Part 1 can be found here.

Sources and warning

In the first part, we explored Vattimo’s stance on transcendence and weak thoughts and hard truths. In the first article, we showcased that Vattimo believed that hard truths are what we need to move on from, in favor of weak thoughts, and that secularization is the third age of Christianism. There is a need both to move out of the secular and later to return to religion.

This second part quotes Harmakaputra’s article on violence and transcendence, and again, it is thus still heavily Christian (and Western) influenced. Harmakaputra’s, does not challenge Girard very much on some of his claims. But compared to Vattimo (see part 1), René Girard’s mimetic desire, which is the focus of this second part, tells another story when it comes to hard truths. We mentioned in the first part of this series that Girard is both Western and of Christian origin, making him probably a bit biased in his study of violence and religion. Indeed, Girard knows his religion more deeply than any other and thus, he believed that Christianity (Catholicism) is particular in its treatment of violence. His personal belief is that it could potentially reveal the truth about violence and the scapegoating mechanism (see the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its treatment by Catholics).

The second article I’ve read and will burrow from is D. Vincent Riordan’s (2021) article “The Scapegoat Mechanism in Human Evolution: An Analysis of René Girard’s Hypothesis on the Process of Hominization.”

It is a fascinating read. Riordan looks at the mimetic desire theory in a rigorous manner, through scientific theories. When needed, he offers an alternative view and explanation, but rarely challenges the core elements of the theory. Riordan’s article is less interested in the religious aspects and really takes Girard’s work as “scientific endeavor” instead of “theological” one.

Introduction

In the introduction of his article, Rioardan (2021) asks if victimization is a uniquely human psychological trait, as Girard suggested. It may be so because, as we will see later, there is a need to “mentalize” and “share intentionality” in order to victimize, at least the way humans do it. Further studies with social animals would be interesting, but we already have strong data on mentalization and intentionality, which we will present later. If both traits are inherent to violent behavior, then we can conclude our unique propensity to victimization.

The scapegoat mechanism (victimization) is very pervasive in literature and the myths of many (western and non-western) groups, as studied by anthropologists. These are the two domains from which Girard took his “data.”

Before we go deeper into his theory, it is important to note that Girard’s critics generally accuse him of being selective. It may seem like he purposefully selected certain stories to construct his theory, which is speculative in nature. As a human being, Girard was limited by the language in which data was available. For example, he may have discovered something entirely different if he spoke Mandarin or Japanese, and he studied literature in those languages, and was from an Asian religion for example. Finally, the strongest critics come from those who perceive his attachment to his religion (Catholicism) as a bias.

Girard’s theory: mimetic desire and scapegoating

Imitation

Girard believes that mimetic desire is at the root of human issues and every ritual emerges after a sacrifice.

First, the main requirement for this mimetic desire is imitation. Thus, Girard posits that humans have an innate tendency to mimic or imitate. According to a lot of empirical research, and as a highly social species, it is an objective fact. Imitation is at the root of many human behaviors, starting from early infancy to later stages of life. Mimicry, the automatic and spontaneous reproduction of another person’s behavior, represents a mean to learn for young children and help them understand and adopt specific social behaviors. Additionally, this human particularity is central to empathy ,for example, making us cross our arms when our interlocutor does so, and so on.

Mimetic Desire

Imitation can lead to mimetic desire. In Girard’s theory, an individual is attracted to an object, not because of the property of the object, but because another person is also attracted to it. This creates a relation of conflict, and when the mimetic desire touches many individuals in a group, the whole society faces annihilation. To avoid the destruction of the majority, a scapegoating phenomenon emerged; people concentrate their violence on a single individual (or maybe even a group, as history has shown) who is identified as the source of the problem and is thus sacrificed for the greater good. Peace is brought to the group by the process of concentrating violence and eliminating the recipient, making a clear link between mimetic desire and scapegoating.

After the death of the scapegoat (by murder or shunning), the society can regain its prior calm. There is a process of reconciliation which makes the people grateful for the sacrifice and it is important to note that people participate unconsciously or without any guilt in this process, simply because of this period of reconciliation.

Evolution

In his article, Riordan focus on theories deriving from the theory of evolution. Riordan offers that in the best case, and in our history, a spontaneous alignment of desires and motivation can enhance cooperation, even if it creates rivalry (evolutionary trade-off).

Riordan, or rather Girard, explains this by the nature of some of our societies which are constructed on social hierarchies. If a subordinate (meaning someone who is not dominant) desires the same thing as the dominant one, there is a risk to destabilize the order of the world. If an object cannot be possessed by all at the same time, but the desire still spread within the group, there is a high risk for violence. So, what was supposed to create harmony (shared desire and alignment) created a threat of annihilation of the society, until a victim is found.

In the end, there is a process of reunification, through the alignment of desires and motivation, leading sometimes to positive results. Riordan talked about a “communal effect” of violence and believe that scapegoating is illustrated by many group behaviors like bullying and so on.

What led to mimetic desire

In his article, an interesting suggestion made by Riordan concern the emergence of mentalizing and shared intentionality. Mentalization is the capacity to represent one’s own mental states (belief, desires, thoughts, and so on) as well as another person’s mental states. Meanwhile, shared intentionality is the capacity to share a mental state (and a “joint goal”) with another person, such as a desire to dance together, leading both person on the dance-floor without a single word being uttered (it used to be very useful for hunting and group behavior).

Well, the evolutionary emergence of both capacities could have seriously disrupted human societies and could better explain the “unique” aspect of this human trait. In comparative cognition, it is well known that nonhuman animals do not possess a degree of intentionality or shared intentionality that is comparable to humans.

In victimization processes, our tendency to imitate leads us to spontaneously mimic each other when we “blame” one person, who is selected on false or arbitrary grounds. Scapegoating is thus a direct adaptation to our environment. Not only do we imitate actions, we also imitate “intentionality,” (mental states such as beliefs, desires, thoughts). This means that in order to adopt the same desire as someone else, we must be able to identify what is a desire (in us) and what desire someone else hold, without being explicitly told.

Stable societies

Without getting too much in the primate and human societies, it is important to note that humans also developed more egalitarian societies compared to other animals. A hierarchical society brings some type of “stability,” where everyone knows their place: the dominant ones are aggressive toward the others, harassing and hurting them to control resources. Meanwhile, there is an advantage for a submissive individual to submit to an unfair sharing of resources, because it reduces the risk of aggression. There are also more alliances and coalitions, which help to reduce proactive aggression and render reactive aggression (revenge) more prevalent in primate societies. The different roles (dominant vs. submissive) control the level of violence in a group.

Well, according to Riordan (and Girard), human societies left hierarchical societies early on, to favor cooperation and more egalitarian societies, creating new challenges when it comes to violence and killings.

Christianity and its role according to Girard

The Sacred

During the period of reconciliation, after the victim was killed, new myths emerge. According to Girard, “to sacrifice’ in fact means “to make sacred,”” (Harmakaputra, p.122). This is because, in a sense, the one who is sacrificed is made “divine.”

“Religion is above all a mode of knowledge about mankind’s violence and the ways of keeping it in check, (…)” (Harmakaputra, p.123)

In the first part, we talked about transcendence and this sacralization is what permits human to “forgive” or disregard their behaviors.

Christianity and Judaism

“The Judaeo-Christian Bible persistently shows the innocence of the victim and the guilt of the crowd,” Girard said. By giving stories from the Bible as examples, like Job’s, or Joseph and his brothers, Girard hoped to make us perceive the relevance of his religion. And finally, offering Jesus Christ as the perfect victim, incarnating something bigger than all the others mentioned, Girard come to the conclusion that his religion is the one to tell the “truth” about human violence and also the one which will help transcend it. In a sense, he rejoins Vattimo’s stance.

Here is where I need to interject, because even in “Judaeo-Christian,” there is “Judaeo” which is not Christianity. If the Old Testament contains information on the mechanism of violence, then is it not also the origin of the critic of violence? An answer to this objection could be that Jesus Christ or his “sacrifice” is not perceived the same by Christian who read the New Testament. The many interpretations of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice (for example between Protestants and Catholics) render his theory weaker than if people were truly unified in their beliefs. But Girard favored Catholicism where Jesus’s Crucifixion had a major impact, which explains his own theory.

Sadly, I do not know enough about Judaism to insert anything related to its perception of violence and its origin, but I know that Abraham’s story and the “sacrifice” of his son are important for Jewish people. So what makes this account different? Are Abel and Cain not classical example of mimetic desire and scapegoating? Moreover, the commandments given to Moses are clear on the subject of killing: it is forbidden and dishonor God. Furthermore, Judaism is not considered as a universal religion, thus it may not be burdened with the need to offer an extensive answer to “human” violence, since it is directed at a “small” group and does not speak to all. I may be wrong! But in any case, sacrifices and the question of oppression are clearly related to Jewish history and development as a religion. Sadly, my own ignorance limit my appreciation and my capacity to contrast both religion.

Islam

As for Islam, which is the focus of this website, from my perspective, it is relatively compatible with Girard’s theory, with a certain nuance. What is perceived as the crucifixion of Jesus is perceived as an illusion from several (controversial) interpretations of Islam. Many do not believe in his death, but that he went alive in Heaven, since God would not permit him to be sacrificed.

When it comes to violence, my own understanding (which is neither scholarly nor expert) is that evil can either come from an outside source or the self, which is both tainted by good and bad. The exterior cause is generally perceived as the “Shaytan,” the devil, a real or an imaginary figure, depending on interpretations. Even the evil coming from the “self” is sometimes depicted as the Shaytan touching on a baby when he is born (excepting only Jesus Christ).

Girard gave the example of Joseph from the Bible as the innocent victim of the group and a classical case of scapegoating. For some Muslim, the story of Joseph (A.S.) is a clear example of the outside source of some evil actions. In the Quran’s account, Joseph (A.S) has been wronged by his brothers as a youth and live through many years of trials, tribulations and, finally, success. When he met with his brothers again, they were in need and he was in a position of power. Instead of preparing a revenge or humiliating them, he forgave their earlier treason and offer them refuge. Not only that, but Joseph (A.S) revealed and accused the Shaytan of being the cause of their conflict. They Shaytan stirred trouble between him and his brothers, by whispering doubts and anxiety in their hearts when they were younger, and suggesting them their actions (pushing him in a well).

In this example, the crowd nor the victim are guilty, even if the brothers are those who “acted” because of their jealousy. They are all victims – Joseph of his brothers, the brothers of their weaknesses – who were preyed upon by a strong enemy. In a sense, Islam accuses “evil” itself, whether it originates from an exterior entity or within oneself.

Again, The Shaytan is human’s sworn enemy and vowed to stir them out of God’s way. This does not mean that the religion does not recognize people’s responsibility when they commit a crime.

(If you know anything about another religion or system of beliefs, like Shinto, Buddhism and so on, please do share if they also disclose something about the mechanism of violence which resembles mimetic desire, scapegoating or not).

Conclusion

According to Girard, every new myth, social norm, and religion is based on scapegoating. It has an enduring effect, because the victim is given “credit” for the role they played in the resolution of the conflict. Girard believes that there is a lot of misrecognition on the part of the group, where they attribute “mystical” power to the victim.

In another interpretation of his theory, Riordan believe that scapegoating is thus the solution given by evolution.

Both perspectives interest me from a writer’s point of view. I take great pleasure in learning about other cultures and monotheist religions. Then I’ll be able to imagine a world without some of its core values, and how they can be reintegrated within society if they are truly good for us.

Riordan’s offer me a great escape when it comes to explain violence from a “natural” point of view. Thus, violence is not a “religious” consequences even if the notion of hard truths is often associated with religions. As a reminder, hard truths are the beliefs of the existence of objective facts, which prevent any form of dialogues. Vattimo believes that it is the root of violence and needs to be avoided, in favor of conversation and “weak thoughts.”

***

In this series “violence in a fictitious world,” I offered two very different articles, one who really deals with transcendence and religion and another which deals with human evolution.

Now that I found the perfect framework for violence in my story, I can advance in writing my little story. It is obviously not perfect, but it will help me advance and get ready to write a more complete novella. I would love for you to get inspired to write something like a scapegoat story. This could be the next writing prompts: imagining your own group on the verge of a violent act and what solution they could find to escape the awful cycle of violence. What do you think? Do not forget to share if you do so!

***

For the next non-fiction article, I’ll either write another entry for this series and continue to explore works of art which possess a scapegoat and mimetic desire (I’m thinking about one of my favorite movie, “Loveless,” by Andreï Zviaguintsev). Or I’ll write something about dystopia.