In this blog post, I will examine the concept of “memes” proposed by Richard Dawkins to explain human behavior and culture, and explore the potential and limitations of memes as a framework for explaining human culture and behavior.
How Can Memes Explain Human Behavior?
Ever since the emergence of culture, humanity has continuously worshiped something in the form of primitive religions such as totemism or nature worship, which evolved into world religions like Buddhism and Islam. Religion has had a profound influence on the formation of the human mind and culture; while contributing to cultural exchange and the development of humanism, it has also been used as a powerful ideological system to govern nations and societies. Among the world’s religions, Christianity in particular has long exerted a powerful influence by advocating the theory of creation; during the period when religion’s influence was at its peak, few people questioned the belief that God created all things. However, this belief began to be significantly shaken by Charles Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, published in 1859, and even today, the debate surrounding creationism and evolution continues in various forms. Amid this debate between two opposing positions, the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ further broadened the controversy, expanding the scope of discussion beyond explaining human and animal behavior from a genetic perspective to include culture and religion.
Dawkins explained various behavioral patterns and social behaviors in animals from the perspective of the selfishness of genes, and coined the term “meme” to describe the unique phenomena observed in humans as cultural beings. A meme was presented as a self-replicator, embodying the concept of a unit of cultural transmission or a unit of imitation. Anything transmitted through imitation can broadly be described as a meme, with slogans, fads, and catchphrases serving as prime examples. In this way, Dawkins sought to explain the uniqueness of human culture through the concept of memes, viewing them as replicators that exhibit characteristics similar to genes. He therefore explained that, like genes, memes possess three characteristics: fidelity, which ensures accurate replication; prolificacy, which enables the production of a large number of copies; and longevity, which allows for replication over a long period of time. Scholars interested in this perspective established a field of study known as memetics, and discussions ensued regarding whether meme research could serve as a method for understanding cultural evolution. However, explaining human uniqueness solely through the emergence of a new self-replicator is far from sufficient, and even in Dawkins’s work, the lack of concrete research and explanation regarding the human species itself raises numerous questions. Consequently, researchers have emerged who either reject Dawkins’s explanation of humanity or critique it from alternative perspectives, and I, too, share these concerns. Starting with the fundamental reason why Dawkins conceived the concept of memes, I will now examine the extent to which the concept of memes can explain human culture.
Are memes truly self-replicators like genes?
First, there is the question of whether memes actually possess the characteristics of genes. Looking at animal evolution, as mentioned earlier, genes—as replicators—are replicated over a long period spanning many generations. Similarly, in the case of memes as cultural replicators, the traditions and customs that humanity has passed down through the generations were not created overnight but were formed over a long period through processes of change and selection.
These cultural traditions and customs can be seen as largely aligning with the three characteristics of memes mentioned earlier. In other words, there is room to apply the concept of memes proposed by Dawkins to explain these phenomena. However, memes also encompass cultural phenomena that do not necessarily match one of the three characteristics—specifically, “lifespan.” Trends or songs that top the charts often emerge and disappear within a very short period. Such phenomena can also be driven by a single influential individual or group. For example, music charts are shaped and constantly reshuffled by the choices of highly influential individuals—such as popular singers—or the general public. Of course, a single song may endure and evolve over time, but the trend itself often spreads rapidly over a very short period and then disappears completely, rather than being imitated over a long period spanning multiple generations. Another characteristic of trends can be observed: something that was popular in the past may reappear without necessarily undergoing any transformation. If we draw an analogy with genes, this can be described as a trait that had previously disappeared reappearing; however, this differs in nature from the evolutionary process of genes, which are constantly changing and being selected.
Next, it is necessary to examine the fact that the members of a meme are linked to collectively formed biological organisms. However, in the latter part of ‘The Selfish Gene’, Dawkins argued that, while biologists generally view biological organisms as coming first and recognize self-replicators as mechanisms used by those organisms, it is essential to bear in mind that—in order to understand biology correctly—self-replicators take precedence over biological organisms not only in terms of history but also in terms of significance. In other words, while emphasizing the perspective that self-replicators take precedence over biological individuals, the explanatory framework becomes ambiguous because, when explaining memes, biological individuals—including humans—are established as the fundamental mediators. Considering that biological individuals transmitting memes are, to a certain extent, driven by their genes, one could ultimately argue that a collection of genes influences the formation of memes. As evidence, one can point to the fact that imitation and cultural behavior are observed even in animals whose behavior is governed by genes. According to Dugatkin’s book, in an experiment using guppies as test subjects, one group of guppies was allowed to observe another group selecting mates. As a result, it was found that when the observer group subsequently selected mates, they exhibited behavior similar to that of the group they had previously observed. This suggests the possibility that behavioral transmission through imitation occurs in animals as well. However, Dawkins also explained that a unique aspect of humans is their ability to resist genes to some extent. If so, since human cultural memes—formed alongside human imitation and driven by a common purpose—may be influenced by causes or purposes beyond mere self-interest, we must instead view the role of biological individuals as more significant. Therefore, in the debate over whether biological individuals or self-replicators exert greater influence on memes, if it is possible that biological individuals have a greater impact, this raises the question of whether memes are truly a phenomenon dominated by self-replicators.
Can religion be explained as a meme?
Let us now examine religion, one of the greatest achievements created by humans through culture. Religion acts as a major factor in determining human behavior. Dawkins is known as a staunch atheist, and in his book ‘The God Delusion’, he explained religious activity by linking it to a kind of “mind virus.” He argued that the brain of a young child—which is prone to accepting anything as true—can function like a computer program infected by a virus, and that humans infected with a mind virus modify their behavior in ways that spread that virus further. He also argued that religion is strongly influenced by memes and can be viewed as the result of memes about God being imitated and transmitted. Dawkins’s argument can be understood as a critical examination of the fact that religious beliefs are maintained and transmitted in ways that differ from empirically proven facts. However, religion is a complex cultural phenomenon that cannot be explained solely by the transmission of belief, and it has played a very significant role in human culture from prehistoric times to the present. Therefore, there are limitations to completely rejecting religion or explaining only its negative aspects by linking them to the imitation of memes. Three such limitations can be considered.
First, Dawkins argues that belief in an afterlife can influence dangerous behaviors such as suicide bombings. In Jang Dae-ik’s ‘Darwin’s Table’, the author reinterprets Dawkins’ argument, introducing his claim that if everyone were made to believe that death is the end of everything, suicide bombings would decrease compared to current levels. This is based on Dawkins’ critical perspective on the existence of an afterlife. Many world religions, such as Christianity, divide the afterlife into heaven and hell, emphasizing that the fate one faces in the afterlife depends on the life one led during one’s lifetime. Therefore, a truly devout believer would strive to go to heaven, which would not only deter them from harming others but also encourage them to live altruistically. Furthermore, the formation of such religious cultures could be presented as one basis for understanding human altruistic behavior, which is difficult to explain solely through the influence of the selfish gene. On the other hand, as Dawkins argues, denying the existence of an afterlife does not necessarily mean that individuals will act selfishly. Ultimately, the relationship between the presence or absence of religious belief and human altruistic or selfish behavior cannot be simply explained by belief in the afterlife alone.
Second, while the fields of scientific and religious inquiry are not entirely identical, they can have a complementary relationship in the process of explaining human nature. This connects to the perspective presented by Stephen Jay Gould. Gould distinguished science as an empirical inquiry into facts and religion as a discourse on meaning, values, and morality, arguing that to understand humanity, it is necessary to view these two domains separately. In other words, since the subjects and methods of inquiry differ between these two domains, it is difficult for one to fully explain the other; therefore, claiming that religion is merely a phenomenon born from the imitation and propagation of self-replicators does not provide a sufficient explanation. This is because religion encompasses not only the transmission of belief but also the process by which humans construct the meaning and value of life, as well as moral standards.
Third, denying religion in its entirety would entail denying a significant portion of the traditions accumulated by humanity, and in the process, the existence and role of memes could actually be diluted. As mentioned earlier, Dawkins views the existence and value of religion critically, explaining that it was formed through the combination of the propagation of memes about God. However, if one denies the cultural influence of religion—which has coexisted with humanity for so long—it becomes difficult to adequately explain the very claim that memes are involved in cultural transmission and change. On the other hand, religion has historically produced diverse cultural outcomes and achievements, and various fields—such as architecture, art, education, and charitable activities—have developed against the backdrop of religious motivations, institutions, and communities. Furthermore, attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God in the context of religious worldviews have also stimulated philosophical and scientific inquiry. This influence has extended even to those with no direct connection to religion. Therefore, there are limitations to explaining the wide-ranging cultural achievements associated with religion solely as the influence of memes formed through imitation; many of these achievements are not merely replicas of existing elements but are also the result of new discoveries, creations, and interpretations.
Can human behavior be explained solely by self-replicators?
As a final point, it can be argued that human behavior cannot be adequately explained solely by the behavior of self-replicators. For example, from Dawkins’ perspective, a person who acts altruistically might be explained as doing so because such behavior allows them to receive social recognition or attention. The idea is that people engage in altruistic behavior by observing and imitating such actions.
However, this explanation alone struggles to fully account for both cases of performing good deeds and committing evil acts. For instance, there are many instances of people performing good deeds without revealing their identity, such as making anonymous donations. If this stems from personal satisfaction or is the result of self-reflection and a desire to repay what one has received, the influence of self-interest or the expectation of additional external rewards would be minimal. Furthermore, while there are many types of wrongdoing, consider the case of committing a crime to attract attention: it might be more advantageous to redirect that behavior toward a good deed, which could yield even greater recognition and additional rewards. However, such a choice is not always made in actual human behavior. Therefore, explaining human behavior solely through the propagation and imitation of self-replicating units driven by self-interest is insufficient to account for the complexity of human behavior.
So far, we have examined Dawkins’ argument through four perspectives. Let us summarize these by referring to them sequentially as Perspectives 1, 2, 3, and 4. Perspectives 1, 2, and 3 argue that memes should be applied under more restrictive conditions than Dawkins suggests. As self-replicators, memes are difficult to explain in the same way as gene replication when they refer to phenomena that arise and disappear rapidly over short periods, or to the reappearance of past cultural elements without significant modification. Furthermore, when describing religion as a “god meme,” doubts remain as to whether the spread of self-replicators alone can sufficiently explain the process by which religion is formed and maintained. Human behavior also manifests in diverse ways even beyond the scope of influence exerted by self-replicators driven by self-interest; therefore, there are limitations to explaining all human behavior based solely on Dawkins’ argument. Consequently, it is appropriate to apply the concept of memes under somewhat more limited conditions. For example, cultural elements that have been maintained over long periods and have undergone processes of change and transmission—such as language and traditions, which represent human culture—might fall into this category. Opinions 1, 2, and 4 raised doubts about the strength of the similarity between memes and genes. Dawkins coined the term “meme” by combining the Greek root “mimeme,” meaning “to imitate,” with a term reminiscent of “gene,” and when explaining memes, he focused on characteristics similar to those of genes. However, in the case of human culture, it is often difficult to directly apply the characteristics of genes that Dawkins emphasized in his definition of memes. For instance, as mentioned earlier, memes often lack the characteristic of a lifespan, and the phenomenon of cultural elements that disappeared in the past reappearing without undergoing modification is also difficult to explain in the same way as the evolution of genes. Furthermore, unless humans act collectively according to a single genetic program like worker ants, what is important in memes is not only the characteristics of the self-replicator but also the role of the biological individuals who select, modify, and transmit it. In particular, the introduction of another self-replicator to explain human behavior and culture—which can resist self-replicators to some extent—provides a certain degree of explanatory power while simultaneously leaving room for contradiction. In conclusion, while memes share commonalities with genes in terms of variation, replication, and inheritance, they also exhibit many striking differences; therefore, I believe there are clear limitations to explaining human culture by borrowing the terminology of genetics.
Can the concept of memes remain a valid framework for explaining the evolution of human culture?
As mentioned in the introduction, “memeology”—the academic study of memes—has emerged, and subsequently, various approaches have developed that focus on systematically studying cultural evolution and cultural transmission rather than simply applying the concept of memes as is.
This can be viewed as a process aimed at specifically studying how culture is transmitted, changes, and is maintained, rather than simply assuming that all aspects of human culture can be explained by a single meme. Nearly 50 years have passed since the concept of the meme was first proposed in the 1970s, and it continues to be discussed in various theories and studies explaining the evolution of human culture. In particular, research on cultural evolution examines, from an evolutionary perspective, how various cultural elements—such as language, social norms, technology, and institutions—change across generations. Therefore, while it is difficult to view the concept of the meme as having established itself as a universal concept explaining all of human culture, it is significant in that it raised important questions that prompted reflection on the replication, transmission, and transformation of culture. If future research on cultural evolution becomes more sophisticated and the specific relationships between human learning, imitation, selection, and creation are clarified, the concept of the meme may also be reinterpreted in a more refined form than it is today. If that happens, the current controversies surrounding memes could be largely resolved, and the meme could establish itself as a familiar concept for explaining cultural evolution.
