The Problem of ‘Darwinizing’ Culture (or Memes as the New Phlogiston)

  • Timothy TaylorEmail author
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)


The neologism ‘meme’ was coined by Richard Dawkins as a cultural counterpart to the gene. While the meme has not been widely adopted in the social sciences, neither has it gone away, having survived (‘memically’ its supporters might say) despite significant philosophical and anthropological objections. This may be because the concept seems to promise to ‘Darwinize’ culture, providing an understanding of human life in reductivist terms, that is, terms consonant with neodarwinian selection and inheritance theory. It is suggested here that culture, far from being understandable memically, can be uncontroversially understood as one of those factors extending beyond natural selection that Darwin himself believed also operated. Here, various meme concepts are outlined along with objections to them. An alternative view is proposed that focuses on material technology, which, it is argued, although it has a biological dependency in historic and prehistoric perspective, is irreducible to biology and capable of subverting its logic. Implications for the orthodox views of human evolution are signalled. (The title of this article references Robert Aunger’s balanced edited work Darwinizing Culture: the Status of Memetics as a Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000). The subtitle is also slightly second-hand (although unwittingly so when I presented the paper): Alister McGrath, in Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, calls memes ‘the new ether’(Blackwell, Oxford, 2005, p. 133), having made the comparison to other fictional concepts including ‘calorific’ and ‘phlogiston’ a couple of pages earlier.)


Causal Arrow Inanimate Nature Biological Taxonomy Elephant Ivory Pigeon Fancier 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank my wife Sarah Wright for constructive criticism and masters students Emily Fioccoprile and Michael Copper; the shades of two former mentors – Ernest Gellner and Rodney Needham – are discernible.


  1. 1.
    Wittgenstein, L.: In: von Wright, G.H., Nyman, H. (eds.) Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology: Preliminary Studies for Part II of Philosophical Investigations, vol. I. Blackwell, Oxford (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gellner, E.: Culture, constraint and community: semantic and coercive compensations for the genetic under-determination of Homo sapiens sapiens. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (eds.) The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, pp. 514–525. Edinburgh University Press, Edingburgh (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuper, A.: Culture: The Anthropologists’ Account. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aunger, R. (ed.): Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGrath, A.: Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dawkins, R.: The Selfish Gene, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blackmore, S.: The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999) (foreword R. Dawkins)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Childe, V.G.: The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon, Oxford (1929)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    White, L.A.: The concept of culture. Am. Anthropol. 61(2), 227–251 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cloak, F.T.: Is a cultural ethology possible? Hum. Ecol. 3, 161–182 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dawkins, R.: The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. W.H. Freeman, Oxford (1981)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sperber, D.: An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In: Aunger, R. (ed.) Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, pp. 163–173. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Hear, A.: Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tooby, J., Cosmides, L.: The psychological foundations of culture. In: Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (eds.) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, pp. 19–136. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bloch, M.: A well-disposed social anthropologist’s problems with memes. In: Aunger, R. (ed.) Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, pp. 190–203. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor, T.: The Artificial Ape: How Technology Changed the Course of Human Evolution. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darwin, C.: The Voyage of the Beagle: Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of HMS Beagle Round the World, under the Command of Captain FitzRoy, RN (1845). (Wordsworth Classics, London, 1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darwin, C.: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London (1859)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ridley, M.: The real origins of Darwin’s theory, The Spectator, Wednesday 23 Sep (2009).
  20. 20.
    Laland, K.N., Odling-Smee, J.: The evolution of the meme. In: Aunger, R. (ed.) Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, pp. 121–141. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuper, A.: If memes are the answer, what is the question? In: Aunger, R. (ed.) Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, pp. 175–188. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J.: Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1985)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wollheim, R.: Art and Its Objects: With Six Supplementary Essays, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barber, M.: Alfred Schutz, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, Stanford. (2010)
  25. 25.
    Mayr, E.: Illiger and the biological species concept. J. Hist. Biol. 1(2), 163–178 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foucault, M.: The Order of Things. Routledge, London (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Needham, R.: Polythetic classification: convergence and consequences. Man (NS) 10, 349–369 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beckner, M.: The Biological Way of Thought. Columbia University Press, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sokal, R.R., Sneath, P.H.A.: Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1963)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clarke, D.L.: Analytical Archaeology, 2nd edn. Methuen, London (1978)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Needham, R.: Remarks and Inventions: Skeptical Essays about Kinship. Tavistock, London (1974)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ingold, T.: The evolution of society. In: Fabian, A.C. (ed.) Evolution: Society, Science and the Universe, pp. 78–99. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Diamond, J.: Guns, Germs, and Steel. Chatto & Windus, London (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kelly, K.: What Technology Wants. Viking, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bentley, R.A., Lipo, C., Maschner, H.D.G., Marler, B.: Darwinian archaeologies. In: Bentley, A., Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Theories, pp. 109–132. Altamira Press, Lanham (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Melville, H.: Moby-Dick or, The Whale. Penguin, London (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations