First paragraph: Recently, there has been much debate on what should and what should not be considered part of the science of memetics. Aunger (2002) notes the familiar fault line between "those who advocate the contagion-like or viral metaphor and those who prefer the gene metaphor" with both groups appearing to claim that the other is retarding progress in memetics. Perhaps, however, it is not so much the metaphor that is retarding the progress in memetics, but the debate itself. If memetics were to focus on real-world examples of supposed memetic phenomena, then we might move beyond metaphor debates, and begin providing people with insight and understanding about the world around us

Duthie, A Bradley

English

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Duthie, A. B.  (2003). A Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memetic Perspective.Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 8.http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.htmlA Letter on:The Fork and the Paperclip: AMemetic PerspectiveA. Bradley DuthieSouthern Illinois University Edwardsvilleaduthie@siue.eduRecently, there has been much debate on what should and what should not beconsidered part of the science of memetics. Aunger (2002) notes the familiarfault line between "those who advocate the contagion-like or viral metaphor andthose who prefer the gene metaphor" with both groups appearing to claim thatthe other is retarding progress in memetics. Perhaps, however, it is not so muchthe metaphor that is retarding the progress in memetics, but the debate itself. Ifmemetics  were  to  focus  on  real-world  examples  of  supposed  memeticphenomena,  then  we  might  move  beyond  metaphor  debates,  and  beginproviding people with insight and understanding about the world around us.Take, for example, the evolution of a simple artifact such as the dining fork. Abrief investigation into the origin of forks reveals the surprising fact that forksare in fact  descended from knives (Petroski  1992).  During  the  Middle  Ages,people began to eat with two knives, using one knife to cut food and the other tospear and bring food to the mouth. The fork first appeared as a variation on thispractice, with the second knife being replaced with a two-tined prong that wasmore effective in picking up food. Although it is unclear precisely when these'knife-replacements'  started appearing, we know for certain that dining forkswere used in the eleventh century in Tuscany among the wealthy, against theexpress wishes of the church (Panati 1989). There is also evidence that diningforks  were  used in  royal  courts  in  the  Middle  East  as  early  as  the  seventhcentury.The purpose here is not to provide a memetic history of the dining fork, but tosuggest that such a history would be interesting. By taking a memetic approach,we ask two simple questions: where do forks come from, and why have certainfork variants been selected over others? Answers to these trademark questionsA Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memet... http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.html1 of 3 12/22/2015 10:07 AMof  origins  and  selection  might  provide  unique  insights  into  these  everydayartifacts. For example, such a memetic account could explain the origins of thestandard four-tined fork that we use today, whilst providing a rationale for howit came to be selected over three-, five- and six-tined variants.Figure 1A second example of memetics in action is the paperclip, which has also evolvedthrough  a  pattern  of  descent  with  modification  and  differential  selection.Patented in  1867 by  Samuel  B.  Fay,  the  paperclip  (Figure  1)  was  originallydesigned to compete with the pin in holding materials together: Thus, the pin isto the paperclip what the knife is to the fork. Originally, the clip was advertisedto be used to fasten fabric, not paper, but by the late nineteenth century itsprincipal use had evolved to fasten papers together (Early Office Museum 2002).After  Fay's  first  patent,  a  number  of  variant  paperclips  appeared  that  weredesigned for specific purposes, such as the Wright paperclip (Figure 2) designedspecifically as a newspaper clip and patented in 1877. Other variants affordedsuperior performance in certain circumstances, such as being particularly goodat holding papers securely or in being the optimal choice for large stacks ofpapers.Figure 2 Figure 3Figure4Figure5Figure 6Figure7Figure8The figures above shows a number of different designs of paperclips.All of these pictures were obtained from http://www.officemuseum.com/paper_clips.htmThe  paperclip  variant  with  which  we  are  most  familiar  today  is  the  GEMpaperclip (Figure 6), named after the British company that made them. There isno patent record for this variant, but a machine for manufacturing them waspatented in 1899 (Lienhard 2003).  Unlike other paperclips appearing aroundthis  time,  such  as  the  1897  Cole  paperclip  (Figure  3)  and  the  1897  Reevepaperclip  (Figure  4),  the  GEM  paperclip  was  similar  to  the  1900/1901Norwegian Vaaler paperclip (Figure 5) insofar as it did not have projections ofA Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memet... http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.html2 of 3 12/22/2015 10:07 AMwire sticking out from it. With its "loop within a loop" design (Kendall 1999),credit for the GEM paperclip's popularity has been attributed to its aestheticappeal (American Association of Engineering Societies 2003). Variations of thesuccessful GEM paperclip have been subsequently proposed (Figures 7 & 8),with  the  Perfected  GEM (Figure  8)  appearing  in  1934  as  an  easier  to  useversion,  providing a better grip, as well as being less likely to scratch paperbecause of new square ends that lined up with the edge of the paper.Again,  the  purpose  here  is  not  to  provide  a  detailed  memetic  account  ofpaperclip,  but  to  suggest  that  such  an  account  could  be  interesting  andinsightful. By asking the twin memetic questions of where do today's paperclipscome from (their evolutionary lineage), and why certain variations have beenselected  instead  of  others  (differential  selection),  we  can  demonstrate  therelevance and utility of memetics in understanding and explaining the world ofartifacts around us.ReferencesAmerican Association of Engineering Societies (2003) Paper Clip: Design. 21Apr. http://www.voicesofinnovation.org/archives/Apr_03/P166_4_21_03.aspAunger, R. (2002) The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think. NewYork, NY: The Free Press.Early Office Museum (2002) History of the Paper Clip.http://www.officemuseum.com/paper_clips.htmKendall, N.M. (1999) Getting a Grip - On Paper. Christian Science Monitor.http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/03/09/fp22s1-csm.shtmlLienhard, J.H. (2003) Engines of Our Ingenuity: No. 769: The Paper Clip.University of Houston. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi769.htmPanati, C. (1989) Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things. New York: Harper &Row.Petroski, H. (1992) The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Vintage Books.© JoM-EMIT 2003Back to Issue 1 Volume 8A Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memet... http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.html3 of 3 12/22/2015 10:07 AM

A letter on: The fork and the paperclip: a memetic perspective

Stirling Online Research Repository

Duthie, A. B.  (2003). A Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memetic Perspective.Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 8.http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.htmlA Letter on:The Fork and the Paperclip: AMemetic PerspectiveA. Bradley DuthieSouthern Illinois University Edwardsvilleaduthie@siue.eduRecently, there has been much debate on what should and what should not beconsidered part of the science of memetics. Aunger (2002) notes the familiarfault line between "those who advocate the contagion-like or viral metaphor andthose who prefer the gene metaphor" with both groups appearing to claim thatthe other is retarding progress in memetics. Perhaps, however, it is not so muchthe metaphor that is retarding the progress in memetics, but the debate itself. Ifmemetics  were  to  focus  on  real-world  examples  of  supposed  memeticphenomena,  then  we  might  move  beyond  metaphor  debates,  and  beginproviding people with insight and understanding about the world around us.Take, for example, the evolution of a simple artifact such as the dining fork. Abrief investigation into the origin of forks reveals the surprising fact that forksare in fact  descended from knives (Petroski  1992).  During  the  Middle  Ages,people began to eat with two knives, using one knife to cut food and the other tospear and bring food to the mouth. The fork ﬁrst appeared as a variation on thispractice, with the second knife being replaced with a two-tined prong that wasmore eﬀective in picking up food. Although it is unclear precisely when these'knife-replacements'  started appearing, we know for certain that dining forkswere used in the eleventh century in Tuscany among the wealthy, against theexpress wishes of the church (Panati 1989). There is also evidence that diningforks  were  used in  royal  courts  in  the  Middle  East  as  early  as  the  seventhcentury.The purpose here is not to provide a memetic history of the dining fork, but tosuggest that such a history would be interesting. By taking a memetic approach,we ask two simple questions: where do forks come from, and why have certainfork variants been selected over others? Answers to these trademark questionsA Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memet... http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.html1 of 3 12/22/2015 10:07 AMof  origins  and  selection  might  provide  unique  insights  into  these  everydayartifacts. For example, such a memetic account could explain the origins of thestandard four-tined fork that we use today, whilst providing a rationale for howit came to be selected over three-, ﬁve- and six-tined variants.Figure 1A second example of memetics in action is the paperclip, which has also evolvedthrough  a  pattern  of  descent  with  modiﬁcation  and  diﬀerential  selection.Patented in  1867 by  Samuel  B.  Fay,  the  paperclip  (Figure  1)  was  originallydesigned to compete with the pin in holding materials together: Thus, the pin isto the paperclip what the knife is to the fork. Originally, the clip was advertisedto be used to fasten fabric, not paper, but by the late nineteenth century itsprincipal use had evolved to fasten papers together (Early Oﬃce Museum 2002).After  Fay's  ﬁrst  patent,  a  number  of  variant  paperclips  appeared  that  weredesigned for speciﬁc purposes, such as the Wright paperclip (Figure 2) designedspeciﬁcally as a newspaper clip and patented in 1877. Other variants aﬀordedsuperior performance in certain circumstances, such as being particularly goodat holding papers securely or in being the optimal choice for large stacks ofpapers.Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure4Figure5 Figure 6Figure7Figure8The ﬁgures above shows a number of diﬀerent designs of paperclips.All of these pictures were obtained from http://www.oﬃcemuseum.com/paper_clips.htmThe  paperclip  variant  with  which  we  are  most  familiar  today  is  the  GEMpaperclip (Figure 6), named after the British company that made them. There isno patent record for this variant, but a machine for manufacturing them waspatented in 1899 (Lienhard 2003).  Unlike other paperclips appearing aroundthis  time,  such  as  the  1897  Cole  paperclip  (Figure  3)  and  the  1897  Reevepaperclip  (Figure  4),  the  GEM  paperclip  was  similar  to  the  1900/1901Norwegian Vaaler paperclip (Figure 5) insofar as it did not have projections ofA Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memet... http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.html2 of 3 12/22/2015 10:07 AMwire sticking out from it. With its "loop within a loop" design (Kendall 1999),credit for the GEM paperclip's popularity has been attributed to its aestheticappeal (American Association of Engineering Societies 2003). Variations of thesuccessful GEM paperclip have been subsequently proposed (Figures 7 & 8),with  the  Perfected  GEM (Figure  8)  appearing  in  1934  as  an  easier  to  useversion,  providing a better grip, as well as being less likely to scratch paperbecause of new square ends that lined up with the edge of the paper.Again,  the  purpose  here  is  not  to  provide  a  detailed  memetic  account  ofpaperclip,  but  to  suggest  that  such  an  account  could  be  interesting  andinsightful. By asking the twin memetic questions of where do today's paperclipscome from (their evolutionary lineage), and why certain variations have beenselected  instead  of  others  (diﬀerential  selection),  we  can  demonstrate  therelevance and utility of memetics in understanding and explaining the world ofartifacts around us.ReferencesAmerican Association of Engineering Societies (2003) Paper Clip: Design. 21Apr. http://www.voicesoﬁnnovation.org/archives/Apr_03/P166_4_21_03.aspAunger, R. (2002) The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think. NewYork, NY: The Free Press.Early Oﬃce Museum (2002) History of the Paper Clip.http://www.oﬃcemuseum.com/paper_clips.htmKendall, N.M. (1999) Getting a Grip - On Paper. Christian Science Monitor.http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/03/09/fp22s1-csm.shtmlLienhard, J.H. (2003) Engines of Our Ingenuity: No. 769: The Paper Clip.University of Houston. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi769.htmPanati, C. (1989) Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things. New York: Harper &Row.Petroski, H. (1992) The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Vintage Books.© JoM-EMIT 2003Back to Issue 1 Volume 8A Letter on: The Fork and the Paperclip: A Memet... http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/duthie_ab.html3 of 3 12/22/2015 10:07 AM

http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/24551/1/Duthie2003.pdf

A letter on: The fork and the paperclip: a memetic perspective

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository