Rene Girard in My Own Words
René Girard is one of the two philosophers who influenced me the most when it comes to thinking about issues and analyzing the world. What I find very interesting about his whole approach is that he starts from one intuition, and then builds an entire framework than can be applied to understand several every-day situations: desire, conflict, culture, attraction, etc. Having recently finished my tenth book by the French philosopher alongside other supplementary texts, I decided to summarize his whole philosophical structure in my own words as an exercise to solidify and better understand what I read.
I will start from his main intuition, mimetic desire at the individual level, follow through to anthropology and the scapegoat mechanism, then cover his views on religion and Christianity, and finish with his philosophy of history. Just as a note, I will avoid quoting extensively Girard, as my idea is to explain things in my own words. As most of what I write will be paraphrasing what the French thinker states, I won’t be including concrete references to his writings. Moreover, this is a summary piece where I will present what he says, it does not replace a reading of his texts. Furthermore, even if I don’t agree with something proposed by Girard, I will avoid providing my perspective or thoughts, which will come in future essays. As I already said, I am mainly doing this as an exercise to reinforce my understanding of his philosophical framework.
The micro: mimetic desire
Girard’s starting point is that desire is mimetic. From his perspective, we want things such as cars, jobs, or shoes, because we see others wanting them or having them.
Once humans transcend the level of need, where their only focus is survival, they enter the realm of desire. The problem is that, when they get to this state, they don’t know what to want. In other words, when one must satisfy his essential needs (food, water, shelter, etc.), there is no debate as to what to go after. On the other hand, if someone is lucky enough to surpass this state things get trickier, as he now has the freedom to choose what to pursue, but also the “need” to do so. No one will deny that it is preferable to be in the latter situation than in the former, but it is important to keep in mind that, despite being better, it leads to its own sort of issues. For the thirsty person in the middle of the desert water of any sort will do, while for his counterpart in a big city with a high salary, deciding between Voss, Evian and Fiji may very well be a dilemma.
Based on his analysis of literature, Girard rejects what he understands as the romantic conception of autonomous and spontaneous desire. From his perspective, it is a lie that we simply see things and automatically want or reject them. Instead, his initial intuition is that desire can’t be thought of as a direct relationship between subject and object; there’s also a model playing a key role. From his point of view, we need a triangular framework to describe this relationship: The subject sees someone who desires an object, this person becomes a model, and the subject therefore desires the same thing.
From the romantic perspective of desire Julius Caesar’s “veni, vidi, vici” (“I came, I saw, I conquered”) could be interpreted as a canonical example. A strong and independent individual who goes after the things he wants. However, a Girardian analysis of the same historical figure would point to the following quote from Plutarch:
It is said that another time, when free from business in Spain, after reading some part of the history of Alexander (the Great), he sat a great while very thoughtful, and at last burst out into tears. His friends were surprised, and asked him the reason of it. "Do you think," said he, "I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable."[1]
When we consider the episode described by Plutarch, we get to see Julius Caesar in a new light. He goes from being one of the most powerful figures in the Roman Empire to an Alexander the Great wannabe. The Macedonian king was his model in life, all that he aimed to do was follow in his footsteps, not to conquer new territories or to build an empire because he genuinely desired to do so.
Another canonical example of mimetic desire is romance. How many times has it happened that someone isn’t interested in a prospective partner until someone else shows romantic interest in that same person? Moreover, this pattern transcends this area of life and applies universally in social situations. We tend to want things because we see others wanting them. This may sound like a very strong statement, but if someone starts questioning why he desires the things that he desires, or made the choices that he did, he will realize that in many cases he was actually copying someone else.
In the same vein, small kids are another great example of this. On the one hand, they imitate from birth and even use imitation as a learning mechanism. On the other, there are plenty of recorded cases where one leaves a group of toddlers in a room with several toys, and all the attention will fall down to only one. Moreover, as the interest of every toddler converges on one particular object, mayhem follows.
I’m guessing that at this point there are probably many skeptics who might be thinking of an acquaintance who’s the exact opposite of everyone else, who appears to be his own person. If the majority chooses Coca-Cola, he will highlight his independence by ordering Pepsi. However, the irony is that this person is just as mimetic. If someone goes against the crowd for the sake of going against the crowd, his choices are as socially determined as the one who always follows the majority. The important thing is not whether someone makes one choice or the other, but the reasons behind them.
A fundamental lack of being
So, why are humans mimetic? Girard argues that the root cause of this characteristic is the fundamental void that individuals feel. When we pick someone as our model the true reason why we are doing so is that this person we want to copy appears to possess a fullness of being that we lack. Expressed in other terms, the model seems to have an understanding of things and a serenity that we don’t. If one thinks honestly about it, every time we, as individuals, admire and try to copy someone, it is because we think they have something internal that sets them apart and makes them better. They appear to be more certain and to see things more clearly than we do.
Consequently, this person who now becomes our guide transmits some of his superiority to the object that he has or seems to desire. This is logical since, by detecting his interest, we get a validation that this object is good. Therefore, it is natural for us to want the same things, as we perceive them as the key to what we truly hope to get, to be like our model and to share in his fullness of being. This is the reason behind one of Girard’s most powerful and controversial statements: “All desire is a desire for being”[2].
Concerning desire itself, Girard distinguishes two types. On the one hand he coins the term physical desire. This is used to describe the desire to experience something, in other words, when the object or thing in question is wanted for its own sake. On the other hand, there is mimetic desire, the desire to be. This second type is the one associated with mimetic desire, as it is what ends up driving us towards certain things not because we are genuinely attracted to them, but because we like what they convey about us. For example, when someone starts a company or project because they are passionate about a certain problem they want to solve or because there is a certain product they want to bring to the world, it is a case of physical desire. On the other hand, if this person instead starts a company because he wants to be perceived as a founder, it is a matter of vanity that falls straight into the second category of desire. The same could be said of going to a particular place on vacation because one wants to know the place, versus being wanted to be seen there, and the list of examples goes on. Therefore, most of the patterns described by the French thinker as a consequence of copying someone else, are a result of metaphysical desire[3].
Marketers are well aware of this distinction and take advantage of it. Just as an example, it is no coincidence that Gatorade in one of their commercials used the slogan “be like Mike (Michael Jordan)”, instead of “play like Mike” or something of the sort. The relevant element which they try to convey is Jordan as a model, instead of his basketball abilities. In other words, the underlying message is that by consuming their product you will be closer to Jordan and get some of his fullness of being.
Types of models and competition
In terms of the models themselves, it is important to highlight that there are two types. On the one hand, the ones which are distant to us. The reason for this distance can be various: the model is inaccessible to us because he is in a league of his own (think of Elon Musk to a young and ambitious kid who wants to be an entrepreneur), he is a fictitious character (think of Amadis de Gaula to Don Quixote) or dead (think of Walt Disney). The most important attribute to keep in mind here is that we will, with almost certainty, never be able to encounter this person, they may guide our decision-making and preferences, but we will never confront them. Girard calls this subject-model relationship external mediation.
On the other hand, the second type of models are the ones we choose from people who are around us. The reason why the distinction is important is that whenever we pick someone close to us as a model, a different dynamic takes place. As this time the object we desire, alongside the model that guides us towards it are accessible to us, there’s a new element to bear in mind: competition. This second type of models will lead to what the French thinker coined internal mediation. If I see Jeff Bezos wanting something, even if he is a model to me, in most cases things will end up nowhere as his situation is too distant from mine. On the other hand, if an acquaintance with whom I interact on a regular basis shows interest towards a particular thing, the situation changes. Think about college, why is it that a group of people who a priori had a diverse set of career goals, after a few years together end up converging into a small subset of options? The reason behind this isn’t exclusively that others want the same careers, there’s also a vicious circle at play here that doesn’t take place in external mediation and which, in this case, makes everything more extreme. This new dynamic develops as follows: if I see that my friend or group of friends want to work for a bank, I will be attracted to the same thing. But unlike the example with Bezos in which there’s nothing connecting us, in this case my friends see that all of a sudden, I also want to work in a bank. Therefore, the original subject-model relationship inverts in a sense: I now become the model to my model. This in turn intensifies their desire, as my interest in a sense confirms and increases theirs.
It is this dynamic which leads Girard to the conclusion that competition and conflict don’t occur because people are different, but mainly because they are similar and strive for the same things. We don’t enter into conflict with people who have different goals from us, we do with those who share the same ones. If the desired object isn’t limited (think of a pair of shoes or a shirt) this convergence of desire won’t be an issue as everyone can have the object, but it becomes one when people desire something scarce. When this occurs, Girard presents a particular dynamic that is also very interesting, the double bind. As two or more individuals who are “close” to one another desire something that is scarce, they start fighting over it. And just as their respective desires intensify when they witness the other’s, the same process occurs at the level of actions. The model is now my rival, and I must one-up him in order to get the prize. At the same time, he will try to one-up me with the same goal in mind.
As several iterations of this dynamic take place, Girard argues that two things will happen: first, the rivals will forget why they are fighting. They will lose sight of the object that was the trigger of the dispute, and their entire focus will go towards the opponent, who will undergo a very similar process. Second, as this pattern progresses even further, the two rivals will converge. In their attempt to one-up each other and differentiate themselves they will become doubles, where it will be impossible to distinguish one from the other[4]. Here I’m always reminded of the words of William Deresiewics in his great Solitude and Leadership speech:
I sat on the Yale College admissions committee a couple of years ago. The first thing the admissions officer would do when presenting a case to the rest of the committee was read what they called the “brag” in admissions lingo, the list of the student’s extracurriculars. Well, it turned out that a student who had six or seven extracurriculars was already in trouble. Because the students who got in – in addition to perfect grades and top scores – usually had 10 or 12[5].
I don’t use this example as a means to ridicule or belittle students who want to get into schools such as Yale. On the contrary, I believe getting into an elite institution of this caliber is an incredible feat that requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice. The reason why I find this fragment so interesting is that we can identify in it many of the consequences of what Girard describes. Considering the French thinker’s words, it is easy to see how competition pushes people to this sort of behavior where they need to have 10 extracurricular activities, alongside perfect grades, just to be considered. Juggling all this is only something a small group of people achieve to do, but it’s also interesting to consider how, from reading a description of the situation, all the candidates end up appearing as copies of one another. As extracurriculars start being racked up by students with the intention of setting themselves apart, in a way they all end up converging in the same place. After all, how do you end up determining which are the best combinations of activities, or whether each one is worth the same? Most students won’t probably get in by being great at one or a few things, but they do have a higher chance by appearing to do even more things than the others. The problem is that most will share this mentality, and will end up converging in the same place of undifferentiation.
Desire’s trap
There’s one final element to highlight from Girard’s framework at the level of the individual: the trap of desire. Accepting the statement that “All desire is a desire for being”, is equivalent to accepting the notion that whenever someone goes after something they are doing so to fill an internal void of sorts. So, what happens when such an object is finally obtained? As we all know from experience, whenever we get something we coveted we won’t end up feeling happy or fulfilled, instead we end up disappointed. As the saying goes, “the grass is greener on the other side, until you get to the other side.”
This is the logic which rules the lives of many, if not most. Desire is a very dangerous and flexible enemy. It adjusts based on past experiences so as to never let its victim off its grip. Whenever we get something we desired and end up feeling disappointed or empty, we never finish by blaming desire as such, instead we always place the blame on ourselves and assume that the problem is that we went after the wrong thing. As a consequence, we change our sights to something even harder to get. Think of it in terms of money: someone’s first milestone may be to pay off all debts they have from college, after that comes buying the house and the car, after that the first million, then the second house, then 10 million and the list goes on with ever harder obstacles. No one in the developed world will accept the premise that having a cellphone is the key to happiness, but many would accept the notion that having a million dollars would lead to the sought-after fulfillment. The difference between the former and the latter is precisely that almost everyone already accomplished the first milestone but very few the second, so there exists a possibility that this is the key. We mistake the difficulty of obtaining something and its level of attraction to others with its intrinsic value. To the eyes of the rest you may be a winner if you get the prize, and even become their model, but in the end you will keep on looking elsewhere. From this perspective it’s no accident that the origins in Latin of the word prestige, praestigiae, is associated with the concept of “mirage” or “illusion”[6].
The problem with desire’s trap is that when the dynamic is played out to the extreme it basically sets up its victim for failure. We already know that everything we achieved wasn’t it, so we are always forced to look for a higher mountain to climb or a bigger rock to lift. This goes on until we reach an obstacle that can’t be surpassed. What this obstacle is changes for each person, but there will always be one. Whenever we arrive at this point all our happiness will hinge on us surpassing this obstacle as we are sure that “this is it”. However, what very few seem to realize is that desire in itself is futile. We will never find fullness of being if we look for it outside ourselves. In the same vein, Naval Ravikant very well said, “if you can’t be happy with a coffee, you won’t be happy with a Yacht”. Each time someone states that they will be fulfilled after they have achieved some external goal or surpassed a certain milestone, they are deluding themselves. They will eventually feel just as empty as before and will soon try to fill this void with a new pursuit, ending either in failure or recognizing the treacherous dynamic underlying desire.
The macro: anthropology and the scapegoat mechanism
What happens if we accept Girard’s intuition, but consider a wider scope? From the French thinker’s perspective, when people live in society, conflict will rarely limit itself to pairs or a small group. As violence grows, it has a way to engulf everyone. The logic behind this dynamic is a continuation to what has already been described: As individuals see more and more people desiring and fighting over a particular object, they will end up following suit. This is the way that conflict grows until, in the most extreme cases, we reach a situation of “war of all against all”. Moreover, it is at this very precise moment, when tension is at a maximum, that a social mechanism may kick in to restore peace, scapegoating. This is a theory developed by Girard when he studied archaic cultures. According to his reasoning, only the primitive societies that stumbled upon this phenomenon were able to continue existing, since all the others were consumed by their internal disputes. Therefore, what happens at this point is that violence, originally dispersed among the entire population, is channeled into one victim who is identified by everyone as the culprit of the whole situation, and is therefore sacrificed. Consequently, what had started as a war of all against all, turns into a war of all against one.
There are a few additional attributes concerning scapegoating which should be considered. The first is the selection of the victim. Girard argues that this is a mostly random process, in which we can still identify a certain pattern. From his point of view, the scapegoat can be usually seen as an outsider insider. He or she is part of the same group but has some feature, either good or bad, which sets him apart. Here we can think of a cripple or a king as examples. For some reason particular to the conflict at hand this individual is singled out as the one who ignited the dispute, and only his sacrifice will end it. One of Girard’s canonical cases from mythology is Oedipus, the king of Thebes. He was seen as the responsible party for bringing the plague to the city and, consequently, only his expulsion would rectify the situation. Once this “guilty” victim is sacrificed, a state of peace is reintroduced. An important element to highlight is that no one will avenge the scapegoat. As he is in part an outsider, his death puts an end to the whole cycle of escalating violence and reciprocity. Therefore, this individual is seen not only as the one responsible for starting the conflict, but also the one responsible for ending it. Finally, it is as a result of this dual power to cause both chaos and peace that a certain divinity is attributed to this scapegoat; the sacred is thus born. This is reasonable, as only a god-like figure can be capable of such feats. Moreover, it is this sequence that Girard interprets as the foundation of the myths that led to the development of the different archaic cultures.
From the French thinker’s perspective, all the primitive civilizations that survived understood the dangers underlying imitation much better than we do in the twenty-first century. Our modern societies are too individualistic, we systemically hide the influence others may have in our decisions. On the other hand, archaic societies not only understood what could happen as a consequence of imitation, but also arranged their whole social infrastructure with the objective of preventing it. In the previous paragraph we explained how the scapegoat mechanism led to myths. And now, we will see how these myths lead to two new social mechanisms: prohibitions and rituals. The former can be interpreted as a society’s attempt to avoid imitation from taking place in the first place. The shape these prohibitions take will be diverse and can range from sexual behavior and the forbidding of twins or mirrors to entire castes systems. The important thing to keep in mind is that the whole reason for their existence is precisely to reduce the possible surface area of conflict. If two individuals are arbitrarily forbidden from fighting over a prospective partner or a career, the chance of violence escalating diminishes. This is an undoubtedly arbitrary and oppressive system since someone’s birth limited what they could do in life, but it was developed with the sole purpose of stopping violence from running loose[7]. Girard offers many instances of evidence for his theory. Many archaic cultures from different parts of the world established different prohibitions, all contingent on their respective founding myths, to prevent history from repeating itself.
The second element that came out from myths, and which constitutes the second pillar on which archaic cultures are based is rituals. The French thinker interprets them as a mechanism that works as a valve that helps to release pressure. Even if prohibitions are set with the objective of preventing conflict from starting and escalating, this will inevitably happen from time to time. Therefore, when enough tension has built up, archaic societies rely on sacrificial rituals, where a victim is chosen and killed, with the objective of reestablishing peace. Girard argues that these rituals are no more than reenactments of the initial founding murders, carried out as faithfully as possible so that they can benefit from the original peace. It is from this perspective that random facts, such as the Athenians maintaining, at the city’s expense, a set of cripples so that they could be sacrificed whenever necessary, makes sense. The following diagram can be interpreted as a summary of the whole process:
The pros and cons of mimetic desire: arbitrary violence and stratification
When someone first approaches Girard’s theories, it is normal to assume that he is in favor of the prohibitions and rituals. This is a system that, after all, enables societies to maintain and even reestablish peace among its individuals. In this case, it is important to keep in mind that the French thinker is as ambivalent as he usually is, highlighting both the pros and cons of the social structures he describes.
Prohibitions are a case in point. On the one hand, they are arbitrary stratifications imposed on everyone but, on the other, it is also undeniable that a society which imposed them had a higher stability. If someone accepted that, for example, because of a religious norm he could only work in certain domains or jobs, there wasn’t much more for this person to do other than carry on. As a counter-example, in Western countries in the twenty-first century, people have the freedom to choose what to do as no one had in any other moment of history. This is of course an incredible achievement worthy of praise, but at the same time, it also leads to enormous competition and tensions. In this context, almost everyone can be your model and, therefore, almost everyone can also be your rival. Just as the positive aspect is undeniable, so is this negative counterpart. Girard recognizes both elements and emphasizes that we should also do so.
The French thinker has a similar attitude towards rituals. One person is sacrificed and peace is restored; it could be argued that on the one hand, it is wrong to sacrifice an innocent victim under any circumstance, but the case could also be made that many more innocent people would suffer and even die in the “war of all against all” that takes place when violence goes unchecked. The key is to understand that both things can be true at the same time, but I would argue that in the end, Girard believes that these institutions are more wrong than right, especially if one considers his praise of Christianity.
Christianity, the innocence of the victim and the true religion
An interesting element is that if we consider the archetype of the myth proposed by Girard, Christianity could be seen as one more of its manifestations. Jesus, after all, is sacrificed because he was accused of causing collective hysteria, and then he revives. According to the French thinker, there is, however, one key distinction that sets Christianity apart: we are shown that Christ is innocent. If we consider all the big myths of archaic cultures, there is one element they all share, the victim is unanimously condemned as guilty. The reason behind this is that each of these stories is told from the perspective of the crowd, and from this point of view, their actions are justified since they are right. Going further, even the victim recognizes himself as guilty, as is the case of Oedipus.
The Bible takes a different approach. As the text progresses, we have several instances where we are faced with myths, but the victim’s innocence is highlighted to different degrees. Think of Cain and Abel. From this first founding murder we are aware that the latter was innocently killed, and compare this to, for example, the story of Romulus and Remus in the founding of Rome. Joseph could be seen as another example. Through the multiple misfortunes he suffers, we are constantly shown that he is not guilty of what he is accused of. The culmination of this trend takes place with the Passion. We are shown without a shadow of a doubt that Christ is innocent. He takes all of society’s hate and anger and accepts it. He doesn’t plot a countermove or to one up anyone, he simply receives it and sacrifices himself at the cross out of love for mankind.
The interesting thing to consider is that Christ, in his sacrifice, exposed the nonsensical nature of violence. In an anthropological reading of Christianity, Girard equates the Devil to mimetic violence[1]. Taking this idea further, he argues that Christ set Satan a trap. The latter saw only one more victim to fall prey to violence, without realizing that this victim would, not only not follow suit on the mechanism he had relied on “since the foundation of the world,” but would also expose it for what it is, a lie. Since the Passion, we know that the sacrificed victims are innocent and that violence is meaningless.
The exposition of Christ’s innocence has changed the course of human history. What was once a cyclical phenomenon of chaos followed by rituals, is now a linear trend. The victimage mechanism and scapegoating were exposed, and a universal value was imposed: a concern for victims.
The modern concern for victims
If we measure our societies, especially in “the West”, in terms of the rights of victims and minorities, one could think of Dickens to describe the current situation: “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. This is of course no accident, both perceptions are true and a direct consequence of the Passion. If we think about it objectively, by basically any measure never have we been as good as in the present age when it comes to caring for and protecting victims. Most people are aware of unjust oppression of any kind, and we even try at the institutional level to avoid this sin. It is even fair to say that we save more victims than at any previous time in history. For anyone who might oppose this claim, I would simply ask them if they would prefer to belong to a minority or typically oppressed group at any other period than this one. For all our societies’ faults, it is undoubtful that in this regard we are better than ever.
However, we are also more conscious of the injustice involved in the oppression of minorities than ever before. This leads us to disregard statistics and focus on what is wrong. This is why there’s probably more outrage over issues such as discrimination than at any other time in history. Our previous successes are not seen as such, what they did was move the goal line even further. Therefore, we’re always focusing on the victims that remain and any unjust actions that may come to light. The conclusion to take from this is not that, given our success so far, we should stop caring. It is in fact good to try to end unfair oppression of any kind. However, we should also be proud to acknowledge all the progress we have made so far and not aim to blame everyone or to point out only the negative aspects of our society which would have been considered huge successes at any other time.
The Antichrist
As the concern for victims goes to ever greater lengths, Girard argues that there are two big movements against it. The first one is a frontal assault on this notion, spearheaded by the ideas of Nietzsche, who denounced it as slave morality[2]. The second force which opposed the concern for victims is Nazism. Hitler’s Germany used persecution with the objective of restoring the mentality behind pagan myths and sought to impose strength as the ruling principle. Both attempts failed, and their failure reinforced the universality of the trend that they intended to undermine.
The more effective enemy identified by the French thinker against the concern for victims is one in disguise: the antichrist. While the head-on attacks proved ineffective and even strengthened the status of the concerns for victims as a universal value, an indirect threat got to infiltrate. This is a second type of totalitarianism which aims to radicalize the notion of concern for the victims and use it as justification for oppression. While the Christian attitude is one of protecting the weak and the innocents, this new force intends to be more Christian than the Christians. The true intention of the cross was to denounce and expose violence so that it may lose its grip on mankind. This new enemy of Christian values intends to use this same principle, but only as a tool to outflank it, and as a justification to persecute others. In doing so, it ends up undermining the values which came from the crucifixion.
If one stops and thinks about it, many phenomena that we are seeing in the present age can be understood from this lens. Affirmative action, the excessive concern for minorities of every kind, discrimination against the supposedly “strong”, these are all manifestations of the same trend, and they become intelligible once one considers the antichrist and how it operates. The ironic thing is that one even sees situations of extreme contradiction by people who intend to uphold this principle. How many people who are pro-LGTB, the left, and many other such causes are now defending Palestine in its current conflict with Israel? I’m not implying that it’s right or wrong that they’re doing so, but I wonder how many of the people in those protests ever thought what would happen to any LGTB person if they ever set foot in Palestine and started defending their beliefs? Such is the power of the concern over the victims. Many people are even willing to abandon all their other principles in order to defend it. Moreover, mimetic tendencies in humans magnify this problem. Just as there is an intent to one-up a rival, there is also one in these situations to try to be even more righteous than others. The consequence of this dynamic is that, just as violence increases in conflict, something similar takes place in this situation.
The fundamental problem with the antichrist is that there is no forgiveness involved. They intend to balance the scales, but fail to realize that in doing so they are becoming just like those who they condemn. If we can’t find a way to move forward in unison accepting our past, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The truth of the matter is that there’s no going back. The crucifixion changed everything for humanity, which is now aware of the injustices that precede. Jesus’ intent on the cross was to expose violence so that we have a chance to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Such a feat will only be possible if we are able to love our brethren, just as Jesus did. And considering the technological situation in which we find ourselves, this may be the only way to guarantee our survival.
Demystification and Science
Besides establishing our modern concern for victims, the crucifixion unleashed two other big forces on humanity: truth and the apocalypse. If we consider the role pagan myths had in the cultures of the past, it is valid to argue, if one accepts the Girardian perspective, that Christianity is a demystifying force. In the pre-Christian paradigm, the guilt and divinity of the innocent victim were accepted, and it was this belief that made myths possible. However, once we realize that the victim is in fact innocent and that the violence is non-sensical, this power wanes.
As societies at large abandoned the pagan and mythic interpretations of events, something else was needed to fill the void. It is thus how science came to be. If we recognize that the victim we are attributing the blame to is not guilty, we need a new and better explanation of how things work. Girard is therefore inverting the conventional arrow of causality when it comes to the development of science and the abandonment of pagan myths. In his own words: “Children are taught that we stopped hunting witches because of the advent of science. When in fact it’s the opposite: science took hold because, for moral and religious reasons, we stopped hunting witches”[3]. This is how Christianity turned into a demystifying force: by discarding for us many wrong interpretations of the world, it liberated us to look for better alternatives. Moreover, the notion of science also helped fill the void left by the retreat of religion over the last centuries. During the Covid pandemic, a lot of people claimed to “believe in science”. This is no different than the attitude most had towards the Church throughout most of the last two millennia.
In this same vein, this is how the current cult of the experts came to be. Before people used to worship religious figures, while now it is scientists. Even though, in most cases, they are the best people to listen in matters concerning their respective fields of expertise, placing scientists in such places of authority is, at the least, not advisable and at worst dangerous. If anyone disagrees it is necessary to look no further than the Covid pandemic once more. The scientist Anthony Fauci, one of the members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force established to deal with COVID-19, stated the following: “When people criticize me, they are really criticizing science, because I represent science”[4]. With just this example we can already see to what kind of risks society exposes itself to by placing their absolute faith in experts. In this quote science was used as a conversation blocker, Fauci couldn’t be questioned by anyone because he was the one who knew, he was the expert. And unless science remembers its place once more, it is very likely that more cases such as this one will occur in the future.
It is thus that science appeared and progressed at an ever-faster rate, becoming nowadays a core tenet of our lives. Such has been its advancement in the last century, that we now have the power at our disposal to destroy Earth many times over. Given this situation, Girard believes that one of the most pressing issues humanity has to face is whether we will be able to rise up to the occasion and have the restraint not to end our world.
The Apocalypse
In his final book, Battling to the End, the French thinker lays out a pessimistic future for humanity. As he says at the end of this text, “the apocalypse has already begun”, but why does he believe this is the case? We already saw how, for Girard, violence is contagious, it has a tendency to escalate, and all throughout history the scapegoat mechanism, despite being based on a lie, was the best method to contain it. Moreover, we also saw how it was Christianity which made this mechanism useless, by showing us that the sacrificed victim was innocent. However, it is when we combine all these factors with the fact that we have nuclear weapons capable of destroying the world many times over, that the French thinker believes our fate is sealed.
Up till now, violence was mostly contained in our societies through two methods. On the one hand, a lot of the energy that once went into war and conquest, now moved to the economic realm. Thus, our modern economies were able to flourish and grow on the backs of entrepreneurs and capitalists who outcompeted each other to offer the best goods and services. On the other hand, violence was also contained thanks to modern institutions. If in the past we had duels, vendettas, and acts of such sort, we now have trials that have taken their place to settle disputes between opposing parties. And in such situations, the state has the last word, and it must be respected by everyone. This is of course possible because the state wields an inordinate amount of power over every individual, and it can therefore impose its will over anyone who wishes to oppose it.
The problem with modernity that worries Girard is not at the individual level, but at the international one. Sure, violence can be contained between individuals because, if push comes to shove, the state will stop them and impose peace. But what happens when we consider violence between nations? At this level, it is fair to argue that there is no worldwide Leviathan that can contain and subdue any member who goes out of line. If there’s a conflict between states, the situation may escalate with no end in sight. Girard bases his analysis on an observation made by Carl von Clausewitz in his military treatise On War:
“If you want to overcome your enemy you must match your effort against his power of resistance (…). Assuming you arrive in this way at a reasonable accurate estimate of the enemy’s power of resistance, you can adjust your own efforts accordingly; that is, you can either increase them until they surpass the enemy’s or, if this is beyond your means, you can make your efforts as great as possible. But the enemy will do the same; competition will again result and, in pure theory, it must again force you both to extremes”[5].
In this passage, the German military theorist thought of the escalation of extremes as a hypothetical situation. After all, he constantly referred to the practical realities of war and the frictions they implied as impediments which made the escalation to extremes an impossibility. However, the reason why Girard argues that we ought to reconsider Clausewitz’s words is that we now have the possibility to reach the extremes. With the atomic bombs and the threat of nuclear war hanging over everyone’s heads, the situation has changed. Unlike previous conflicts, where logistics was a big issue (think of moving an entire army by land to another country with all the required supplies), any country has the power to destroy another with the push of a button. It is thus that the French thinker argues that we just need one conflict to escalate out of hand for the world to be over.
What to Read
Let’s say you made it this far and want to go deeper into what Girard has to offer. What should you then read, and in what order? My suggested list is the following:
1. Wanting, by Luke Burgis: The clearest introduction and overview I found so far on Girard.
2. Deceit, Desire and the Novel: Girard’s first big book, where he presents the notion of mimetic desire based on his analysis of literature.
3. I see Satan Fall Like Lightning: a first view of Girard’s analysis of the bible and the role that scapegoating plays in history. I would suggest that anyone not very familiar with the Bible read at least a summary of the biblical tales analyzed by Girard to better understand his arguments.
4. When These Things Begin: A relatively simple book, compared to other of Girard’s works, which is useful to see different applications of mimetic theory to interpret reality.
5. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of World: Girard’s longest and best work. Here one can find the whole development of his philosophical structure. I would make the same suggestion that I did for I see Satan Fall Like Lightning concerning biblical tales.
6. Battling to the End: Girard’s final book. In it, he presents his theory of apocalypse and his philosophy of history.
Moreover, I found Johnathan Bi’s seven-part lecture series on Girard, which can be found in YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify, as very interesting to clarify concepts and get more examples of what the French thinker describes: https://johnathanbi.com/lectures
Finally, there are other worthwhile books written by Girard, but I consider them to be more marginal. However, in certain circumstances they might be interesting to some readers:
1. Violence and the Sacred: a deeper dive into anthropology.
2. Theater of Envy: Girard’s analysis of Shakespeare.
3. Resurrection from the Underground: Girard’s treatment of Dostoevsky.
4. Sacrifice: Girard’s analysis of Hindu Religion.
Bibliography:
Burgis, Luke. Wanting: The Power of Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2021.
von Clausewitz, Carl. On War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Girard, René. Battling to the End: Conversations with Benoît Chantre. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2010.
Girard, René. Evolution and Conversion: Dialogues on the Origins of Culture. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2008.
Girard, René. Deceit, Desire and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure. Blatimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
Girard, René. I See Satan Fall Like Lightning. New York: Orbis Books, 2001.
Girard, René. Resurrection from the Underground: Feodor Dostoevsky. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2012.
Girard, René. Sacrifice. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2011.
Girard, René. The One by Whom Scandal Comes. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2014.
Girard, René. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978.
Girard, René. Violence and the Sacred. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
Girard, René. When These Things Begin: Conversations with Michel Treguer. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2014.
Haven, Cynthia. Evolution of Desire: A Life of René Girard. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2018.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. New York: Penguin Classics, 2014.
Palaver, Wolfgang. René Girard’s Mimetic Theory. Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2013.
Platón. Diálogos IV: República. Barcelona: Gredos, 2020.
Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives Volume II. New York: The Modern Library, 2001.
Thiel, Peter and Masters, Blake. Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. New York: Crown Currency, 2014.
[1] I won’t get to the reasons behind this here, but anyone interested in going deeper into this, I suggest René Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lighting (New York: Orbis Books, 2001) or René Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978).
[2] To go further into this idea, see Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals (New York: Penguin Classics, 2014).
[3] René Girard, When These things Begin, 54.
[5] Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 16.
[1] Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives Volume II (New York: The Modern Library, 2001), 206.
[2] René Girard, When These things Begin: Conversations with Michel Treguer (Michigan: Michigan State University, 2014), 12.
[3] An interesting debate is whether Girard would classify all desires as either physical or metaphysical. For the french thinker the answer is that, in most cases, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Whenever we want something, we are probably driven in part by the former type of desire, and in part by the latter type.
[4] To see an example of how this applies in business, I recommend the chapter The Ideology of Competition from Peter Thiel, Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future (New York: Crown Currency, 2014).
[5] https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/solitude-and-leadership.pdf
[6] Wolfgang Palaver, René Girard’s Mimetic Theory (Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2013), 125.
[7] According to Girard it is not an accident that even Plato, in The Republic, is constantly proposing prohibitions in his ideal state to reduce the risk of mimesis.
I had the chance to discover his brilliant ideas through Luke Burgis book and it radically changed the way I see human nature. Girard’s ideas can be applied to any people-related scenario. It’s like a framework to understand the world.