The only thing I might not really agree with is that conservatives are unaware of their scapegoating. I think, rather, that they see nothing wrong in scapegoating, although the negative connotations will make them shrink from the word. (They would likely say it isn’t “scapegoating” because the victims are not innocent.) Indeed, does Girard actually see anything wrong in it, or is he merely engaged in a description to which progressives have added a layer of morality?

Conservatives (who seek to define “eternal,” noncontingent categories) don’t believe that the ability, or perhaps even the need, exists to overcome mimesis because it is essential to what we are and not some habit that can be managed by an enlightened postmodern awareness. All we can hope for is to avoid deformation of love, and that means enforcing the proper models. Hence, Jesus. Hence, their version of Jesus (which absurdly includes obedience to a notably corrupt hierarchical institution). Conservatives seem content to use Girard’s theory as a definition of culture and not as a prescription for change. Girard is becoming a tool for conservatives to shore up a cultural theory that necessitates oppression of the one for the good of the many.

Unlike Conservatives, progressives (who seek to define the contingent and to move beyond it) find in Girard’s definition of what it means to be human a further call to evolve. But I wonder: did Girard really sound a call to change? He’s the first one to say mimesis is not a theory but an observation and has come out against the use of his ideas to support gay rights. But it’s postmodern progressives who gave his ideas new life for their value in deconstructing modern Christianity.

I’ve often been struck by the anti-homosexual scapegoating language I find on Bailie’s blog (http://cornerstone-forum.blogspot.com/), and I suppose I am particularly sensitive to it because I am queer. (See my comments in the February and April 2009 blogs.) I find it astonishing that anyone who claims even the most basic understanding of the scapegoating mechanism could write such defamatory content about gays or endorse other writers who do. I have a host of friends who have never heard of mimetic theory but who can recognize such obvious expressions of scapegoating. And so I’ve been trying to understand what kind of “disconnect” this is in the case of Bailie and the other conservatives. Regardless of the direction that Girard has taken in his more recent thinking, scapegoating theory still stands, and anyone who takes it seriously has got to ask, “Who are our scapegoats?” If we were to start a graded list, I think we would find that almost everyone is on it somewhere, but homosexuals are very close to the top in practically every culture that I know of. In Bailie’s case, there is apparently some very strong influence that blinds him to what should be abundantly obvious in this case, and I believe that influence is his Catholic upbringing. (Catholics are on the list, too, but much farther down…)

At times in my life, I have been very drawn to certain “core” Christian teachings, as I understand them, but, at the same time, I have always been an atheist. I think that Rene Girard has made a very strong case for the anthropological significance of the Gospels, but I do not believe his basic premise requires belief in the Judeo-Christian god. In one of his recent books, he wrote, “Les athees sont corrects mais naifs.” (Atheists are correct but naive. This was in either “Achever Clauswitz” or “Celui par qui le scandale arrive,” I think, but I can’t find the sentence at the moment.) I believe I may understand what he meant by “naive”. An anthropologist with whom you are acquainted, Carolyn Marvin (“Blood Sacrifice and the Nation”) has helped me understand how religion never really disappears, but only changes forms (E.g., Communism and the various nationalisms have their sacred texts, sacred spaces, ritual time, ritual practices, saints, and venerated objects, just as does the Catholic Church.). The popular atheist writers of recent years, even the brilliant Richard Dawkins, seem not to have considered this anthropology. (Yep, atheists are on the list, and religionists in general are on the list…)

Mimetic theory can help us understand how and why a strong religious upbringing can override recognition of the realities around us. We believe what we believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, because we are part of a mimetic matrix that trumps everything else. This is a huge topic, of course, and I’m already assuming some familiarity with mimetic theory. An example that I’ve recently written about as a commenter on Gil’s blog is the Pope Benedict’s recent pronouncements about condom use in Africa. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence (see the British Medical Journal) that abstinence-only programs have not worked, the Pope’s advice is still in line with the traditional teaching of the Church. Obviously, neither reason nor any amount evidence can change his Holiness’s mind while millions are dying from AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. (His Holiness is on the list, but not as high as gays and lesbians…)

This is why, as an activist queer, I know that addressing homophobia and gay-bashing has to go hand-in-hand with addressing the mimetic contagions that are so integral to religious thinking. I am also aware—perhaps more dimly—that I, too, exist in mimetic fields of force that I must learn to recognize. Where there is mimesis, there is also scapegoating, so part of my work is to identify my scapegoats. Perhaps the conservative Girardians can help me in this task, which we’ll call, “I’ll show you yours if you’ll show me mine.” We can all benefit from the exchange of viewpoints, and I hope and believe that we will start with a firm understanding of what scapegoating actually is. That’s where Girard can help us.

Doughlas Remy
Member, Colloquium on Violence and Religion

One of Leites’ proposals is that the Puritan decision to hand responsibility for moral affairs over to women was recognized even then as the kind of trap you mention here. But he says it was also the first time women were given any sort of empowerment in public/political life at all and so, double-binds and all… and considering the alternative was further silence, they took it on.

—

Speaking of patriarchal readings of the Bible, the biggest sticking point for me is my reading of the 10th commandment which I see as firmly locating women in the category of property. To the extent one can read “Covet not thy neighbor’s wife, nor cattle, nor house, nor manservant, nor maidservant, nor *anything that is thy neighbors*” in a non-proprietary, non-patriarchal way I’m willing to agree that feminism and Pentateuch-based religions needn’t be in conflict.

That said I seriously admire your non-victim, “of course a proprietary interpretation is unacceptable” standpoint when you say “As if not accepting a patriarchal reading of Scripture means I don’t accept religion. I just don’t accept the partriarchal reading of Scripture.” And I’ll resolve to emulate it.

figleaf

As for that little thingamajig Teresa mentions, just look how small it is! How much room does it take? One should be able to save these things just for their sentimental value. My junk drawer is full of such odds and ends I may need someday – who knows?

Now about the brooms and dustpans, I don’t know why anyone would need more than one of each, maybe two. They take up room in the house whereas the rocks will go outside (I assume).

So, the Universe is telling her to pare down, but Cathy, it’s not telling you to throw out the things you love, the things that feed your fantasies of beautiful blooming gardens and scattered rocks among the flowers.

I was helping finish with the little stuff this afternoon and it was unbelievable what she had me save… ROCKS from the yard! “Do you know how expensive those would be to buy?” They are ROCKS mother!

Don’t get me wrong, I love my mother. The fantastical amounts of books she has… fine. The 5 dustpans and 8 sizes and shapes of brooms… OK. The curtain rods for some ungodly number of windows… sure. But ROCKS?

And the real kicker is that we had a discussion about how she feels like the universe is telling her to pare down by making her move to a SMALL house!