 |
 | 
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/1/2008 5:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | | So, it seems I'm a couple of years late in replying to this thread but I did some work on Girard for my masters (http://www.markporter.co.uk/mmus/Dissertation2.pdf) that you might (or might not) find interesting. | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/1/2008 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | And a quote (from me)
The dynamic of ‘mimetic rivalry’ is key to understanding Girard as it lies at the root of violence and its spread within the community. In a relationship of mimetic rivalry, desire is ignited by the prestige of others: something becomes desirable because it grants the other a prestige that isn’t possessed by the self. The desire of the other is appropriated to become the desire of the self and thus a rivalry is set up. There is a desire to be at the top of the chain where others have mimetic impulses to rival you but in which there is no higher model to outstrip. Desire is thus at work in relation and opposition to the other rather than in and of itself. The irony of the situation is that, in the attempt to differentiate the self as more prestigious, the self becomes more and more like the other as it searches for the other’s prestige. Mimetic rivalry very quickly turns into ‘mimetic violent contagion’,*1* the dynamic, once instigated, spreads through the community until it becomes pervasive, becoming ‘great rivers of collective violence’,*2* and this is where it is able to take a new turn in the search to restore peace back to the community. At this stage the rivalry has turned away from its origins in desire to become a much-more general dynamic of hatred and violence and it is this which gives the opportunity to turn it around and dissolve the forces in a new way. As the whole community now share in a mutual problem, one that has lost its motive but still pervades, the forces can now all be gathered up in one place and dissolved.
The mechanism which Girard identifies as the ‘single victim mechanism’ is at the heart of rituals such as sacrifice. Through it, violence and hatred within the community are able to unite as they find a focus, a scapegoat. The war of ‘all against all’ becomes the ‘war of all against one’ and the violent contagion is thereby contained (temporarily) through sacrifice. The transfer of opposition is enabled through the demonisation of the sacrificial victim, a labelling in which they are identified as the cause and root of the unrest and disorder. The higher the prestige of the individual demonised, the greater the effect. As the act of sacrifice brings peace to the community the demonisation is reversed and the victim is now deified as the source of the new peace and life which has been instigated.*3* In societies without sacrifice as a mechanism there are other means of controlled violence which serve a similar purpose as an outlet for the contagion - in western societies for example Girard points to the criminal justice system which is allowed to maintain peace and harmony within the community.
For Girard there is more than this, however; there is a better and more sustainable method of dealing with mimetic violence than its periodic controlled outlet, and this is demonstrated supremely and uniquely in the Biblical narrative, particularly that of the Passion. Whereas myth has traditionally labelled the victim as guilty, the scriptures subvert this trend by labelling him as innocent, thus resisting myth.*4* Through this labelling, the ‘single victim mechanism’ is exposed in its entirety, and through this exposure a new peace is secured. We shall come to the specifics of MacMillan’s music a little later, but it is this idea of exposure and peace that forms the overall theme of The Sacrifice, the conclusion of each act bringing a new act of violence until the final gesture in which the desire for violence is exposed and the cycle broken.
*1*René Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning (Maryknoll, N.Y Ottawa Leominster: Orbis Books Novalis Gracewing, 2001), 21.
*2*Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 24.
*3*Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 65.
*4*Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 109. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted Today 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | | To me, Girard seems over-simplistic. I think both everyday experience and modern psychological research provide plenty of evidence that human motivation is much more complex and diverse than Girard is arguing to account for the meaning of Christ's death. E.g., can it be known that all people that were even involved in ritual human sacrifice took part with consent of that action? Don't lots of people go along with the crowd for reasons other than agreement with the crowd-action?
How much less certain can I be, then, that people that have never experienced such a thing agree with the propriety and effectiveness of it? Bill Oreilly, in his new book, says he went along with some bullies in picking on a little girl when he was growing up. He says that incident haunts him to this day, because he KNEW at the time how wrong it was. Yet he DID IT. The doing of a thing doesn't give us any insight into the MOTIVATION for the action, necessarily. It seems just as plausible to me that the point of ritual sacrifice for certain socities was to keep the governed in fearful subordinance to the governORS. These rituals may have begun with real propitiatory significance if scripture is right about what the anti-God angels do/did to influence humans, and then they may have been subsequently retained by those in power to maintain power--much like that late movie by Mel Gibson implies.
Consequently, I can not read the NT and see what he sees since it assumes the truth of his particular psychological views, which are not necessarily applicable to those who killed Christ. Nor am I aware of any NT texts that even seem to be trying to base the explicability of Jesus' incarnation/death on such a psychological theory. That's not to say that Girard is wrong. I just don't see any compelling evidence for either his psychological views or his NT interpretation.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/8/2008 11:42:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted Today 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Is Girard arguing that it happens in every case all the time, or merely that it is a useful perspective from which to look at a lot of situations? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted Today 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | I don't know if he's being general or not. But unless it's general, or unless there is evidence that those who killed Christ (or approved of his killing) were acting with the kind of motivations Girard is arguing for, I don't see how there can be textual evidence of his view of the meaning of Christ's death. Christs's death is actually compared to the Passover, itself. And the Passover, to the Jews, finds its analogue in that notion of propitiation/offering that began with Abel, per scripture. And yet the Jews also held that God abhorred the sacrificing of human seed to Molech.
There's no doubt that governments kill those who threaten their power. And there's no doubt that most in power think they are "doing God's service" when they kill those who threaten their power, just as Christ said. And that's why they killed him. But how is that any different than someone killing someone in war for some utilitarian motive? IOW, where is Girard's theory of motivation necessary to explain these kinds of killings? I don't see it. And thus I don't see what relevance it has to exegesis on the subject of the meaning of Christ's death.
If all he's saying is that people kill for utilitarian reasons, then I think we all agree. Nothing new about that idea. I guess I'm not following how he ties his notions of human motive of killing to his theory of Christ's death in a way to where it has any effect upon persons. After all, most people like Girard, look for such theories BECAUSE they are unsatisfied with substitutionary atonement--not because the historical account of one man's death is so unique with regard to the motivation of that killing. In particular, his following claim is completely unsubstantiated:
Whereas myth has traditionally labelled the victim as guilty, the scriptures subvert this trend by labelling him as innocent, thus resisting myth.*4* Through this labelling, the ‘single victim mechanism’ is exposed in its entirety, and through this exposure a new peace is secured.
How is it that these things have occurred? There is still widely diverse opinion on virtually every aspect of scriptural interpretation. And most people don't even have a concept of the "single victim mechanism," much less of how Christ's death EXPOSED its mythological nature. How do we know that 1st century Jews had any such mythological notions or reversals of thought?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/8/2008 6:55:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/9/2008 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | J: E.g., can it be known that all people that were even involved in ritual human sacrifice took part with consent of that action?
Z: Can it be show that "all have sinned"? Even infants? Even mice? Even trees? How about a charitable reading?
For my own part, I've read quite a bit of Girard and I can't recall any that I disagree with.
J: I don't know if he's being general or not. But unless it's general, or unless there is evidence that those who killed Christ (or approved of his killing) were acting with the kind of motivations Girard is arguing for, I don't see how there can be textual evidence of his view of the meaning of Christ's death.
Z: He's only written two or three books uncovering such evidence within the texts.
I'm not in the mood (nor do I have the time) to argue these points meticulously. So, I'll leave it at this: it appears that your criticism of Girard is very similar to your criticism of my positions (which is no surprise since they are more or less consistent if not equivalent), and this criticism is based primarily on a misunderstanding of the position in question. Like criticizing a triangle for having four sides. | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/9/2008 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, a few things to come back on here:
- With regards to the substitutionary atonement thing, I think Girard goes a little too far in that this does seem to be a theory intended to replace rather than supplement that. I think it works much better as a supplement.
- I think you're probably trying to find something in the text on a different level from Girard. It sounds from the words you're using as if you're approaching it in a very exegetical fashion, which seems somewhat different from the kind of socoilogical approach you get from Girard which looks for other elements in the text. Having said that, I think that you do see crowd/group dynamics at work in the way the authors portray the trial/handing over/torture scenes.
- Sure people don't have a concept of the single victim mechanism, but I think when you get to bits in the NT talking about how we/they killed the king of Glory I think you definitely get some of this shock nature coming across - I'm sure there are other moments but these come to mind first | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/9/2008 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | J: E.g., can it be known that all people that were even involved in ritual human sacrifice took part with consent of that action?
Z: Can it be show that "all have sinned"? Even infants? Even mice? Even trees? How about a charitable reading?
For my own part, I've read quite a bit of Girard and I can't recall any that I disagree with.
J: I specifically admitted that he COULD be right. But you make the same mistake he does. You assume that because a view is logically consistent with it's own premises that it means there is EVIDENCE for that view. There is an infinite set of logically consistent world views. What matters is what EVIDENCE renders a view more plausible than it's competitors. So since you're not in the mood to explain to me how you or Girard knows what you know, I don't know why you bother to post this other than to relieve some stress. If that makes you feel better, great.
J: I don't know if he's being general or not. But unless it's general, or unless there is evidence that those who killed Christ (or approved of his killing) were acting with the kind of motivations Girard is arguing for, I don't see how there can be textual evidence of his view of the meaning of Christ's death.
Z: He's only written two or three books uncovering such evidence within the texts.
I'm not in the mood (nor do I have the time) to argue these points meticulously.
J: You've got 3 books of evidence and you can't provide one bit of it? Sounds questionable.
Z: it appears that your criticism of Girard is very similar to your criticism of my positions (which is no surprise since they are more or less consistent if not equivalent), and this criticism is based primarily on a misunderstanding of the position in question. Like criticizing a triangle for having four sides.
J: I plead guilty, but because you haven't always been clear. E.g., you say for me to have covenanted with God that I would have had to have known the contract prior to entering into it. Are you saying by that that I couldn't be christian believer just by hearing Paul's sermon on Mars hill as it appears in Acts? What if I change my interpretations of the bible as I go along? Am I freed from the accountability of my earlier interpretations? How do other adherents of other religions get contracted/covenanted to God? How does God GET contracted to "honor" an unbeliever's beliefs with respect to judgment? Why would God voluntarily consent to judge a person based on false views of what is right? How is that benevolent? Where does scripture say He does this? You haven't cleared these things up for me. I think I understand better what you're against than what you're for. But it's certainly not because I haven't tried to follow you.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/9/2008 9:04:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/9/2008 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | MARK: Sure people don't have a concept of the single victim mechanism, but I think when you get to bits in the NT talking about how we/they killed the king of Glory I think you definitely get some of this shock nature coming across - I'm sure there are other moments but these come to mind first
JEFF: I would agree that some of the elements are there. It's just that those elements that ARE there don't rule out other views, like a purely utilitarian motive for killing. People think their view of what is good for society is true. They use those views to determine who ought to die and when/how. I don't see that it needs to be more complicated than that. Why would positing anything beyond that explain more? Can you provide some of the evidence for that that Zach won't supply?
And again, my main contention is his claim that:
Whereas myth has traditionally labelled the victim as guilty, the scriptures subvert this trend by labelling him as innocent, thus resisting myth.*4* Through this labelling, the ‘single victim mechanism’ is exposed in its entirety, and through this exposure a new peace is secured.
How can we know that Christ's death (or people's knowledge of it) subverted this trend? I think Zach could easily argue from his point of view that the trend has not BEEN reversed--that both individuals and states are killing away just as they always have, all the while calling the "victims" guilty; sometimes in the very NAME OF CHRIST. And of course, all victims ARE guilty of something. The question is whether their killers are justified in killing them. Moreover, to the extent that it may HAVE been subverted, how do we know that it has to do with Christ's death as opposed to his teaching of the golden rule and the miracles he worked as a kind of confirmation of that?
The point is, there are other very SIMPLE and EVIDENT ways of explaining these same things. How do we get into people's heads to know what is really going on there? I never needed any knowledge of Christ's death to realize that scapegoats were not necessarily guilty. So I feel presumptuous assuming other people do. I need evidence that other people that don't buy the myth don't buy it because of the manner of Christ's death. And I know of nothing in scripture that hints at the fact that they DO reject the myth because of the manner of Christ's death. For the golden rule is the ground of the moral teachings of the "law and the prophets" just as Jesus said, independent of his manner of death or what it affected.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/9/2008 8:43:51 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:30 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|