On the Nature of Memeology: People and Problems
Problems
Memeology has a number of problems and gaps, which prevent its spread both among ordinary people and among researchers. Nevertheless, the issues of memeology should be sought in memetics, more precisely in the very definition of the term "meme", "a unit of cultural information". It happens that memes are an extremely interesting, but still an abstract concept. They had been suggested in order to explain the processes of cultural evolution and draw analogies with the biological development of life on Earth, but raised even more questions. Obviously that diversity and dynamism of culture don't tolerate such ideas, which lets many challenge the legitimacy of memetics. Even Dawkins himself recognized the speculative nature of his theory, but this didn't prevent many researchers from developing the subject and raising memes to the rank of science.
However, the main problem of memeology lies in its gene nature which is the most arguable aspect of the theory. In the most important article 'Meme Classification' I criticized not memetics itself, but the term "meme". In other words, the concept of a meme is in a peculiar position: on the one hand, it was coined as the basis of vague knowledge, but on the other, it is rather useless itself. Only the Internet put everything in its place, causing the full justification of memes. In the same article, I proposed a couple of my own concepts, partly solving some of the problems of Dawkins' meme. My definition of a meme as an idea, enclosed in a form and spreading in society, is more specific than the original explanation, but is still conditional. Roughly speaking, if before the meme was primarily a tool for the biological concept of cultural development, in my case it looks like an attempt to classify the whole culture, more resembling semiotics. On the other hand, my definition does neither ignore nor conflict with subjects of study of other academic disciplines. Basically, anything can be a meme, still remaining a part of the field of study material. It can be a language unit (linguistics), sign (semiotics), art composition (art history), and even a person (anthropology). Also, I have tried to explain the diversity, introducing the polymeme, but it's not a panacea because the problem of determining the multiplicity of ideas still remains. The spread of memes which is the basis of the original memetics is also in question, again referring us to the problems of cultural evolution.
Sure, all those fundamental issues of memetics are essential and directly affect on memeology, but there are some other urgent problems. First of all, not everyone understands what a meme is, and what memeology really studies, since the boundaries of this term are blurred. As I understand, memeology studies Internet memes (therefore, postmemes and specific original content, the product of weblore that includes the notorious "funny pictures"), i.e. any memes that spread online. Generally, memeology is an actual section of web culturology which does neither ignore nor contradict it, but suggests new methods and concepts. Besides, memeology is not a science, but a theory, and it is unlikely to break through into the "mainstream" academic disciplines because of the memetics' reputation, as well as to become mass, at least not that soon.
Departing from the concept of memes as genes (also in the context of terminology), I also made the reverse-tautological term "memenetics" (or "memegenetics") which refers to the study of the history of memes: memegenesis or memenesis. In general, my version of memeology is a reversal reappraisal of memetics and is full of excessive terms (as described below), but I simply don't see any other way of developing this theory.
People
In spite of today's condition of memeology, there are many websites, blogs, articles, and independent meme researchers on the web. Journalists who write about memes, often superficially, in the framework of non-specialized publications and news sites, are kind of wannabe-memeologists; therefore, in most cases they are not included in this system. Memeology as such is divided into several branches: the "raw" memeology (Meme Insider, Afraid to Dive), memenetics, the most simple and common section, studying the meme history (KnowYourMeme and its Russian analog Memepedia), and memeosophy, a view on memes through the prism of philosophy (The Philosopher's Meme). Besides the mentioned websites, there are, actually, much more obscure representatives, including Russian memeologists: Gucci Dasein (memeosophy), the project of my friend (memeology/memenetics) who has already been mentioned in the article about Russian memes, and numerous single articles (for example, about Gondola, or irony). Also, one cannot forget a whole layer of YouTube memeologists, since the format of video essays with all its dynamics can tell a lot more than typical text articles.
A high threshold is one of the obstacles to explore root memeology and memeosophy, which is caused by specific factors. It can be applied to the three most productive, in my opinion, meme-dedicated resources: Meme Insider, The Philosopher's Meme, and this blog, Afraid to Dive. Beside the memes themselves, a potential reader should know some additional information, which creates the different levels of barriers to entry. For example, MI has a low barrier, but for full immersion you really need to know what happens in r/MemeEconomy. As I see, this binding to the subreddit and "jokingly-economic" character fetters the magazine, not letting it develop fully. TPM requires an external barrier to entry: you need to be aware of some philosophical basis. As for AtD, it has an internal barrier to entry. This means that I create all terminology by myself (therefore providing the context) and operate mainly with it, but sometimes it has to be ignored (like in the case of memes and postmemes) in order to intentionally lower the barrier to entry for an unprepared reader. A paradox occurs: on the one hand, memeology suffers from the lack of unity, categorized and regulated system of data and terms, but on the other, oversaturation with terms might not only prevent the reader from infusing into the theory, but may also confuse other researchers.
However, we have to deal with the fact that memeology, like every particularized knowledge, will not become fully mass, only gaining popularity among the interested people and local blogs. To resolve this, I have the concept of the "memeologist bomb" in my head, a wave of post-ironic memes that could be infiltrated into the "dank" communities to attract the narrow persons to memeology. The "bomb" would explain some basis of the theory (of course, going beyond memenetics) in the playfully-ironic form, actually having a sincere idea. Unfortunately, such a complicated concept could remain misunderstood and unappreciated. However, if all memeologists will gather together, they are capable of changing way more than it seems. If only there was no hypothetical "ideology break" that can split the community of meme researchers on several detached parties. It's possible that among them there will be the so-called "economists" who explain web processes from the point of view of attention economy: this is what some authors of Meme Insider are already doing.
One way or another, memeology is evolving. I have already laid some basis for the meme research, and there will be even more. Although many things have been already done, I cannot stop on achieved material. Moving forward is the only way for memes and meme theory.
Comments
Post a Comment