A little on mimetic desire (or perhaps a lot)

Okay, this is a really long read, but I promise you, it's worth it. I started writing this a while ago, and only came back to it this evening as I was sitting around, wasting my life playing computer solitaire. It's based on a philosophy of religion that I've been studying for several months now. Much of this I've already discussed at length with Temujin, who seems to concur with some of it, at least. Please read it. Whether you agree with it or not, it would be interesting to actually have some dialogue on the topic. So anyway, here goes:

Have any of you ever taken time to ponder why there are thousands of religions, and thousands of sects and denominations within these religions…and how on earth any one of these religions can claim to teach exclusive truth? I will quote by good friend (well, at least, I’m his friend for my part, but I’m pretty sure he’s never heard of me) René Girard, who said that organized religion is the product of man’s attempt at blameshifting – that religion is all about finding a scapegoat who we can point to any time something goes wrong. This leads us eventually to begin “clubs” – groups which have insiders and outsiders. Girard’s argument is that this tendency to group ourselves in opposition to others is actually basic to human nature – that no matter what we do or say, there will always be two against one – the good guys against the bad guys. You get it with children: two children with a low self esteem may gang up on a smaller child to prove their worth. You get it in marriages: a man and woman grow further and further apart based on their differences (stemming originally from pure selfishness), and both look to their families and friends to rally support against their spouse. It would be impossible to explain all of this properly without introducing the concept of mimetic desire, which Temujin mentioned in his infamous post on marriage. Jealousy… envy… coveting… whatever you want to call it… becomes the key figure in all of this. One person wants what somebody else has, and in order to get it, that person will build an army – a club – a religion – which will make as its goal world conquest.

In ancient times, the viewpoint in most cultures was that any time something bad happened (i.e. a terrible catastrophe), it was because the gods were angry with someone, or some group of people. This eventually led, among other things, to human sacrificing. Thousands of years passed, and in that time, these god-myths became religions – the world religions of today. Let’s take Jihad as an example. Jihad is a product of scapegoating. Those who are on the inside (the fundamentalists of Islam), look at the rest of the world as evil, because it is not like them. Likely there is a lot of envy, because North America has become so prosperous despite its denizens’ lack of devotion to Allah (or God). There is also a lot of resentment built up around their perception of American bullying, and the apparent American agenda to force democracy on the rest of the world (yes, that is an oxymoronic statement; and no, that was not an attempt on my part to criticize the Americans). But the long and the short of it is this: the Islamic fundamentalists hate and declare war (in general; there may be some exceptions based on political reasons) on those who are unlike them – who do not adhere to the rules and regulations of their own religion. Now, if you’re Arab, and you’re offended at what I just said…keep reading. Despite being a Christian, my critique of Christianity will be similarly harsh.

All I have to do to make Christianity look bad is mention the Crusades. Anyone who knows about the Crusades recognizes that Christianity as a religion also falls under Girard’s category of “scapegoating”. Just take a look at this illustration taken from a website dedicated to the medieval crusades:

The year was 1095 CE, William the Conqueror had united England under one crown 30 years earlier. The French had been dividing properties amongst their sons for generations, causing bloodshed between brothers over small pieces of real estate. In reaction, Pope Urban II expanded "The Truce of God", which outlawed fighting from Sunday to Wednesday, and banned fighting involving priests, monks, women, laborers and merchants on any day of the week. Italy was a collection of city-states, constantly being overrun by invading hordes, the latest of which were the Normans, who had just started to become "civilized".

There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.

These are descriptions of the politics behind the “holy” wars. In the first case, you have a mess of French landowners, displaying mimetic desire in their bloody escapades for more land. In reaction, the Pope joins people together – giving them common purpose as Christians – and even has the audacity to put God’s authority on it by calling it “The Truce of God”. In the second case, you have a Pope hungry for more land (the attractive prospect of the Holy Land, in fact), who goes about obtaining this land by using God as an excuse. Both cases are riddled with desire, deceit, and, most importantly, the common appeal to a higher power for the purpose of uniting people “spiritually”. And, you will note, neither case displays the heart of what Jesus himself lived and taught. Pope Urban II united people for the sake of destroying others. Jesus united people for the sake of salvation.

From the two major examples of world religions, you can see that mimetic desire and scapegoating are both important elements that lead to violence. It is the goal of religion and religious leaders to be conquerors in the world, and they make this attempt by creating moral guidelines by which all members of each particular religious group must abide. By disobeying these guidelines, people and groups set themselves up against that religion, or force, or voice, and by doing so, they make themselves into the scapegoat. By the way… don’t get the impression that this would end as soon as everybody in the world became a perfect Christian, or a perfect Buddhist, or a perfect Muslim. The moment the entire world is converted to one religion (which would, by the way, never happen without supernatural intervention), subgroups would be created, which would eventually become different religions. As proof, I would point to any single Church or religious group in the world. Show me one Church that does not have constant internal strife of some kind or another. Churches are constantly splitting… there are thousands of denominations because of this.

By now, you’ve inevitably asked yourself why I am a Christian if I believe all of this to be true. Well, once again I will introduce the philosophy of René Girard. Girard’s philosophy comes out of his research as a literary critic. He first stumbled upon the concept of mimetic desire while perusing the works of William Shakespeare…all of which contained the same elements of jealousy, rage and violence. After establishing a new theory of human nature, he began studying world religions…believing them to be the ultimate expressions of a basic trend that exists between every individual human being. Religion was something that put up walls…something that made it possible for there to be ultimate insiders and ultimate outsiders. I’ve already provided ample evidence for what I’m talking about above with the examples of Jihad and the Crusades. Even the religions that seem to have a more “peaceful” character still fall prey to the goal of world conversion (and thus, domination). Friedrich Nietzsche referred to this as the exercizing of the will to power through subtelty.

In his study of world religions, Girard eventually came to Christianity…and what he discovered astounded him. While all other religions and philosophies seemed to preach that there are bad people and good people – insiders and outsiders – the Bible seemed to approach everything in a completely different way. Consider the first story of the Old Testament – the story of Adam and Eve – a story in which humans envy God (component of mimetic desire) for his wisdom, and his knowledge of good and evil, so they eat the fruit to become gods. The very next story, of Cain and Abel, is the story of a jealousy pushed so far that it leads to the murder of an innocent. Time and again, Girard found this message in the Old Testament – the message of mimetic desire, leading to scapegoating, and ultimately, violence and death. The Old Testament seemed to reiterate over and over again exactly what Girard himself had been conceptualizing about human nature. He came to view the Bible as a story about humans (even more than it is a story about God).

But his astonishment at his discoveries in the Old Testament was nothing to that of his discoveries in the Gospels. Suddenly, a Character enters the scene – a God/Man whose whole life centers around renouncing scapegoating as a way of life. Jesus comes to earth and lives a life in which, instead of condemning people and forcing them to conform to a code of conduct or a moral lifestyle, he forgives and blesses them…looking for the most lowly of people to invite into his Kingdom – the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s no coincidence that Jesus came in a time when the religious leaders were at their pinnacle of hypocrisy – a time in which to be a religious leader was to have it made. To be a Pharisee was to be at the top of the social ladder. The way of the Pharisee (according to the New Testament) is the way of the scapegoater. The Gospel writers never failed to point out the behaviour of the Pharisees. They constantly emphasized the Pharisees’ condemnations of those who failed to meet their religious standards. It’s no coincidence that Jesus arrived at a time when religious ritual was everything. This is what Jesus came to condemn! He came to tell us that scapegoating is not the way – that mimetic desire is for the dogs (well…not my dog…she’d never scapegoat anyone :). And this story came to the absolute most fitting close in that Jesus became The Scapegoat for humanity. He died so that we might be a part of his Kingdom on earth through faith in him. That’s the message that led Girard – a formerly anti-religious man – to accept Christ as his Saviour.

As it would turn out, the Christianity of the Crusaders (and, largely, the Christianity of today) is simply a humanized, corrupted version of what Christ had envisioned. In place of the fatherly arms of forgiveness and blessing were raised the daunting towers of domination and destruction. Humans forced the stamp of human nature on what was meant to be a Kingdom of blessedness. Evangelism in the name of love became Conquest in the name of power. And this is why religion…even my religion…is so distrusted in the world today. Nobody can believe in a God who purposefully sets people up in division against each other. Ultimately, it took God to become a man and be the one and only example of real life as it should be, and thus redeem the world through his death on the Cross (a further mystical reality that can never be fully comprehended, but must be believed).

And that’s all I have to say for now. Please comment below whether you agree or not, or if you have questions. It's very difficult to give an accurate description of Girard's philosophy in so short a space.