In this blog post, I will examine Richard Dawkins’ theory of evolution and his theory of memes, and critically evaluate the possibility of memes’ existence by comparing the differences between the evolution of living organisms and the process of cultural change.
Life has been evolving continuously. On the ancient Earth, where nothing existed, amino acids and nucleic acids were formed; as life emerged and evolved into humans, living organisms have continuously evolved through a process of replication, mutation, competition, and natural selection. Nevertheless, humans—the pinnacle of evolution, or at least those who consider themselves as such—have long denied the fact that they themselves have evolved. In particular, the perspective based on the Christian theory of creation asserts that God created the world over six days, made humans on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day, arguing that living organisms—including humans—were created in their present, perfected form. However, in 1859, Charles Darwin systematically presented the theory of evolution by natural selection in ‘On the Origin of Species’ and explained, based on various lines of evidence, that living organisms have changed over time; this marked the beginning of serious scientific research into human evolution. As research on evolutionary theory continued steadily, Richard Dawkins explained evolution from his own perspective in ‘The Selfish Gene’, published in 1976, and introduced the concept of “memes,” which can also be applied to the transmission and change of culture. Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist, animal behaviorist, and popular science writer who held the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford from 1995 to 2008. He currently serves as a Research Fellow Emeritus at New College, University of Oxford. His theory of memes posits that culture, a human creation, has evolved in diverse ways similar to biological evolution; therefore, memes—which play a role in cultural change analogous to that of genes in biological evolution—may exist.
Of course, cultural change is innovative and rapid. These days, I’m tutoring a high school freshman. Having repeated a year of high school, I was born in 1996, making me four years older than the student, and I sometimes feel a sense of disconnect during our lessons. It used to be said that “ten years is enough to change the landscape,” but as the world changes at an ever-faster pace, it seems true now that even changes year by year have a significant impact on people’s lives and culture. There are words the author doesn’t understand that the student uses without a second thought, and the student cannot relate to the ordinary daily life the author describes. Just looking at the world, cultural changes are constantly occurring. The era when long hair was all the rage has passed, and neat hairstyles have taken the lead; the era of skinny jeans has passed, and a retro trend is blowing in once again. But does the fact that cultural changes occur mean that meme theory is considered correct? To conclude that, the existence and functioning of memes have not been empirically proven as independent entities on the same level as genes. The existence of material or biological entities has been revealed through observation, experimentation, and repeated verification. Research on the invisible dark matter in the universe is an example of this, and the existence and function of genes have also been specifically elucidated through long-term research. In contrast, memes have been proposed as a theoretical concept to explain the transmission and imitation of culture; they have not been confirmed as independent material units like genes. Therefore, there are issues with Dawkins’ meme theory that warrant further examination. The author intends to explore whether memes can be viewed as independent units of evolution by examining the differences between the process of cultural change and the process of biological evolution.
Before examining Dawkins’ principles of biological evolution, let us first consider what evolution is. Evolution refers to the entire process by which genetic traits in a population change over multiple generations, resulting in the accumulation of changes in the population’s gene pool and potentially leading to the formation of new species. The common ancestor of organisms can be inferred by comparing the morphological and genetic similarities and differences among species, and based on this, a phylogenetic tree is constructed to understand their relationships. Genetic variation lies at the origin of evolution, and factors causing this variation include mutations and genetic recombination resulting from sexual reproduction. Evolution occurs as these variations are passed down through generations within a population and their frequencies change. The primary mechanisms driving evolution include natural selection and genetic drift. Natural selection is the process by which genetic traits advantageous for survival and reproduction in a specific environment are passed on to the next generation in relatively greater numbers. Genetic drift refers to the phenomenon in which gene frequencies change randomly due to factors such as population size or chance events. Through these various processes, biological populations change as they adapt to their environment and can diverge into new species over long periods of time. The field of study that investigates these phenomena is evolutionary biology, a discipline dedicated to elucidating the causes and processes of evolution, as well as the formation of biological diversity. Evolutionary biology has developed through the integration of research from various fields—including genetics, developmental biology, and molecular biology—in addition to studies of fossils and biological diversity. In modern biology, evolution is treated as a core principle for explaining biological diversity. Even today, research on the evolutionary process continues in evolutionary biology through various perspectives and methods, and based on a wealth of evidence, evolution has established itself as a core principle that permeates the entire field of biology.
To understand Dawkins’ principle of the evolution of living organisms, it is necessary to examine the sequence of replication, mutation, competition, and selection. While it cannot be said that the evolutionary process of all living organisms necessarily repeats these four stages in a fixed order, when viewed as a framework for understanding Dawkins’ argument, living organisms increase their numbers through the process of replication—passing genetic information on to the next generation—and acquire different traits due to genetic mutations that occur during this process. Differences in survival and reproduction then emerge in changing environments, consequently, the genetic frequency of specific traits changes, leading to evolution. When mutations occur, new traits emerge, and differences arise between these new traits and existing ones regarding which are more advantageous for survival and reproduction in the current environment. As these differences accumulate over generations through processes such as natural selection, the gene pool of a population changes, and evolution occurs. During the Industrial Revolution in Britain, changes in the color and environment of tree surfaces caused by industrialization and air pollution led to significant shifts in the frequency of color variations in the peppered moth (Biston betularia). The peppered moth had both a typical light-colored form and a black form known as “carbonaria”; in industrialized areas, the frequency of the black form increased. Research has shown that this is related to the black form’s ability to remain less conspicuous to predators in polluted environments; subsequently, as air pollution decreased, the frequency of the black form also began to decline again. Therefore, this case can be viewed as a prime example demonstrating that natural selection can alter the frequency of traits within a population in response to a changed environment.
Based on this, Richard Dawkins’ position on meme theory is as follows. Since culture is a product of humans—who are evolving organisms—it will undergo a process similar to evolution. In fact, culture does undergo a process of change, and because this process resembles biological evolution, there must exist a core unit corresponding to the gene—the core of evolution—for cultural change as well: the meme. Dawkins’ argument seems quite valid. Many phenomena in the world are hypothesized through inductive reasoning. Dawkins, too, posited that memes—which play a role similar to that of genes—must exist in cultural change, which exhibits a process similar to evolution. However, inductive reasoning is not always correct, and there are, in fact, many differences between the evolution of living organisms and the process of cultural change. Unless these differences are fully taken into account, it is difficult to explain the two processes using the same principles simply because they are similar. We will critically examine this theory by looking at these differences. The differences manifest in the processes of replication, mutation, and selection in the evolutionary process; since there are relatively few differences regarding competition, we will not address them separately.
First, let’s examine the differences in the process of replication. There are four major differences in this process. The first difference concerns the relationships between the entities being replicated. In biological evolution, genetic information is primarily replicated and reproduced through vertical relationships, from parent to offspring. Culture, on the other hand, can be transmitted through vertical relationships, but transmission via horizontal relationships is also very active. When parents have a child, the child’s genetic traits are influenced by the genetic information inherited from the parents. As we observe a child being born, growing up, and spending time with their parents, we naturally remark, “They look just like their dad” or “They look just like their mom.” This is an everyday example illustrating the result of vertical inheritance, where genetic information is passed from parents to children. As children grow older, parents begin to teach them, and as a result, the children’s thoughts and personalities gradually take shape; this can be viewed as an example of the vertical transmission of culture by parents. For example, it is common for children of parents working in the medical field to dream of careers in medicine during their childhood. However, the vertical transmission of culture does not occur exclusively between parents and children. Siblings can also influence each other’s cultural behaviors and preferences. An even more significant aspect of culture is its horizontal transmission. As children grow up, they naturally make friends and are exposed to diverse cultures through their interactions with peers. The school environment and their friends’ personalities have a significant influence on children, and interests—such as hobbies or favorite media—are shared among friends. This flexibility in cultural transmission is one of the key differences between cultural change and biological evolution. While biological inheritance centers on vertical transmission from parent to child, culture is actively transmitted and transformed even within the same generation.
The second difference is that culture is closer to imitation than to replication in the biological sense. In the evolutionary process of living organisms, genetic information is passed down to the next generation through reproduction and replication. As genetic information is replicated and recombined, the parents’ genetic information is transmitted to the next generation. Culture, however, is different. Even if a culture originates from the same starting point or source, its form changes depending on the environment in which it is transmitted and the people who receive it. This phenomenon differs from biological replication because, in genetic replication, while the phenotype may vary after genetic information is replicated due to various genetic and environmental factors, in the transmission of culture, the original content is not completely replicated from the outset; instead, it spreads as it is interpreted and modified during the transmission process. Have you heard of the game “Charades”? In this game, one person sees the answer and acts it out; then, one by one, each player in turn observes this action and imitates it, until the last person guesses what the action is supposed to depict. Even looking at this game alone, it’s hard to imagine that the action performed by the first person and the one observed by the last person will remain exactly the same. This is because each person interprets and expresses actions differently, leading to natural variations during the transmission process. In other words, culture is characterized more by imitation and variation than by simple replication.
The third difference is the will to choose. Is the will to choose involved in the replication of genes? As a joke, if that were the case, the author would not have chosen this appearance. In other words, the replication of genes is not determined by an individual’s will. Even parents who pass on their genes cannot give birth to a child with their desired genetic combination based solely on their own will. In the movie ‘Gattaca’, there is a scene where a child is selected for birth from among genetically engineered embryos. The defining feature of this scene is that numerous embryos are created, and one is selected from among them. If we could freely choose the desired combination of genes from the outset, such a cumbersome process would not be necessary. However, culture is different. Culture is transmitted through imitation, and this imitation itself is already the product of choice. While many countries outside the United States use the International System of Units (SI), such as meters and liters, the United States routinely uses units like feet and gallons. Yet, even if Americans were asked to adopt other countries’ units of measurement—such as meters or liters—they would not simply comply. The process of deciding which cultural elements to accept or reject involves choices made by both individuals and society. Culture is constantly being selected, and based on those choices, different cultures spread throughout societies and nations.
The final difference is reversibility. Culture always follows a similar cycle. The era of long hair has passed, and the trend of short hair has taken hold; the era of skinny jeans has passed, and the era of retro fashion has arrived. Haven’t these fashions existed in the past? Of course not. When people grow tired of long hair, they choose short hair; when they grow tired of short hair, they often return to long hair. Of course, past cultures do not return in exactly the same form. The quality and convenience of clothing evolve to suit modern society, and styles are adapted to match people’s tastes before reappearing. However, in conclusion, rather than disappearing entirely, past cultures often are revived in new forms. When the Renaissance—often called the era of cultural innovation—emerged, what culture brought about the Renaissance? It was none other than the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. The Renaissance was not something created suddenly out of nothing; rather, it was a cultural innovation that arose as intellectuals rediscovered and studied the products of ancient Greek and Roman culture. In other words, culture does not merely involve the complete disappearance of past elements; it also manifests through repeated cycles of discontinuity and rediscovery, transformation and reconstruction. However, genes do not function in this way—past genetic mutations do not intentionally resurface. A genetic variant that has once disappeared from a specific population does not necessarily reappear in the same form, and unless a new mutation occurs, the same variant cannot be said to revive on its own. Did humans have tails in the past? While it is often argued that the coccyx serves as direct evidence of this, the presence of the coccyx does not directly prove that humans once had a functional tail. The coccyx is an important anatomical trace for understanding the evolutionary history of primates, including humans. We cannot simply conclude that humans lack tails because the genes responsible for tail formation were eliminated through natural selection and never returned; rather, this should be understood as the result of the accumulation of various genetic and developmental changes over a long evolutionary process.
Now, let’s examine the differences in the process of variation. There are three major differences in the process of variation. The first difference concerns the transmissibility of acquired traits. In the process of biological evolution, it is not a common mode of inheritance for traits acquired by an individual during its lifetime to be passed on unchanged. Inheritance in the evolutionary process means that changes in genetic information are passed on to the next generation; it does not mean that traits altered by the environment during an individual’s lifetime are recorded exactly as they are in the genetic information of its offspring. Suppose the son of a virtuous man struggled financially and became a villain. Does that mean his own son is born a villain? No. The person changed as the environment changed while his genetic traits remained unchanged; the character or behavior formed through environmental influences is not passed down exactly as it is. Culture, on the other hand, can transmit the content acquired and altered through environmental influences exactly as it is to the next generation. Once a culture has changed, it can be accepted in its altered state, and it may undergo further changes as it is transmitted to others. In other words, even if the origin is the same, cumulative changes during transmission can cause a culture to take on a completely different form. Are you familiar with the “Pen Pineapple Apple Pen” ad? In 2016, a video by Japanese singer Pikotaro gained massive global popularity and was parodied and adapted in various ways across many countries. This phenomenon—where a single piece of cultural content spreads while being adapted according to different people and regions—demonstrates that culture can transmit its acquired, transformed state to future generations.
The second difference lies in the conditions of variation. In the evolution of living organisms, genetic variation arises through various processes, such as mutations and recombination resulting from sexual reproduction, while the environment provides the conditions for natural selection to act after such variations occur. Traits that have changed simply because an individual was influenced by the environment during their lifetime are not passed on to the next generation exactly as they are. Culture, on the other hand, is different. The way culture changes involves a continuous process of variation, in which the receptivity of the culture itself, the characteristics of the individuals or groups imitating it, and the individual traits that emerge during the transmission process all influence one another; as a result, the transformed culture then spreads throughout society. In other words, even when Japanese culture enters South Korea, it does not necessarily arrive in its original form; elements that do not align with South Korean societal values or norms may not be accepted or may be modified into different forms. Japanese manga serves as an example of this. Since South Korea and Japan have different social norms and modes of expression regarding manga and audiovisual media, scenes such as smoking—which appear naturally in Japan—or somewhat sexually suggestive scenes are sometimes modified or edited to use different expressions before being distributed in South Korea. In this way, culture can be selected and transformed according to the conditions of the receiving society and then disseminated once again.
The final difference lies in the agents of variation. In the evolutionary process of living organisms, variation does not result from individuals intentionally selecting and creating it; rather, it arises from biological processes such as mutations and genetic recombination. In other words, evolution does not proceed through specific individuals intentionally mutating their own genes to pass them on to the next generation. However, in culture, the agents of variation are constantly changing. The agent of variation differs across generations, countries, and groups, and culture continues to transform into different forms depending on the characteristics, preferences, and tastes of these agents. Unlike variation caused by heredity, culture appears to lack a fixed central axis in this regard; rather, the flow of change seems to continue through the process by which many people accept, interpret, and transform culture. This raises questions about understanding memes in the same way as the genes of living organisms.
Finally, there is a difference regarding the agent of selection. This pertains to natural selection. When genetic variation occurs within a population and natural selection takes effect, who is the agent of selection? What is it that, as a result of genetic variation and the competition arising from it, causes certain traits to be passed on to the next generation in greater numbers? It is not a selector with a specific will, but rather the environment and the differences in survival and reproduction that arise within that environment. The environment provides different conditions for the survival and reproduction of organisms, and as a result, certain traits may be passed on to the next generation in relatively greater numbers. Traits that allow organisms to adapt better, survive better, and produce more offspring will become more prevalent within a population as a result of natural selection. However, in the competition among cultures, the environment alone cannot serve as the sole criterion for selection. This is because the agents that select and adopt cultures are the individuals, groups, societies, and nations that imitate them. Let’s consider an example. If you went to a cold country to sell refrigerators, would they sell well? It cannot be said with certainty that they would. Conversely, if you went to a hot country to sell space heaters, would they sell well? This, too, depends on the country’s environment and the needs of its consumers. Of course, in many countries, refrigerators and space heaters are products that spark competition among companies and attract many consumers; however, in specific environments or cultures, they may be chosen less frequently due to relatively lower necessity. Ultimately, in the spread of culture, not only the environment but also the values, needs, tastes, and norms of individuals and society are involved in the process of selection.
As such, there are many differences between cultural imitation and the evolution of living organisms; in particular, the differences evident in the agents of mutation and selection raise significant questions about whether memes exist as units of evolution, just like genes. This is because there is a world of difference between a top with an axis and one without. Dawkins proposed the concept of “memes” by comparing the evolutionary process of living organisms with the process of cultural change, noting similarities in the processes of replication, mutation, competition, and selection; however, this does not mean that the differences between the two processes can be explained in the same way. Presenting a theory by focusing on only one aspect inevitably gives the impression that the theory lacks explanatory power. Of course, in today’s research on cultural evolution and cultural transmission, various theoretical frameworks—including the concept of “memes” proposed by Dawkins—are being discussed to explain cultural variation and transmission. However, the similarities in cultural transmission do not in and of themselves prove the existence of memes as independent units akin to genes. Due to these differences, I believe the existence of memes—which has been argued by drawing parallels between the evolutionary processes of culture and living organisms—still requires careful scrutiny. For “meme theory” to become more complete, it must acknowledge these differences and provide solid evidence demonstrating how consistently the concept of memes—distinct from biological genes—can explain the actual transmission and change of culture. I believe that if meme theory evolves into a theory that explains the processes of cultural replication, variation, and selection based on more evidence, memes will become a more significant subject of discussion.
