Rene Girard - Mimetic Rivalry and the Scapegoat
Posted on February 5 2010. Comments: 16
Posted by:
Dave Hughes
I'm currently reading as much as I can about Rene Girard's theory of mimetic rivalry and the scapegoat mechanism. I came across it in our leadership and management class in 2008 at Ridley where Andrew Olsen used some of this Girardian theory to help us understand some social psychological aspects of leadership. In fact, this year, I think I'm going to do an M-Div research project on applying his theory to the church today.
I am absolutely fascinated by his work. He brings together the social sciences and theology in a way that I've never seen before. What I'm wondering is: am I being swept away in a trajectory away from a Biblical theology? Away from the Gospel? Away from an historic faith? I don't think so, from what I've read it seems pretty consistent with an evangelical Christian faith. Granted, he doesn't come at theology from the same direction as perhaps a traditional Biblical theologian would, it's like he uses his theory observed in human cultures as his hermeneutic for reading the Biblical text, but I think he's onto something that's been 'hidden since the foundation of the world' - as one of his key books is titled.
The most succinct article I've found on his work which focuses primarily on justifying it from a Biblical/theological perspective can be found here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/002-are-the-gospels-mythical-11
I'd love to hear if anyone has dived into his theory and reflected on it from a theological perspective. And if you haven't, it is definitely worth reading the somewhat dense and academic article linked above!
Comments
Friday, 05 February 2010
Arthur Davis says:
“We will hear you again on this subject.” :D
So, why would you be worried about ‘being swept away’?
Monday, 08 February 2010
Andrew Bowles says:
I think what Girard has done is shine a light from a different angle on the Biblical material, getting inside some of the dynamics of how the message of Jesus reshapes social relationships. The implication of his work is that the reality behind all religion and theology is his anthropological discoveries, which is not in the end consistent with traditional Christianity, since we believe in a transcendent dimension as well. Also, I feel that his mimetic theory is not as all-embracing in its explanatory power as he thinks, as it ignores the contribution of positive relational experiences (eg. love) to the formation of social and religious systems. But I found him very helpful, because he does unmask some of the mechanisms of the demonic force of ‘the world’ in distinction to the new pattern of life in the kingdom.
Monday, 08 February 2010
Dave Hughes says:
Arthur! I guess I’m not ‘worried’ per se, but more just hoping for some peer-review to help me see things that perhaps I don’t see! Because I’m getting very very excited about the implications of his thinking…
Ohhh Bowlesy! Suggesting that the implications of his work is not consistent with traditional Christianity! I don’t think he doesn’t believe in a transcendent dimension, he’s just explaining, through the observations of cultures, how the transcendent expresses it self in human relationships.
Girard still leaves scope for love. He would explain ‘love’ as being an imitation of Christ who does the will of the Father. The only way out of our escalating ‘mimetic rivalry > scapegoating > violence > vengeance’ cycle, is to imitate the personification of love - Jesus.
Definitely, probably THE big strength of his work is to define sin and the work of Satan in the world. This understanding of scapegoating as ‘sin’, I think, would help people be convinced that no, they’re not actually inherently ‘good’, they actually have a big capacity for evil and are sinners. Because the same people I point at every day for being ‘bad’, are just doing the same thing that I’m doing when I point them out as ‘bad’! haha
Tuesday, 09 February 2010
Andrew Bowles says:
Hey man, you asked for our opinions. Don’t complain when you get ‘em. 
I’m sure it will all work out in the project, with supporting evidence. I’ve read ‘The Scapegoat’ and ‘Violence and the Sacred’, and I don’t see transcendence in those. The whole point of his anthropological approach is to avoid talking about what we would call ‘spiritual’ realities.
My point about love wasn’t that Girard doesn’t believe in it, but that he places anger and envy as the basis for society almost exclusively, because of the way in which mimetic rivalry is positioned as an ‘all-encompassing’ theory of social and religious origins. I just think that there might be more going on than that.
Tuesday, 09 February 2010
Dave Hughes says:
Ohhh I love opinions - just enjoy disagreeing with them more! 
You’re actually right about the transcendence aspect, I read something today which says he doesn’t even look into transcendent concepts like faith and grace because that falls outside of the boundaries of anthropology. Them the breaks when you enjoy disagreeing, then find out you’re wrong - woops!
What do you think the ‘more giong on’ aspect is? The ‘good’ aspect of human nature as suggested by the Genesis accounts? Hopefully the Spirit at work in us and in the world preserves some of this goodness?
Tuesday, 09 February 2010
Arthur Davis says:
Hughesy, you’re keeping me from my Hebrew!
I guess there are a number of ways of conceiving of sin in anthropological terms. I’ve found myself usually talking about ‘self interest’ when speaking about sin to others (eg atheists). Does that tie in much with scapegoating?
I think you’ll be fine with Girard as long as the language and stories of the Bible are what dynamically drives your head and your pulpit, rather than someone else’s interpretation of them.
What I mean is, someone like Girard is great for speculating about some of the ‘mechanics’ that the Bible may not touch on. This can be a really helpful instrument in our thinking as long as it doesn’t become the foundation for our thinking.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Dave Hughs says:
Hebrew is overrated!!
I’m reading his book I See Satan Fall Like Lightning - which was published in 1999, and he presents his view this time from Scripture first, rather than anthropology first.
I think his theory could be used as a hermeneutic for reading Scripture and understanding a whole lot of tricky passages. What if Girard’s theory is fundamentally Biblical? A hermeneutical key for unlocking a whole of stuff?
Like, I’m wondering what his scapegoat mechanism/mimetic rivalry theory, if used as a hermeneutic framework, would do to the issue of women in ministry??
Sin for Girard would be essentially coveting. By that he means ‘desire’ for what our neighbour possesses, which leads to mimetic rivalry, where our neighbour becomes our model and our stumbling block in pursuit of the object of our desire, which simultaneously fuels our neighbours desire for that same object, which in turn leads to conflict/violence/murder.
So self-interest fits, but we only perceive it as self-interest because someone else possesses or desires it.
Fun times! :D
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Arthur Davis says:
Just to press my point—Girard provides a useful instrument, not a foundation.
It’s one particular angle on biblical ideas. It’s certainly useful. But Girard is hardly exhaustive—there are of course all kinds of dimensions to sin, for example. Girard himself seems quite open-eyed about the limitations of his theory, and we should be no different.
Can Girard give us a hermeneutic for Scripture? Sure.
Is it the only one? Of course not.
But perhaps it’s the most significant key for us today? Well, no—at least, not unless we want to confine ourselves to reading through a single tiny lens! 
I’m cautioning against the way we’re tempted to idolise macro theories. Macro theories are great as long as we don’t lose sight of the ultimate macro angle, the God’s-eye view that comes from knowing the Word in person.
That said, I’m looking forward to hearing more about it all!
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Fr Simon Robinson says:
G’day Dave, Charles Sherlock [of my diocese] alerted me to this conversation.
My honours thesis at Kingsley College addressed Girard’s work - “Did God kill Jesus? Refuting Taylor’s penal satisfaction with Girard’s rehabilitation of Christus Victor.’ Taylor writes in the Wesleyan tradition in which i was studying at the time [i’m now an anglican priest.]. I think i’ve read the greater wealth of Girardian material, printed and available on the net.
You’ll probably read all of Girard’s primary sources, but his most concise work is ‘I See Satan Fall Like lightning.’
In relation to atonement theory, Gerhard O. Forde, a north american Lutheran theologian, has done some of the most helpful work, because he sees Girard’s work as getting us to look at what actually happened at the cross - not trying to cover it up with our theories of atonement. I find Forde’s work the most helpful because of his insistance that all our theologising ends in one place: public proclamation of the gospel. So in other words, its deeply practical for preaching.
Raymund Schwager SJ, an Austrian Roman Catholic, has related Girard’s work to Anselm of Canterbury’s work in ‘Jesus in the Drama of Salvation.’
I would be happy to dialogue with you on this subject via email if you are open to this. I’m in Lockington, Victoria.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Fr Simon Robinson says:
I’m still spinning out that there are some dudes out there reading Girard. I haven’t heard too many people discuss him in years - he came up in the atonement section of our Systematic Theology course.
What Girard has done is recovered an attentive reading of the text that brings the events of the passion and crucifixion of our Lord into sharp focus.
The cross becomes our interpretive lens, not only for the Bible, but for the world around us.
It’s because of Girard’s insights that i’ve been able, with all honesty, to say to my parishes that ‘i have sought to know nothing among you, but Christ, and him crucified.’
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Grace Adams says:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Girard. I hope to take your advice and have a read of his work.
Just a question on how Girard would understand ‘sin’ as essentially ‘conveting’ toward one’s neighbour. It appears that sin is understood anthropologically and socially which is not completely untrue as sin does have a social and ethical element to it. But is it reductionistic in light of biblical data? e.g. In Gen 3, we encounter sin, as an offence toward God.
Thanks Dave.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Kim Beales says:
Hey Dave,
Kim Beales here, up in Kununurra. I’ve been doing some work on Girard over the last year too, and just found this dialogue on a google search. I did the same leadership course a year later, and during the course Andrew presented his work on Girard, but mentioned that some of the ideas might go above our heads. I took that as a personal challenge to read Girard myself and to try and deconstruct the world view presented in the class.
What I came across in Girard was stunning. He has a go at the big questions, and his ideas are innovative and bold, and make a lot of sense.
I’ve been thinking about his view of death of Jesus. The way I have approached this is to include Girard’s ideas, into a still yet- bigger view of the cross. That is to say, i think that Girard’s view that the cross exposes scapegoating is correct. Yet there are heaps of verses in the Bible that speak of a forgiveness that happened through the death of Jesus in our place ie. atonement.
So Girard has opened up for me some fascinating insights about the cross, yet I also come to the cross for forgiveness, and redemption, and i also seek the cross as an example and model for living, for critiquing the politics of power (cf. Yoder), and for the heart of what it is to love others.
Yoder is up for similar critique. He focusses so much on the model of the cross, and writes little about the theology of what Christ achieves for us on the cross. Yet I think he too has some stunning insights about living as Christians, and what it means to be the church. So rather than discredit Yoder, I prefer to incorporate his insights into a greater whole. Ultimately this greater picture is a biblical theology incorporating the best we can the whole counsel of God.
In several interviews, Girard does seem to avoid some direct questions about atonement, so it will be interesting to see what he has to say in the above mentioned book on Paul.
hope you’re doing well Dave,
from Kim.
Monday, 01 March 2010
Jenny George says:
Hi guys - only just came across this conversation. I know Girard (he lives in Palo Alto where I did my PhD). He’s a fascinating guy and really interesting to talk to. Extremely humble and approachable (not at all like other thinkers of his calibre).
I also did a class on his theory. I’ve read most of the books and think they have stunningly original and interesting ideas.
Did you know he was an atheist who became a Christian pretty much through the ideas he was developing? (This was roughly at the same time as he wrote “Deceit, Desire and the Novel”.) Odd way for someone to get to know God but fortunately God works in all sorts of ways. I have found that as you read his books chronologically, his Christian understanding develops. That’s probably why “I saw Satan fall like lightning” is the closest to the way most Christians would think about these questions.
I once heard him say (in the mid to late 90s) something like “I thought I was doing something very new and unique and then I discovered that Augustine had said it all before.” Obviously not completely true but still I think it does illustrate that at the end of his life he was discovering the work of church fathers that as an atheist he hadn’t read at the beginning of his career. Also that his thought was aligning closer to traditional theological understandings.
Monday, 01 March 2010
Dave Hughes says:
Wow - I didn’t know all these comments were going on!! It’s exciting to see others influenced by Girard! I’m thinking of heading over to the US in June/July for the COV&R Conference if anyone else is interested?? I’ll put some thoughts into people’s comments and get back to you tomorrow…
Tuesday, 02 March 2010
Dave Hughes says:
Arthur! You’re comment about Girard being just one amongst many lenses through which to view Scripture is something that Girard *might* say is a result of the modern quest for truth failing to find a central, unitive cause of religion/culture. So we have a fear of anything that reduces everything to a single truth. On the other hand, all his study is from an anthropological discipline, and he might say that it is an anthropological corroboration of the theology of the Bible. So, I have a caution in writing it off as just another small piece of the hermeneutical puzzle, yet also a caution to magnifying it to too greater an extent. It definitely reveals the craftiness of Satan in keeping humanity stuck in a lie/sin (still remaining blind to the lie whilst undertaking some of humanity’s noblest causes) - but yeah, it doesn’t attempt a doctrine of God or creation…
Simon I’ll look forward to getting in touch - look out for your inbox!
Grace - I’m not sure you have to make a distinction between the two. How is sin an offence to God? I think that’s what Girard displays so clearly is the ‘how’ of sin playing out in human history. The theology of Scripture is further credified (is that a word?!) by Girard’s theory of religion, violence and the origins of human culture. So Gen 3 says that Eve disobeyed God, and Girard explains how and why this disobedience has played out in all humans societies and cultures. So we’re probably saying the same thing, but I think this theory becomes really, really important if you believe that this explains the primary way that Satan deceives. We could all be doing our religious things, but entirely missing the point, trapped in the ignorance of our mimetic rivalry and scapegoating.
Great to hear from you Kim! I’ve noticed too that Girard semi-dodges any question on the theology of the cross, prefering to stick to the anthropology of the cross. Which I think is full of integrity, because he never says anything that his research/study area doesn’t cover. So I guess it’s up to us wanna-be theologians to discuss the theological implications. He does say somethings early on which may suggest a challenge to an orthodox understanding of the cross - his whole thing of having a ‘non-sacrificial’ reading of Scripture, and not being able to view God as causing His son to die, because then God would be perpetuating the scapegoat mechanism, which means God is sinful. Anyone else came across that line of argument? I may be reading too much between the lines, but it seems quite easy to get that from him. His book on Paul will be VERRRRY interesting…
Wow Jenny you got to meet the man! It’s actually very reassuring to hear that his temperament and personality aligns closely with his thinking - didn’t Nietszche go mad? It’s reassuring to know his thought produces healthy fruit in his personal life! I also read somewhere that he believes his theory backs up a very orthodox theological understanding of the faith. The only point of thought that made me wonder about this was when he talks about atonement etc.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
Friday, 05 February 2010
Dave Hughes says:
There are some very interesting debates out there about what Girard’s anthropological theory of the Cross means for our theology of the atonement. It’s a shame Girard never really answers this question directly, although his next book on Paul will hopefully do just that!