1887
image of Internet memes we live by (and die by)
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In the internet age, memes are at once products and driving forces of social practices. A meme contains a memetic message and a meme output, and boasts, if guided by a pragmatic way of thinking, several features, including but not limited to salience, frequency, adaptability, argumentativity, sociality, embeddedness, embodiedness, locality, relativity, emotionality and dynamicity. The current global COVID-19 pandemic serves as a fitting and timely touchstone to testify how human beings are surrounded by numerous good and evil memes in the online world, and how internet memes, as can be seen from the illustration of two specific memes, namely, the ‘stay home, stay safe’ meme and the ‘wear a mask’ meme, are impacting human life-worlds, online and offline, with their transformative power, be it constructive or destructive. Moreover, researching how memes plays a decisive part in internet-mediated interaction provides a lens of insight through which ‘deep states’ of human nature of both self and others can be uncovered and through which what Nietzsche called “a revaluation of values” is possible.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00066.xie
2020-10-13
2020-10-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler, Alfred
    2013Understanding Human Nature. Hove: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arendt, Hannah
    1958The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago University.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2013Poetics (trans. byAnthony Kenny). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ask, Kristine, and Crystal Abidin
    2018 “My life is a mess: Self-deprecating relatability and collective identities in the memification of student issues.” Information, Communication & Society21(6): 834–850. doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2018.1437204
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1437204 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aunger, Robert
    (ed.) 2000Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrett, William
    1958Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beerling, Reinier Franciscus
    1955 “Power and human nature.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research16(2): 214–222. 10.2307/2103774
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2103774 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blackmore, Susan
    1999The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2001 “Evolution and memes: The human brain as a selective imitation device.” Cybernetics and Systems32: 225–255. 10.1080/019697201300001867
    https://doi.org/10.1080/019697201300001867 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009 “Dangerous memes; or, what the Pandorans let loose.” InCosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context, ed. bySteven J. Dick, and Mark L. Lupisella, 297–318. Washington, DC: NASA.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brodie, Richard
    1996Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. Seattle: Integral Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cassirer, Ernst
    1944An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chesterman, Andrew
    1997Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, Mary E.
    2002In Search of Human Nature. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Costall, Alan
    1991 “The ‘meme’ meme.” Cultural Dynamics4: 321–335. 10.1177/092137409100400305
    https://doi.org/10.1177/092137409100400305 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cua, Antonio S.
    1982 “Morality and human nature.” Philosophy East and West32(3): 279–294. 10.2307/1398467
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1398467 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dawkins, Richard
    1976The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1982The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1999The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (revised edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016The Selfish Gene (40th anniversary edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. De Mente, Boyé Lafayette
    2008The Chinese Mind: Understanding Traditional Chinese Beliefs and Their Influence on Contemporary Culture. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dennett, Daniel C.
    1991Consciousness Explained. New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dewey, John
    1922Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Diedrichsen, Elke
    2013 “Constructions as memes – Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words.” InBeyond Words: Content, Context, and Inference, ed. byFrank Liedtke, and Cornelia Schulze, 283–305. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614512776.283
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512776.283 [Google Scholar]
  25. Distin, Kate
    2005The Selfish Meme: A Critical Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dynel, Marta
    2016 “‘I has seen Image Macros!’: Advice Animals memes as visual-verbal jokes.” International Journal of Communication10: 660–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Feibleman, James K.
    1979 “Technology and human nature.” The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy10(1): 35–41. 10.5840/swjphil19791013
    https://doi.org/10.5840/swjphil19791013 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fix, Alan G.
    1978 “Genocentric social theory.” Contemporary Sociology7(6): 705–706. 10.2307/2065676
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2065676 [Google Scholar]
  29. Greene, Penelope J.
    1978 “From genes to memes?” Contemporary Sociology7(6): 706–709. 10.2307/2065677
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2065677 [Google Scholar]
  30. Grundlingh, L.
    2018 “Memes as speech acts.” Social Semiotics28(2): 147–168. 10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hacker, Peter Michael Stephan
    2007Human nature: The Categorial Framework. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470692165
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692165 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hahner, Leslie A.
    2013 “The riot kiss: Framing memes as visual argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy49: 151–166. 10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hamilton, William Donald
    1977 “The play by nature.” Science196 (4291): 757–759. 10.1126/science.196.4291.757
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.196.4291.757 [Google Scholar]
  34. Holdcroft, David, and Harry Lewis
    2000 “Memes, minds and evolution.” Philosophy75(292): 161–182. 10.1017/S0031819100000231
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100000231 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hong, Yingming
    2003菜根谭 [Tending the Roots of Wisdom] (Chinese-English, trans. byPaul White). Beijing: New World Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Horton, Keith
    1999 “The limits of human nature.” The Philosophical Quarterly49(197): 452–470. 10.1111/1467‑9213.00153
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00153 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hume, David
    2007A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition (2, vols.ed. byDavid Fate Norton, and Mary J. Norton). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hurley, Susan, and Nick Chater
    (eds.) 2005Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science, vol.1, Mechanisms of Imitation and Imitation in Animals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ibrahim, Yasmin
    2021Digital Icons: Memes, Martyrs and Avatars. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jan, Steven B.
    2016The Memetics of Music: A Neo-Darwinian View of Musical Structure and Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Jaworska, Sylvia
    2020 “Is the war rhetoric around Covid-19 an Anglo-American thing?” https://viraldiscourse.com/2020/04/13/is-the-war-rhetoric-around-covid-19-an-anglo-american-thing/ (accessed 20 April 2020).
  42. Jenkins, Eric S.
    2014 “The modes of visual rhetoric: Circulating memes as expressions.” Quarterly Journal of Speech100(4): 442–466. 10.1080/00335630.2014.989258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2014.989258 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kanai, Akane
    2016 “Sociality and classification: Reading gender, race, and class in a humorous meme.” Social Media + Society2(4): 1–12. doi:  10.1177/2056305116672884
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672884 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kavey, Rae-Ellen W., and Allison B. Kavey
    2021Viral Pandemics: From Smallpox to COVID-19. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kien, Grant
    2019Communicating with Memes: Consequences in Post-truth Civilization. Lanham: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear
    2007 “Online memes, affinities and cultural production.” InA New Literacies Sampler, ed. byMichele Knobel, and Colin Lankshear, 199–227. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kronfeldner, Maria
    2011Darwinian Creativity and Memetics. Durham: Acumen.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Laland, Kevin N., and Patrick Bateson
    2001 “The mechanisms of imitation.” Cybernetics and Systems32(1–2): 195–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lin, Yutang
    1948The Wisdom of Laotse. New York: The Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lu, Ying, and Jan Blommaert
    2020 “Understanding memes on Chinese social media: Biaoqing.” Chinese Language and Discourse11(2): 227–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Marcus, Olivia Rose, and Merrill Singer
    2017 “Loving Ebola-chan: Internet memes in an epidemic.” Media, Culture & Society39(3): 341–356. doi:  10.1177/0163443716646174
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716646174 [Google Scholar]
  52. Meltzoff, Andrew N., and Wolfgang Prinz
    (eds.) 2002The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489969
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489969 [Google Scholar]
  53. Milner, Ryan M.
    2016The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034999.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034999.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Moody-Ramirez, Mia, and Andrew B. Church
    2019 “Analysis of Facebook meme groups used during the 2016 US presidential election.” Social Media + Society5(1): 1–11. 10.1177/2056305118808799
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118808799 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm
    1996Human, All Too Human (trans. byR. J. Hollingdale). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812057
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812057 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2002Beyond Good and Evil (ed. byRolf-Peter Horstmann, and Judith Norman, andtrans. byJudith Norman). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2007Twilight of the Idols (trans. byAntony M. Ludovici). Ware: Wordsworth Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2017‘On the Genealogy of Morality’ and Other Writings (3rd edn., ed. byKeith Ansell-Pearsonandtrans. byCarol Diethe). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Paton, Bernadette
    2020 “Social change and linguistic change: The language of Covid-19.” https://public.oed.com/blog/the-language-of-covid-19/ (accessed12 April 2020).
  60. Perez Salazar, Gabriel
    2019 “The internet meme as a digital text: Characterization and social uses in electoral processes.” Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia12(1): 1–18. 10.17851/1983‑3652.12.1.1‑18
    https://doi.org/10.17851/1983-3652.12.1.1-18 [Google Scholar]
  61. Plato
    Plato 2000The Republic (ed. byG. R. F. Ferrariandtrans. byTom Griffith). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Rabadan, Raul
    2020Understanding Coronavirus. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108920254
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108920254 [Google Scholar]
  63. Rutakirwa, Tonny
    2020Understanding Corona Virus (COVID-19): The Only Manual You Will Need. London: Tonniez Publishing Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Scruton, Roger
    2017On Human Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Searle, John R.
    1997The Mystery of Consciousness. New York: The New York Review of Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Shifman, Limor
    2014Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sun-tzu
    Sun-tzu 1994The Art of War (translated, with introductions and commentary byRalph D. Sawyer). Colorado: Westview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Taecharungroj, Viriya, and Pitchanut Nueangjamnong
    2015 “Humour 2.0: Styles and types of humour and virality of memes on Facebook.” Journal of Creative Communications10(3): 288–302. 10.1177/0973258615614420
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258615614420 [Google Scholar]
  69. Tay, Geniesa
    2014 “Binders full of LOLitics: Political humour, internet memes, and play in the 2012 US Presidential Election (and beyond).” The European Journal of Humour Research2(4): 46–73. 10.7592/EJHR2014.2.4.tay
    https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2014.2.4.tay [Google Scholar]
  70. Varis, Piia, and Jan Blommaert
    2015 “Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures.” Multilingual Margins2(1):31–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1961Notebooks 1914–1916 (ed. byG. H. von Wright, and G. E. M. Anscombe; trans. byG. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 2009Philosophical Investigations (trans. byG. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte; revised fourth edition byP. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Woods, Heather Suzanne, and Leslie A. Hahner
    2019Make America Meme Again: The Rhetoric of the Alt-Right. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Xie, Chaoqun
    2007 “Controversies about politeness.” InTraditions of Controversy, ed. byMarcelo Dascal, and Han-liang Chang, 249–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.4.17xie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.4.17xie [Google Scholar]
  75. Xie, Chaoqun
    2011礼貌与模因:语用哲学思考 [Politeness and Memes: Philosophizing Pragmatics]. Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Xie, Chaoqun, and Ying Tong
    2019 “Constructing ‘ordinariness’: An analysis of Jack Ma’s narrative identities on Sina Weibo.” InThe Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres, ed. byAnita Fetzer, and Elda Weizman, 179–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.307.08xie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.08xie [Google Scholar]
  77. Xie, Chaoqun, Ying Tong, and Francisco Yus
    2020 “Bonding across Chinese social media: The pragmatics of language play in ‘精(sang) 彩(xin) 有(bing) 趣(kuang)’ construction.” Pragmatics30(3): 431–457. doi:  10.1075/prag.19010.xie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19010.xie [Google Scholar]
  78. Yus
    2019 “Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach.” InAnalyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, ed. byPatricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 105–131. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92663‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  79. Zimmer, Ben
    2020 “‘Virtual’: A way to be present without being there.” The Wall Street Journal, 11April. https://www.wsj.com/articles/virtual-a-way-to-be-present-withoutbeing-there-11586454362 (accessed11 April 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00066.xie
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00066.xie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error