Sticky Theology, Part 1: Emotional Selection

In thinking through the comments to my last post, I'd like to start a little series reflecting on the nature and dynamics of folk theology.

I think most people are aware of Richard Dawkins's idea of a meme. Dawkins proposed the idea in 1976 in his book The Selfish Gene. A meme is a unit, a piece, of cultural information that can get transmitted or imitated in a population. Think of a good idea (like making a wheel), a cultural trend (like wearing wedding rings), or a juicy piece of gossip. As memes, these cultural replicators spread through populations.

Since 1976, the meme idea has been a fruitful way of looking at cultural phenomena. I'd like to use the idea to think about folk theology.

For a meme to "spread" it needs a characteristic that is the analog to virulence or contagiousness. In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell calls this memetic characteristic "stickiness." That is, once spoken, read, or observed the meme has to "stick" in the mind of a person. And more, the meme must be deemed worthy of transmission or imitation. Think of a very bad joke or idea. These memes are not very "sticky" and thus die the death of poor memes: They are forgotten.

Here is my point. If we think of theology as a meme then the most successful folk theologies will be those that "stick." Sticky theology will be the dominant theology.

Well, what makes theology, or any meme for that matter, "sticky"?

An interesting article by Heath, Bell, and Steinberg published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology entitled Emotional Selection in Memes: The Case of Urban Legends suggests that emotional selection may be involved in meme propagation. Heath, Bell, and Steinberg define emotional selection as the tendency of memes to be "selected" (i.e., remembered and transmitted) because they "evoke an emotional reaction that is shared across people." The point is that if a meme can create a strong emotional response it is more likely to be remembered and shared. Better still, if the meme elicits a strong shared emotional response then it is even more effective.

I think all this has application for folk theology. That is, we may ask "Why are very poor theological ideas ascendant in our churches?" One answer is that these theological formulations, although poor on theological grounds, are effective on emotional grounds. That is, folk theology has gone through generations of emotional selection where the configurations that are the most emotionally evocative tend to get remembered and repeated.

Interestingly, Dawkins himself recognized this dynamic. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins says this about some religious memes:

“…an aspect of doctrine that has been very effective in enforcing religious observance is the threat of hell fire. Many children and even some adults believe that they will suffer ghastly torment after death if they do not obey the priestly rules. This is a particularly nasty piece of persuasion, causing great psychological anguish throughout the middle ages and even today. But it is highly effective…The idea of hell fire is, quite simply, self-perpetuating, because of its own deep psychological impact. It has become linked with the god meme because the two reinforce each other, and assist each other’s survival in the meme pool.” pp. 197,198

If we put issues of hell to the side for a moment, we can see Dawkins's point: Some theological ideas stick with you for non-theological reasons. As we see with Dawkins's example, some theological ideas might propagate for purely emotional reasons. Sticky theology is emotional theology.

Next Post: Part 2