In Girard's model of mimetic desire, there are three parts: the subject, the object, and the model. The subject sees that the model has the object and comes to desire it.
There's something deeply true about this. But often, the thing you end up desiring is not an object. For example, you might observe someone else's happy relationship and want a happy relationship for yourself. But you don't necessarily want their partner. Or you might see that someone else enjoys their job and you might want a job that you enjoy...but you don't necessarily want their job.
Seen from this perspective, mimetic desire doesn't necessarily lead to conflict.
I’ve wondered if the democratic process is really a civilized form of scape-goating. Elections are a pressure valve, meaning incumbent parties are ejected from office and fresh faces brought in, albeit often with little change in the policies that caused pressures to build.
If one thinks of the democratic process as replacing physical conflict, then gerrymandering can't get too out of hand, because at some point the actual majority will call.
If it's just a civilised form of scapegoating, then gerrymandering could potentially reach insanely high levels, as long as it provides a good show (à la Russian Federation elections?) of ritual conflict.
Oh definitely. It allows violent conflict to be replaced by… well… culture wars, and murder with voting people out or maybe legal battles. That’s massively more civilized and avoids destroying all of society’s accumulated wealth in destructive conflicts.
Avoiding burning everything to the ground all the time might be the main reason democracies tend to be wealthier.
Switzerland was considered a poor country in the 19th century, but didn't get bombed to rubble in either 1914-1918 or 1936-1945, and so now it's considered rich.
I wonder how solarpunk continental europe might've been now if it had somehow avoided the "short 20th century (1914-1991)".
Not exactly curated, but Durant & Durant The Story of Civilization (1935-1975) is 11 volumes containing several bright spots interspersed with an awful lot of people being awful to each other.
Yeah, the central park 5 were innocent but everyone was racist in the 80s if that is the standard. All those poor kids were doing was beating random people, stealing from them, and knocking them out and leaving them for dead to whoever might come along. But they weren't rapists.
Yes, and Trump was happy to judge before any facts came out (also well before the city settled for $41M), based apparently on (a) what he thought had happened, and (b) how he thought the justice system ought to work; most people in the 80s would not have done that.
Yes, Trump judged, and about 95% of society at that time did as well.
And the CP5 almost certainly were out there assaulting strangers in the park. What they (probably) didn't do was rape the lady. They just knocked her out so that someone else could come along and rape her.
In Peter Thiels 2013 book he describes successful founders and extreme personalities as having similar characteristics. It’s hard not to make similar observations about Musk (super genius, who is an idiot).
The social dynamics are too powerful to perceive anything real about them.
But supporters are not going to unite with haters to kill Trump, either literally or figuratively. Sure, Trump has a lot of the characteristics, but the way Girard says the scapegoat plays out is not going to happen with Trump. Even if he loses the election - even if he winds up in jail - a significant chunk of the country is still going to support him. He's not going to be universally condemned and unite everyone by their rejection of him.
Girardian theory describes the kinds of people who have scapegoat potential. It doesn’t prophecy that every insider/outsider will get killed, but that they have or are a sign of mimetic energy.
We are experiencing capulets vs mortigues.
Girard is also describing ancient origins. He argues the effectiveness and violence of scapegoating is reduced in modern context.
My theory is that any hegemons (lacking significant exterior scapegoat possibilities) sooner or later divide into factions.
When I was growing up in the States, there was a significant overlap between the left R wing and the right D wing. Since I left the Old Country, it seems (from afar) like that overlap has disappeared, and maybe there's even unoccupied space where the middle used to be.
> 8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference. For example, hatred of immigrants (and their hatred of the locals) is amplified when both live in the same neighborhood and the barriers that previously existed have been removed. There are hundreds of other examples, but they all derive from the other refusing to remain the other, and instead showing up on our street, in our country club, at our doorstep, or somewhere else where they start to resemble us.
This doesn't make any sense. Physical proximity and similarity are very different things. The correct analogy would be if immigrants assimilated, and that led to resentment by the local population.
Similar to the imitation problem, I’ve read somewhere that it’s not greed what drives people to accumulate things (wealth etc.) but envy. You don’t want more for the sake of getting more, you simply want more than your neighbor.
It’s all relative. And difficult to break the cycle.
I wouldn’t think so. Envy is this funny feeling we hardly ever admit ourselves but which is part of being human. It happens to everyone no matter where they are in the hierarchy. Or, as Bertrand Russell puts it: „Beggars do not envy millionaires. They envy other beggars who are more successful.“
As an outsider to the "tech" scene, who did a PhD generals field on modern European intellectual history (which included a dollop of recent continental philosophy), it's endlessly fascinating to me how people in tech have fixated upon Girard. While a few of his ilk do come up in standard reading lists, he (generally) doesn't -- he is far more prominent vis-a-vis his peers in this discourse than in his "native" one. I suspect that this owes to path dependency and his metaphysics' compatibility with the industry's participants' socio-intellectual priors (so to speak).
I'd guess it's because anoraks/botanics/intellos/Geeks/geeks are pretty familiar with low-subculture-on-the-totem-pole becoming a unifying scapegoat, so it's an appealing idée fixe. (or is that merely recapitulating what you just said?)
On the other hand, I've been in the tech scene for nearly 4 decades, and this discussion is the first time I've encountered Girard (at least that I remember).
Girardian philosophy was one of the most profound theories i'd come across when i first heard it. I really need to dig into Girard's actual books - i've only heard of him through third parties.
They're more like interpretative theories than scientific theories. Different kind of thing. Their validity is in that they seem to pattern-match to a lot of experience, so the only test is really "do they ring true?"; there's not a sense in which they would be scientifically testable.
(well- I should say, this is how I feel about how the high-level impression of Girard's ideas, like the notion of mimetic desire in this article. I haven't read him so I dunno about his actual takes; maybe they're more concrete and therefore falsifiable. For instance the actually detailed scapegoat theory, which I have heard about elsewhere, seems obviously silly to me.)
This [1] cured me of Girard. Read that and then read the rest of the comments here. Don't worry, it's very well written and quite funny. Also provides an implicit side view of Silicon Valley culture.
Yeah. The ability to torture your citations until they say what you want does not make them evidence for your theory. (Seriously, I second downut - read the reference before you decide you agree with Girard.)
And if he's doing that to the foundational texts of Christianity, that makes me inclined to view his statements about Christianity very skeptically, for all he claims that he is consistent with Christianity and supporting Christianity.
Is Landy envious of Girard? With Landy having just 1 (one) wikipedia article to his name, and Girard 36 (thirty-six)? Who knows. Thanks for the reference.
Reading his mimetic theory was a real mind blower and one of those moments that redefines your understanding of the world.
The way he seamlessly was able to describe it in so many layers and perspectives is fascinating. From a biological/evolutionary pov, to human sacrifice and scapegoating, to the birth of the 'sacred' and religions, to Christianism, and to so many facets of our modern society and human behaviour.
I like how Rene Girard spoke about Jesus. The good Samaritan for example. Jesus literally talks about how a person from a completely different ethnicity which hates Jews is taking care of a Jewish man. His message was absolute love and radical forgiveness. If we really take Jesus' message it would mean no borders, no wars, just pure love for each other. Anybody who doesn't understand that is not a real Christian.
> The good Samaritan for example. Jesus literally talks about how a person from a completely different ethnicity which hates Jews is taking care of a Jewish man.
The story would've been shocking to his Jewish audience because of the enmity that existed between Jews and Samaritans. They would've been thinking along the lines of "but how could those people be good?" upon hearing the story.
> If we really take Jesus' message it would mean no borders, no wars, just pure love for each other.
I may have mixed it up with “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”.
Some of the big ideas in there:
1. Nonviolence as a Principle: Tolstoy concludes that the core of Jesus’ teachings is nonviolent resistance to evil. This was a radical idea at the time, influencing figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. later on.
2. Rejection of the State and All Violence: He argues that all forms of violence, including state-sanctioned violence (like police and military), are fundamentally opposed to Christian teachings.
3. Critique of the Church: Tolstoy is critical of the institutionalized church, asserting it has strayed far from Jesus’ original teachings. He believes the church supports violence and coercion, contrary to the principles of Christianity.
4. Personal Morality Over Legal Systems: He suggests that true Christian ethics are based on personal morality and conscience rather than legal systems or government decrees.
5. The Kingdom of God Is Within: Tolstoy interprets the Kingdom of God not as a physical location or afterlife promise, but as a state of being one can achieve by living in accordance with Jesus’ teachings.
6. Universal Love and Brotherhood: He emphasizes the idea of universal love and brotherhood, extending beyond one’s community or nation, challenging prevailing notions of nationalism and tribalism.
7. Civil Disobedience: Tolstoy advocates for civil disobedience as a means of opposing unjust laws and government actions, prefiguring many 20th-century movements for social change.
8. Simplicity and Asceticism: He also extols the virtues of a simple, ascetic lifestyle, free from the pursuit of wealth and material excess.
Amen. What I found so interesting about Girard's perspective on Christ is that Jesus represents the end of the "scapegoat," because he is the "holy and perfect Sacrifice." In Girard's interpretation, Jesus ultimately broke the cycle of imitation because He is the ultimate scapegoat, upon whom all the sins of humanity were placed, and yet He is also God, whom we should love above all other things.
There is a theory that since he was resurrected three days (one long weekend) after dying for our sins, it's a bit of a gaslight to keep eternally playing the guilt card over the whole affair.
(personally, although this theory is amusing, I prefer Bulgakov's interpretation of the passion)
Additionally some Roman Auxiliaries / guards in Jerusalem may have been Samaritans. Which gives an additional insight into Jesus's persecution and crucifixion as well in this story.
My understanding is that it’s the other way around. The Jews despised the Samaritans. The Samaritans were the hayseed, “deplorable” Israelites left behind when Israel was conquered by the Persians and the elites carted off to Babylon. When the elites returned, they who became the Samaritans offered to help rebuild the Temple, but they who became who we know as the Jews spurned their offer.
"Mimetic desire" in businesses isn't hidden, it is actively thought after ("best practices", learning from winners etc.) - nothing shameful there as people want copy successful things and don't have trouble saying so.
Also, institutional isomorphisms are not a new observation or area of study.
I don't think that's what mimetic desire refers to. It's not the imitation of the practices, it's the imitation of the goals. Not so much the goal "to succeed in business" as "to look like a person who is succeeding in business", though, and that's in large part why so many people seem so mediocre at it.
> 8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference. For example, hatred of immigrants (and their hatred of the locals) is amplified when both live in the same neighborhood and the barriers that previously existed have been removed
Aren't people living far from immigrants the biggest xenophobic group? Cities are much more progressive on immigration issues despite having more of a mix, directly contradicting that theory.
The most xenophobic group appear to be people who don't have any dissimilar people in their social group or immediate surroundings, but occasionally see one on TV or go to the Big City and get upset about it.
It was definitely found during Brexit that places with fewer immigrants were most pro-Brexit.
What I really like about YouTube is that for any given polity you can watch slick stuff on state channels and get the official line, and you can also watch "home videos" of normal people doing normal people stuff to get some idea of the day to day. The Texan making chili is just a few clicks away from the Caucasian making shashlik.
1. People are driven to imitate others, but hate to admit it
2. Imitation is the basis of most businesses, but it's always disguised because customers are ashamed of their mimetic desires.
3. We need to expose these disguises, because the drive to imitate leads to rivalry and conflict.
4. Mimetic rivalries are the source of blood feuds and reciprocal violence —which are traditionally resolved by the sacrifice of a scapegoat.
5. The scapegoat combines opposites— and is often both victim & hero, sacred & profane, guilty & innocent.
6. The persecution of scapegoats is a uniting force behind many institutions and practices, but participants cannot admit this because it delegitimizes their efforts.
7. Humans fail to perceive their own scapegoats-so persecution continues while everybody absolves themselves of individual guilt.
8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference.
9. Enemies resemble each other, because of mimetic rivalry, but this is another secret that cannot be mentioned. Our enemy is always portrayed as our opposite.
10. Artistic idioms often originate in imitation and ritualized sacrifice.
11. We want to protect victims, and are right to do so; but we need to avoid super-victimology, in which this only leads to targeting and punishing new scapegoats.
12. We can only escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat.
I think Girard passes muster in that the theory is often useful, in conjunction with others - that is, it passes the "Condorcet barrier of utility" and one can use it as part of a toolbox to explicate certain human behaviors.
Taking it as a unified theory doesn't work, just as any -ism taken alone to explain the whole damn thing doesn't work and is often counterproductive.
For example - and I would be grateful if someone with knowledge of Girard would explain it - how does one bridge the Underwear Gnomes reasoning of say #12 in the blog:
Step 1 - We point out how we all act out of mimicry
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - We "escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat."
Step 1 - We point out how we all act out of mimicry*
Step 2 - We delegitimise the urge to punish and scapegoat
(thus rising above our desire for vengeance)
Step 3 - We escape the endless cycles (Samsara?)
of reciprocal violence
Exercise: how soon might the last pandemic have been over if people had been more interested in eliminating viral propagation and less interested in punishing and scapegoating each other?
In Girard's model of mimetic desire, there are three parts: the subject, the object, and the model. The subject sees that the model has the object and comes to desire it.
There's something deeply true about this. But often, the thing you end up desiring is not an object. For example, you might observe someone else's happy relationship and want a happy relationship for yourself. But you don't necessarily want their partner. Or you might see that someone else enjoys their job and you might want a job that you enjoy...but you don't necessarily want their job.
Seen from this perspective, mimetic desire doesn't necessarily lead to conflict.
I love the scapegoat concept, it solves problems in at least 3 ways:
- resolves pressure that builds up due to social paradoxes (don't like you but have to pretend to, have desires but can't admit to them)
- reminds everyone that it could be worse, normal problems are no big deal compared to actual violence
- and promotes bonding over a shared enemy
I’ve wondered if the democratic process is really a civilized form of scape-goating. Elections are a pressure valve, meaning incumbent parties are ejected from office and fresh faces brought in, albeit often with little change in the policies that caused pressures to build.
If one thinks of the democratic process as replacing physical conflict, then gerrymandering can't get too out of hand, because at some point the actual majority will call.
If it's just a civilised form of scapegoating, then gerrymandering could potentially reach insanely high levels, as long as it provides a good show (à la Russian Federation elections?) of ritual conflict.
Oh definitely. It allows violent conflict to be replaced by… well… culture wars, and murder with voting people out or maybe legal battles. That’s massively more civilized and avoids destroying all of society’s accumulated wealth in destructive conflicts.
Avoiding burning everything to the ground all the time might be the main reason democracies tend to be wealthier.
Switzerland was considered a poor country in the 19th century, but didn't get bombed to rubble in either 1914-1918 or 1936-1945, and so now it's considered rich.
I wonder how solarpunk continental europe might've been now if it had somehow avoided the "short 20th century (1914-1991)".
This is great for everyone except the scapegoat.
> normal problems are no big deal compared to actual violence
Even democratic pro-human-rights societies tolerate quite a lot of violence towards their scapegoats.
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om...
I wish I could find some curated readings about the sociology of shared enemy and all the usual social reflexes that lead bad states.
Not exactly curated, but Durant & Durant The Story of Civilization (1935-1975) is 11 volumes containing several bright spots interspersed with an awful lot of people being awful to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization
thanks a lot, and fine choice of quote
you're welcome.
(if you'd like, have a 1927/1984 mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctqMIkrqCj8 )
The most profound thing I have read is a short mention in I See Satan Fall Like Lighting.
Something like the more we become the same , the more we become engulfed in mimetic rivalry.
I suspect it sheds quite a bit of light on the modern divide in the US. Not a divide because of differences but because of similarities.
Not a fan of Trump to say the least but it also seems rather obvious who is functioning as a the scapegoat mechanism for a large group of people.
I agree that he could easily be functioning as a scapegoat mechanism, uniting people who believe "anyone but".
As to being an actual scapegoat, I doubt it: scapegoats are innocent.
He is accused of being a racist (Central Park 5) misogynist ("Grab em") bigot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA#t=16)
We are apparently a long time removed from 'quoniam meos tam suspicione quam crimine iudico carere oportere'.
Yeah, the central park 5 were innocent but everyone was racist in the 80s if that is the standard. All those poor kids were doing was beating random people, stealing from them, and knocking them out and leaving them for dead to whoever might come along. But they weren't rapists.
Yes, and Trump was happy to judge before any facts came out (also well before the city settled for $41M), based apparently on (a) what he thought had happened, and (b) how he thought the justice system ought to work; most people in the 80s would not have done that.
lighter: https://www.theonion.com/trump-takes-out-full-page-newspaper...
darker: http://apps.frontline.org/clinton-trump-keys-to-their-charac...
Note that even in Russia, the death penalty theoretically no longer exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Yes, Trump judged, and about 95% of society at that time did as well.
And the CP5 almost certainly were out there assaulting strangers in the park. What they (probably) didn't do was rape the lady. They just knocked her out so that someone else could come along and rape her.
But Trump cannot function as a Girardian scapegoat for society as a whole. He has too many backers. Too many people identify with him.
Paradoxes like this are actually defining characteristics of the scapegoat.
- he is a rich billionaire but also a broke failure
- he is the most hated, but also the most popular
- he has been a ny elite (insider) for decades, but his base is rural and blue collar (outsider).
- he is dumb and unsophisticated but also a cunning planner and schemer
Supporters are not immune from the scapegoat effect. They also believe one man can control the universe.
In Peter Thiels 2013 book he describes successful founders and extreme personalities as having similar characteristics. It’s hard not to make similar observations about Musk (super genius, who is an idiot).
The social dynamics are too powerful to perceive anything real about them.
But supporters are not going to unite with haters to kill Trump, either literally or figuratively. Sure, Trump has a lot of the characteristics, but the way Girard says the scapegoat plays out is not going to happen with Trump. Even if he loses the election - even if he winds up in jail - a significant chunk of the country is still going to support him. He's not going to be universally condemned and unite everyone by their rejection of him.
Girardian theory describes the kinds of people who have scapegoat potential. It doesn’t prophecy that every insider/outsider will get killed, but that they have or are a sign of mimetic energy.
We are experiencing capulets vs mortigues.
Girard is also describing ancient origins. He argues the effectiveness and violence of scapegoating is reduced in modern context.
> capulets vs mortigues
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines
or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots#Background
My theory is that any hegemons (lacking significant exterior scapegoat possibilities) sooner or later divide into factions.
When I was growing up in the States, there was a significant overlap between the left R wing and the right D wing. Since I left the Old Country, it seems (from afar) like that overlap has disappeared, and maybe there's even unoccupied space where the middle used to be.
> Not a fan of Trump to say the least but it also seems rather obvious who is functioning as a the scapegoat mechanism for a large group of people.
I'm not getting this, tbh. One would think that the closest to a 'scapegoat' would be Brandon, not Trump.
That’s precisely the deep rooted divide.
> Something like the more we become the same , the more we become engulfed in mimetic rivalry.
What you're describing sounds like a variation of what Sigmund Freud called the narcissism of small differences.
> 8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference. For example, hatred of immigrants (and their hatred of the locals) is amplified when both live in the same neighborhood and the barriers that previously existed have been removed. There are hundreds of other examples, but they all derive from the other refusing to remain the other, and instead showing up on our street, in our country club, at our doorstep, or somewhere else where they start to resemble us.
This doesn't make any sense. Physical proximity and similarity are very different things. The correct analogy would be if immigrants assimilated, and that led to resentment by the local population.
I'd bet Girard probably reads a bit differently to Gioia's exegesis.
EDIT: but maybe not? see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39849487 for someone else's commentary; I'm reading Girard himself before I pass judgement.
(fun fact: in the original Astérix, Idéfix is the dog's name)
Similar to the imitation problem, I’ve read somewhere that it’s not greed what drives people to accumulate things (wealth etc.) but envy. You don’t want more for the sake of getting more, you simply want more than your neighbor.
It’s all relative. And difficult to break the cycle.
Possibly links to point 8.
But isn't competition more derived from paranoia and fear than envy?
I wouldn’t think so. Envy is this funny feeling we hardly ever admit ourselves but which is part of being human. It happens to everyone no matter where they are in the hierarchy. Or, as Bertrand Russell puts it: „Beggars do not envy millionaires. They envy other beggars who are more successful.“
leading to the well-known analogy of the crabs pulling each other back into the pot
I think that’s a Buffett quote:
“It’s not greed that drives the world. It’s envy.”
That would explain why so few people seem to have finite greed.
Edit: compare Tolstoy, "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" (1886)
For those who want to "stay a while", Jonathon Bi did a discussion series on Girard's Mimetic Theory:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_xn3B6eWvGsILrh5v5nq...
As an outsider to the "tech" scene, who did a PhD generals field on modern European intellectual history (which included a dollop of recent continental philosophy), it's endlessly fascinating to me how people in tech have fixated upon Girard. While a few of his ilk do come up in standard reading lists, he (generally) doesn't -- he is far more prominent vis-a-vis his peers in this discourse than in his "native" one. I suspect that this owes to path dependency and his metaphysics' compatibility with the industry's participants' socio-intellectual priors (so to speak).
I'd guess it's because anoraks/botanics/intellos/Geeks/geeks are pretty familiar with low-subculture-on-the-totem-pole becoming a unifying scapegoat, so it's an appealing idée fixe. (or is that merely recapitulating what you just said?)
On the other hand, I've been in the tech scene for nearly 4 decades, and this discussion is the first time I've encountered Girard (at least that I remember).
Girardian philosophy was one of the most profound theories i'd come across when i first heard it. I really need to dig into Girard's actual books - i've only heard of him through third parties.
Are there works that test Girard's theories? Is there some evidence?
They're more like interpretative theories than scientific theories. Different kind of thing. Their validity is in that they seem to pattern-match to a lot of experience, so the only test is really "do they ring true?"; there's not a sense in which they would be scientifically testable.
(well- I should say, this is how I feel about how the high-level impression of Girard's ideas, like the notion of mimetic desire in this article. I haven't read him so I dunno about his actual takes; maybe they're more concrete and therefore falsifiable. For instance the actually detailed scapegoat theory, which I have heard about elsewhere, seems obviously silly to me.)
This [1] cured me of Girard. Read that and then read the rest of the comments here. Don't worry, it's very well written and quite funny. Also provides an implicit side view of Silicon Valley culture.
[1] https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/deceit-desire-and-literatur...
Yeah. The ability to torture your citations until they say what you want does not make them evidence for your theory. (Seriously, I second downut - read the reference before you decide you agree with Girard.)
And if he's doing that to the foundational texts of Christianity, that makes me inclined to view his statements about Christianity very skeptically, for all he claims that he is consistent with Christianity and supporting Christianity.
Is Landy envious of Girard? With Landy having just 1 (one) wikipedia article to his name, and Girard 36 (thirty-six)? Who knows. Thanks for the reference.
evidence for 8 and 9: homoousios vs homoiousios. northern ireland. football hooligans. etc.
in fiction: Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of X, {star,plain}-bellied Sneetches
I had thought Covid would've been a uniting scapegoat, but no, the hairless apes had to make it all about themselves.
Reading his mimetic theory was a real mind blower and one of those moments that redefines your understanding of the world. The way he seamlessly was able to describe it in so many layers and perspectives is fascinating. From a biological/evolutionary pov, to human sacrifice and scapegoating, to the birth of the 'sacred' and religions, to Christianism, and to so many facets of our modern society and human behaviour.
I like how Rene Girard spoke about Jesus. The good Samaritan for example. Jesus literally talks about how a person from a completely different ethnicity which hates Jews is taking care of a Jewish man. His message was absolute love and radical forgiveness. If we really take Jesus' message it would mean no borders, no wars, just pure love for each other. Anybody who doesn't understand that is not a real Christian.
> Anybody who doesn't understand that is not a real Christian.
I particularly enjoyed the depiction of Pilate's "film noir" reaction in The Master and Margarita.
> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried." —GKC
> The good Samaritan for example. Jesus literally talks about how a person from a completely different ethnicity which hates Jews is taking care of a Jewish man.
The story would've been shocking to his Jewish audience because of the enmity that existed between Jews and Samaritans. They would've been thinking along the lines of "but how could those people be good?" upon hearing the story.
> If we really take Jesus' message it would mean no borders, no wars, just pure love for each other.
This is why Christian Nationalism is an oxymoron.
You may find Tolstoy interesting. “What I believe” is the book.
I love it. Turn the other cheek in the face of death. Incredible ideas but we mangle it. Hence we are not in the kingdom yet.
I may have mixed it up with “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”.
Some of the big ideas in there:
1. Nonviolence as a Principle: Tolstoy concludes that the core of Jesus’ teachings is nonviolent resistance to evil. This was a radical idea at the time, influencing figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. later on.
2. Rejection of the State and All Violence: He argues that all forms of violence, including state-sanctioned violence (like police and military), are fundamentally opposed to Christian teachings.
3. Critique of the Church: Tolstoy is critical of the institutionalized church, asserting it has strayed far from Jesus’ original teachings. He believes the church supports violence and coercion, contrary to the principles of Christianity.
4. Personal Morality Over Legal Systems: He suggests that true Christian ethics are based on personal morality and conscience rather than legal systems or government decrees.
5. The Kingdom of God Is Within: Tolstoy interprets the Kingdom of God not as a physical location or afterlife promise, but as a state of being one can achieve by living in accordance with Jesus’ teachings.
6. Universal Love and Brotherhood: He emphasizes the idea of universal love and brotherhood, extending beyond one’s community or nation, challenging prevailing notions of nationalism and tribalism.
7. Civil Disobedience: Tolstoy advocates for civil disobedience as a means of opposing unjust laws and government actions, prefiguring many 20th-century movements for social change.
8. Simplicity and Asceticism: He also extols the virtues of a simple, ascetic lifestyle, free from the pursuit of wealth and material excess.
Oh yes. You are right.
also the short story Холстомер ("Strider")
Amen. What I found so interesting about Girard's perspective on Christ is that Jesus represents the end of the "scapegoat," because he is the "holy and perfect Sacrifice." In Girard's interpretation, Jesus ultimately broke the cycle of imitation because He is the ultimate scapegoat, upon whom all the sins of humanity were placed, and yet He is also God, whom we should love above all other things.
> He is the ultimate scapegoat
There is a theory that since he was resurrected three days (one long weekend) after dying for our sins, it's a bit of a gaslight to keep eternally playing the guilt card over the whole affair.
(personally, although this theory is amusing, I prefer Bulgakov's interpretation of the passion)
Additionally some Roman Auxiliaries / guards in Jerusalem may have been Samaritans. Which gives an additional insight into Jesus's persecution and crucifixion as well in this story.
My understanding is that it’s the other way around. The Jews despised the Samaritans. The Samaritans were the hayseed, “deplorable” Israelites left behind when Israel was conquered by the Persians and the elites carted off to Babylon. When the elites returned, they who became the Samaritans offered to help rebuild the Temple, but they who became who we know as the Jews spurned their offer.
Girard was a Roman Catholic, not a hippie.
"Mimetic desire" in businesses isn't hidden, it is actively thought after ("best practices", learning from winners etc.) - nothing shameful there as people want copy successful things and don't have trouble saying so.
Also, institutional isomorphisms are not a new observation or area of study.
I don't think that's what mimetic desire refers to. It's not the imitation of the practices, it's the imitation of the goals. Not so much the goal "to succeed in business" as "to look like a person who is succeeding in business", though, and that's in large part why so many people seem so mediocre at it.
I'd say at least some of the goals of businesses are pretty universally shared anyway.
As an Ad Exec in a meeting I was at once put it Monkey See Monkey Do.
For every theorist there are a whole bunch of practitioners.
I read Violence and the Sacred when I was 8... it changed my life forever.
Imitation’s apotheosis is AI
> 8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference. For example, hatred of immigrants (and their hatred of the locals) is amplified when both live in the same neighborhood and the barriers that previously existed have been removed
Aren't people living far from immigrants the biggest xenophobic group? Cities are much more progressive on immigration issues despite having more of a mix, directly contradicting that theory.
The most xenophobic group appear to be people who don't have any dissimilar people in their social group or immediate surroundings, but occasionally see one on TV or go to the Big City and get upset about it.
It was definitely found during Brexit that places with fewer immigrants were most pro-Brexit.
"Relatives Acting Like They’ll Be Assaulted By Deranged Clown The Instant They Set Foot In Gotham City"
https://www.theonion.com/relatives-acting-like-they-ll-be-as...
What I really like about YouTube is that for any given polity you can watch slick stuff on state channels and get the official line, and you can also watch "home videos" of normal people doing normal people stuff to get some idea of the day to day. The Texan making chili is just a few clicks away from the Caucasian making shashlik.
One factor may be that people who are very xenophobic tend to actively avoid living in areas with a lot of immigrants.
There is deep class segregation in cities. Problems occur when the “wrong people” are in your kids schools and HOA.
Also US urban cities represent one experience. It hasn’t worked that way in places like South Africa.
My rule of thumb for political prediction in the States is: how far away is the jurisdiction from the largest city in its watershed?
tl;dr at the end of the article:
1. People are driven to imitate others, but hate to admit it
2. Imitation is the basis of most businesses, but it's always disguised because customers are ashamed of their mimetic desires.
3. We need to expose these disguises, because the drive to imitate leads to rivalry and conflict.
4. Mimetic rivalries are the source of blood feuds and reciprocal violence —which are traditionally resolved by the sacrifice of a scapegoat.
5. The scapegoat combines opposites— and is often both victim & hero, sacred & profane, guilty & innocent.
6. The persecution of scapegoats is a uniting force behind many institutions and practices, but participants cannot admit this because it delegitimizes their efforts.
7. Humans fail to perceive their own scapegoats-so persecution continues while everybody absolves themselves of individual guilt.
8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference.
9. Enemies resemble each other, because of mimetic rivalry, but this is another secret that cannot be mentioned. Our enemy is always portrayed as our opposite.
10. Artistic idioms often originate in imitation and ritualized sacrifice.
11. We want to protect victims, and are right to do so; but we need to avoid super-victimology, in which this only leads to targeting and punishing new scapegoats.
12. We can only escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat.
People can't admit imitation. It's unconscious.
I think Girard passes muster in that the theory is often useful, in conjunction with others - that is, it passes the "Condorcet barrier of utility" and one can use it as part of a toolbox to explicate certain human behaviors.
Taking it as a unified theory doesn't work, just as any -ism taken alone to explain the whole damn thing doesn't work and is often counterproductive. For example - and I would be grateful if someone with knowledge of Girard would explain it - how does one bridge the Underwear Gnomes reasoning of say #12 in the blog:
Step 1 - We point out how we all act out of mimicry
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - We "escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat."
I would put that as:
Exercise: how soon might the last pandemic have been over if people had been more interested in eliminating viral propagation and less interested in punishing and scapegoating each other?* "You're all different" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY
[dead]
[dead]
skip to the end for the tl;dr