the problem of desire, violence, and religion.doc

8/13/2019 The Problem of Desire, Violence, and Religion.doc

1/23

The Problem of Desire, Violence, and Religionin Philosophy, Literature, and Cinema

A Critical View on Ren irard!s "imetic and #acrificial Theory

Professor $ean%Pierre Dupuy

FrenchGen 277

A Course of Special Relevance offered bythe Philosophy & Literature Group of the DLCL

Sprin 2!""# $% units'pdupuy(stanford)edu

&'TR(D)CT(R* L+CT)R+

*arch 2+# 2!""

& &'TR(D)C&' R+'- &RARD

,orn in Avinon +7 years ao) -is brea. /ith his fa0ily and reliion),eco0es a 1S citien) -is 0ain 3field34 literary criticis0)

As early as "56" in hisDeceit, Desire, and the Novel8# he developed his theory of hu0an psycholoy on the basisof a readin of literature) -e beca0e interested in a pattern he first discovered in the French novelists of the "5th

and early 2!th centuries# 0ainly Stendhal# Flaubert# and Proust# and in a variety of other 0a'or novelists as /ell#especially Cervantes# Dostoevs.y# 9a0es 9oyce: and also# and 0aybe first and fore0ost# in Sha.espeare) ;hisdiscovery has to do /ith the relationship bet/een desire and ri.alry)


2/23

0any 0ore# all parta.e of the sa0e conception)

?ne 0iht con'ecture# even if it is a reconstruction# that one of SartreBs tets /hichallo/ed Girard to pull a/ay fro0 his philosophy is the "5$5 reflection titled4 "Une

ide fondamentale de la phnomenologie de Husserl: l'intentionalit)3"


3/23

6 Pseudo%masochism

/ "imetic or Triangular Desire

;he trianularity of desire eplains the obvious but other/ise perplein fact that desire 0ay not only cause rivalry#but also depend on it: to the point that /ithout rivalry# desire itself threatens to lanuish)

;he desire of the 0ediator creates the value of the ob'ect in the first place and calls forth the sub'ectBs desire) ,utthen the 0ediator stands bet/een the sub'ect and the ob'ect) ;he instiator of desire has beco0e: auto0atically:the 0a'or obstacle to the fulfil0ent of desire) At this point the sub'ect 0ay /ish to destroy the obstacle) ,ut if hedoes so# he destroys the instiator of desire and therefore the value of the ob'ect) Desire needs a rival to survive#because the fulfil0ent of desire is its end E H its ter0ination) Rivalry is built into the structure of desire)

%>6)8

Accordin to Girard# a tet li.e this leaves no doubt about the priority of the (ther in desire) ;he hero is al/aystryin to convince us that his relationship to the ob'ect of desire is independent of the rival) -ere /e see clearly thatthe hero is deceivin us) ;he 0ediator is i00obile and the hero turns around hi0 li.e a planet around the sun) ;hehero can desire only throuh the 0ediation of his 0odel) -e dras the latter alon to the house of the lady he haschosen# so that he 0iht desire her and thus uarantee her erotic value)

;he Iion case4 a tor0ented character li.e Pavel Pavlovitch# Dostoevs.yBs hero) As a football player in collee# he/as a clu0sy line0an used as a live du00y by practicin tea00ates) Later# as Jice President# he /as an errandboy to President isenho/er) -e spent eiht years bein inored: if not belittled: by his superior) -e al/ays/anted touh uys around hi0) -e courted Pat# his future /ife# by drivin her to dates /ith other beau Source4New &or !imesobituary of Iion8)

Freud has used ;he ternal -usband to elaborate his theory of latent ho0oseulaity) ,ut# replies Girard#ho0oseuality# /hether it is latent or not# does not eplain the structure of desire) ?ne 0ust turn the eplanationaround) An atte0pt should be 0ade to understand ho0oseuality fro0 the standpoint of trianular desire) Proustianho0oseuality# for instance# can be defined as a radual transferrin to the 0ediator of an erotic value /hich in3nor0al3 Don 9uanis0 re0ains attached to the ob'ect itself) ;his radual transfer oes alon /ith an increasedpreponderance of the 0ediator and a radual obliteration of the ob'ect)

The ob7ect is re8uired for imitation to generate conflict 9ut as the intensity of the ri.alry grows, theimportance of the ob7ect tends to dwindle

*i0etic desire eplains /hy /e so often find an ob'ect banal until it is transfiured by the appreciation of anotherobserver) Such is the case of ProustBs *arcel# /ho is disappointed by the supposedly thrillin actress# ,er0a# untilhe hears her praised by *) de Iorpois and a revie/er in Le Fiaro: after /hich he even believes that he /asthrilled at the very perfor0ance that had left hi0 cold)

*i0etic desire has the capacity to chane the past)8

0 &nternal and +1ternal "ediation
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/23/obituaries/37th-president-richard-nixon-81-dies-master-politics-undone-watergate.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/23/obituaries/37th-president-richard-nixon-81-dies-master-politics-undone-watergate.html


4/23

;here are t/o basic possibilities in 0ediation4

a +1ternal mediation:that /hich does not lead to conflict# because the self and its 0odel cannot be co0petitors#since their fields of action do not overlap)


5/23

have al/ays spo.en in a voice that is 0ine and 0ine alone)38

For Girard# sooner or later# eternal 0ediation is bound to beco0e internal) A case in point is irard!sdeconstruction of ;reud!s (edipus comple1) Freud put at the core of this co0ple the 3a0bivalence3 of the

relationship to the father4 the son ad0ires his father: the father is a 0odel Supereo8: but# si0ultaneously# thefather is an obstacle) An obstacle to /hatM ;o the bioloical attraction that the son feels for the 0other# seen as anob'ect of desire) ?edipus co0ple8) ;hese t/o contradictory pillars of psychoanalysis are 0erely 'utaposed# as ifthere /as no lin. bet/een the t/o) Girard is too happy to sho/ that at an earlier stae of his syste0# Freud /as notfar fro0 sayin the 0i0etic truth# but that he deliberately shied a/ay fro0 it)


6/23

the father /ho /as .illed is 'ust another optical illusion due to the elevation of the victi0 to the ran. of od or se0iod)

2 Double mediation and the morphogenetic power of the mimetic hypothesis


7/23

3 "etaphysical Desire

*i0etic desire is only superficially a desire to have /hat the other has or /ants) ?n a deeper level it is a desire topossess not the otherBs ob'ects but his =ualities: to %e/hat he is) GirardBs ter0 for this is 30etaphysical desire3)

3


8/23

she pretends to desire herself and suests to Freud a .ind of circular desire thatnever ets outside itself# she offers an irresistible te0ptation to the 0i0etic desire ofothers) Freud 0isinterprets as an ob'ective description the trap into /hich he hasfallen) hat he calls the self%sufficiency of the co=uette# her blessed psycholoicalstate and her i0prenable libidinal position# is in effect the 0etaphysical

transfor0ation of the condition of the 0odel and rival)

)))8 ;he co=uette see.s to be desired because she needs 0asculine desires# directed ather# to feed her co=uetry and enable her to play her role as a co=uette) She has no0ore self%sufficiency than the 0an /ho desires her# but the success of her strateyallo/s her to .eep up the appearance of it# since it offers her a for0 of desire she cancopy ))) ;o su0 up4 in 'ust the sa0e /ay as the ad0irer cauht up in the trap ofco=uetry i0itates the desire that he really believes to be narcissistic# so the fla0e ofco=uetry can only burn on the co0bustible 0aterial provided by the desires ofothers)3

e are dealin here /ith a variant of double 0ediation4 the co=uetteBs desire for herself is 0ediated by those sheattracts# /hile their desire for her is 0ediated by /hat they thin. is her purely independent self%desire)

-seudo2narcissism4 0i0esis is thus capable of enenderin Eapparent self%sufficiency) 1nder the s/ay of universal0i0esis# it is in fact possible for a sub'ect to have to loo. no further than itself for an ob'ect of its desire# but thiscan only be acco0plished throuh i0itation4 the sub'ect desires herself by i0itatin others /ho desire her) ,ut thisdesire e0anatin fro0 the others is also a for0 of i0itated desire)


9/23

desires) ;he a0e of desire is thus a /ar in /hich the ob'ect is to 0a.e oneself the focal point /here desiresconvere)

6 Pseudo%masochism


10/23

/ith related ob'ects) ;hese passions have l'amour de soias their only principle andare all essentially lovin and tender %ut when the( are diverted from their o%3ects %(o%stacles, these passions focus more on overturning the o%stacles to happiness than

on the actual possession of this happiness) ;hen the pri0itive passions chane innature# beco0in irascible and hateful) And this is ho/ l'amour de soi# /hich is an

absolutely ood senti0ent# beco0es l'amour2propre# a relative senti0ent by 0eansof /hich /e co0pare ourselves to others)


11/23

there is no difference bet/een pri0itive reliions and Christianity) ;he difference lies in interpretation)For the first ti0e in the history of hu0an.ind# the story is told fro0 the victi0Bs vie/point# not the persecutorsB);he story Ethe Gospel ta.es side /ith the victi0 and proclai0s its innocence) hen# in our 0odern lanuaes#/e say that the victi0 /asscapegoated# /e 'ust say as 0uch)

IietscheBs philosophy relies on point e# for /hich the author of !he a( ScienceE3God is dead#/e .illed hi03 and 3there are no facts# only interpretations3 felt 'ustified in brinin a radicalindict0ent aainst Christianity# ta.en to be the 0orality of the slaves)

f *odern institutions e0body a tension bet/een t/o contradictory drives) ?n the one hand#the drive to resort to 0ore of the sa0e4 the drive to scapeoatin) ?n the other#the anti%sacrificial drive set in 0otion by the Christian Revelation)

;hose findins /ere far%reachin# but the eneral picture /as tainted /ith a series of serious contradictions) Forinstance# authors li.e Robertson%S0ith /ould li.en the sacrificial ritual to an offerin# a .ind of echane bet/een

the od and the offerer# as if so0e .ind of reciprocity could eist bet/een the divine and the hu0an levels) ;heob'ection /as obvious4 it is easy to understand /hy hu0an beins /ould o/e everythin to God# but /hy /ouldGod epect anythin fro0 the hu0ansM ;hen ca0e Dur.hei0# /ho solved the eni0a eleantly) Dur.hei0believed that religion is the collecti.e in symbolic form) Divinity is society transfor0ed and conceivedsy0bolically) Society co00ences /ith the birth of reliion# 0ore precisely /ith the tote0 as a sy0bolic# reliiousrepresentation of the co00unity) As Dur.hei0 puts it rhetorically# if the tote0 is at once the sy0bol of the od andof the society# 3is that not because the od and the society are only oneM3 Reliion# then# accordin to D# is a set ofbeliefs and practices by /hich society represents itself to itself) God and society are one: or rather# God is afiurative epression of society)


12/23

everythin under the u0brella of eist# Spirit)

@et this all%e0bracin aspect of GirardBs thesis is a conse=uence of his offerin his thesis as a generati.ehypothesis) -e ta.es us all the /ay bac. to the point of ho0iniation# to the real# live events that differentiated

bet/een ani0al hierarchies of difference based on physical do0inance and hu0an hierarchies of difference basedon hu0an cultures enerated in the victi0ae 0echanis0) So# yes# it does suest itself as a theory that is all%e0bracin# and 0any /ill# and do# re'ect it for precisely those reasons) After the bad taste of theories li.e-eelianis0# *aris0# and Freudianis0# /e shy a/ay fro0 all such theories)


13/23

;he sacred is funda0entally a0bivalent4 it uses violence to hold bac. violence)


14/23

and the sa0e ob'ect /ith a vie/ to appropriatin it# conflictual 0i0esis /ill inevitably unify by leadin t/o or0ore individuals to convere on one and the sa0e adversary that all /ish to stri.e do/n)3

e 0ay i0aine the oriinary scene as follo/s)


15/23

prohibition# ritual# and 0yth) ;he crisis of violence is prior to the Sacred) ;his 0oves places ritual at the center)

For Girard# the Sacred is neither an invention of the superstitious 0ind to provide pre%scientific eplanations Eofnatural pheno0ena nor a 0ysterious presence apprehended in the reliious attitude nor# of course# a plot set up by

a roup of self%appointed hih priests to secure their po/er Joltaire8) ;he Sacred is a 0endacious representation ofhu0an violence) ;he Sacred is violence 0isrepresented by the double transferrence)

;he first t/o i0peratives of the Sacred are curiously contradictory) Prohibitionin essence 0eans that one shouldnot repeat any aspect of the oriinal crisis) Ritualre=uires that one repeat the /hole thin /ith reat care)Prohibition prohibits 0i0icry# contact /ith for0er antaonists# ac=uisitive estures to/ard the ob'ects that causedrivalry# and anythin that 0iht reactivate the crisis) Ritual deliberately reactivates it# oranies ories oftransression# and i00olates ne/ victi0s in /ays that are thouht to repeat the oriinal action)

;he Girardian eplanation of this radical opposition bet/een prohibition and ritual /hich has represented aneni0a for anthropoloy# is straihtfor/ard) Prohibition corresponds to the 0i0etic rivalry ele0ent in the Sacred

?ne 0ust not repeat it8) Ritual corresponds to the Surroate victi0 ele0ent ?ne 0ust repeat the 0i0etic crisis inorder to reach once aain its conclusion8) Prohibition focuses on the neative side of the process the 0i0eticrivalry that caused a crisis8 /hile ritual focuses on the positive side# the surroate victi0 that reconciled theadversaries)

As reards 0yth# it is the story told fro0 the vie/ point of the perpretrators of the oriinal collective 0urder)

04 Ritual


16/23

0any rituals the sacrificial act assu0es t/o opposin aspects# appearin at ti0es as a sacred obligationto benelected at rave peril order8# at other ti0es as a sort of criminal acti.ityentailin perils of e=ual ravitydisorder8)3

3;o account for this dual aspect of ritual sacrifice: the leiti0ate and the illeiti0ate# the public and the all butcovert order and disorder8: -enri -ubert and *arcel *auss# in their 3ssay on the Iature and Function ofSacrifice3# adduce the sacred character of the victi0) 9ecause the .ictim is sacred, it is criminal to butthe .ictim is sacred only because he is to be


17/23

very chapter that Louis Althusser prohibited his students fro0 readin) ;he history of civiliation is one /ith thehistory of sy0boliation)

e shall say# the difference ?between sacrifice and crime@ is symbolic;/o .ey /ords and notions4

differenceand the s(m%olic8)

06 "yth

For Girard# 0yth represents the foundin 0urder fro0 the vie/point of the 0urderers)

Claude LOvi%Strauss sees 0ytholoy as a representation of the birth and develop0ent of differential thought) -eobserves that a constant feature of 0yths is the passae fro0 undifferentiation to differentiation throuh a 3drivinout3) Girard concurs>so far) ,ut LOvi%Strauss interprets the 3drivin out3 as the epression of the loic ofeli0ination and eclusion by /hich the 0ind disencu0bers a conested field of perception to 0a.e space fordifferential thouht /hereas Girard interprets the 0ythic structure as a 0isrepresentation of a real event4 the

foundin 0echanis0)

An illustration4 readin the ;i.opia 0yth of foundation) Confrontation of GirardBs and LOvi%StraussBsinterpretations)

Points that the structuralist interpretation of 0yths leaves uneplained4 /hy is the 3drivin out3 so fre=uentlyrepresented by a violent epulsionM


18/23

nor0ally understood either econo0ically or leally# and it then has a positive value) cono0ically# it is a for0 offair echane for 0utual benefit) ,y contrast# veneance is a reciprocity of loss)


19/23

Let 0e adduce a nu0ber of points that 0ay be ta.en to support GirardBs contention)

2/ #capegoats and sacrificial .ictims

Loo. at the ne/spapers# listen to the radio# /atch the television) ach day# and 0ore and 0ore so it see0s# /e cry3scapeoat3 to sti0atie all the pheno0ena of discri0ination# political# ethnic# reliious# social# racial# etc) that /eobserve about us) e are riht) e easily see no/ that scapeoats 0ultiply /herever hu0an roups see. to loc.the0selves into a iven identity# co00unal# local# national# ideoloical# racial# reliious# and so on)

-o/ever# this 0odern usae of 3scapeoat3 is very different fro0# not to say antaonistic /ith its anthropoloicalusae# /here it refers to a type of ritual# such as the one described in the7eviticus) ;he epression 3 scapeoat 3see0s to desinate three different thins for us4 E" the victi0 of the ritual described in7eviticus# E2 all the victi0sof si0ilar rituals that eist in archaic societies and that are called rituals of epulsion Fraer8 in particular# theAthenian ritual of the phar0a.os8# and finally E$ all the pheno0ena of nonrituali5ed collecti.e transferencethat/e observe or believe /e observe around us) hat are the relationships bet/een those 0eaninsM E" and E2 refer

to rituals# i)e) orderly# oranied perfor0ances i)e) representations8 in a reliious settin# /here every line in thescript 0ust be co0plied /ith lest violence should erupt E$# in contrast# refers to a spontaneous event# =uite oftenviolent by nature)

;he aru0ents Girard 0a.es in this respect are based on the popular insiht that crops up in the 0odern sense of3scapeoat3) -e has atte0pted to develop the i0plications of this insiht)


20/23

An illustration4 one of GirardBs 0a'or /or.s is titled# in French and in nlish# not surprisinly# !he Scapegoat);his boo. has been translated into 0ore than thirty lanuaes# includin 9apanese)


21/23

orderin is absolute4 first# basic rihts and freedo0s net# chances and opportunities and finally# access toecono0ic and social resources and /ealth) ;he /orst%off# hence those /ho run the reatest ris. of bein sacrificialvicti0s# are 3sacred)3 ;he reliious 0etaphor is obviously a/./ard# since /hat is 0eant here by 3sacred3 is not tobe sacrificed)

As /e sa/# for Iietsche# the oriin of this 0odern concern for the victi0s is to be found in Christianity) As far asfacts are concerned# there is no difference bet/een pri0itive reliions and Christianity) 3God is dead: /e .illed-i0)3 ChristBs death on the cross is 'ust one 0ore occurrence of the pri0ordial event that is bein recounted byillions of 0yths throuhout the planet) ;he difference lies in interpretation) For the first ti0e in the history ofhu0an.ind# the story is told fro0 the victi0Bs vie/point# not the persecutorsB) ;he story Ethe Gospel sides /ith thevicti0 and proclai0s its innocence)

e are obsessed by the =uestion of victi0s# but that does not 0a.e their fate any 0ore enviable) Jicti0s are soi0portant to us that it is henceforth in the na0e of the victi0s that others 0ade that /e persecute the0) A co0icvariant on this perverse turn%about is furnished by A0erican%style 3political correctness)3 ;he 0ore sins of victi0%

status that you accu0ulate# the 0ore assured you are of access to privilees) As the reat ,ritish catholic /riter G)) Chesterton once /rote# GThe modern world is full of Christian ideas gone berser


22/23

lanuae)ost prominent is that 'sacrifice' now means 'self2sacrifice'+3

For the *usli0 /orld# it is clear that the 5"" terrorists co00itted or perfor0ed sacrifice# in ivin their o/n lives)They/ere the victi0s# not the people present in the to/ers)

;o /rap up this brief introduction to GirardBs anthropoloy# it 0ay be useful to e0phasie one last ti0e the fourfollo/in points)

Firstly# the do0inant paradi0 in anthropoloy has it that 0yths do not refer to any reality beyond the hu0an 0indand the prison of lanuae) For Girard# 0yths refer to real events) ,ut the story is partly false)


23/23

represents# at least potentially# a for0idable advance for 0en in an intellectual and ethical respect but# in the shortrun# it is all oin to translate as /ell into an appallin resurence of this sa0e violence in history# in its 0ostodious and 0ost atrocious for0s# because the sacrificial 0echanis0s beco0e less and less effective and less andless capable of rene/in the0selves) )))8 -u0anity in its entirety already finds itself confronted /ith an ineluctable

dile00a4 0en 0ust reconcile the0selves for ever0ore /ithout sacrificial inter0ediaries# or they 0ust resinthe0selves to the co0in etinction of hu0anity)3

;ootnotes:"Reprinted in Situations

the problem of desire, violence, and religion.doc

Documents