of amathcurriculum,andapply it
laterin ajob forwhichyouhavebeenhiredbecauseyouhavetheappropriatemath
competency.)Epidemiologists dowormyaboutanalogousdetails of population
structurein looking at thetransmission ofdiseaseandevaluatingthepossibility of
epidemics,thoughmemeticistshavenot.Andtheproblem is muchmorecomplex
forculturalMLTsthan it is for virusesbecause of the far richerstructure of the
channelsforexposure.MathematicalideasfrommainlandChinaareinaccessibleto
amotivated,butmonolingual,Englishspeakerwhetheror nothe orsheis mathematicallysophisticated.Forsomethings,evenknowingthelanguageandhaving
suitabletrainingmaynot suffice(Nisbett,2003).Weneedatheoreticalframework
thatreflectsandbuildsonthesefacts.
Thesetwolacunaeviz.,ignoringindividualdevelopmentalstructureandbroader
populationstructureandconnectivityarecrippling.Welive incognitivelyandsocialy
structuredworlds(or,better, niches),
ignores
12
a these
n d ataitsnperil.
y Theformertends to be theconcern of developmental
psychologists,educators,andpractitioners ofanyspecialtywhomustmanagetraining;
tandhtheelatter
o ofr soci
y ologistsandhistorians ofscience,religion,andafewotherkinds
of
cul
t
ural
l
i
n
eages.
return tothesewhen I presentthealternative.
o SomefmemeticistsI'll
havepursueda thirdway,seekingnecessaryclarificationfrom
casearch
u for
l a
t neurol
u o
r gicaalbasi
l sformemes(e.g.,Aunger,2003). I believethat this
iasmiscdirected.
Any
such
search
mustinvolveanarticulatedinvestigation at both
q
u
i
s
i
t
conceptualandcognitivelevelswith thestudy of neuralmechanisms,just like any
iother
o investi
n gation in cognitiveneuroscience(Bechtel,2007).TounderstandMIT
acqui
s
i
t
i
o
n,werneedtounderstandtherelationsbetweennewMLTsandtheexisting
oMIT-compl
ementfirst, inordertofigureoutwhatsorts of interactionsweshouldbe
clookingfor
h attheaneurallenvel.Medicalpathologyandimmunologyproviderichsources
mechanismsof parasite-hostinteractions,butnoneforanalogousparasite-parasite
gfor
interactioens,and it is the latter thatdemandsattention for MLIs.Andmemetransmissionis a differentandcommonlyvoluntaryact,andshouldrequirewholeother
sets,respectively of cognitiveandsocialinteractions,tobecoordinatedwiththestudy
oftherelevantarticulatedneuralcircuitsandsystemsfor ustounderstand.
Soneitherthegeneticnorthe viralanalogiesprovidewaysof gettingapowerful
predictivetheory formemes,andwe aren'tevenready to start with cognitive
278 WilliamC.Wimsatt

neuromemologry.Theissueis notwhethermemeticsshouldhaveto look likeone of

theseothersciences; I havealreadyarguedthat it doesn't.Theissueiswhetherwe
haveanybody of theorysystematicenoughto capturethemajorfeatures of how
MLTsaretransmittedandacquiredaswellaswhatmakesthemcomprehensibleand
attractivethatreflectstherichpopulationstructure,contextdependence,andrelevance
ofsomeMLTstowhatwealreadyhavethatmakesit worthwhile toassimilate(and,
sometimes,tomasterandre-transmit)them.Memeticistspuzzleoverwhymemetics
hasseenlittle furthertheoreticaldevelopment.Thereasonfor this isbecause,with
theirfocusonmemes,theyhaveignoredthemanyothersystemstheywouldneed
tostudytoproduceacoordinated,coherent,adequatepicture ofthespreadofmemes.
Thisbroadertheorywouldincludesomememe-like-things,but not in thedominant
roletheyaresupposedtohaveinmemetics,andlackingtheself-replicationproperties
supposedformemes.Thiswouldnotbeamemetictheory.

6TheMyth of Self-replication
Thereis anotherproblem withmemesthat hasdeeproots in theconcept of a
self-replicator, or replicator for short.ThisproblemdatesbacktoRichardDawkins
(1976)andtheidea that strings of DNAareself-replicators.This is reductionistic
mythology.Theidea is thatthere is aninformationalcorethatcontains all of the
informationnecessarytoremakeitselfand,also,a largervehicle or interactor,and
thattheinformationalcoreissomehowself-replicating.Thereis nosuchbeast.Von
Neumann'sself-reproducingautomatahadamachineandatapethattogethermade
anothermachine+ tape,buttherewerenotapescapable of remakingthemselves.
Similarly,over200enzymesarerequired forDNAreplication. Ofcourse,cellsare
self-reproducingastheygothrougha mitoticcell-cycle(well-documentedbyMoss,
2003),butthisisareproductivedevelopmentalcycle,notacopyingevent(seeGriesemer,
2000;WimsattEtGriesemer,2007).Therearemodulesthathavelikecopies ofthem
made,buttheydon'tdo it bythemselves,andthecapability todoso isalwaysvia
alargersystem. It isveryeasytofocusonthesmallerduplicatedparts,especialy if
theyhave a coding role in thesystem's activity in makingother parts of the
system;butwecommitaseriousfunctionallocalization fallacy if weact like the
smallerpart is doing this by itself. If weillegitimately projectonthesmallerpart
theability to replicate orreproduceitself (byignoring the role of theimbedding
systemin thatproduction), it is onlytooeasytosuppose it is thenaturaltendency
ofthatparttoevolveinwaystocatalyzeitsownproduction,atthecostofthelarger
systemorothersuchparts(thus,"selfish").Thiscanhappeninspecialcircumstances.
Thus,weearlyourload of transposons,whichduplicatethemselvesthroughoutthe
genome(using cellularmachinery), until it becomestoo energetically costly to
toleratemore.And cancer cells can throw off sufficient controls for runaway
"selfish"reproduction tocausedissolution of theembeddingsystem;but,thereby,
terminatetheir lineage."However,both ofthesekinds ofeventsarenormallyunder
system-levelcontrols tokeeptheireffectsbounded.
Abetterview ofmemesfollows if theyarenotregarded(asgeneshavebeen)as
thefundamentaldrivers of culturalandbiologicalevolution,respectively,butviewed
asmodesormechanismsof culturalhereditarytransmissionwhichcanapplyand
Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulturalEvolution 279

havesignificanteffectswhencertainconditionsaremet.This is thecourseeffectivelyarguedbySterelny(2006).Sterelny'sanalysisandthisoneare inmanyways

complementary. In his 2006paper he does not emphasizeculturally induced
populationstructure,developmentaldependencies,orsocial,cultural,andinstitutional
contextsufficiently,thoughhedevelopsthesesignificantlymorein hismostrecent
work(Sterelny,2009).
Withmultiplehereditarychannels,andmultiple criteria whichcanbemet in
varyingdegrees for determiningwhatcountsas a hereditarychannel, cultural
evolutionmakes it onlytooeasyto playfastandloosewith callingthings of which
multiplesimilar oridenticalthingsaremade"replicators"andactas if theymaybe
"runningtheshow."Griesemerand I (Wimsatt ft Griesemer,2007) try toshowjust
howdifficult it is toseparateoutrelevantunits ofreproductionfor culture.Generative
entrenchmentandmodularitybothplayimportantroles in thisendeavor,asdoes
development(whichisrequiredforreproduction);butunconstrained"replicator" talk
onlymuddiesthewater.
Isuggestthatone of thereasonswhyBlackmore(thisvolume)is ableto findso
manycriteria formemes,andsomanypossibleobjectswhichcouldbememeson
differentinterpretations, is theloosenessthatgoesalong with loose talk about
replicators.Theotherreasonwhysheis able to find (too)manyplausiblecasesis
that,onmyaccount,therearememe-like-things(MLTs)thatmaybereproduced,and
sometimesevencopied,but,whenthat is thecase, it isbecauseof theexistence of
alargersystemthatproducesthem(usuallyalongwithmanyotherthings),andthey
aredefinitelynoteitherself-replicating or "selfish."
Finally,thesearchforminimalmemes(asproposedbyDennett,1995)is not likely
tobeuseful. Ingenetics,thissearchaidedthedetermination of whatkinds of things
geneswere,ontheassumptionthatthestructure ofgeneswouldexplaintheirremarkableproperties.Thediscovery of theirdouble-helicalstructureandsemi-conservative
reproductionwasgenuinelyexplanatoryasaway of explaining their stability at a
timewhenthegene'sstabilityappearedto contradicttheknowninstability of very
activemolecules.Wiliams(1966)andDawkins(1982)soughtminimalunitsbecause
theyweremorestable in theface of recombination,but thiswasmoreproblematic:
bothignoredthe fact that stability is a function of bothselectionandrecombination(seeTable2ofWimsatt,1980,forcomputedtradeoffs),sotherelationshipsinvolved
inco-adaptedcomplexesmaybemoreevolutionarilystablethanany of theirparts,
asrecentwork in evolutionarydevelopmentalbiologyhasshown(Gilbert,Opitz,
Raff,1996).Theanalogousstrategywould be to look for meaningfuladaptive
complexeswith modifiablecomponents.But,sincewhat is a meaningfulcultural
component,andhow it ispropagated,arebothdeterminedby thelargercognitive
andculturalsystemsin whichtheyareimbedded,findingaminimalmemeticunit
couldnotheexpectedtobeparticularlyinformative in anycase.

7AnAlternativeApproach
Canwedoanybetter?Developmentalconstraintsandthesocialstructures in which
welearnproviderichandtheoreticallysalientsourcesof structure.Thisseemsaproductiveplaceto start.Culturalelementsareacquiredbyindividualsthroughouttheir
1
2

William C. Wimsatt

lifecycles,inwaysthatshowmanydeterminableandpredictablepatterns,mostcommonlybecausetheseelementsplayroles in varioussequentialyacquiredskills that

dependonthem.Theordersandpatterns of acquisitionarenotaccidental,andhave
beencraftedandmodifiedtomakethemmoreefficientandeffective.Someofthese
skils,suchaslanguage,basicself-care,andsocialfunctions,areacquiredby all,and
complementandscaffoldtheacquisition of other,morespecializedskills.Someof
theseadditional skills arecommonenough to a society that theybecomethe
subjectsof curriculaandaretaughtearly inschools,andcan,thereby,midwifemajor
transitions in asocietyandculture,aswhenreadingandbasicnumeracybecame
widespreadcompetencies.
Weacquiremoredifferentiated skills, asalternatives, while training to adopt
differentsocialroles,careers,and life trajectories.Theseskills givecompetenciesto
acquireother skills, facilitated or scaffolded by institutional andorganizational
supportstructuresandinteractions.Thesedynamicalsupportstructures,themselves,
areproducts of culturalevolution,andshowdevelopmentaldependenciesreflecting
howthesestructuresareproducedandelaborated.Onecannotunderstandhowand
whenmemesareacquiredorevenwhatcanbeanMIT (foranindividual, or for a
population)unlessoneunderstandshownewpotential MLTs interact with the
cognitivedevelopmentalstructureofindividuals,andarepropagatedselectivelythrough
socialandcultural institutionsandorganizations.
Considertheacquisition ofmathematicalskills.Asweacquirebasiccognitiveskils
fordiscrimination,countingandone-to-onematching,welearnhowtogeneratenew
numbers,addandsubtract,andmultiplyanddivide.Someof this is by rote(e.g.,
multiplicationtables),butincreasingly it isanchoredbylearninghowto followrules
inat first highlysimilarandthen inmoreexpansiveways.Welearnmanipulation
offractions,decimals,exponents,logarithms,naturalnumbers,signednumbers,rational
numbers,realnumbers,andcomplexnumbers,all byextension of familiarideasin
newways.Throughoutall of thiswearelearningbothgeometryandthroughword
problems,andpracticalapplicationshowtointerpretandusemathematicsinanincreasingrange of naturalsituationsthatorganizeourperceptionsandcognitiveabilities.
Knowingthecalculus of severalvariablesinvolvestheinstinctiveuse ofdozensof
componentskills withmost of them, in turn,dependentuponcomplexcompound
skils,whichmust be built up in sequence.How do we learnthese?Through
practiceandproblemsets,generatingandsolvingthousands of problemsalongthe
way.Wefollowcurricula,whichmaydiffer in finedetailsbuteachof whichreflects
acommonstronglyconstraineddevelopmentaldependencyoftopics,thelater ofwhich
arenotevenmeaningfulwithouthavingmasteredandinternalizedtheearlierones.'
Thecurricula,themselves,areproducts ofalonghistoricaldevelopment,thediscussions of professionalizedexperts,andaremodifiedordifferentiated torespondto
theneedsof varioususercommunities.Thus,themathsequenceincollege,evenfor
verytalentedstudents, will difersometimes in major,sometimesin fairly subtle,
waysforstudentsheaded to become a professionalmathematicians,biologists,
physicalscientists,socialscientists,computerscientists,oreconomists.Andtheskills
mayfurtherbedifferentiatedasindividualsdevelop in theirprofessionbywhether
theyuseMathematica,Spreadsheets,Matlab,variousforms of statisticalpackagesfor
complexdata analysis, or agent-basedsimulations.Nearlythree-quarters of a
centuryago in theirclassicgeneticstext,SturtevantandBeadle(1939)notedboth
Memetics:Not a Way of UnderstandingCulturalEvolution 281

thesequentialdependenceandtheneedforpracticethatstudentsin thequantitative
scienceswill findsofamiliar:
Geneticsis a quantitativesubject i t dealswith ratios, withmeasurements,and with
thegeometricalrelationships of chromosomes i t is a mathematicallyformulated

subjectthatislogicallycompleteandself-contained.Wehaveattemptedtotreatthe
subjectin awaysuggestedbytheseconsiderationsnamelyasalogicaldevelopment
inwhicheachstepdependsupontheprecedingones.Thisbookshouldbereadfrom
thebeginning, like a textbook of mathematicsor physics,ratherthan in an arbitrarily
chosenorder. Genetics alsoresemblesothermathematicallydevelopedsubjects,in that
facility in theuseandunderstanding of its principlescomesonly fromusingthem.The
problemsat theend of eachchapteraredesignedto give this practice. It is important
thattheyactuallybesolved.(p. 11)

8DifferentialDependencyandGenerative
EntrenchmentasBasesfor aTheoryof
EvolutionaryChange
Everycomplexmachinehasdependenciesamongitsstructuralelementsanddynamical
dependenciesin its operation.Butthesedependenciesare not all equallygreat or
important.Anyinterestingmachinehasdifferentialdependenciesfor itsdifferentparts.
Thisisanextremelygeneralandrobusttruth forcomplexsystems(Wimsatt,2001).
Changesin thesedependencies,theirmodulation,andcontrolprovidethebasis for
differentiationandcreation of differentfunctionalrolesbothwithinandbetweenall
complexsystems,includingculturesandthemicro-culturesthatmakeupdifferent
kinds of socialroles.Thesechangesare themeans for the differentiation and
elaboration of cumulativeculture.Thisappliestoevenmoderatelyadaptivesystems
of all kinds,whethertheyarebiological,cultural,technological, or socialones.
Analysisofdependenciesindevelopingstructuresisanextremelygeneralway of
characterizingstructures. It alsoiscrucial forassessingrelativeprobabilities ofchange
fordifferentparts of thatsystem.Thismethod of analysis is nolessgeneralthan
populationgenetics;indeed, it is moregeneralbecause it canbeapplied to the
generativestructuresdirectlywithoutknowledgeof oreventhepresenceofagenetic
structure.Sincerelativedependencieshavefitnessconsequenceswhenthereare
disruptivemutations,dependencystructurescanalsobeusedtobuildpopulationgenetic
models.Sothisapproachcanbeusedwithgenetics, or without. It wasoriginally
usedtomodeltheevolution ofgenecontrolnetworks(Schankft Wimsatt,1988,2000;
Wimsatt ft Schank,1988,2004).
Differentialdependenciesaffecttherelativeeaseofmakingchangestoandin an
evolutionaryprocess,therelativefrequency ofchangesin thestructuresthatshow
them.Deeperchangesaremorestronglyselectedagainstsincetheyaffectmorethings,
aremorework tochange,andaremorelikely tocauseseriousmalfunction in one
ormoreof theirlargernumberofdownstreamconsequences.Thishasimplications
for their evolutionaryrates.Simulationsshowthatdeeplyentrenchedelementsare
highlyconserved,andthatdegree of entrenchmentshouldbeagoodpredictor of
degreeofconservatism.Thisprinciple is widelyusedin evolutionarydevelopmental
WilliamC.Wimsatt
1
2
8

biology in figuringouthowdevelopmentalprogramsworkandhaveevolved(e.g.,
DavidsonEtErwin,2006).Highlyconservedgenesandgenecontrol circuits, phylogenetically,arewidelydistributedandrelativelyancient. It isassumedthattheyplay
deeprolesingeneratingotherdevelopmentalstructures.Thesystematicstudy ofwhich
genesaffecttheexpression of othersisusedwith this relativeconservatismto infer
thedependencystructure ofdevelopmentalcircuits,andfromthat,howtheywork.
Differentialdependenciescanbeusedongeneticcircuits, but theyalsocanbe
appliedto giveanaccount of organization for analternativeconceptualization of
evolutionandprediction of differentialevolutionaryrates.Genesarenotessentialto
suchinferences.Thismakesthetheoryofdependenciesapplicabletocultureandeven
morereadily to technology,wherethedependenciesaremorestrikinglyobvious.
Isuggestthat if MLISareanalyzedandrelated intermsof thedependencystructures
for their acquisition, thisgivesa crucial part of whatisneededtodeterminetheir
evolutionarydynamics. If onehas, in addition, the culturallyinducedpopulation
structure of thecurricula of disciplines,therecruitmentandtraining ofcompanies
andindustries,theconceptualandnormativeslant of religions,ethnicities,andother
affiliationsthatdeterminediffusionandacceptability ofpractices,ideas,andtheuse
ofartifacts,thenthetheoryshouldapplythereaswell.
Inthistheory,thedependencystructuresforindividualsdeterminetheinternalarchitecturesof' culturalgenomes,an"endogenetics"(or, for culture,anendo-memetics).
Theculturallyinducedsociologicalstructurescorrespondtopopulationstructure,and
givean"exo-genetics"(orexo-memetics).Fromtheperspectiveofanindividual,culture
hasbothaninternalandanexternalcomplexityandorganization,and,ideally,these
aretunedtoeachother,sothatindividualsareembeddedin therightsocialstructures
tolearnwhattheyneedtoknowto till socialrolesefficientlyandeffectivelythroughouttheir lifetimes.(Parentsplay a significantrole in steeringchildreneither into
their or into otherproductiveoccupations.)Here,memesplayavery different kind
ofrole,and it nolongerseemsappropriatetodescribethetheoryasinemetic,

9Elements of aDevelopmentalTheoryof
CulturalEvolution
If welookbackatthekinds ofelementswehavediscussed,raised, orpresumedin
thisdiscussion,wefindatleastfivekindsofthingsrequiredforourtheoreticalaccount.
Firstthereareunits, of whichtherearetwotypes:
(I) Meme-likethings(MLTs)thatareunits.Examplesincludeartifacts,practices,
ideaswhich are taught, learned,constructed, or imitated.Theseinclude both
ideationalandmaterialthingsandare,themselves,capable of beingchunked or
black-boxedhierarchically;thus,theyconstitutemultiplelevels of organization.They
maybechunkedeither within anindividual'scognitionandcapabilities, or byan
organizationorprofession,whichputstogetherateamof individualsthatcollectively
havethenecessarycapabilities.
(2)Individualswhoareunits.Examplesincludeentitieswhodevelop,aresocialized,
andtrainedovertime (in multiplecontexts),andwhoseearlier trainingaffectstheir
capabilities,exposure,andreceptivity.
Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulturalEvolution 283

Second,therearethe built parts of thehumancognitive,normative,andaffective

environmentthatscaffoldsacquisitionandperformanceofknowledgeandskills,and
coordinatestheiracquisition.Therearethreetypes of these:
(3)Institutions thatarelikeMLTs,but atsocial/grouplevel,containingnormativerulesorframeworksthatguidebehavior.Examplesincludesocialnormsofbehavior,legalcodes,certificationexams,andtransition rituals likeconfirmation,bar/bat
mitzvah,andgraduations.
(4)Organizationsorself-maintaininggroupsofindividuals,self-organizedforsome
purpose.Theseare like individuals, but at asocial/grouplevel,examples of which
includeinterestgroups,firms,nations,anddisciplines.
(5)Structures or artifacts providing physical infrastructuremaintained on
transgenerationaltimescalesproviding"publicgoods"to thegroupspracticingthe
differentiatedactivity.Governmentbodiesarehybrids of allthree,asaremostother
complexculturalconstructs.
Tounderstandthearticulation of thesekinds of culturalelements,wemustnote
thatmanyarespecificallydesignedto aidtheconstructionordevelopmentofcompetenciesamongindividualsandorganizations.Griesemerand I call thisscaffolding,
anddistinguishagent-scaffolding,artifactscaffolding,andinfrastructuralscaffolding
(WimsattEtGriesemer,2007).Thus,there is onemorekind of thing(havingthree
sub-types)thatwemustdiscuss.
(6)Scaffoldingreferstostructure-likedynamicalinteractionswithperformingindividualsthataremeansthroughwhichotherstructuresorcompetenciesareconstructed
oracquiredbyindividualsororganizations.Thus,forexample,chaperonemoleculesscaffoldtherightconfigurationforfoldingproteins,andthecellscaffoldsgenereplication
andexpressionsofully thatonewonderswhethertherelevantreproductiveunit isthe
cellratherthanthegeneorgenome.Onecanseeparallelsherewiththerichness of
thescaffoldingprovidedbythearrangedcontextsoftheenculturatedsocializedhuman:
(6a)Scaffolding forindividuals,examplesofwhichincludefamilystructure,schools,
curricula,disciplines,professionalsocieties,church,work-organization,
interest-groups,governmentalunits,laws.
(6b)Scaffolding fororganizations,examplesof whichinclude(takingbusinesses
askinds of organizations)articles of incorporation,corporatelaw,manufacturers'organizations,chambersofcommerce,anddistributionnetworks
formanufacturedparts in thebusinessworld.Otherkinds of organizations
wouldhaveotherkinds of scaffoldingappropriatetothem.
(6c)Infrastructuralscaffoldingaparticularlyimportantkind of scaffolding of
suchbroadapplicability that it maybe difficult to saywhat particular
individualsororganizationsandwhatcompetencies it isdesignedfor.These
areinfrastructures, and our technological civilization has manysuch
systems:roads,sea,rail,andairnetworks,shoppingcenters,truckfarming,
gas,water,power,telephone,distributionwarehousesandnetworks,public
transport,theEthernet.Becauseit facilitatessomanydiversekinds of things,
thiskind of scaffolding,arguably, is maximallyentrenched.
WilliamC.Wimsatt

Becauseculturalheredity in its fullyfledgedmodernforminvolvesthearticulated

interaction of all ofthesekinds of things,wecanseethatthememe-likethingsare
justthe tip of theiceberg.Tobeamemefor that individual at thatdevelopmental
stagelocated in thatsocialandculturalnexus,alargenumberof relationshipsconferringunderstanding,motivation,andopportunitytopropagateoracquirethatmeme
mustbesatisfied.Memeticsis satisfiedwith far too little to providethebasis for a
theorythatcouldbeeitherexplanatoryor predictive.

10NewPredictions of ThisTheory
Now,wecanmakeseveralpredictionsfromatheoryarticulating cultural diffusion
andchangeinterms of thedependenciesof thepropagatedelements:
(1)Featuresearlier indevelopmentthataremoregenerativelyentrenchedshould
tendtobemoreevolutionarilyconservative,yieldingvonBaer's"laws"roughly,that
earlierdevelopmentalstagestendto lookmorealikethanlaterstages(Gould,1977).
Andthis predicts life cycles:successivegenerationsmuststart in places like their
parents,howevermuchtheydivergelater, until reproduction"closes"andrestarts
thecycle(Wimsatt,2001).
(2)Newpopulationgeneticmodelsofentrenchment(SchankEtWimsatt,1988)give
purchaseon"complexitycatastrophes"andtheevolution of modularity(WimsattEt
Schank,1988,2004),whicharealsosuggestivefor culture.
Withincognitionandculture othernewphenomenaarisethroughgenerative
entrenchment:
(3)Prediction (I) hasimplications for cross-culturalinvariants of cognitive
developmentandlanguagelearning ofthesortstudiedsincePiaget(1954),andother
biologicaldeterminantsthat arepreconditions for humancognitionandculture.
Anewentrenchmentaccount of phenomenaspoken of as"innate"capturesthe
maximalconsistentsubsetof criteria forinnatenessandpredictsnewones(Wimsatt,
1986,2002).Wecanunderstandthedeleteriouseffects of earlydeprivation,therole
ofearlydevelopment,thegenerativerole ofinnatefeatures,andtheuniversalityclaimed
forinnatetraits.Wecandoso in waysconsistentwithnewperspectives in evolutionarydevelopmentalbiology,andavoidsthestaticideas of geneticdetermination
afflicting traditionalaccounts.
(4) For culture,asthingsgetmoredeeplyentrenched,weresistchangingthem,suggestinghowthingsbecomeconventional,standardized,andacquireanormativeloading.
(5)Standardizationiscrucialtotechnologicalprogresswhenfurtherdevelopments
requirecommoncomponents,amoregeneralfeature of thetrulycumulativeculture
soughtbyRichersonandBoyd(2005);acoordinationgamethendrivesthestandards
tofixation;standardizedcomponentsthencanbecomeacombinatorialalgebra for
designingandmakingadiversity ofotherbiologicalorculturalentities,suchasgenes,
proteins,cells,words,sentences,machines,or otheradaptations.
(6) In literarytheory,Turner(1991)employsentrenchmenttoexplaindiferences
betweenliteralandfigurativemeaning.
Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulturalEvolution 285

(7)Differencesbetweenbiologyamlcultureinhowwecangenerate,anddealwith,
dceplyentrenchedchangesarecrucial to the rapidityandsornetimesrevolutionary
characterof culturalchange(WimsattEtGrieserner,2007).
(8)Some furtherobservationsaboutchange in complexcultural structures:
(small)thingswithnogenerativestructureareparadigmatic"nakedmeines"andpermitthehighesthorizontaltransmissionratesconsistentwith thechannelcharacteristics.Memetheoristsseernto liketheser-selectivecasesthemost.Theyreflect, in
themselves,theleaststructure,andthusmostengersocialscientistswhenofferedes
examplesof "culture."Theseare,however,specialkinds ofdegeneratecase,amiarenot
revealingof thebroaderculturalprocessesthatmakethempossible.
(9)Themoreceinplexthe cultural trait, themoreslowly it shouldspread; it is
morecomplexto learnandtoteach(internalcmnplexity).
(10)Traits entirelynew to the culturemaybeharder to interface with other
culturalelements,sothatnooneknowsmuchof whattheyneedtomaster it, or it
mayconflictwithotherculturalvalues.
(11)Traits entirelynewshouldshowalongerlag(andpossiblyintermediatestetes)
beforespreading;theytaketime toteach,learn,adapt,(simplify?),andrecontextualize(relationalcomplexity).Andthey will belearnedbyasmallernumberof individuals!ohospecializeforthenaivtraitunless ltbecomes"socialyrequired."Thechance
of 'falling off thetrack" will increaseevenforthosetlying tocompletethe traft.
(12)Onemaythereforefindsuccessivewavesofadoptionofpartsorsimpi(fications
of it whichareself-sustaining,andmayultimatelyelaborate(speciate)alongnaiv
tracksandcompetewithandblockspread of hieoriginal traut. (Similarprocesses
mayhaveplayed a role in thespreadanddiversification of functions of written
languages(Sanders,2006)andtheemergenceoflanguagedialects(Mufwene,2008).
Now,consideraspectsofgeneevolutionrelevant to theacquisition of culture:
(12) I f acultural traithasastructuretvhichisgeneevolved,complex,andimportant,morescaffoldingshouldevolve(eitherstructurallytransgenerationalsupportsor
co-adaptedandontogeneticallyacquiredcompetencies)to facilitatelearning it.
And(13), if thescaffoldingcanbeusedtolearnotherthings, lt maybecomemore
entrenchedthantheoriginal,anexaptiveelaboration,aswithmathematicsor writing.
(14)Evolutionstructurestheorganization ofdevelopmentalprograins(dispositions
ofresources)sothatassemblyofGEstructureswillbecome(andlook)increasinglyseiforganizingandself-maintainingreliablyacrosstherange of environrnentsnormally
encountered.(Sogeneevolutionandso-called"seif-organization"shouldinteractrichly.)
Finally(15),judgments of "importance" ofMOSicultural traits will derivelargely
fromtheirgenerativeentrenchmentin theproduction of othercultural traits. This
judgmentshouldberobust, in that it shouldbesharedbothbyparticipants in that
cultureandbyexternalstudents of it.

11Conclusion
Bynow, I hopetohaveshownthat,andwhy,memeticshasstalled in its developmentandis aninadequatebasisfor atheory of culturalevolution.Indeed, I should
1
2861 WilliamC.Wimsatt

haveshownsomethingstronger:that notheorywithout a riehaccount of therole

of individualandinstitutionaldevelopmentcanprovideanadequateaccount.Thus,
althoughBoydandRicherson(1985,2005;Richerson a Boyd,2005)havemadea
powerfulbeginningonethat helps to defme thelandscape for all subsequent
theorytheycannot finish the job or characterizecomplexcumulative culture
withoutincorporatingdevelopmentalcomponents.Andniche-constructiontheory
(Odling-Smee,Laland,EtFeldman,2003)makesanimportantmove in the right
direction(bothtowarddevelopmcntandtowardrecognizingtheimportance of scaffolding);butbotharedevelopedinsuchablack-boxfashionthattheyarepresently
inadequateto this task.Furthermore, I havesketchedsomeof thenewphenomena
thatcanbeaddressedbyatheorythatincludesindividualandinstitutionaldevelopment,andoutlincdmanynewpredictionssuggestedbythisaccount.(Furtherdetails
canbefound in Wimsatt,2001,2002; WimsattELGriesemer,2007; WimsattELSchank,

2004,andthepapersreferred to there.)

Postscript:Counterpoint
Blackmore'sdiscussionmightseemtosuggestthattheaccountpresentedhereismerely
anelaboration ofmemetheory.1disagree.1denythatMLTsarecharacteristically
eitherselfishorcapable of self-reproduction.And thetheory of whichtheyarea
partdrawsitsmainpredictivepowerfromtheanalysesofdependenciesincomplex
systems.1havetakenpains todiscusssomeof thewaysmemeticssharesfeatures
withthisalternativetheory, in virtue of thefact thatbothemphasizeculturaltransmissionandevolution,but I hope it isapparentthatthepoints ofconvergenceare
faroutweighedby theirdifferences.
Butthere ismore.Fortheaccount I proposealsosuggestslimitingcaseswhere
memeticsshould work, as virus-like horizontaltransmission,although without
attributingthepower fr sclf-reproduction or selfishbehaviortomemes. If meme
acquisitionandpropagationrequires all of theseconditionsonindividualdevelopmentandpriorknowledgeandvalues,oninstitutionalandorganizationalinfrastructure
andscaffolding,thenwecanalsospecify limitingcaseswhenwecanpredictoutcomeswithoutattending to all of thisdetailbecausethepopulationandsocialand
culturalstmcturesaresufficientlycommonandhomogeneousthattheydropout of
thepredictiveequation.Picksomethingthatdependsonlyuponsharedlanguage,
cultureandvaluesandsuchbasicknowledgethateveryonealike isinfectable,somethingsufficientlyuncontroversialthat it is equallyattractive to all, andsomething
sufficientlysimplethat itstransmissioncanbetreatedasasingle-stageprocess.Then
memetheoryworkspretty well. Butthen it nolongerdiffers fromthepredictions
thatmightbemadebyothertheories.

Notes
1A possibleexceptionwouldbe the growingdomain of Internetviruses,Trojanhorses,
andthe like, all discussedbyAunger(2003).Theyhavewell-describedadaptations fr
replication,butdonotevolvebythemselves.Theseinterestingcasesfit neitherthernemetic
M e m e t i c s : NotaWayofUnderstandingCulture!Evolution 287

northegeneticparadigms,but areproducts of nurtechnology.Spontaneouslyevolving

artificial life deservesfurther attention, and it evolves in an electronicsubstrate in
software-scaffoldedniches.
2SusanBlackmoreurgesthat"memetics"alsosupportsa"generalselectionparadigm."But
theparadigmdoesnotneedmemetics,andwasadvocatedbyothersbeforeDawkins(1976).
Campbell(1965)arguedthe pointevenmorebroadly, starting (in 1956) with parallels
betweenselectionand trial-and-error learning,extended it to culture in 1965and, by
1974,included10 distinct levels of "vicariousselectors,"several of themat the cultural
leveLLewontin's(1970)elegantelaboration of"Darwin'sprinciples"hadaformativeinfluence
inrecognizing multiple units of selection(Wimsatt,1980).Campbell(1965) puts the
selectionistparadigmmostbroadly: "Anycaseof fit betweena(complex)systemand its
environmentshouldbeexplainedby selection"(p.20).
3Google is still morefrequentthanmeine.Evengoogle-inggut 5 x 10**6hits.
4Some earliertheorists(e.g.,LumsdenetWilson,1981)sought tosecculturaldifferences
asduetogeneticdifferences.Mosttheorists (e4,BoydetRicherson,1985;Cavalli-Sforza
ElFeldman,1981;Durham,1991;RichersonElBoyd,2005)havefocusedon a "dualinheritance"gene/cultureco-evolutionmodel.Wesharewithmemetheorists aconcentration on the vast majority of culturalprocesses for which geneticdifferences are
withoutknownsignificanteffects.Theseviewscan all beseenas lying onacontinuum.
At the earlieststages of acquisition of the cultural capacity,genetics(plusepigenetics)
wouldhaveplayedthemostobviousrole.Asculturecameto playalargerrole,behavioral
transmission(Jablonka a Lamb'sthirdchannel)andgene/cultureco-evolutionshouldbe
moreobvious.And in the mostrecentstages,quasi-independentculturalchangehas
dominated.In part, this issobecauseof theincreasingrates ofcommunicationandchange
mutepossible in the last two millennia, but alsochange in theWest to a culture that
valueschangeover stability andbaspushed,throughwar, colonization,andcommerce,
arapidlyescalatingtechnologicalevolution.
5Despite claims to the contrary,genesare not se/freplicating,exceptaspart of a'arger
system,the cell(Moss,2003).
6See, for example,CrowElKimura(1970)andSturtevantEtBeadle(1939),respectively.
Botharedevelopedessentialyusingaclassicalgeneticperspective.
7As with virtually everythingeisein biology,thereareexceptions.Thus,aphidshaveabout
20asexualgenerationsperyear(sothat they don'tneedmatesearly in theseasonwhen
theyarerare),followed byonesexualgenerationbeforewinter (toreapthebenefits of
recombination).Andhaplodiploidy iscommonin thesocialinsects.
8Therecanbeglaciallyrareexceptionsto this,too.Thus,thereareapparentcasesofgenome
doublings.Genesonlyextremelyrarelymigratefromonespeciesto another(andusually
doso via viral or bacterialtransfer),thoughevenraremigrationscanbesignificanton
amacro-evolutionarytimescale.
9Dan Sperber's"cultural epidemiology"(1996) is probably the mostpromising of these
variants.Heconsidersaspects of cognition thatbiasreceptivity or transmission of ideas,
leadingpossibly tobiased,failed, or transformedtransmission.(Notethat this is a propertynot of MLTs,but of thecognitivesystem,reflecting itsdesignainisandconstraints,
soit countersdie"selfishmeme"account.)ChristopheHeintz'slecture"MathematicalCognition
andHistory:ACaseStudyontheNotion of Infinitesimals"(2009)arguesthatthesekinds
of factorsplayeda role in motivating thereplacement of infinitesimalsby limits in the
developmentof thecalculus.Sperber'sideaalsorelatesnaturally to thesuggestionbelow
(section10, point 12) that variants of anMLTthat are simplified ortransformed to be
moreculturally coherentmaybetransmittedmorerapidly andevencompetewith the
original.TheRelevanceaccountofSperberandWilson(1986)mayalsobeusefui in understandingthemicroprocesses of sequential skill acquisition. Butonewould still needthe

2881

WilliamC.Wimsatt

structuredcognitive contentand scaffoldingarchitectureproposedhere to widerstand

theacquisitionandrelevantuse of theenormousnumber of MLTs to beacquired in a
lifetime.
10 l t is unclearhowto quantifyhowmanydistinct culturalelementsoneacquires, but ihr
crude"Order of magnitude"estimates,consider the vocabularies we master or the
numberofchesspositionsrecognizablebyachessmaster.Both of theseare of aboutthis
size(SimonEtChase,1973).Thisis clearlyanunderestimatewhenoneconsidersthemany
differentkinds of thingsweknovvhow to du,andwhen.
11 I don'theremeanto ignore themanyother crucial individuators of socialboundaries
e.g.,ethnicity, religion, socialdass,nationality,andraceall of whichmediatethemaintenanceandpropagation of MUS.
12Postmodernistmetaphorshave led to a free reification of worlds,whennichesare a
better fit. This is exploited by thenew"nicheconstruction"theory of Odling-Smeeet al.
(2003),thoughonemustrecognizethat culturalnichesandunits areorders of magnitudemorecomplex,andrequire a distinct strategy of approach(WimsattEtGriesemer,
2007).
13Grosberg a Strathmann(1998)spcculatethattheterrnination ofcancerouslineagesis the
reasonswhyinetazoansgothrougha single-cellstage.
14The rich co-evolution of teaching and learning rnethods, the relevant institutional
supportstmctures,andthedevelopmentof mathematicalphysicsatCambridgefrom1750
to1930iselaborated in Warwick'sfascinating(2003)study,andsummarizedin Wimsatt
ElGriesemer(2007).

References
Aunger,R.(2003).Theelectricmeine.NewYork:FreePress.
Bechtel,W.(2007).Mentalmechanisms:Philosophicalperspectivesoncognitiveneuroscience,
NewYork:Routledge.
Blackmore,S.(1999).Themeinemachine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Boyd,R.,EtRicherson,P.(1985).Cultureandtheevolutionaryprocess.Chicago:University of
ChicagoPress.
Boyd,R., ElRicherson, P. (2005).The origin andevolution of cultures.Oxford,UK:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Campbell,D. (1956).Perception as substitute trial and error. PsychologicalReview, 63,
330-342.
Campbell,D. (1965). Blind variation andselectiveretention in socio-cultural evolution. In
H.Barringer,G.Blanksten,EtR.Mack(Eds.),Socialehangein developing(ums: A reinterpretation of evolutionarytheory(pp.19-49).Cambridge,MA:Schenkman.
Campbell,D.(1974).Evolutionaryepistemology. In P. Schilpp(Ed.),Thephilosophy of Karl
Popper(pp.412-463).LaSalle, IL:OpenCourt.
Cavalli-Sforza,L.,EtFeldman,M.(1981).Culturalevolutionandtransmission:Aquantitative
approach.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Crow,J.,EtKimura,M.(1970).Anintroduction to populationgenctictheory.NewYork:Harper
EtRow.
Davidson,E.,EtErwin,D.(2006).Regulatotynetworksandtheevolution of animalbodyplans.
Science,311, 796-800.
Dawldns,R.(1976).Theseifishgene.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Dawkins,R.(1982).Theextendedphenotype.SanFrancisco:W.B.Ereeman.
Dennett,D.(1995).Darwin'sdangerousidea:Evolutionandthemeanings of life.NewYork:
SimonEtSchuster.

Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulturalEvolution

289

Durham,W.(1991),Coevolution:Genes,cultureandhumandiversity. Stanford,CA:Stanford
UniversityPress.
Gilbert, S., Opitz, J., et Raff, R. (1996).Resynthesizingevolutionary anddevelopmental
biology.DevelopmentalBiology,173,357-372.
Gould,S.(1977).Ontogenyandphylogeny.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Griesemer,J. (2000).Reproductionand the reduction of genetics. In P. Beurton,R. Falk,Et
H.Reinberger(Eds.),Theconcept of thegcne indevelopmentandevolution(pp.240-285).
Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Grosberg,R.,EtStrathmann,R.(1998).Onecell, two cell, red cell, blue cell:Thepersistence
of aunicellularstage in multicellular life histories.Trends in Ecologyet Evolution,13(3),
112-116.
Heintz,C.(2009).Adothematicalcognitionandhistory:Acasestudyonthenotion of' infinitesimals.KonradLorenzInstitute,Augsberg,Austria.LecturepresentedonMarch11at theInstituto
deInvestigacionesFilosoficas.NationalAutonomousUniversity of Mexico,Mexico City.
Jahlonka,E.,EtLamb,M.(2005).Evolution in fourdimensions:Genetic,epigenetic,behavioral
andsymbolicvariation in the history of life.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Lewontin,R.(1970).Theunits of selection.AmtualReviewofEcologyandSystematics,1, 1-18.
Lipo,C.,O'Brien,M., Collard, M.,EtShcnnan,S.(Eds.).(2006).Mapping miraneestors.New
Brunswick,NJ:AldineTransaction.
LurnsdenC., Et Wilson, E. (1981).Genes,mind, and cultureCambridge, MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Moss,L.(2003).Whatgenescan'tdo.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Mufwene, S. (2008).Langttage cvolution: Contact, compctition, and changeLondon:
ContinuumInternationalPublishingGroup.
Nisbett,R.(2003).Thegeography of thought:HowAsionsandWesternersthink differently
andwhy.NewYork:FreePress.
Odling-Smee,P., Laland,K.,EtFeldman,M.(2003).Nicheconstruction:Theforgottenproeess
inevolution.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Piaget, J. (1954).The child's conception of the workl (T.A. Brown,C.E.Kaegi, M.R.
Rosenzweig,Trans.).NewYork:RowmanEtLittlefield.
Richerson,P.,EtBoyd,R.(2005).Notbygenesalone:Howculturetransformedhumanevolution.
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Sanders,S.L.(Ed.).(2006).Margins of writing, origins of cultures.Oriental InstituteSeminar
Na.2, University of Chicago.
Schank,J., Et Wimsatt, W. (1988).Generativeentrcnchmentand evolution. In A. EineEt
P.Machamer(Eds.1,ThePhilosophy of ScienceAssociation-1986 (Vol. 2, pp.33-60).East
Lansing,MI:ThePhilosophy of ScienceAssociation.
Schank,J., ft Wimsatt,W.(2000),Evolvability: Modularityandgenerativeentrenchment. In
R.Singh,C.Krimbas,D.Paul,EtJ.Beatty(Eds,),ThinkingaboutEvolution:Historical, philosophicalandpoliticalperspectives(pp.322-335).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Simon,H.,EtChase,W.(1973).Perception in chess.CognitivePsychology,4, 55-81.
Sperber,D.(1996).Explainingculture, a naturalisticapproach.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Sperber,D.,EtWilson,D.(1986),Relevancc:CommtmicationandcognitiomOxford,UK:Blackwell.
Sterelny, K. (2006).Memesrevisited. British Journal fr hie Philosophy of Science,57,
145-165.
Sterelny,K.(2009).Thefate of thethirdchimpanzee.(The2008NicodLectures.)Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.
Sturtevant,A., EtBeadle,G.(1939).An introduction to genetics.NewYork:DoverBooks,
Turner,M.(1991).Readingminds.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Warwick,Z.S.(2003).Dietary fatdose-dependentlyincreasespontaneouscalodcintake in rat.
ObesityResearch,11, 859-864.
WilliamC.Wimsatt
290

Wiliams,G.(1966),Adaptationandnaturalselection:A critique ofsomecurrentevolutionaty

thought.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Wimsatt,W.(1980).Reductionisticrescarchstratcgiesand theirbiases in the units of selectioncontroversy.In T. Nickles(Ed.),Seienliftediscovery,Vol.11:Casestudies(pp.213-259).
Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:Reidel.
Wimsatt,W.(1986).Dcvelopmentalconstraints,generativeentrenchment,andtheinnate-acquired
distinction. In W.Bechtel(Ed.),integrating scientific disciplines(pp.185-208).Dordrccht,
TheNetherlands:Martinus Nijhoff.
Wirnsatt,W.(1999).Genes,memes,andculturalinheritance.BiologyandPhilosophy,14,279-310.
Wimsatt,W. (2001).Generativeentrenchmentand thedevelopmentalsystemsapproach to
evolutionaryprocesses.In S.Oyama,R.Gray,Et P. Griffiths(Eds.),Cycles of contingency:
Developmentalsystemsandevolution(pp.219-237).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Wimsatt,W.(2002).Usingfalsemodelstoelaborateconstraintsonprocesses:Biendinginheritance in biological vs. cultural evolution.Philosophy of Science,69(3), SI2-S24.
Wimsatt,W.(2007).Re-engineeringphilosophy for litnited beings:Piecewiseapproximations
toreality.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Wimsatt,W., EtGriesemer, J. (2007).Reproducingentrenchments to scaffold culture:The
centralrole ofdevelopmentin culturalevolution.InR.SansoineEtR.Brandon(Eds.),Integraling
evolutionanddevelopment:Fromthcory to proctice(pp.228-323).Cambridge,MA: MIT
Press,
Wimsatt,W.,EtSchank,J. (1988).Twoconstraintsan the evolution of complexadaptations
andthemeansfor theiravoidance.In M.Nitecki(Ed.),Evolutionatyprogrcss(pp.231-273).
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Wimsatt,W.,EtSchank,(2004). Generativeentrenchment,modularityandevolvability:When
genicselectionmeetsthewholeorganism. In G.SchlosserEtG.Wagner(Eds.),IVIodularity
inevolutionanddevelopment(pp.359-394).Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.

Memetics:NotaWayofUnderstandingCulture!Evolution

291