In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Idiot Patrick BatemanA New Configuration of Caricatural "Ultra-Christianity"Fabrizio Arcuri (bio)INTRODUCTIONThis paper1 aims to analyze the figure of Patrick Bateman, the protagonist of the novel American Psycho,2 through René Girard's mimetic theory. It links the character created by Bret Easton Ellis to the concept of caricatural "ultra-Christianity," meaning the degeneration of Christian-based concern for innocent victims.Methodologically, it adopts the approach of the sociology of the imaginary, which is characterized (...) by the division between invisible levels of signification and visible elements of culture. The latter, as a set of representations, narratives, and products, both material and ideal, are influenced by the former, which represent their condition of possibility.3 When considering caricatural "ultra-Christianity" as a phenomenon traceable to the "Regimes of the Imaginary" of the sacred,4 it can be regarded as the deep substratum from which Patrick [End Page 177] Bateman's particular idiocy emerges as a paranoid and victimistic intensification of mimetic desire.For this reason, this paper is subdivided into three sections. In the first, the focus is on the conception of caricatural "ultra-Christianity" that derives from Girard's work, identifying its origin in the revelation of Christ Paraclete. The second examines "idiotism," one of the types of "ultra-Christianity" present in contemporary society. "Idiotism" is understood as a paranoid reaction due to the traumatic split, psychiatrically based, between one's idios kosmos (own-world) and koinos kosmos (common world). Finally, in the third, I concentrate on the peculiarities of American Psycho via the theoretical framework delineated in the previous parts.FROM PARACLETE TO CARICATURAL "ULTRA-CHRISTIANITY"To provide a definition of the nature and function of caricatural "ultra-Christianity," we must first refer to the main concepts of mimetic theory, specifically, the revelation of Christianity in Girard's work. According to René Girard, desire is never authentically spontaneous or individual. Rather, it is influenced by the mutual fascination of subjects. These, often unconsciously, regard their fellow human beings as entities endowed with the fullness of being that they irretrievably lack.5Desire is a form of ontological contagion perpetuated by the continuous activity of imitation. The individual aspires to resolve metaphysical contradictions by emulating the physical, moral, symbolic, and social features of all those he/she prefers as his/her models.6 Nevertheless, within a mimetic relationship, the mediator will defend his/her own position, denying the imitating disciple the chance to match his/her status. Due to the "viral" characteristics of mimesis, the result is a situation of vindication and rivalry that is likely to spread throughout the community, fomenting a vicious cycle of fratricidal violence.7In Girard's view, that form of generalized conflict can lead society to collapse. A community needs to find an object or, better, an individual, always in a mimetic way, on whom to discharge the growing tension. The identification of the collective nemesis occurs through the scapegoat mechanism.8 Although the epidemic of violence plaguing the community is due to the desires and rivalries of all its members, the construction of the collective nemesis designates a single culprit for the mimetic crisis and results in both the disavowal of blame and the enfranchisement of the majority from responsibility. The enemy must be immolated, as only his sacrifice can save the collective. The violence of lynching [End Page 178] becomes the only means of restraining the previous violence of the mimetic escalation. Once the antagonist is killed, the destructive effects of fratricidal mimesis are appeased, at least temporarily.For Girard, the handling of salvific violence represents the essence of the sacred.9 This is a type of managing that, in its regenerative and foundational aspects, constitutes the value system that regulates the circulation of mimesis and the desires of each member of the community. It ensures, albeit precariously, the compactness of the group structure. It could be argued that the construction of meaning that emerges from the lynching of the scapegoat structures the representation of the social order,10 that is, the collective imaginary, understanding it as an instituting narrative of meanings: "This narrative resides in the shared imagination of the group that constructed it and encompasses... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Idiot Patrick BatemanA New Configuration of Caricatural "Ultra-Christianity"Fabrizio Arcuri (bio)INTRODUCTIONThis paper1 aims to analyze the figure of Patrick Bateman, the protagonist of the novel American Psycho,2 through René Girard's mimetic theory. It links the character created by Bret Easton Ellis to the concept of caricatural "ultra-Christianity," meaning the degeneration of Christian-based concern for innocent victims.Methodologically, it adopts the approach of the sociology of the imaginary, which is characterized (...) by the division between invisible levels of signification and visible elements of culture. The latter, as a set of representations, narratives, and products, both material and ideal, are influenced by the former, which represent their condition of possibility.3 When considering caricatural "ultra-Christianity" as a phenomenon traceable to the "Regimes of the Imaginary" of the sacred,4 it can be regarded as the deep substratum from which Patrick [End Page 177] Bateman's particular idiocy emerges as a paranoid and victimistic intensification of mimetic desire.For this reason, this paper is subdivided into three sections. In the first, the focus is on the conception of caricatural "ultra-Christianity" that derives from Girard's work, identifying its origin in the revelation of Christ Paraclete. The second examines "idiotism," one of the types of "ultra-Christianity" present in contemporary society. "Idiotism" is understood as a paranoid reaction due to the traumatic split, psychiatrically based, between one's idios kosmos (own-world) and koinos kosmos (common world). Finally, in the third, I concentrate on the peculiarities of American Psycho via the theoretical framework delineated in the previous parts.FROM PARACLETE TO CARICATURAL "ULTRA-CHRISTIANITY"To provide a definition of the nature and function of caricatural "ultra-Christianity," we must first refer to the main concepts of mimetic theory, specifically, the revelation of Christianity in Girard's work. According to René Girard, desire is never authentically spontaneous or individual. Rather, it is influenced by the mutual fascination of subjects. These, often unconsciously, regard their fellow human beings as entities endowed with the fullness of being that they irretrievably lack.5Desire is a form of ontological contagion perpetuated by the continuous activity of imitation. The individual aspires to resolve metaphysical contradictions by emulating the physical, moral, symbolic, and social features of all those he/she prefers as his/her models.6 Nevertheless, within a mimetic relationship, the mediator will defend his/her own position, denying the imitating disciple the chance to match his/her status. Due to the "viral" characteristics of mimesis, the result is a situation of vindication and rivalry that is likely to spread throughout the community, fomenting a vicious cycle of fratricidal violence.7In Girard's view, that form of generalized conflict can lead society to collapse. A community needs to find an object or, better, an individual, always in a mimetic way, on whom to discharge the growing tension. The identification of the collective nemesis occurs through the scapegoat mechanism.8 Although the epidemic of violence plaguing the community is due to the desires and rivalries of all its members, the construction of the collective nemesis designates a single culprit for the mimetic crisis and results in both the disavowal of blame and the enfranchisement of the majority from responsibility. The enemy must be immolated, as only his sacrifice can save the collective. The violence of lynching [End Page 178] becomes the only means of restraining the previous violence of the mimetic escalation. Once the antagonist is killed, the destructive effects of fratricidal mimesis are appeased, at least temporarily.For Girard, the handling of salvific violence represents the essence of the sacred.9 This is a type of managing that, in its regenerative and foundational aspects, constitutes the value system that regulates the circulation of mimesis and the desires of each member of the community. It ensures, albeit precariously, the compactness of the group structure. It could be argued that the construction of meaning that emerges from the lynching of the scapegoat structures the representation of the social order,10 that is, the collective imaginary, understanding it as an instituting narrative of meanings: "This narrative resides in the shared imagination of the group that constructed it and encompasses... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Exception or EkklesiaSolution to a Girardian Dead EndAnthony Bartlett (bio)The 2023 Colloquium on Violence & Religion conference held in Paris on the centenary of Girard's birth had as its theme "The Future of Mimetic Theory," suggesting both taking stock and a forward perspective. Lucid historical moments do not coincide necessarily with centenaries, but the pressures of our present time are great and the prompt of a hundred-years anniversary marks (...) an opportune point to take a reckoning in a certain crucial aspect. This aspect—which presents at the moment as a kind of practical and theological impasse—has always been there, but the centennial inflection serves to lift it to deserved prominence as a central, if neglected, issue of the Girardian world-disclosure. I was struck at the conference by what seemed to me the profound inadequacy of a conversation that seemed to hasten on—by passivity of response—the very horror it discloses. The often-voiced complaint that Girard lacks the full academic recognition that is his due should perhaps be inverted as the absence of the theological breakthrough that will carry mimetic theory to the epochal value that its analysis truly calls for. [End Page 129]The collection of essays edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly and entitled Politics and Apocalypse was published by Michigan State University Press in 2007, the same year Girard's final book came out in its initial French, Achever Clausewitz, later translated and published in English as Battling to the End (2008).1 In many ways this collection serves as prologue for the dramatic statement that Achever/Battling was to represent, and it provides essential context for that climactic book of Girard's career. The essays were actually papers delivered at a conference in Stanford, California, in 2004, a select affair as Hamerton-Kelly's preface tells it—a group of eight participants conversing over a period of six days to give the opportunity for a "leisurely" conversation. The conference took place against the feverish background of post-9/11 politics under the George W. Bush administration. Hamerton-Kelly quotes affirmingly from Peter Thiel's essay in the book, "The brute facts of September 11 demand a reexamination of the foundations of modern politics."2 As such, the papers probably represent a high-water mark of Girardian reflection on the possibility of politics in the light of mimetic crisis and analysis. Girard's conversations with Benoît Chantre, which were to become the content of Achever Clausewitz, were likely happening concurrently, or perhaps realized soon after the Stanford conference. Girard's own piece in the Stanford collection gives little hint of the Achever tone and content—it is in fact a tour de force exegesis of the gospels, displaying their unique clarity in revealing the foundational victim of culture—so the feeling must be that Girard was keeping his revelatory powder dry for his final book. While the other contributors were hotly preoccupied with questions of political theology, especially as developed by the twentieth-century theorists Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, Girard, with Chantre, focuses almost solely on the nineteenth-century theoretician of war, Clausewitz, and with that a version of biblical apocalyptic within the determining framework of mimetic theory. In effect, Girard sidesteps political theology and heads, as he sees it, to the heart of New Testament revelation. As may often be the case with Girard, attempts by collaborators to frame him within more standard theological and intellectual contexts were ever exceeded by the original thinker's more daring and provocative biblical vision.Carl Schmitt was a German jurist (and prominent member of the Nazi party) who argued the necessity of the friend–enemy distinction for the cohesion of a given society or state. In his paper for the conference, Wolfgang Palaver devotes considerable space to Schmitt, demonstrating his proximity in certain respects to mimetic theory. Palaver quotes a letter from Leo Strauss to Schmitt summarizing the latter's viewpoint: "The ultimate foundation of the Right is the principle of the natural evil of man; because man is by nature evil, he therefore [End Page 130] needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified, only... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Exception or EkklesiaSolution to a Girardian Dead EndAnthony Bartlett (bio)The 2023 Colloquium on Violence & Religion conference held in Paris on the centenary of Girard's birth had as its theme "The Future of Mimetic Theory," suggesting both taking stock and a forward perspective. Lucid historical moments do not coincide necessarily with centenaries, but the pressures of our present time are great and the prompt of a hundred-years anniversary marks (...) an opportune point to take a reckoning in a certain crucial aspect. This aspect—which presents at the moment as a kind of practical and theological impasse—has always been there, but the centennial inflection serves to lift it to deserved prominence as a central, if neglected, issue of the Girardian world-disclosure. I was struck at the conference by what seemed to me the profound inadequacy of a conversation that seemed to hasten on—by passivity of response—the very horror it discloses. The often-voiced complaint that Girard lacks the full academic recognition that is his due should perhaps be inverted as the absence of the theological breakthrough that will carry mimetic theory to the epochal value that its analysis truly calls for. [End Page 129]The collection of essays edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly and entitled Politics and Apocalypse was published by Michigan State University Press in 2007, the same year Girard's final book came out in its initial French, Achever Clausewitz, later translated and published in English as Battling to the End (2008).1 In many ways this collection serves as prologue for the dramatic statement that Achever/Battling was to represent, and it provides essential context for that climactic book of Girard's career. The essays were actually papers delivered at a conference in Stanford, California, in 2004, a select affair as Hamerton-Kelly's preface tells it—a group of eight participants conversing over a period of six days to give the opportunity for a "leisurely" conversation. The conference took place against the feverish background of post-9/11 politics under the George W. Bush administration. Hamerton-Kelly quotes affirmingly from Peter Thiel's essay in the book, "The brute facts of September 11 demand a reexamination of the foundations of modern politics."2 As such, the papers probably represent a high-water mark of Girardian reflection on the possibility of politics in the light of mimetic crisis and analysis. Girard's conversations with Benoît Chantre, which were to become the content of Achever Clausewitz, were likely happening concurrently, or perhaps realized soon after the Stanford conference. Girard's own piece in the Stanford collection gives little hint of the Achever tone and content—it is in fact a tour de force exegesis of the gospels, displaying their unique clarity in revealing the foundational victim of culture—so the feeling must be that Girard was keeping his revelatory powder dry for his final book. While the other contributors were hotly preoccupied with questions of political theology, especially as developed by the twentieth-century theorists Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, Girard, with Chantre, focuses almost solely on the nineteenth-century theoretician of war, Clausewitz, and with that a version of biblical apocalyptic within the determining framework of mimetic theory. In effect, Girard sidesteps political theology and heads, as he sees it, to the heart of New Testament revelation. As may often be the case with Girard, attempts by collaborators to frame him within more standard theological and intellectual contexts were ever exceeded by the original thinker's more daring and provocative biblical vision.Carl Schmitt was a German jurist (and prominent member of the Nazi party) who argued the necessity of the friend–enemy distinction for the cohesion of a given society or state. In his paper for the conference, Wolfgang Palaver devotes considerable space to Schmitt, demonstrating his proximity in certain respects to mimetic theory. Palaver quotes a letter from Leo Strauss to Schmitt summarizing the latter's viewpoint: "The ultimate foundation of the Right is the principle of the natural evil of man; because man is by nature evil, he therefore [End Page 130] needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified, only... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:One to NGirard's Philosophy of InnovationJohnathan Bi (bio)What does a theorist of imitation have to teach us about innovation? What could a thinker focused on the distant past have to offer us in building the immediate future? The answer to both questions, I hope to show, is a significant amount. I aim to rescue and develop a neglected strand of Girardian thought from one of his overlooked essays on (...) a topic seemingly antithetical to imitation: innovation. This task proceeds in five steps. First, I articulate two contemporary perspectives on innovation, one dominant and one in the minority. Second, I reconstruct Girard's historical argument from "Innovation and Repetition" in favor of the minority view and, third, his psychological argument against the dominant view. Fourth, I show how Girard's philosophy of innovation sublates crucial features of both poles and provides an alternative mode for conceiving the future.1 Lastly, I wrestle with an immanent objection that threatens the prescriptive force of his entire argument and, even when reconciled, leads me to depart from Girard's conclusions, albeit in the most Girardian of ways. [End Page 71]INNOVATION AND IMITATIONThe dominant view of innovation is that it is opposed to imitation. The foundational type of opposition between the two is metaphysical: imitation and innovation are actions different in kind and must be conceived of as such. Peter Thiel's famous formulation is representative: certain actions, companies, and countries are innovative, going from "zero to one," while others are imitative, going from "one to N."2 This distinction is mostly accepted without question in the social sciences, underpinning entire disciplines such as innovation studies.3 This near-universal consensus, however, is a modern phenomenon. The Latin innovatio, for example, described innovation as being inseparable from the imitation of the past: the Jews returning to Jerusalem, Job having his wealth restored, or the rebirth of a phoenix.4 The word itself reveals as much. Innovatio is derived by appending the prefix in- (within, from inside) to novitas (novelty). It meant novelty that preceded from within, or renewal. Under this view, innovation was not about breaking free or starting from a blank slate, zero to one, but rather rescuing and developing an already formed foundation, one to N. Innovation was identical with the imitation and adaptation of that which is essential but has been obscured. Only beginning in the twentieth century has imitation been so strongly demarcated from innovation.5Built on top of this metaphysical opposition is a practical opposition. Not only are the two actions distinct, they are incompatible: the more one imitates, the more one risks eroding one's ability to innovate. This stronger form of opposition is exemplified by the idea of the "untutored genius" whose source of creativity is solely internal: a fully formed natural endowment not requiring learning nor external inspiration from divinity or nature. This idea gained ascendancy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and proponents believed that imitation of tradition impeded the expression of one's own innate genius.6 If one wants to write a great book, this idea goes, one ought not read great books for fear that they will crowd out one's original ideas. Even in the twentieth century, Wittgenstein expressed this exact sentiment when he proudly claimed not to have read any Aristotle or engaged deeply with the history of philosophy and considered those who have "academic and therefore unauthentic philosophers."7 Of course, not all modern thinkers see innovation and imitation as practically opposed in such a strong way.8 But even for most who treat the two as harmonious, imitation tends to be relegated to a secondary afterthought as the mere mechanism by which innovation, the primary source of value creation, spreads. This, then, is the third form of opposition drawn out [End Page 72] between the two concepts: a normative one. Imitation is, at best, of secondary value when compared to acts of innovation.The practical and, to a lesser degree, normative oppositions appear so unsound as to not warrant serious engagement, and already contested by theorists who study innovation as to not require another rebuttal. What makes Girard's response to them... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:One to NGirard's Philosophy of InnovationJohnathan Bi (bio)What does a theorist of imitation have to teach us about innovation? What could a thinker focused on the distant past have to offer us in building the immediate future? The answer to both questions, I hope to show, is a significant amount. I aim to rescue and develop a neglected strand of Girardian thought from one of his overlooked essays on (...) a topic seemingly antithetical to imitation: innovation. This task proceeds in five steps. First, I articulate two contemporary perspectives on innovation, one dominant and one in the minority. Second, I reconstruct Girard's historical argument from "Innovation and Repetition" in favor of the minority view and, third, his psychological argument against the dominant view. Fourth, I show how Girard's philosophy of innovation sublates crucial features of both poles and provides an alternative mode for conceiving the future.1 Lastly, I wrestle with an immanent objection that threatens the prescriptive force of his entire argument and, even when reconciled, leads me to depart from Girard's conclusions, albeit in the most Girardian of ways. [End Page 71]INNOVATION AND IMITATIONThe dominant view of innovation is that it is opposed to imitation. The foundational type of opposition between the two is metaphysical: imitation and innovation are actions different in kind and must be conceived of as such. Peter Thiel's famous formulation is representative: certain actions, companies, and countries are innovative, going from "zero to one," while others are imitative, going from "one to N."2 This distinction is mostly accepted without question in the social sciences, underpinning entire disciplines such as innovation studies.3 This near-universal consensus, however, is a modern phenomenon. The Latin innovatio, for example, described innovation as being inseparable from the imitation of the past: the Jews returning to Jerusalem, Job having his wealth restored, or the rebirth of a phoenix.4 The word itself reveals as much. Innovatio is derived by appending the prefix in- (within, from inside) to novitas (novelty). It meant novelty that preceded from within, or renewal. Under this view, innovation was not about breaking free or starting from a blank slate, zero to one, but rather rescuing and developing an already formed foundation, one to N. Innovation was identical with the imitation and adaptation of that which is essential but has been obscured. Only beginning in the twentieth century has imitation been so strongly demarcated from innovation.5Built on top of this metaphysical opposition is a practical opposition. Not only are the two actions distinct, they are incompatible: the more one imitates, the more one risks eroding one's ability to innovate. This stronger form of opposition is exemplified by the idea of the "untutored genius" whose source of creativity is solely internal: a fully formed natural endowment not requiring learning nor external inspiration from divinity or nature. This idea gained ascendancy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and proponents believed that imitation of tradition impeded the expression of one's own innate genius.6 If one wants to write a great book, this idea goes, one ought not read great books for fear that they will crowd out one's original ideas. Even in the twentieth century, Wittgenstein expressed this exact sentiment when he proudly claimed not to have read any Aristotle or engaged deeply with the history of philosophy and considered those who have "academic and therefore unauthentic philosophers."7 Of course, not all modern thinkers see innovation and imitation as practically opposed in such a strong way.8 But even for most who treat the two as harmonious, imitation tends to be relegated to a secondary afterthought as the mere mechanism by which innovation, the primary source of value creation, spreads. This, then, is the third form of opposition drawn out [End Page 72] between the two concepts: a normative one. Imitation is, at best, of secondary value when compared to acts of innovation.The practical and, to a lesser degree, normative oppositions appear so unsound as to not warrant serious engagement, and already contested by theorists who study innovation as to not require another rebuttal. What makes Girard's response to them... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Success and Malaise of CapitalismA Mimetic View of the MarketPablo Díaz-Morlán (bio)INTRODUCTIONThis article seeks to contribute to the knowledge that we have on the market as the central institution of capitalism, according to Girard's perspective. Mimetic theory (MT) can explain both the success and malaise caused by the market. Success is measured by the spread of desire, and malaise by the mimetic resentment caused by this spread of (...) desire.In 1979, Paul Dumouchel and Jean-Pierre Dupuy applied René Girard's mimetic theory for the first time to economics in their book L'Enfer des Choses.1 Both authors defended the need to advance toward the construction of a mimetic economic science placing at the center of the analysis the mimetic nature of the human being. They pointed out that the liberal conception of the individual as a being who makes decisions of maximum utility and autonomously is wrong. In short, the point was that the traditionally accepted homo economicus has been replaced with the homo mimeticus.2 In his contribution [End Page 275] to the book, "L'ambivalence de la rareté," Dumouchel establishes that scarcity emerges or is born as traditional bonds of solidarity are abandoned by members of a society that, until then, had ensured that everyone was assisted in case of need. In primitive human society, reciprocal bonds of solidarity prevailed. There was no scarcity, and this internal solidarity limited violence between the members of the group and expelled it to the outside. Scarcity was invented after the creation of the vicious cycle of individualism and the commercialization of social relations: a social institution established by the modern world after the solidarity mechanisms that protected the group against violence were abandoned.3 For both authors, the market arose as the institution that replaced the sacred, containing the violence, in both senses of the word "contain": On the one hand it held the violence within, and on the other it limited the violence.From its publication, L'Enfer des Choses was adopted as the founding treaty of the mimetic economy, even by Girard himself, who referred to it on several occasions when discussing economic issues.4 Both Dumouchel and Dupuy have gone into greater depth with their findings in other subsequent studies that have taken different courses. Dumouchel has clarified his concept of scarcity and has analyzed the relationship between envy and mimetic resentment through the study of Helmut Schoeck's famous envy theory.5 Meanwhile, Dupuy defends that many developments of modern economic science are merely the evolution of homo economicus to homo mimeticus because the autonomous subject is abandoned, giving rise to one that takes into account the behavior of others (game theory, adaptive expectations theory, speculation theory, etc.). Dupuy insists on the concept of the market as an institution that effectively delays the mimetic conflict. However, he adopts a pessimist position, as capitalism, due to its very evolution, has ended up surpassing its own limits (controlling politics), and as a result, it is increasingly more difficult for capitalism to carry out its function of containing violence.6Using the work of Dumouchel and Dupuy as a base, different authors have made contributions to economics from the perspective of MT. Several studies have been conducted on money, trade, and speculation, highlighting the theory of money of Michel Aglietta and André Orléan.7 Although there are differentiating nuances among the authors, they all assume that the money and market institutions are essentially violent and sacrificial. Other examples of this school of thought are Andrew Lascaris (1987), Erich Kitzmüller (1995), Anthony W. Bartlett (2002), John Daniels (2008), and Daniel M. Bell, Jr. (2012).8 Byrne Hobart and Tobias Huber have successfully applied MT to the study of financial bubbles in an economic history study, with promising results.9 And in the criticism of the market system in his book À Charge de Revanche, Mark R. Anspach [End Page 276] favors the need to overcome the perverse logic of revenge that defines both war and the market, transforming it into a positive reciprocity based on gifts.10 Except for Hobart and Huber, the cited authors overwhelmingly and explicitly reject... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Success and Malaise of CapitalismA Mimetic View of the MarketPablo Díaz-Morlán (bio)INTRODUCTIONThis article seeks to contribute to the knowledge that we have on the market as the central institution of capitalism, according to Girard's perspective. Mimetic theory (MT) can explain both the success and malaise caused by the market. Success is measured by the spread of desire, and malaise by the mimetic resentment caused by this spread of (...) desire.In 1979, Paul Dumouchel and Jean-Pierre Dupuy applied René Girard's mimetic theory for the first time to economics in their book L'Enfer des Choses.1 Both authors defended the need to advance toward the construction of a mimetic economic science placing at the center of the analysis the mimetic nature of the human being. They pointed out that the liberal conception of the individual as a being who makes decisions of maximum utility and autonomously is wrong. In short, the point was that the traditionally accepted homo economicus has been replaced with the homo mimeticus.2 In his contribution [End Page 275] to the book, "L'ambivalence de la rareté," Dumouchel establishes that scarcity emerges or is born as traditional bonds of solidarity are abandoned by members of a society that, until then, had ensured that everyone was assisted in case of need. In primitive human society, reciprocal bonds of solidarity prevailed. There was no scarcity, and this internal solidarity limited violence between the members of the group and expelled it to the outside. Scarcity was invented after the creation of the vicious cycle of individualism and the commercialization of social relations: a social institution established by the modern world after the solidarity mechanisms that protected the group against violence were abandoned.3 For both authors, the market arose as the institution that replaced the sacred, containing the violence, in both senses of the word "contain": On the one hand it held the violence within, and on the other it limited the violence.From its publication, L'Enfer des Choses was adopted as the founding treaty of the mimetic economy, even by Girard himself, who referred to it on several occasions when discussing economic issues.4 Both Dumouchel and Dupuy have gone into greater depth with their findings in other subsequent studies that have taken different courses. Dumouchel has clarified his concept of scarcity and has analyzed the relationship between envy and mimetic resentment through the study of Helmut Schoeck's famous envy theory.5 Meanwhile, Dupuy defends that many developments of modern economic science are merely the evolution of homo economicus to homo mimeticus because the autonomous subject is abandoned, giving rise to one that takes into account the behavior of others (game theory, adaptive expectations theory, speculation theory, etc.). Dupuy insists on the concept of the market as an institution that effectively delays the mimetic conflict. However, he adopts a pessimist position, as capitalism, due to its very evolution, has ended up surpassing its own limits (controlling politics), and as a result, it is increasingly more difficult for capitalism to carry out its function of containing violence.6Using the work of Dumouchel and Dupuy as a base, different authors have made contributions to economics from the perspective of MT. Several studies have been conducted on money, trade, and speculation, highlighting the theory of money of Michel Aglietta and André Orléan.7 Although there are differentiating nuances among the authors, they all assume that the money and market institutions are essentially violent and sacrificial. Other examples of this school of thought are Andrew Lascaris (1987), Erich Kitzmüller (1995), Anthony W. Bartlett (2002), John Daniels (2008), and Daniel M. Bell, Jr. (2012).8 Byrne Hobart and Tobias Huber have successfully applied MT to the study of financial bubbles in an economic history study, with promising results.9 And in the criticism of the market system in his book À Charge de Revanche, Mark R. Anspach [End Page 276] favors the need to overcome the perverse logic of revenge that defines both war and the market, transforming it into a positive reciprocity based on gifts.10 Except for Hobart and Huber, the cited authors overwhelmingly and explicitly reject... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Violence and AccusationPaul Dumouchel (bio)ACCUSATIONAn accusation is at first sight a triadic relation. Accusing relates three poles: the accuser, the accused, and what he or she is accused of—which is also often referred to simply as the "accusation," as if that accusation, the fault or the crime that is reproached in the person, were enough to define what it is to accuse. A person accuses another one of something, (...) which is then three terms. This is both a social and a mundane relation: social because it relates two agents, and mundane, because the person accused is not what he or she is accused of, which pertains to the world—to what is—and in that sense is an object. The object of the accusation, the fault or crime, the accused's action that is condemned by the accusation is something that is different from the accused him or herself. Though this action is in some way a "nonmaterial" object, it is certainly not immaterial. The accusation remains in the world, which it has changed by declaring someone guilty of something. It is therefore a mundane [End Page 15] object, something that can be accessed and talked about by different people. "He robbed his father!" or "She set the house on fire."The apparent simplicity of the accusation as a triadic relation is, however, misleading, because an accusation is, by definition, not addressed primarily, or partially, nor even at all to the accused. The accusation is always addressed to one or more others, to third parties who are neither the accuser nor the accused. This is unlike a curse, which is (or at least can be) a relation of pure sociality, that is, a relation that remains confined to the limited domain defined by the person who curses and the other who is cursed.1 An accusation, to the contrary, is always open to the public, a public to which it is addressed. Through his accusation the accuser solicits the support and help of others, of third parties to whom it is addressed. Further, the accusation only succeeds when third parties agree with the accuser and accept to condemn the accused, or at least to hear the accuser. The success of an accusation therefore is not in the hands of the accuser, nor of course of the accused, but in the hands of those to whom it is addressed.That is why accusations always play a role in collective violence. The whole point of the accuser in formulating the accusation is to get others to join in his conflict with the accused. Accusers seek allies. They are asking for the force and violence, or at least for the "moral" support of others. That is why collective violence can only be understood if we take into account the role of third parties in relations with the accusations made against the victims.An accusation is already in itself a form of violence, precisely because, unlike a reproach, it is not really addressed to the person whom it targets. It is not a form of dialogue between the accuser and the accused, but an action that indicates that "there is no point talking," that what is needed or desired to put an end to the conflict is the force that others can bring or for the accused to recognize his or her fault. Because it does not imply any dialogue with the accused, as a gesture an accusation can be extremely simple. Accusing can even be done without using language, simply by pointing at someone. In many circumstances that gesture is enough to designate a culprit, a victim, someone who should not be there, or not there at that time. Pointing can provide a sufficient answer to many questions like "who did this?" or "how did this happen?," but also to unformulated questions, for example, a general sense of unease. Pointing is enough to indicate the person who has done something that should not have been done. Accusing is also a form of violence because, especially in the absence of culturally or legally well-defined contexts, the consequences to which the accusation may lead for the accused are to the... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A Patchwork of Non-Integrated OthersMichael Elias (bio)It has been a long time since I first presented a paper at a Colloquium on Violence & Religion (COV&R) conference, in 1994 in Wiesbaden, entitled "Neck Riddles in Mimetic Theory." It discusses riddle stories in which a man sentenced to death saves his life by propounding to the judge a riddle that he cannot possibly solve, because it is based on bizarre (...) experiences, unique to the condemned person. This was somewhat similar to what I did in my lecture, because I hid the fact that my research, which I would later base my doctorate on, was inspired by the eccentric experiences from psychoses that overtook me between 1979 and 1983 and landed me in a psychiatric hospital. Moreover, the motif of a condemned person saving his life is related for me to the experiences of my father, who spent weeks on death row at Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II—and miraculously escaped death. As the eldest in the family, I was definitely "the boy who had to make everything right."I am convinced that a lot of research is related to a researcher's own experiences. Our maître à penser, René Girard, tells his interviewer Michel Treguer, in answer to a question about the last chapter of Mensonge romantique, "You're [End Page 121] right, of course, about there being a personal experience behind what I say. I ended up understanding that I was going through an experience of the kind that I was describing."1 In his overview of Girard's work, Wolfgang Palaver wrote, "He began to turn away from his own pride and to see himself as a puppet of his own mimetic desire."2 But Girard adds a caveat in 1994: There is the danger of narcissism.3I also experience that when I do not stick to the theory, but try to clarify parts of my life story from the moment I started reading Girard's Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde, which offered me a new opening to my Christian background. It stimulated me to start learning Hebrew to investigate the roots of Christianity.My learning still continues, in a study group: what Jews do in a beth hamidrash. The Torah is too great to be owned by any of us, so the mimetic rivalry that is always there becomes a fruitful mimesis: Lernen leads to freedom. The last ten years we have been studying the book of Exodus, with midrashim from the long rabbinic tradition. It's a book of liberation that finally gave me the courage to write about that profound period in the psychiatric hospital.From the third part of Des choses cachées, I learned a lot about interdividuality, and also from J.-M. Oughourlian's The Mimetic Brain, in which he distinguishes between the rational, emotional, and mimetic brain. And from Henri Grivois, who published on incipient psychosis. Initially I steered toward a kind of psycho-philosophical self-analysis using insights from mimetic theory. However, in the end I decided: What I learned will not be put in a scientific treatise, but a novel. For several reasons:1. I learned from Mensonge romantique that real knowledge can be conveyed very well through a novel.2. Hungarian writer and Nobel Prize winner Imre Kertész, explaining why he was unable to describe his real-life concentration camp experiences, gave me the freedom to paradoxically tell my "real story" in fiction.3. I could by no means always remember exactly what had happened, and therefore had to resort to fiction, even though I had preserved material from those years.4. I wanted to make people in my immediate surroundings unrecognizable by literary means. The American writer David Vann once said (according to a Dutch writer), "You must sacrifice your family on the altar of fiction." I didn't want that, especially with regard to my mother. [End Page 122]5. Finally, I was inspired by a Jewish sage from the eighteenth century in Lithuania (the maggid of Doubno). He explains why the truth of the Torah is not presented as a philosophy or code of law... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Violent Conflict, the Struggle for Identity, and the Contagion of Mimetic Desire in the Prison EnvironmentCarlos GarciaMy name is Carlos Garcia. I am 56 years old and a junior class member of the Hope College–Western Theological Seminary Prison Education Program. I have lived my entire life in the state of Michigan. Unfortunately, more than forty of those years have been spent in juvenile detention centers, county jails, rehabilitation centers, (...) reformatories, and prisons. I have been accused, tried, and convicted legitimately, and wrongfully, for just about every crime less than murder. Needless to say, I know a thing or two about violence. As a result, I have embarked on a journey to understand and make use of those things I have learned in the field of mimetic desire to challenge the current system of prison politics. This writing is what I hope will be the first of many steps toward comprehensible prison reform and lasting rehabilitative programing within the Michigan Department of Corrections and beyond.What is it that makes the prison environment such a volatile place? Could it be the nature or character of the kind of men and women that fill its beds? What, then, does this say about the societies from which they came? Societies may have, in fact, played the greatest role in creating who they have come to be. [End Page 95] Could it be that their communities shaped their natures and made them into the kinds of people that many now fear and look at with curious fascination? Who we think we are might surprise us. Furthermore, who we think we "might" be may surprise us even more.This essay attempts to address and answer the question, "What role does mimetic desire play in the prison environment, and what effect might it have on the violence therein?" It also addresses how inmate identity might be shaped. Does the intentional limitation of material, intellectual, social, and spiritual resources that one may have also restrict individuality in a way that creates an environment of sameness? I suggest the answer is a resounding "yes." As such, mimetic desire becomes the driving force behind the violence therein.It is, I argue, this environment of sameness and the disintegration of differences—not the differences, in and of themselves—that ultimately leads to mimetic desire, competition, and rivalry. Often, and to the point, this environment is where winning the rivalry replaces the initial desire for the material, intellectual, or social object as the desired goal.As I unpack and answer the question and argument just offered, it is important that we first understand the premise upon which they have been formulated. Mimesis, mimetic desire, and mimetic theory are rooted in the idea of imitation. Mimesis, in and of itself, is nothing new. It is simply defined as "imitation or mimicry."1 In context of this essay, however, I address mimetic desire more specifically, as it has been theorized by its founder, French professor of history and literature René Girard. Luke Burgis, the author of Wanting: Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life, defines mimesis as "A sophisticated form of imitation that in adults is usually hidden. In mimetic theory, mimesis has a negative connotation because it usually leads to rivalry and conflict."2 Mimetic desire is defined as "Desire generated and formed through the imitation of what someone else has already desired."3 This means that what we want or desire is what the other—someone we might consider to be a model or mediator—wants, or desires, not necessarily because of the intrinsic value of the object, but because of the value we perceive the other's desire has placed on it. Again, it is mimetic desire sitting at the center of most conflicts and of the struggle for identity (i.e., autonomy) that I believe makes the prison environments volatile.We, as a species, struggle to find our place in the world. Each of us is trying to create our own identities, individually, culturally, collectively, even nationally. In very few places is the struggle more real, or its potentially violent consequences more severe, than in the prison environment. The identities of most inmates have been lost or stripped... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Dostoevsky, Girard, LevinasApocalyptic Frenzy and Eschatological Ethics in Dostoevsky's DevilsJ. A. Jackson (bio)In his interview with René Girard, Benoît Chantre connects the mimetic theory of René Girard with the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas, observing, "It is in the confrontation with otherness that the individual acquires self-consciousness. The self has no meaning except in the relationship, even when the relationship takes the form of a duel. Can we not say, (...) following Levinas, that only experience of war can allow us to think about reconciliation?" Girard concurs and expands: "According to what you have said, Levinas saw the duel, like love, as an escape from totality that we absolutely need. However, it is in this sense that it explodes totality…. By affirming that the duel is already the relationship to the Other, it shows that the relationship sits at the heart of violent reciprocity."1 How fitting that a discussion regarding the thought of Girard and Levinas should center at some point on the duel, an act of violence, of course, and yet an event also pregnant with ethical implications, as rivals must respond face-to-face. Perhaps we should not be so surprised that our two thinkers should fashion the duel as both a temptation to murder and the command "Thou shalt [End Page 227] not murder"; both men have a deep love and sense of indebtedness to the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, a man in whose works the duel—both literal and relational—often plays a crucial narrative, and penitential, role.As the conversation between Chantre and Girard reveals, the pairing of Girard and Levinas seems wholly natural and still much underappreciated.2 Dostoevsky seems to be a natural interlocutor, as one cannot help but feel Dostoevsky's hyperbolic excessiveness coursing through the works of both Girard and Levinas. To read Dostoevsky now, thanks to Girard, one cannot help but be dazzled by Dostoevsky's genius regarding mimetic desire and modern man's underground psychology, the very foundations for Girard's notion of the Apocalyptic. To read Levinas means having the notion of infinite responsibility illumined by Dostoevsky's beautiful religious meditations, where previously one may have only seen Dostoevsky's relishing the idea of the impossible, a mixture of monastic asceticism, Karamozovan passion, and Dostoevsky's own romantic proclivities.3 In this essay, I wish to pursue a reading of Dostoevsky's Devils with Girard's thoughts on apocalypticism and mimetic frenzy—with its inherent focus on the human "political" community—on one side. This is, in turn, partnered with Levinas's sense of the eschatological as an anarchic response to history and politics, with ethics being prior to both politics and history. Most importantly, however, I want to offer my own reading of Dostoevsky and investigate his own position inside of this exchange. To this end, alongside Levinas's idea of eschatology, especially as spelled out in Totality and Infinity, and Girard's often understated, yet very-much-present notion of positive mimesis (love), I also investigate Dostoevsky's notion of kenosis, a key idea in Dostoevsky's anthropology, psychology, and theology.René Girard has always maintained that he did not invent his mimetic theory—that he simply needed only to listen to what great authors like Cervantes, Dante, Shakespeare, Proust, and, especially, Dostoevsky had to say about desire. Indeed, Dostoevsky maintains a central position in Girard's first book, Deceit, Desire and the Novel, and is his only subject matter in Resurrection from the Underground. The connection between Girard and Dostoevsky became even more profound for Girard: "When I wrote the last chapter of my first book, I had a vague idea of what I would do, but as the chapter took form I realized I was undergoing my own version of the experience I was describing. I was particularly attracted to the Christian elements, for example, Stepan Verkhovensky's final journeys and turn to the Gospel before his death. So I began to read the Gospels and the rest of the bible. And I turned into a Christian."4 One can find in much of Girard's meditations on Dostoevsky the seeds of so many [End Page 228] of his... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Nietzsche contra GirardAgonistic Steps for Mimetic StudiesNidesh Lawtoo (bio)It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy has hitherto been: a confession on the part of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir.—Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and EvilFriedrich Nietzsche's exemplary position in the history of philosophy owes as much to the untimely content of his thought as to the heterogeneous forms he used to (...) express it. It is thus no accident that both his philosophical logic (logos) and the formal affect (pathos) that animate his writings are now a source of inspiration for mimetic studies as well—a transdisciplinary field that goes beyond antiquarian approaches to mimesis in order to develop a new theory of imitation that accounts for the becoming other of homo mimeticus in the present and future.1If I opt for an agonistic title, then, it is not to set up a violent and rivalrous opposition of false polarities between mimetic theory and mimetic studies—for the debts and genealogical continuities between Girard and Nietzsche [End Page 145] are numerous, profound, and do not conform to the pathological dynamic of mimetic rivalry. Rather, I opt for this Nietzschean title to alert the reader in advance to the following methodological point: What appears, at first sight, as a straightforward antagonistic opposition might reveal, at a closer genealogic look, mirroring continuities and overturnings of perspectives. The goal is to go beyond rivalrous principles constitutive of violent pathologies to propose a new theory on the logic or logos of mimetic pathos. This also means that the "contra" in my title should be read with a genealogical understanding of what agonistic confrontations actually entail: namely, a complex double movement with and against worthy predecessors that, as I have shown elsewhere, are already constitutive of Nietzsche's mimetic "patho(-)logies," and that I now group under the rubric of "mimetic agonism."2 Whether Nietzsche and Girard have the same understanding of agonism, or not quite, is what these further steps for mimetic studies now aim to find out.If the transdisciplinary field of mimetic studies emerges in the twenty-first century, its genealogy looks back to the foundations of philosophy and reaches, via Nietzsche and other modernist writers of mimesis, into the present. As an introductory gesture, let me first step back to the past century to recall why one of mimetic studies' major precursors, such as Nietzsche, continues to be read and reread today from different perspectives. Considered one of the "masters of suspicion" along with Marx, Freud, and, we should add, Darwin, Nietzsche is mostly known for overturning Western metaphysics, proclaiming the death of God, reevaluating the value of morality, undermining faith in rationality, and affirming an immanent world of becoming in constant tension, conflict, and transformation. Given his perspectival, often conflicted, and seemingly contradictory approach, it is not surprising that the name of Nietzsche has been associated with strikingly different and equally conflicting philosophical traditions: from existentialism to hermeneutics, materialism to psychoanalysis, structuralism to poststructuralism, modernism to postmodernism, critical theory to feminism, deconstruction to queer theory, and new materialism to environmental philosophy to posthumanism, among other emerging perspectives. Despite the disagreements he generates, or perhaps because of them, Nietzsche's perspectival thought powerfully informs, and continues to transform, some of the most heterogeneous philosophical traditions of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.Still, as the epigraph whereby we started suggests, Nietzsche was not only a philosopher; he was also one of the most formidable critics of philosophy—and in a characteristic overturning of perspectives, he often turned this critique into an attempt at self-critique. Nietzsche's philosophical diagnostics, in fact, [End Page 146] tend to be double-faced insofar as he is equally implicated in the phenomena he dissects—and this applies to his definition of philosophy as well. There is, in fact, a formal, confessional element at play in Nietzsche's famous account of philosophy as "confession [Selbstbekenntnis]" (BGE 6;47).3 The phrase performs what it describes, generating mirroring effects that run, like an undercurrent, throughout Nietzsche's entire oeuvre, giving it an experiential, autobiographical, and experimental tone that informs mimetic studies as well... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:René Girard and Giorgio AgambenConvergent and Divergent Political and Theological ProspectsBart Leenman (bio)INTRODUCTIONUnfortunately, categorical violence (violence wrought against a scapegoat minority, like ethnic cleansing and genocide) is a perpetual human problem. Although many thinkers concerned themselves with the issue of categorical violence, I would like to discuss René Girard (1923–2015) and Giorgio Agamben (born in 1942), two contemporary thinkers who present intriguing perspectives on categorical violence. Rather than viewing (...) violence as an external element of societal life, they discuss the societal function of categorical violence while situating a sacred victim at the heart of their theories. Girard and Agamben are an unlikely pairing. Girard is renowned for his socio-anthropological mimetic theory, while Agamben is known for his political philosophy. However, despite these different perspectives, Girard's mimetic theory and Agamben's political philosophy share some intriguing similarities. For example, both thinkers employ an archaeological (anthropogenetic) methodology and situate their [End Page 203] thoughts against the background of Judeo-Christian concepts such as messianism, revelation, and apocalypse. However, the most striking similarity is their shared focus on violence and the sacred. Rather than viewing violence as an external element of human life, Girard and Agamben discuss the societal "function" of violence while situating a sacred victim at the heart of their theories. Girard situates this sacred victim (the scapegoat) at the heart of his socio-anthropological theory of violence, mimesis, and desire. In contrast, Agamben situates his sacred victim (the homo sacer) at the heart of his political philosophy. Despite this intriguing similarity, Girard's and Agamben's political and theological prospects diverge. Even though both thinkers turn to Judeo-Christian concepts in their political and theological explorations, they interpret this Judeo-Christian context differently. Girard relates his political–theological prospects to Christian revelation. In contrast, Agamben connects his political–theological prospects to a philosophical reading of St. Paul.In this article, I compare and discuss Girard's and Agamben's perspectives on violence, their sacred victims, and the theological and political implications of their theories. I argue that Girard's and Agamben's divergent theological and political prospects can be traced to their opposing definition of their sacred victims, which, in turn, derives from a fundamentally different ontological conceptualization of the sacred. Therefore, the research question arises: "What constitutes Girard's and Agamben's opposing definition of the sacred victim and their fundamentally different conceptualization of the sacred underlying this definition, and what are the political and theological implications of this fundamentally different conceptualization of the sacred?"In order to answer this research question, I begin by discussing the basics of Girard's mimetic theory and Agamben's political philosophy. Then, I provide an overview of pertinent academic literature concerning the comparison between Girard and Agamben. This overview demonstrates the academic embeddedness of Girard and Agamben and their discussion of a sacred victim. Furthermore, it helps us to explore the apparent similarities and fundamental differences between Girard's mimetic theory and Agamben's political philosophy. Following that, I explicate the fundamental differences and argue that one could trace these differences to Girard's and Agamben's divergent ontological conceptualization of the sacred. Finally, I argue that Girard's and Agamben's divergent political and theological prospects do not obstruct a comparison between Girard and Agamben but invoke further research concerning Girard, Agamben, and the ontological conceptualization of the sacred. [End Page 204]GIRARD, AGAMBEN, AND THEIR SACRED VICTIMSIn 1961, René Girard published Deceit, Desire and the Novel. In this book, Girard introduces the principles of his mimetic theory.1 These principles derive from a careful analysis of classic European novels. Until that point, Girard occupied himself predominantly with the study of literature, arguing that the classic European novels reveal a kind of (psychological–biological) truth. This truth has everything to do with the notion of desire and how it is portrayed in classic European novels. According to Girard, the classic European novels reveal that desire is triangular rather than bilateral.2 The subject (S) desires an object (O) through a model of mediation (M).3 In other words, people desire what the other desires, and desire is not authentic but mimetic. Although desire... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Neurology of Culture, or How We Move From Rage to Ritual in the Process of HominizationGregory J. Lobo (bio)The most (or rather the only) effective form of reconciliation—that would stop this crisis, and save the community from total self-destruction—is the convergence of all collective anger and rage towards a random victim, a scapegoat, designated by mimetism itself, and unanimously adopted as such.—René Girard, Evolution and Conversion, 64.INTRODUCTIONHow do (...) we move from rage to ritual? How do we become human? The work of René Girard would seem to offer an answer to this question. In this brief essay I want to simply add some evolutionary and neuroscientific details to Girard's theory, which flesh out while also corroborating the basic components of it. [End Page 255]To do this I need to draw a distinction between religion and culture. I mention this from the outset because the main source upon which I draw to represent Girard's thinking is the book Evolution and Conversion. Dialogues on the Origins of Culture, with Pierpaolo Antonello and João Cezar de Castro Rocha, published in 2008. I use this particular source because, as Girard's interlocutors say in their foreword to it, this book "is intended as a reassessment of Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World, 30 years on,"1 and it evidences the "ways in which, over 30 years, mimetic theory has matured, and its fruitfulness become more apparent, even since the initial excitement of Girard's groundbreaking works in the 1970s."2 I highlight my need to distinguish between culture and religion due to the fact that in Evolution and Conversion Antonello and Castro Rocha state forthrightly that for Girard (and, one might presume, for Girardians), culture and religion "amount to the same thing."3 But it is not totally clear that this holds. For as Girard, in the same book, says, "religion, as an institution, comes into being through the scapegoat mechanism."4 Thus, the question arises as to what it is that allows humans to have institutions in the first place. Surely the answer is the capacity for culture as such, understood as the very capacity for symbolic thought, for the manipulation of mental images and their combination into new ones. Hopefully, in the discussion that follows, my insistence on the need to analytically distinguish between culture and religion will be born out. For now, I simply ask the reader to play along. If the reader is game, I can restate my purpose: What is the neurology of culture, such that we can become human, or move from blind rage to deliberate ritual?THE MIMETIC MECHANISMGirard, we should recall, insists that we start "from a purely naturalistic standpoint."5 With this injunction in mind, I will give an account of the "mimetic mechanism," an expression that "describes the whole process, beginning with mimetic desire, which then becomes mimetic rivalry, eventually escalating to the stage of a mimetic crisis and finally ending with the scapegoat resolution"6 that strives for naturalistic representation. Therefore, I will avoid terms like "community" or even "group," which already suggest the existence of something like cultural realities. A naturalistic standpoint, which I take to be a scientific standpoint, must strive to circumvent begging the question by using terms like these, for they refer exactly to the phenomena we are trying to explain: a self-conscious sense of belonging and community. [End Page 256]For those familiar enough with its presuppositions about the human nature that underlies, or is the foundation of, human culture, the mimetic mechanism can be presented in a somewhat straightforward fashion. This presentation relies on Chapter 2 of Evolution and Conversion.The desire of Homo sapiens is in essence mimetic. That is, an individual member of the species desires what its proximal conspecifics—its models—desire. That two conspecifics should desire the same thing leads, inevitably, to two intermediate outcomes. First, the desire for what the other desires intensifies, due to the effects of mimesis; second, this drives the two now mutual models almost inevitably into conflict, as they become doubles. This is conflictual mimesis. The conflict can turn violent and... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Flight of DesireThe Conversion of Sherman AlexieScott Richard Lyons (bio)Sherman Alexie's audacious arrival onto the Native American literary scene in the early 1990s felt like the start of something new—but it was also the end of something old: namely, the Native American Renaissance (NAR).1 Younger by a generation than the graying canonized figures of preceding decades—N. Scott Momaday, James Welch, Leslie Marmon Silko, Gerald Vizenor, among others—Alexie assumed the (...) pose of an enfant terrible and suggested that his elders were trying a bit too hard to produce an ultimately inauthentic sense of traditionalism. "We've been stuck in place since House Made of Dawn," he complained to an interviewer in 1997.2 Rather than presenting his readers with sick and/or depressed Indians caught between two worlds who discover healing in cultural restoration—the dominant plotline of NAR novels—Alexie's innovative characters played basketball and blues guitar, obsessed about their crushes and classes, and worried more about fitting into the modern world than healing it with some spiritual return to ancient Indian wisdom. Stylistically and thematically, Alexie was always closer to the likes of a George Saunders or Junot Diaz than he was to the serious modernists who had [End Page 27] inspired his NAR predecessors, and his political outlook more closely resembled the "identity politics" of younger Indian academics than the "sovereignty" discourses of twentieth-century tribal councils. Alexie wielded humor and pathos to great effect and always seemed to have his finger on the pulse of newer audiences, including those of us who call Indian reservations home. Alexie's influence on everyday Native American culture has been underestimated.Born to Salish parents in 1966 and raised on and off an eastern Washing-ton reservation, Alexie has published (as of this writing) twenty-six books of poetry, fiction, and memoir, much of which has been lauded for its dark humor and tender compassion in the face of serious and challenging topics—sexual abuse, chemical addiction, parental abandonment—as well as for its "reservation realism": the sense, often reiterated by Alexie himself, that his work speaks more authentically to real Indian life than most Native American works. His first published fiction was a collection of short stories, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven (1993), followed two years later by his first novel, Reservation Blues (1995). In 1996 Alexie published his second novel, Indian Killer, which moved in a different, darker direction. Departing reservation settings for the city of Seattle and supplanting his humor with a horror sensibility, Indian Killer is about a serial murderer who scalps his white male victims and the subsequent racial tensions that arise. In keeping with Alexie's identity politics, a significant theme of the novel is "ethnic fraud"—the claiming of false Indian identity by non-Indians—a topic that received serious treatment during the 1990s and that supplies another layer of meaning to the novel's title.3 But Indian Killer is primarily about the murder of white men, and the most that anyone could say about the moral questions it raises is that Alexie seems to have left them for the reader to decide. Arnold Krupat decided to call Indian Killer a "warning to whites."4 A decade later, Alexie published two short books, each having a foothold in the lucrative young adult (YA) genre: The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (2007) and Flight (2007). The former was immensely successful, critically and commercially, while the latter has barely been written about at all and has not sold as well. What explains this difference? Is True Diary simply a better book than Flight?Whenever we identify some literary text as good, great, better—or worse—than some other texts, we are obliged to answer the big, implicit question: What makes literature good? For René Girard, the answer to that question was simple: Great literature always announces the "novelistic [romanesque] truth," not the "romantic [romantique] lie" about the mediation of mimetic desire.5 The truth is that our desires are never just our own. We always imitate the desires of others, which leads to mimetic rivalry with those same models, who... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Flight of DesireThe Conversion of Sherman AlexieScott Richard Lyons (bio)Sherman Alexie's audacious arrival onto the Native American literary scene in the early 1990s felt like the start of something new—but it was also the end of something old: namely, the Native American Renaissance (NAR).1 Younger by a generation than the graying canonized figures of preceding decades—N. Scott Momaday, James Welch, Leslie Marmon Silko, Gerald Vizenor, among others—Alexie assumed the (...) pose of an enfant terrible and suggested that his elders were trying a bit too hard to produce an ultimately inauthentic sense of traditionalism. "We've been stuck in place since House Made of Dawn," he complained to an interviewer in 1997.2 Rather than presenting his readers with sick and/or depressed Indians caught between two worlds who discover healing in cultural restoration—the dominant plotline of NAR novels—Alexie's innovative characters played basketball and blues guitar, obsessed about their crushes and classes, and worried more about fitting into the modern world than healing it with some spiritual return to ancient Indian wisdom. Stylistically and thematically, Alexie was always closer to the likes of a George Saunders or Junot Diaz than he was to the serious modernists who had [End Page 27] inspired his NAR predecessors, and his political outlook more closely resembled the "identity politics" of younger Indian academics than the "sovereignty" discourses of twentieth-century tribal councils. Alexie wielded humor and pathos to great effect and always seemed to have his finger on the pulse of newer audiences, including those of us who call Indian reservations home. Alexie's influence on everyday Native American culture has been underestimated.Born to Salish parents in 1966 and raised on and off an eastern Washing-ton reservation, Alexie has published (as of this writing) twenty-six books of poetry, fiction, and memoir, much of which has been lauded for its dark humor and tender compassion in the face of serious and challenging topics—sexual abuse, chemical addiction, parental abandonment—as well as for its "reservation realism": the sense, often reiterated by Alexie himself, that his work speaks more authentically to real Indian life than most Native American works. His first published fiction was a collection of short stories, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven (1993), followed two years later by his first novel, Reservation Blues (1995). In 1996 Alexie published his second novel, Indian Killer, which moved in a different, darker direction. Departing reservation settings for the city of Seattle and supplanting his humor with a horror sensibility, Indian Killer is about a serial murderer who scalps his white male victims and the subsequent racial tensions that arise. In keeping with Alexie's identity politics, a significant theme of the novel is "ethnic fraud"—the claiming of false Indian identity by non-Indians—a topic that received serious treatment during the 1990s and that supplies another layer of meaning to the novel's title.3 But Indian Killer is primarily about the murder of white men, and the most that anyone could say about the moral questions it raises is that Alexie seems to have left them for the reader to decide. Arnold Krupat decided to call Indian Killer a "warning to whites."4 A decade later, Alexie published two short books, each having a foothold in the lucrative young adult (YA) genre: The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (2007) and Flight (2007). The former was immensely successful, critically and commercially, while the latter has barely been written about at all and has not sold as well. What explains this difference? Is True Diary simply a better book than Flight?Whenever we identify some literary text as good, great, better—or worse—than some other texts, we are obliged to answer the big, implicit question: What makes literature good? For René Girard, the answer to that question was simple: Great literature always announces the "novelistic [romanesque] truth," not the "romantic [romantique] lie" about the mediation of mimetic desire.5 The truth is that our desires are never just our own. We always imitate the desires of others, which leads to mimetic rivalry with those same models, who... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Novelistic Incarnation and the Question of TruthChristine Orsini (bio)Translated by William A. JohnsenINTRODUCTIONLike many of you, I was overwhelmed by reading René Girard's first book Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque, published in 1961.1 But I belong to a special class: Compared to all the young and less young readers and researchers who make up this assembly, I am what in high places, at the ARM [Association Recherches mimétiques], (...) we do not hesitate to qualify as a "historical Girardian": I read this book in 1961, thanks to Michel Deguy. And, of course, all his other books in the order of their publication. So I'm probably the oldest surviving groupie of René Girard. It's not a claim to fame, but it's in this way that I find a fellowship with you and that I'm happy to be before you. Indeed, I think that between Girardians, the differences matter less than the similarities.It is about another event, very recent, but directly linked to the previous one and also moving for me, that I am going to talk to you: the discovery of René Girard, biographie, the forthcoming book by Benoît Chantre, that I had the chance, once again, to read before everyone else. I read it passionately because [End Page 1] of all the things it teaches us about the genesis of Girard's work and above all because it gives this work an extraordinary and indisputable unity.I had assumed the unity of Girard's work but Benoît Chantre's book confirms it: What is called the mimetic theory is not a whole made up of separate and detachable parts, like a three-stage rocket, to which we like to compare it. Even if the writing of mimetic theory has undergone the turbulence of world history and the biography of its author, the whole determines its parts; the whole comprehends the boundaries of the work, the first writings and the last, in both senses of the word: to be taken altogether, understood as a whole, or discarded altogether. Moreover, its radical nature prohibits any form of readjustment or compromise. Girard has said it expressly in his interviews: There is no "Girardian system" but at the outset, a very compact intuition that fertilized all his research. This same intuition allowed Girard to profit from the work of his contemporaries and to maintain real relationships with the thought leaders of his time, such as Goldmann, Deguy, Foucault, Lacan, Barthes, and Derrida, without ever turning away from his own path. This intuition takes shape even before the conception of a "triangular" desire on an individual scale, a desire that will subsequently become "mimetic" on the scale of human societies.By reading the biography of Girard by Benoît Chantre, I better understood the importance of literature in the genesis of what we call mimetic theory. Marx wrote that ideas are not born like mushrooms; they always reflect a state of social reality. Girard showed, on the contrary, that social reality is not merely reflected but revealed by great literature. And with Girard, brilliant ideas are of the order of an event, intuitions inspired by readings in tune with events in his life. Reading Girard's intellectual biography therefore holds some surprises, things we did not know and things that can shed new light on those we already know.A genuine surprise is to learn that the excellent title "mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque" of his first work was imposed on him by his publisher. Girard had titled his history of the novel, which is at the same time a history of desire, "L'incarnation romanesque." At first, we will see what this mysterious title can mean; then, we will see that there are not only circumstantial reasons, linked to his teaching, to explain the confidence that Girard placed in literature, and not in philosophy and the human sciences, in his search for truth. [End Page 2]NOVELISTIC INCARNATIONIt was in Girard's personal papers, described by him as "very important papers" and carefully preserved and carried around from one move to another, that Benoît Chantre found... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Girardian Event and the Literary EventThe Scapegoat and Revelation in Alice Munro's "Runaway"Joakim Wrethed (bio)My critics constantly accuse me of switching back and forth between the representation and the reality of what is being represented. Readers who have been following the text attentively will understand that I do not deserve the reproach or, if I do, we all deserve it equally because we affirm the existence of real (...) victims behind the almost mythological texts of medieval persecutors.—René Girard, The Scapegoat, 57Girardian philosophical and theological thinking is founded on events: mainly the two generic events of mimetic desire and the purifying sacrifice. However, in addition, there is more nuanced cognition of evental structures that becomes highlighted, particularly when engaging with literary texts through Girardian concepts. It is my intent here to probe deeply into Girard's evental layers through the analytic encounter with Alice Munro's short story "Runaway," which clearly indicates the existence of "real victims" in the sense Girard describes it in the epigraph just shown, even though obviously Munro's victims are moved into the context of our times through the use of [End Page 53] literature as a form of myth-making. We shall more closely examine the literary event as such and what it may mean in Munro's work, but then also bring relevant insights back into Girard's evental framework to ponder some conceptual timbres in his thinking about the scapegoat and revelation. In the Canadian author's short story we therefore focus on these interrelated topics of revelation and scapegoating in order to analyze them in close connection with Girard. The central claim is that Girard uses founding events to ground the generic aspects of the theory, but in addition the argument suggests that the engagement with Munro's short story reveals that the literary event "overflows" any theoretical appropriation of evental structures. Thus, the cognition of the event displays a hermeneutical circle that moves events back into narrativity, myth, and religion, out of which Girard once derived his central ideas.There are mainly three different aspects that need to be outlined here from the beginning, which constitute an organizing structure that is useful when exposing Munro's fiction to close analysis, namely, Christian revelation, anthropological revelation, and the capacity of events to generate new meaning through the underlying phenomenon of eventfulness. According to Bernard Perret, Girard has two central principles attached to his usage of the concept of "revelation":When he speaks of "Christian revelation," he gives this term its usual theological meaning: that of a self-revelation by God giving access to truths that human reason is unable to discover through its own forces. In addition to this first meaning, Girard on many occasions uses the word "revelation"—or "unveiling," which is almost synonymous—in the sense of a discovery giving access to a rational understanding of anthropological facts.1This seemingly incompatible usage will be an important distinction when we move into the realm of contemporary fiction. Moreover, Girard also adds yet another aspect of the event that needs to be taken into consideration as well, and this is the third characteristic referred to above. Perret stresses that Girard and Christianity as a whole state "that all human existence is characterized by events creative of new meanings."2 This last claim fits the dominion of creative fiction in a fertile way. As we shall see when we approach Munro's rather complex short story, we will have to engage with issues that are in line with Girard's theological thinking, but also with elements that problematize certain aspects of these phenomena. It should be mentioned that the Girard scholar Perret is mainly used in this analysis, since he provides a clear focus on aspects [End Page 54] of Girardian thinking that are particularly relevant. There are references directly to Girard's writing mainly in the notes.In order to set up a meaningful dialogue, we need to first ponder the literary event per se, partly since it is such a broad term but also since not all literary events can be seen as revelatory in the theological sense. I here outline a set... (shrink)