Mythemes I

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

Another familiar motif is the birth story commonly associated with Moses in the Torah.  The Biblical tale of Moses’ beginnings is largely based upon the legend of Sargon of Akkad: An infant placed in a reed basket by his biological mother (from Azupiranu in Sumer), and being set adrift in a river (the Euphrates), under the blessing of the godhead (Ishtar)…then being rescued by a midwife in a royal house (in Kish) and ascending to prominence as royalty…before falling afoul of the powers that be…only to be redeemed (via divine grace) and rallying to deliver his people from peril.

Also antedating the Hebrew tale of Moses was the Vedic legend of “Karna”, who’s Kuru mother (Kunti) placed her infant in a reed basket and set him adrift in a river…which carried him to the court of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur…where he was adopted by a courtier and rose to prominence, as “Vasusena” (a.k.a. “Radheya”).

Moreover, the Judaic story of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt was a reworking of the–much older–Egyptian legend of Osarseph of Heliopolis, a defector who led an uprising against Pharaoh Amenhotep in the 16th century B.C.  The oppressed tribe was referred to as the “Hyksos”, who dwelled in Avaris on the Sinai peninsula (and whose homeland was purportedly Canaan).  As we now know, this tale was recycled by those who composed the Torah in the 6th century B.C.  The hagiography of Moses is a classic tale, based on a narrative template going back to the Bronze Age.

Folkloric embellishment has a kind of ratcheting effect.  It is, after all, far easier to embellish a narrative to enhance it (make it more catchy, more enthralling) than to UN-DO a titillating part once it’s “stuck”.  Whenever ideology is afoot, memeplexes are deliberately locked into place…as if to ensure there is not back-slippage.  That is: efforts are made to keep a SANCTIFIED memeplex “as is”…in perpetuity.  After all, the Reactionary’s sine qua non is to ensure things remain as they “originally were” (in his own eyes).  That religious zealots have always worked so vociferously to ensure nobody EVER tamper with their sanctified dogmatic system is hardly a shocker..

We might think of memeplexes as intricate latticeworks.  Memetic lattices are often ductile, and thus amenable to strain.  However, they become brittle if they are sacralized.  When pliable, memetic lattices can be bent and stretched this way and that–usually to accommodate changing exigencies.  Should a memetic lattice become petrified by ideology, though, it becomes frangible.  Consequently, the entire edifice might collapse in the event a fissure (read: disjunctive idea) is introduced.

The analogy with material structure is apt.  Local distortions in brittle materials are called “crazes”.  (A craze occurs before a crack begins to propagate.)  Once a crack forms in the memeplex, memetic creep ensues.  This can eventually lead to a (catastrophic) fracture.  Put another way: Fresh new ideas often precipitate semiotic fissures…which threaten to upend the entire edifice.

Fractures in a society’s Grand Narrative can precipitate fractures in the body politic; undermining social cohesion.  That is: disruption to the sacred lore translates to disruption to the demos.  (One might say that a tear in the narrative fabric is concomitant with a tear in the social fabric.)  So a people are inclined to keep their Grand Narrative fully intact.

Memetic plasticity is proportional to the sanctity of the memeplex.  Hence dogmatic structures that have been consecrated are not built to adapt.  Indeed, they are designed for eternal stasis.  A consequence of this is that they are unable to withstand the formidable strain of Reform.  When perturbed, they tend to crumble.  In a sense, ideologues are Reactionary simply because they can’t NOT be…lest they risk losing the scaffolding around which they have built their lives.

Some memetic repertoires are more robust than others.  This is why Pauline Christology prevailed over the Gnostic alternative in Late Antiquity.  The former–especially as propounded by the ideologue, Athanasius of Alexandria–was far more conducive to institutional-ization (read: more amenable to concentrated power; and ideal for top-down control).  Consequently, it was the version championed by the Roman magisterium…and subsequently adopted by the Roman imperium.  That the Nicene creed came to define “Christianity” should come as a surprise to no one.

W.V.O. Quine put it well when he referred to a memeplex (a term which had not yet been coined) as a “web of belief”.  We ALL live within a web of belief.  Accordingly, we are inclined to reject / accept propositions based on how well they fit into the pre-existing web of dogmas.  This “web” is essentially an integrated network of memes.  (Instead of a web, one might also think of it as a scaffolding.)  Beliefs at the center are most entrenched, and so deemed sacrosanct; as changing them would require too much retro-fitting; and risk a total collapse of the structure.  Consequently, it is only beliefs on the periphery that are up for discussion–as altering them would not upend the entire edifice.

In this sense, dogmatic structures are–in a way–houses of cards.  To even consider taking away a central dogma risks bringing the entire edifice down.  And in order to consider the amenability of a new proposition, the effects on the integrity of the structure must be taken into account; NOT the credence of the proposition.  If the number of things one would have to adjust in order to accommodate the proposition would be too disruptive to the established order, then it must be rejected.  Sunk costs prevent one from abiding a complete overhaul of the belief system; as such an overhaul would require one to abdicate coveted “truths”…and risk finding oneself lost at sea.  Nobody wants the rug pulled out from beneath their feet.

If novel dogma is introduced that is too disruptive to the established order, those who have a vested interest in maintaining the established order will reject it…and persuade everyone else that it must be rejected.  If it is found that a dogma can play a useful role within the incumbent power structures, it will be incorporated into the repertoire.  This is how institutionalized dogmatism works–be it in the form of religion or political ideology.  (In the case of theocratic regimes like those espousing Revisionist Zionism, Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Islam, it is BOTH.)

There have been attempts to decipher how meme-selection works on the group-level–notably by distilling the motifs of COLLECTIVE consciousness (as some have attempted to do by positing Jungian “archetypes”). 

Whatever the explanation might be, the resulting concatenation of memes determines the features of an entire culture–replete with religion, politics, and social norms.  We find that the motifs that “catch on” do so because they strike certain chords (chords that can be explained via evolutionary psychology) AND because they can be readily integrated with pre-existing motifs. {19}  Maladaptive memes are often jettisoned to maintain the integrity of the whole…EVEN IF the whole is woefully dysfunctional and the meme-in-question is may have otherwise been salutary.  Nobody wants to upset the applecart…even if the applecart is in need of upsetting.

Memes are rarely adopted in isolation–as we are social animals, and so SHARE in the adoption.  This is especially the case with dogmas–as dogmas like to exist IN CONTEXT (that is: as part of a dogmatic system, where it plays a key role).

Systematized dogmatism (especially when sanctified, as with religion) is a COMMUNAL activity.  It serves as the glue of social cohesion (which is simply to say that it is facilitator of communal solidarity).  This means that we assess any given dogma in light of how it (seems to) mesh with the dogmas to which we have already committed ourselves; and duly consecrated.

And so it goes: Within any given memetic regime, all beliefs are ostensibly–though rather imperfectly–interconnected.  Each MUST exist in relation to every other; and disjunctures are avoided.  Memetic discord is frowned upon because it risks causing social fissures within the community, thereby compromising its cohesiveness and ability to function smoothly.

If we consider the veracity of any NOVEL proposition (i.e. a foreign idea), we naturally become worried about how the social harmony on which we depend might be put in jeopardy…were it to actually be introduced.  And if we are asked to re-consider any incumbent belief, we ALSO worry about how a coveted social compact might be put in jeopardy…were it to actually be discarded.  We are always concerned about upsetting the applecart–especially when that applecart is sacred.  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” seems reasonable, even if we cannot necessarily see if something is actually broken.

Consequently, any given dogma is evaluated not necessarily on its own merits, but according to how integral it is to the integrity of–and on-going maintenance of–the overall dogmatic structure we covet (that is: conducive to the incumbent memetic environment, so which we’ve grown accustomed).  It should come as no surprise, then, that assessment is invariably fraught with oodles of biases: choice-supportive bias, confirmation bias, in-group bias, attentional bias, and salience bias.  Even when assessment is supposed to be impersonal, it ends up being HIGHLY personal.  (Staking one’s claim on something entails tremendous emotional investment.)  Vested interests–and skews perceptions that favor incumbent dogmas–account for the formidable power of memetic inertia.

When it comes to serious existential matters, the stakes are high–and emotions run deep.  As a result, rumination tends to be visceral and intimate (rather than an impartial deliberation).  It is easy to get swept up in the fervor of a well-crafted narrative.  We are always under the impression that we are being eminently rational, and remaining in touch with Reality (as delusion does not announce itself as delusion; and neuroses are rarely recognized as neuroses); we find ourselves in the thrall of a hypnotic, intoxicating Weltanschauung, no matter how cockamamy it might be.  If it hits all the right buttons, we will gladly adopt it.

In sum: The most prevalent mythemes around the world–and throughout history–are:

• Those that are most readily-adaptable to the incumbent memeplex–whatever it happens to be
• Those that (seem to) offer the most benefit to those adopting it

In other words: commensurability and utility are the primary determining factors. {22}

And so it goes: A mytheme exists because it is compatible with different folkloric traditions (able to be incorporated without disrupting a coveted memetic homeostasis).  It ALSO exists because it strikes a chord with peoples in different cultures (in psychical terms) and serves a USEFUL PURPOSE (in practical terms) across different social contexts.  Thus it is their universal / timeless appeal that accounts for mythemes’ appearance in myriad places and times.  Hence the widespread incidence of CERTAIN themes is explained; and the incidence of those themes in ANY GIVEN case is explained.

To Recapitulate: We do not conscientiously go shopping for memes–as though they were consumer products at a culture emporium.  The architecture of any given memeplex is not derived from pre-established blue-prints; they are largely accidents of history.  The most robust schemas persist across epochs, in different incarnations, in different places, each adapted to the cultural milieu within which it exist.  They do so because there is something within all of us that they echo.  Hence the existence of mythemes.

If a schema cannot adapt, it will be unable to subsist.  Homo sapiens are pragmatic creatures; so IF the schema is useful, and it CAN be adapted to the incumbent cultural milieu, then it is adopted.  Our imaginations do the rest; for we are–after all–meaning-making machines.

Insofar as a meme can play an integral role in a compelling narrative vehicle, it serves a crucial purpose.  It is a mistake, though, to attribute resonance and/or utility with (objective) credence.  Memetic success has little to do with credibility; and so mustn’t be construed as such.  For memetic UTILITY (alt. appeal) is not a dependable measure of verity.

To conclude: It is no surprise that we find certain recurring themes across epochs and geographies–as with Great Flood stories.  Be that as it may, we must resist a “reality-by-referendum” approach to epistemology–wherein credence is ascertained according to longevity and/or popularity.  In the meantime, we can better understand–and thus more appreciate–any given mytheme by DE-sanctifying it, and seeing how it has been manifested in ALL OTHER instances across time and space.  In other words, we can only truly understand mythemes by seeing them AS MYTHEMES.