Memeplexes are groups of memes (or ideas). They do the same kinds of things that organisms do: they survive when people believe them, they reproduce when people spread them around, and they die when people stop believing them. Religions are memeplexes (though there are others), and we can learn a lot about them when we examine the memes (sort of like genes) that help them survive.
One good strategy for a successful memeplex would be to have some way to fight off rival memeplexes — an immune system, if you will. A religion that has a ‘we’re the only true church’ meme is using this kind of strategy. But the struggle isn’t just between rival religions. Another formidable rival memeplex is family. To pass on their genes, people spend lots of time and energy raising families; time that won’t go to supporting and propagating the religion memeplex. Accordingly, many religions have evolved memes that serve to reduce the influence of family.
Here’s one from that peaceful fellow Jesus:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
In other words, if you have to choose between supporting the religion memeplex and the family memeplex, the religion says (surprise!) choose the religion memeplex. Well, it wouldn’t be a very robust memeplex if it didn’t assert its superiority. People who draw a distinction between cults and religions say that cults attempt to isolate the believer from family. This meme is a rather primitive attempt, probably a holdover from when Christianity was a Jewish ‘cult’. The memeplex has gotten more sophisticated now; this meme’s something of an embarrassment.
Another strategy: Religions can set themselves up as substitute families. In the LDS Church, it’s not uncommon to hear people speak about the ‘ward family’. Many religions borrow kinship terms, such as calling a priest ‘father’, or (going LDS again) calling fellow congregants ‘Brother’ or ‘Sister So-and-So’. In my mission field, elders would sometimes jokingly refer to their first companion and trainer as their ‘dad’.
But if religions are trying to subvert the family, how do we explain the rise of ‘family-friendly’ religions, like the Mormons, who elevate the family to primary importance, seemingly at the expense of the religion memeplex?
Well, outright suppression is only one way to compete. Another is to be a parasite, and feed off the energy of the host. By attaching itself inextricably to family rituals like birth, death, and marriage, the religions effectively run off the power of the family. If the two are sufficiently tightly connected, it becomes difficult to imagine having a ‘proper family’ without the religion. With all the rituals under its purview, as well as, say, Christian parenting tips, religion harnesses the power of family, and uses it for its own ends. And so now we see religion trying to claim the family for themselves, with names like ‘Focus on the Family’ or ‘Family First’.
This explains why religions resist any attempts to redefine rituals that (they imagine) belong to them: placing ‘marriage’ or ‘family’ outside of their control separates this parasite from its host. It also explains why religions that already carry anti-gay memes need to oppose gay marriage. It would sanction marriages the church doesn’t approve of, driving a wedge between the religious memeplex and its source of power.
Note also that you can’t get a sensible answer out of a religious believer when you ask why they oppose gay marriage. They quickly dwindle down to twaddle about ‘definitions’ or ‘slippery slopes’, and they can never ever say how exactly this will be bad for ‘the family’. They’ve likely never considered the issue from a memetic perspective, and so they only have shadowy feelings that this must be bad for the religion somehow. And they’re right about that.
16 November 2008 at 10:36 am
This is an excellent analysis, Dan. I think the family is often portrayed as being modelled on the ‘Holy Family’ but of course it makes much more sense that it was appropriated – and then it can be utilised to promote the vested interests. Thus the idea that the man should always be the head of the family and the woman should be meek and deferent was established to serve the patriarchal interests. Gay marriage threatens this gender power balance as well.
16 November 2008 at 10:37 am
ps – I love the paradoxical poll!
17 November 2008 at 1:29 am
Lakoff says some of the same things in his book “Don’t Think of an Elephant”. He says conservatives are operating off a ‘stern father’ model of parenting, while liberals are working off a ‘nurturing mother’ model. A marriage without a strong hierarchy threatens someone with a stern father outlook.
23 November 2008 at 2:23 am
I’m not sure I understand Lakoff’s point there – guess I’ll have to actually read the book…
I’ve made a few homophobe types of friends – one of the religious ones thinks that it’s cruel to deny a child the right to a mother and a father. He thinks that healthy development demands a male and female role model at home, and sees gay marriage (and divorce, for that matter) as a threat to that.
I disagree quite strongly, but he doesn’t seem to link it at all to religion; he instead links it to folk theories about psychology and sociology. Granted, he understands how meaningless Bible verses are to me, so maybe he was just arguing in a way he thought I might appreciate.