Talk:René Girard

Introduction
I have no idea what was going on here but the introduction was horrendous. I rewrote something which is certainly an improvement but I'm sure it could also be improved upon further. What happened to the introduction in the first place? CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.238.96 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Girard present a "Christian perspective"?
from the introduction: "Yet, his work also tends to be very controversial due to his harsh criticisms of modern philosophy and his outspoken Christian perspective".

This is somewhat ambiguous though as a 'Christian perspective' is the perspective of a Christian, and Christianity itself seems to be a hypocritical failure by Girard's standards, and he says as much. I mean to say should the sentence perhaps not read "his emphasis on the Bible as the founding document of Western civilization, as the eminent ethical text instructing humans how to live their lives" etc.

I am not entirely sure whether his perspective is theological, which the current sentence seems to imply, but Girard is no theologian. If anyone has any comments please present them, otherwise I will make the appropriate changes at some point. Tsop 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do a bit of research you will find many sources that refer to Girard as a practicing Catholic. While I have not been able to find a direct quote from Girard confirming this, he does not appear to have objected to other people saying so. He is on record as saying that he considers Christianity to be superior to all other religions, and repeatedly states throughout his works that the Gospels alone hold the key to fully revealing the workings of the scapegoat mechanism. I think, therefore, that the claim that he presents a "Christian perspective" is justified. (I've added an "unsourced" tag to the sentence you've quoted, however, because it does not cite examples of the supposed controversy.)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure what you're basing your comments on. If you can find a reliable source that confirms Girard thinks Christianity is a "hypocritical failure," then by all means add it to the article. Please, remember, however, that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for your opinion or personal interpretation of his work. -- Perodicticus 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and agree that he represents a 'Christian perspective', but my position is that the phrase itself is ambiguous and needs to be disambiguated between Christianity as it is practised today and 'Christianity' as the ideal presented in the Gospels. As a non-theist and a 'non-Christian ' I also agree with Girard in that the Gospels are humanity's pre-eminent ethical document as well as (obviously) the founding document of Western civilization, but this is a 'Mimetic' perspective, not a theological one, which is why I am questioning the use of the phrase 'Christian perspective'. Have just read through his book on Shakespeare "A Theatre of Envy" and luckily can quote relevent passage: (in Chapter 30 'Hamlet's Dull Revenge: Vengeance in Hamlet')

"The sacrificial misreading of the Gospels made the various phases Christian culture possible. In the Middle Ages, for instance, Gospel principles were superficially reconciled with the aristocratic ethics of personal honor and revenge. With the Renaissance, this edifice began to collapse, and Shakespeare is a major witness to that event. Even after the disappearance of blood feuds, duels, and similar customs, Christian culture never disentangled itself completely from values rooted in revenge. Although nominally Christian, social attitudes remained essentially alien to the authentic Judeo-Christian inspiration." A Theatre of Envy p. 283

This shows me to be correct I believe, it shows that 'Christianity' is not wholly compatible with the Gospels, at least it was not for the periods he refers to. That this is still the case we can see in the final paragraph:

"Hamlet is no mere word game. We can make sense out of Hamlet just as we can make sense out of our world, by reading both against revenge. This is the way Shakespeare wanted Hamlet to be read and the way it should have been a long time ago. If not, at such a time in our history, we still cannot read Hamlet against revenge, who ever will?" -p. 289

earlier (same page), on modern life, "[...] the Judeo-Christian text was rejected to the outer fringes our intellectual life; it is now entirely excluded."

Much more in the same vein regarding the contemporaneous nature of this issue can be found in the same chapter.

So it would seem that a non-Christian *could* be closer to Girard's ideal (viz. the Gospels), than a practising one. And so in summation I argue the phrase "Christian perspective" is ambiguous as:

1. Possibly there are no (or very few) Christians who actually live up to this standard

1.a. as regards to this, are we going to argue over which nominations, etc. are 'truer'?

2. I believe Girard's implications are primarily ethical and not theological, he makes no references to 'God' in his work (that I have seen) though he makes frequent references to the Gospels

3. the phrase itself has connotations that will not necessarily endear a novice to Girard's project, as they may imagine that it is aligned with contemporary Christianity

I guess this seems watertight and backed by Girard's words, but I may be wrong, can you cite any sources regarding his views on contemporary Christianity, or do you have any other objections? Thus I am still in favour of a change as I intially advanced, "the Gospels as an ethical text etc." Tsop 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read the interview I may change my stance somewhat on Girard's own beliefs re God, but I still maintain that belief God is not fundamental to Girard's work; he is a professor of anthropolgy, and that is the category his works fall into. Intellectually, God is not a stable concept, either belief in, or re God's 'substance'. Girard's work regards ethical and unethical norms of human behaviour, and whether one strives to be ethical due to a belief in God or out of 'compassion' etc. seems besides the point.

So we concede that it is Christian perspective regarding the Gospels as a primary text of singular importance, but not necessarily in line with how Christianity is practised currently, or thought of.


 * Once again, this is your interpretation of his work and does not belong in Wikipedia, which does not allow original research and strives to present a neutral point of view. Girard's own beliefs, as confirmed by reliable sources, are the only ones that concern us here. -- Perodicticus 08:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Although nominally Christian, social attitudes remained essentially alien to the authentic Judeo-Christian inspiration". So you disagree that this quote from Girard implies that a 'Christian perspective' may well be anomolous to his stated beliefs? Or should 'Christian perspective' be ironically understood as: "While millions of Christians world wide have since the beginning of Christianity misunderstood its most basic tenets, some Christians do in fact understand the Bible, and this is the one and only Christian perspective that is right, because Christians that fail to understand the Bible aren't real Christians."

In other words, my point is not the result of 'original research', but a questioning of a phrase that is as I understand it fundamentally ambiguous. Perhaps it's best not mention RG at all; the point would be vaild for any article, I only bought up the issue of his particular stance on Christianity because it makes the ambiguity more obvious. You might argue that the Crusades occured from a 'Christian perspective', but you wouldn't find anything in RG condoning the Crusades. Tsop 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of "original research" used in Wikipedia's policy on the topic is as follows:


 * Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."


 * So, yes, the claims you have made here do qualify as "original research" under Wikipedia policy and do not belong in the article. As a general rule, statements that have to be qualified with phrases like "as I understand it," "it may well be that ..." or "as a (insert tribal allegiance here) I believe ..." should not be incorporated into Wikipedia articles. If you want to write an essay about your personal interpretation of Girard's thought or of any other subject, there are many other venues on the Web where you can freely do so.


 * (And BTW, yes, I do disagree with your interpretation of Girard's statement -- the key word in that quotation is "nominally.") -- Perodicticus 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To throw my 2p in here, I think and lots of textual evidence supports it that Girard is fundamentally a Christian thinker. He thinks Christianity it unambigiously superior to other faiths and that the only reason he is even able to realise this theory and the place of the scapegoat is the result of the Christian cultural background that gradually unveils it. As he has gone along his work has got more and more Christian. And he is a Catholic moreover, not some obscure kind. I am pretty sure if you e-mailed him, he would respond in the positive. That said, the phrasing is too harsh and moreover is there any recent philosopher who is not critical of modernity particularly on the continent? So this isnt controversal either.


 * To revisit: the question should be disambiguated between the theological and empirical aspects of his thought. The 'truth' of Girard's thought can only be demonstrated through empirical (i.e. psychological and neurological) testing. For sake of argument, let us suppose that this demonstrates unequivocally that mimesis is described correctly by Girard. This would be the most important and empirically certain verification of Girard's thought -and from here we would ask: what are the consequences of this for analysing and understanding human behaviour? We might continue with Girard's thought and realise that he is correct in his explication of the effects of mimesis in primitive cultures -as well as our own. Demonstrating that mimesis leads to unnecessarily heightened desires, frequent incidences of revenge, and other disturbances of the public order, we should postulate some type of ethical maxim stating that such disruptions which result from mimesis are 'wrong', and that if there were some manner of preventing them, we should follow this prescription. Following on with this line of thought (Girard's), we would then turn to 'ethical documents', i.e. descriptions of how human beings ought to live their lives, and it might be the case that we concord with Girard and believe that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are a 'supreme' ethical document (though the New of course superior) and therefore necessary to be lived by in order to prevent violence and suffering. This progression I hope to some degree agrees with Girard's actual academic output, namely the more empirical explication of mimesis in his early works (via literature), the sociological perspective, and then the question of how to militate against the effect of mimetic contagion.


 * Clearly the fact that at heart mimesis is a empirical theory, and hence is verifiable only through scientific testing, leads to some interesting questions when appraising Girard's work as a whole. The section on criticisms of Girard obviously needs some reworking, and I am sceptical that 'secular' thinkers would argue against Girard based on theological interpretations of the Bible when obviously the most urgent path of investigation is not theoretical. As to my initial query regarding his thought as 'Christian', I am uncertain whether God makes an entrance -from an academic point of view one can claim that Girard's thought may be promoting an ethical, a-theological reading of the Bible, i.e. the view that religious texts should be read metaphorically, or in the case of the Bible, literally, although Occam's razor would tend to promote the idea that the Bible was written by master ethicists, not divinely inspired. This I cannot imagine would be a satisfactory outcome for a Christian. It seems that a "theological marriage' produces a tension, due to its empirical grounding -there is the problem that any falsification of Girard's work would necessarily be empirical and not theological. Is theology ever going to claim an empiricist viewpoint? I doubt it.

Tsop 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Briefly put, Girard sees Christianity as we know it in the churches and in history since late antiquity ("christianisme sacrificielle") as deeply flawed but carrying the hidden seeds of its own redemption and change into the true church. Other cultures, science and secular humanism on the other hand, he sees as totally corrupt and carrying the guilt and ignorance of the endless succession of murders all through history. He affirms that all of human culture since the first sacrificial crisis and the birth of religion in the older stone age is rooted in murder and must be so, but at the same time he does not say that this is where we have to be as a species. Civilization (as we kinow it) is a trap which, once we were cajoled into it, offers no way out - except for, primarily, the Gospels and their recognition by more and more of humanity.
 * In a way he does think like a Christian reactionary (excuse the expression, he's a very interesting thinker with some equally problematic sides!) of a kind that you rarely hear in this outspoken way these days. As he's getting ready to discuss Christianity in Things Hidden he states that the (true) Gospel can't really accomodate human culture as we know it; Christ can't become the foundation rock of a new social order, only the faked-up doll of Christ can perform that feat - he points to Joseph Klausner as an instance of a writer who understood this, and to sayings of Jesus about not caring for tomorrow. But on the other hand he is highly critical of any attempt to blow up the mechanism of society that's not Christian - just more of the same, he thinks. It would be intersting to hear what he thinks of the paedophile scandals of the Catholic Church and the outrage they have provoked - just fussy liberals perhaps? /Strausszek (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scapegoating
It would be really nice if this page included an explanation of what Girard calls "the scapegoat." This to me is a major concept in his work. Stevenwagner 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold! Add something. We don't scapegoat people for that ... Charles Matthews 18:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the link to "mimesis" as it didn't correspond to Girard's (albeit less well known) use of the term. Shawn, Montreal, Jan. 28 2006

Move to René Girard
"Réné" is a typing error. --WAJP 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I confirm that and support the suggestion. NJWAW 08:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's done. -- Curps 09:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well done
When I first looked at this article 15-18 months ago, it was pathetic. I'm really impressed by how much it has improved since. A big pat on the back to everyone involved. Perodicticus 10:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarized?
A section of this seems to be almost directly taken from http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/girard.html

"verified Girard's exact theory"
According to the article: "Recently, empirical studies into the mechanism of desire have verified Girard's exact theory on the subject. For instance, Dr. Scott Garrels mentions that 'the parallels between Girard’s insights and the only recent conclusions made by empirical researchers concerning imitation (in both development and the evolution of species) are extraordinary.' (Garrels, 2006)." ... but there is no "Garrels, 2006" reference anywhere on the page. (There's a reference to something by Garrels which is cited elsewhere in the article as "Garrels, 2004".)

In any case, "there are extraordinary parallels between A and B" and "Research into A has verified that B is exactly right" seem to me to be entirely different claims.

It seems to me that a WP article should not say that empirical studies have verified something exactly without at least some indication of how to find out about those empirical studies. Especially given the occasional tendency to hyperbole in this article (e.g., from later on, "today there is an amazing amount of convergent support for his claims coming from empirical research").

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct reference for Garrels is probably: Garrels, Scott R. "Imitation, Mirror Neurons and Mimetic Desire: Convergence between the Mimetic Theory of René Girard and Empirical Research on Imitation”, in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, vol. 12-13 (2006), p.47-86.--ChristopheS (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)    I have now integrated this into the article. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources, Sources, and more Sources...
Not doubting the notablility of the subject, but much of this page needs sources, expecially the criticism page, which reads almost like an essay... ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More sources still needed in the subsection "The Bible and myth". For example: "Some critics claim..."; "All religions, (...), even the most violent ones, are aimed toward peace": sources?? --ChristopheS (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

From Competition to Sacrifice
I understand mimesis - "If two individuals desire the same thing, there will soon be a third, then a fourth. This process quickly snowballs. " and how this would lead to competition and antagonism between the competitors. I can also see how "the mimetic conflict transforms into a general antagonism," and how "the antagonists will no longer imitate each other's desires for an object, but each other's antagonism [for each other]." The antagonism is for each other, and not for the (above mentioned) same thing. So it is unlcear to me how a general (but presumably mutual) antagonism becomes converts into a desire to "destroy the same enemy," i.e. sacrifice the original, "sacred" "same thing" - the object of desire. This part of the article does not seem to make sense. Is this because Girard does not make sense or because the article is not making sense of Girard?--Timtak (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this is part of Girard's hypothesis and that he would say the ultimate proof of it is found in myth. However, he does offer what might be considered indirect support for the claim, when he notes that an impassioned animal can easily have its aggression turned from the original target to a new one. From p. 72 of The Girard Reader: "Konrad Lorenz makes reference to a species of fish that, if deprived of its natural enemies (the male rivals with whom it habitually disputes territorial rights), turns its aggression against the members of its own family and destroys them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the step from "all against all" to "all againt one", according to Girard, goes more or less like that. A group of people can't survive in the state of generalized violence that arises from mimesis. It will eventually fall if violence persists. However, once the appetite for violence has emerged, it won't be easily stopped. As SgtSchumann said, he argues the target of the wrath is not as important as indulging in violence. So, people eventually "understand" that they all can redirect their violence against a single victim and satisfy (albeit temporarily) this urge, achieving a period of peace. André Lima (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how I read him too - I've read Des Choses cachées fairly closely plus some other texts by Girard or about him. The direction (more or less)suddenly homes in on one person. And of course that's a side where his thought can seem very depreciating of human endeavour, because this comes across as so totally interwoven with random violence, ever since the advent of time, since the first sacrifice - though he makes it clear that this is not biological, innate human nature. He says quite often in Choses that queries are not useful they just stimulate mimetic violence or modish illusions of liberty. I find him fascinating but he does come across as very hectoring and even reactionary sometimes...83.254.150.118 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Paris didn't want Helen because she is beautiful. The paradox you identify is the nature of the desire - Zizek describes it from a Lacanian view as the necessary limitation on the fulfillment.  Man is the only animal who can endlessly prolong pleasure by denying himself the very thing he wants - a form of what Zizek defines as "perversion."  Rather, Paris wanted to be a great king like Agamemnon.  We desire to emulate those who we wish to be like - and live out that process by the acquisition of things that are emblematic of that person, but we simultaneously hate that person for being the thing we want to be - the paradox thus shows itself, as a demand to be the only one with the characteristics we essentially stole, which they themselves stole. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism
I'm going to undo a number of edits made by 81.17.197.42. The section zie edited is already tagged for being poorly referenced, and zie has made the claims that are already in the section stronger without adding any citations. Also the grammar in the section is poor. I'm also changing the name of the section from Controversy to Criticism, as in Wikipedia Controversy tends to indicate that someone has done something scandalous, and setting aside Girard's understanding of skandalon , he has not. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorary degrees
I would like to enter a comment that René Girard was made a Doctor of Letters from St Andrews university, Scotland. A reference link can be found here -> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/Title,22420,en.html Brownpoodle (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't anticipate a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be more in favour of a separate sections with prizes and honorary degrees. René Girard received several honorary degrees, and I don't see why the one from St Andrews would be more important than the other ones.--ChristopheS (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I add perhaps too much things
... and especially in the section Criticism. My english is not very ghood but well (I think) my informations. I accept all the propositions to changewhat i changed... José Fontaine (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ibid
It's vitally important that one never use ibid in a Wikipedia article. Even one person's adding a reference could make the reference unreliable. Instead take advantage of ref tags; see WP:FOOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I fixed all the ibid references. --ChristopheS (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

René Girard in the tradition of great anthropologists
I moved the section "René Girard in the tradition of great anthropologists" under the heading "Criticism" because it does not fit under "Girard's thought" (By the way, Girard read a lot of anthropology but is not himself an anthropologist.) Girard also rejected the interpretation of his theory as an agnostic theory of religion, but I need a reference before I can put that in.--ChristopheS (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Scubla wants to point out the scientific value of this theory. Of course, Girard is not an agnostic, he is a catholic. But Tarot is discussing also about that and thinks the Girard's theory is, from the scientific point of view,  "agnostic" (Tarot says even atheistic). On the contrary (following Tarot), Mircéa Eliade has a sociology of the religion which is a metaphysical theory (and so, not scientific; M.Eliade is inspiring the New Age and following Tarot, he is a réactionnaire, antimoderne). You are not obliged to be a christian or a catholic in order to agree with the pure anthropologic way of thinking of Girard. That is actual for sociology, anthropology, human sciences: the method of these sciences is "agnostic". But it is also right to say that Girard had many, many, many difficulties (formidable) because he says always he is a catholic (firstly in France) . But he says also he is a naturalist and he is always comparing himself with Darwin (incidentally, Darwin was also in favour of the theory of an opriginal murder, I didn't kwow it, I didn't Know that this idea of Darwin inspired the theory of Freud about "le meurtre du père primitif"). I begg your pardon if I am writing with the style of a teatcher. I am not able to write better because of my bad English. Hartelikk en dank U voor je uitstekende correcties en veranderingen. Ik aarzelde met criticism en Ik vond onmogelik om the tradition (etc) onder de titel Criticism te plaatsen. I misunderstood the word "crticism". I gave it a negativ sense (fort Girard). Hartelijk. Incidentally, the comment of Scubla is very intereting because he shows very well that Girard's theory gave many solutions to the difficulties of the theories of Durkheim, Freud, Hubert, Smith etc. I would probabely edit these statements of Scubla. José Fontaine (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bonjour José. The point that Girard's theory can be seen as an agnostic or atheistic theory of religion is not new; it seems that Christine Orsini already expressed that view in La pensée de René Girard (Paris: Retz, 1986, p. 189). My point is not just about Girard's catholic conviction but that he rejects the view that his theory is an atheistic theory of religion. He considers such a view as diabolic. I believe these were literally his words in an interview in Dutch in the 1990s. My point is that a statement about the agnostic or atheistic nature of Girar's theory is a partial misrepresentation without the accompanying statement that Girard himself violently rejects this view. (See also the statement: "Die Behauptung, Girard betriebe eine vollkommen atheistische Theorie der Religionen [Orsini 1986 p. 189], dürfte überzogen sein. Seine kritische Distanz zur Interpretations des Opfers als Kommunikation zwischen den Menschen und der Gottheit impliziert nicht notwendig eine prinzipiell atheistische Position. Girard geht es vielmehr darum, den Religionen für die Lösung der Gewaltfrage eine reale Funktion zu sichern [Herzog, Religionstheorie p. 129] (...)" in Gilberto da Silva: Am Anfang war das Opfer: René Girard aus afroindiolateinamerikanischer Perspektive. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2001. See the preview in Google Books.) Cordialement, --ChristopheS (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goede avond ChristopheS!!! It is a very difficult issue. I was trying to re-listen to an interview of Girard where he is saying that he becomes catholic when  he found the mimetic theory (but not before). But I didn't find it. What Tarot and Scubla are saying  is that the Girard's theory is agnostic, the theory! but absolutely not the man. It seeems to me that the theory may be accepted by an agnostic or an atheist. And it is really the fact for Tarot, who is agnostic. I don't know if Scubla is a religious man or not. But I think this article in the Cahiers de l'Herne is written under the control of Girard. So, it may be said that the theory is agnostic, mainly because Girard claims that his theory is naturalist, scientific  (in Quand les choses commenceront). That's not theology, but anthropology. But, on the other hand Girardf is absolutely evidently a catholic. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Perhaps we are not allowed to say that this therory is atheist. Yes, tou are right. But that the theory is simply based on  human reason. And that is the definition of an agnostic theory. It is not based on the Gospel. I think Girard see the Gospel is truth on the base of his theory, not because he believes that the Gospel is the truth. When some people ask him if he is loyal to the catholic tradition, he answers always that the same tradition supposed always an agreement between reason and faith.   It is not a revelation. It is neutral. The theory of Einstein is neither atheist nor theist (But Einstein believes in God). I think it is the sense Girard gave to his thought. He prolounges his theory in a theology but this theory may be separated from the faith of Girard. For this moment this sentence of Scubla is sure. But let me a few days, I can refind this citation about the naturalism of Girard. Slaap well José Fontaine (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that René Girard is a Catholic. I don't really care whether he became catholic before or after discovering his mimetic theory. Even if René Girard says that his theory is scientific (I'm interested in the exact reference in Quand ces choses commenceront), that still doesn't mean that he agrees to calling it an agnostic or atheistic theory: he stresses (probably in several publications, but I don't have references at hand) that it was not he who discovered the scapegoat mechanism but the Bible. It is the Bible that provided this anthropological insight. Of course, atheists don't like this kind of statement, but an article on René Girard's theory should not be biased towards atheism. When someone writes that Lucien Scubla and others consider his theory an atheistic or agnostic theory of religion without mentioning that Girard rejects this view, then the article is biased. --ChristopheS (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I reply quickly because I am thinking of that for my lessons. Is it possible to say that the origin of the religion as thought by Girard is acceptable by people who are atheist, agnostic, catholic (etc.)? If it is possible, we are allowed to   say that it is an agnostic theory, not a theory in favour of agnosticism!!! but a neutral theory, a pure scientific theory.   In Quand les choses commenceront he wrote:Jean-Marie Domenach thinks that I am trying to give a scientific demonstration of  faith. I know that a demonstration of faith is impossible, but faith is not alone.There is also the understanding,and the great  christian tradition had always been saying that there is a deep agreement between faith and understanding. That's this agreement I am seeking.  Tarot (Scubla and many people), accept the anthropological views of Girard about the sacrifice, the myths, the early religions, but not his view about christianism or judaïsm. I am thinking that this comparison is good. Einstein found E =MC2, but he believes also in Go and was a philosopher. It is possible to say the same thing about Girard: his theory about the sacrifice (etc.) is the scientific aspect of his thought  even he is inspired by the gospel. And I think I am loyal to what he wroteespecially in Quand les choses commenceront  but I must yet find a citation of him where he said I am a naturalist.José Fontaine (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been following this exchange with interest, and I'm writing to offer what I hope both parties will agree is a compromise. First, I'd like to suggest that it would be inappropriate to call the theory agnostic. I can see how people can be agnostic, i.e., without knowledge regarding a particular proposition, but I don't see how a hypothesis can be agnostic. I think the proper term is naturalistic. Though Girard is a theist, his account of the origin of religion and culture presupposes only natural entities. This is much like Plantinga's theory of proper function, which he calls naturalistic, even though he has devoted a lot of energy to defending theism.


 * Anyway, the main point I want to make is that I think that the best way to handle this is to write something like the following: "According to Charles Bellinger Girard's explanation of the 'genesis of religion and culture' is naturalistic." (We would then include a citation of Bellinger's paper.) We wouldn't have to say ourselves that Girard's theory is naturalistic; we could let the readers compare Bellinger's statement to everything else they've read about Girard and reach their own conclusion. --SgtSchumann (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For me it is OK. I was just seeking where Girard is saying he is naturaliste (in French). It is true that agnostic in the sentence of Scubla is the same as naturalistic.,But naturalistic is better because this word means no philosphical (or religious) position. OK.But the best would be to quote Girard himself saying he is naturalistic.  I think this man, is a very important author... José Fontaine (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian nature of Girard's theory
This is a new section to collect statements by René Girard (and others) about the Christian nature of his theory. (1) "Le fait qu'un savoir authentique de la violence et de ses œuvres soit enfermé dans les Évangiles ne peut pas être d'origine simplement humaine." (Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde Grasset, 1978, p. 242 (p. 318 in the Livre de Poche edition; need to double-check both references)). (2) "Comment survient-elle [= la notion moderne de bouc émissaire] dans l'histoire des idées, et pourquoi ?" René Girard: "Ah, ah! Si on le savait ! C'est ce que j'appelle pour ma part la révélation anthropologique du christianisme." ("La découverte du christianisme: le bouc émissaire était innocent !" Propos recueillis par Joëlle Kuntz et Patricia Briel. Le Temps, novembre 1999). --ChristopheS (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

English translation of Choses cachées quote: "The authentic knowledge about violence and all its works to be found in the Gospels cannot be the result of human action alone." (Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World Translated by Patrick Gregory. Continuum. P. 219 ) --ChristopheS (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but on the other hand, you can read in Les origines de la culture a question of Antonella and Rocho:  "Des choses cachées..." is a theory of the hominisation and of the origin of culture in a naturalistic framework, firstly in combining ethnology and anthropology. (DDB, Paris, 2004, p. 144). And Girard answers immediately without refusing this presentation of his thought. So, is  not the compromise proposed above   a good compromise? You see also above that this christian inspiration is not in contradiction with the idea of a christian inspiration. On a philsophical plan or an epistemological plan, it may be allowed to have a christian inspiration (in the Gospel),and to have a naturalistic view about the origin of the religion. Girard is always saying in "Des choses.." that he agrees with Durkheim and Durkheim is an atheist Jew. I think it is possible to say that Girard has a naturalistic view and to say also that Girard's theory has a christian nature. From a Wp point of view, we are forced to say that Scubla, Tarot (and other authors), accept the aspect of Girard's theory as naturalistic. For instance, Paul Ricoeur is a christian philosopher but he is also simply a philosopher. François Mauriac wrote: I am not a catholic novelist, I am a catholic who wrote novels. But I repeat that: it is absolutely evident Girard'thougt is christian. I stress : not only christian, because authors who are not catholic are very interested in and agree with him. So a part of his thought may be separated from this christian inspiration. If Girard is christian in the absolute sense, he is only a theologian. I think you can read the speech of Michel Serres when Girard reached the Académie française on the web: it is an interesting comment and Serres, I think, is a catholic (and a great friend of Girard) (René Girard + MIchel Serres on Google). Hartelijk maar wij moet om een oplossing  vinden, José Fontaine (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Académie française/Michel Serres : http://www.academie-francaise.fr/Immortels/discours_reponses/serres_2005.html


 * Bonjour José. The more I read about it, the more paradoxical it becomes. (1) René Girard explains why he thinks that humanity could not expose the scapegoat mechanism: "Pour comprendre qu'on ne peut voir et faire voir la vérité que si on prend la place de la victime, il faudrait déjà occuper soi-même cette place, et pour assumer cette place dans les conditions requises, il faudrait déjà posséder la vérité. On ne peut appréhender la vérité que si on se conduit contrairement aux lois de la violence et on ne peut se conduire contrairement à ces lois que si on appréhende, déjà cette vérité." (éd. Grasset p. 242; Livre de Poche p. 317-318; the context is a discussion on the divinity of Christ). (2) On the other hand, Girard also says: "J'ai conscience des imperfections de ce livre [=La violence et le sacré], comme des imperfections de ce que nous disons ici.  La thèse de la victime émissaire n'a rien d'une extrapolation littéraire et impressionniste, je la crois parfaitement démontrée à partir des textes anthropologiques. C'est pourquoi, loin d'écouter ceux qui me reprochent la vanité de mes prétentions scientifiques, j'ai essayé de renforcer et préciser, au cours de toute ma présentation, son caractère systématique, son aptitude à engendrer tous les thèmes culturels sans exception. Si je n'ai pas parlé du texte chrétien dans la Violence et le Sacré, c'est parce qu'il suffisait de l'évoquer pour persuader la plupart des lecteurs que je me livrais à un travail d'apologétique particulièrement hypocrite." (Chose cachées [Livre de Poche] p. 260) (3) Regarding the "interview of Girard where he is saying that he becomes catholic when he found the mimetic theory" which you mentioned on 14 November (can you provide a reference?), I would like to point out that the last chapter of Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque already betrayed Girard's return to christianity. (4) Finally, the compromise proposed by SgtSchumann looks good to me. We could write: “According to Charles K. Bellinger, Girard provides a "secular account of the origin of religion among primitive people." REF Charles K. Bellinger: "The Crowd is Untruth: a Comparison of Kierkegaard and Girard" Contagion: A Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 3 (1996): 103-119. /REF ” Then we have José's current paragraph about Scubla's view (which cites a more recent publication) and finally something about René Girard's statements about the non-human origin of his theory, in which we also integrate the response to Domenach in Quand ces choses commenceront (José, can you provide a precise referece - edition and page?)  --ChristopheS (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goede avond, Christophe! I am happy what you are saying. In Des choses... I red also (I had the source),that the death of Christ is naturalistic, which doesn't mean that Girard doesn't believe in the resurrection, but which means that the Gospel are radically against the liar of the myths. We are far from a perfect page but we are possibly three with SgtSchumann and so it is perhaps possible to be ambitious, to try to have a good article. I 'll provide the precise reference (Domenach, Tarot, Scubla etc.). I just read also what you have just quoted.Luc de Heusch made a formidable critical article in Le Monde after Des choses... I can understand him and he is honest (the title L'Evangile selon St Girard I understand him but he was injust). And on the other hand we must quote also this kind of reactions. I understand why is Girard is saying about the fear that his readers would think he is writing apologetics. It is true and it is not true. José Fontaine (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading Des Choses Cachées - i read it in the 1990s and have returned to it now and then - it seems to me he has a very low opinion of actually seeking justice or moral redemption and recognition from your fellow humans. His ideas clearly imply that any judicial system is just trapped by its roots in sacrifice and mimesis, the same would go for any attemot to break the wall of silence and lies after, let's say a political cover-up or a civil war, and when he's discussing the gospel and the future, he implies clearly enough that any judicial or moral discussion that isn't subordinated to Christ is useless or negative; it risks becoming the tool of fresh mimetic desires. "Let the dead bury the dead" he quotes Christ, summing up the attitude you should take to any endeavour to reclaim dignity or expose fraud, murder, persecution. The route he recommends, imitating Christ, is not buttressed by human logic or reason, at least not the kind of reason that will integrate with your sense of identity and wholeness on a human plane, instead it's presented as staring the bleakness of the world in the face and becoming a holy fool.


 * I don't know if there's anyone who's commented on this because frankly Girard's tone of voice in some of his books is so loud that he would make many people, especially non-christians, feel there's no point arguing with him, you better just leave him alone. But this is a potentially very offensive element in his thinking, and one clearly at odds both with democracy and with most of modern christian discussion. Strausszek (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what motivated the above comment. In the interest of having constructive discussion I'll assume it's an appeal for resources that would counter Girard's negative view of human criminal justice. With that in mind I'll point out that Adams suggests a way to resuscitate Girard's theory to encourage, among other things, more democratic ideas of justice. See "Loving Mimesis and Girard's 'Scapegoat of the Text': A Creative Reassessment of Mimetic Desire". -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I was suggesting some search for critical comment on Girard's views of the workings of the judicial system (including seeking justice after large-scale political and societal oppression) and of human aspiration, standing upright, political and cultural liberation. He's the kind of thinker who often seems to get commented only by converts and disciples, and that means some of his more sweeping statements are rarely analyzed (at,least not as far as I've seen). They're just accepted at face value. I figured someone might have scrutinized them though; thanks for the tip-off about Adams!
 * The man is a potent rethoric, too, and I think some parts of his work are very interesting, while others are less well grounded. The two psychiatrists who are discussing with him in Des Choses Cachées are frankly comical some of the time, they always reply with "Aaah!! Now finally we see how groundbreaking are your arguments and how they will wipe the slate with all others!" ;) and there is a kind of implicit appeal to that 'when the new dawn comes you will be proved right'.
 * I'm not calling for an article that censures him but it would be good if it makes clear to an attentive reader just how controversial he is and how far off he is, in some respects, from most strands of modern (post-WW2) philosophy and from the thought climate of the age. You could say the same about Eric Voegelin I guess, he's one of rather few modern philosophers who parallel Girard. Strausszek (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements of Camille Tarot about Girard and christianism
I am influenced when I am speaking (but with Lucien Scubla), about the agnostic theory of Girard by Girard himself who is speaking about his naturalism and Camille Tarot wich made a comparison between Mircéa Eliade and Girard. Tarot wrote about Girard: ''According Girard, the scapegoat has nothing to do with metaphysics, it is since the beginning a pure social and anthropological process which nobody was wanting, it is not thought from the god's death, but from an actual human being. Man begins to think it after, when the rituals are beginning.'' (Tarot, pp 657-658). I translate the French sentence: ''Pour Girard, le bouc émissaire n'a rien de métaphysique, c'est au départ un pur mécanisme socio-anthropologique non voulu, il n'est pas pensé à partir de la mort du dieu, mais d'un homme réel. IL commence d'être pensé seulement après coup, quand il est question de ritualisation.'' There are many other considerations in this spirit into the book of Tarot, but also in Girard himself. That is the reason whay I am underlining the citation of Lucien Scubla describing Girard's theory as agnostic. Even if Girard is a catholic. I will take other citations.José Fontaine (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tarot wrote also: ''The christianism of Girard is concerning differently theology and social sciences. Lagarde spoke of a "christianisation" of these social sciences. People might have been waiting that the teologians denounce the "anthropologisation" of the theology and thus a "humanisation" of the chritianism. It is astonishing that nobody do it.  (Tarot, p. 651 French Le christianisme de Girard concerne différemment la théologie et les sciences sociales. Lagarde a parlé de "christianisation" de celles-ci. On aurait pu s'attendre à ce que les théologiens dénoncent une "anthropologisation", de la théologie et donc une "humanisation" du christianisme.''). In fact, Tarot is wrong: the Director (Father Valandier) of the revue Etudes (of the Jesuits), is very critical of Girard because of this confusion, between science and christianisme or between science and faith. There are other opinions about that. Girard is pointing out Simone Weil, the French philosopher who was describing the Gospel as a a book of anthropology. Girard is certainly also writing a kind of paradoxical apologetics when he is describing his approach as naturalist. The method of Tarot consists in keeping only, in Girard's thought, the mimetic violence, the scapegoating (the origin of language, society, religion). Tarot shows also very often that Girard is saying nearly the same things as Emile Durkheim. And Durkheim was an atheist. So, I can understand how Scubla is allowed to use the word "agnostic". Many aspects of Girard's thought (except the role of Jesus-Christ as the Son of God,  in denouncing the spacegoating for almost the first time) are evidently "agnostic" i.e. acceptable for everymen, faithfull or not. Sincerely, I am catholic but there were a difficulty for me if Girard were not agnostic in anthropology. José Fontaine (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Entretien avec Marie-Louise Martinez
The section on mimetic desire contains a quote from an interview with Marie-Louse Martinez; the same quote also appears (in French) in the French version of the Wikipedia article. What is the correct reference for this interview? The text cannot be found in the interview Entretien avec René Girard: Propos recueillis par Marie-louise Martinez (le 31 Mai 1994 au CIEP à Sèvres) or suite. --ChristopheS (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two web pages containing the same quote connect it to Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque: René Girard, le sommaire and Perspectives Girard: Oeuvre. Still no good reference... --ChristopheS (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote was probably introduced by an anonymous user; see the version of 2 August 2006. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced introduction
I'm dumping some content from the introduction here because it made the text unbalanced. It will find a new home elsewhere in the article. "His work is also attracting increasing interest from empirical researchers investigating human imitation (among them Andrew Meltzoff and Vittorio Gallese). Girard's views on imitation (developed decades before empirical research prompted a resurgence of interest in the matter) resonate with the most recent findings. Although regarded as having important contributions, Girard's work also tends to be very controversial due to his harsh criticisms of modern philosophy and his outspoken Christian views (i.e. he claims that the anthropological evidence, from looking at religious texts, shows a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and primitive religion and mythology on the other)." "Recently, empirical studies into the mechanism of desire have suggested some intriguing correlations with Girard's theory on the subject. For instance, clinical psychologist Scott Garrels mentions that 'the parallels between Girard’s insights and the only recent conclusions made by empirical researchers concerning imitation (in both development and the evolution of species) are extraordinary.'" --ChristopheS (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above content found a new home in the new subsection "Psychology and neuroscience", except for the following: "Although regarded as having important contributions, Girard's work also tends to be very controversial due to his harsh criticisms of modern philosophy and his outspoken Christian views (i.e. he claims that the anthropological evidence, from looking at religious texts, shows a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and primitive religion and mythology on the other)." --ChristopheS (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews, Christians, Atheists ...
I read in the "Cahiers de l'Herne" that Sandor Goodhart wrote (but it is a translation):On peut êtrre juif, chrétien, musulman, hindou ou bouddhiste, et être en même temps girardien. (People may be jew,christian etc and girardian)  I am thinking I would buy this book, but in any case, I have not it. Of course, it is possible to translate the translation, but... And that is an interesting statement. Paul Ricoeur wrote nearly the same thing but it is perhaps interesting to have several sources? Nevertheless I think that Girard have good arguments in favour of the originality of Christianity and of the Gospels. But these opinions are relevant and wp...  Hartelijk en proficiaat voor je uitstekende veranderingen in Girard's page. José Fontaine (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bonjour José, I can recommend Cahier de l'Herne on René Girard. Did you know that it contains excerpts from his thesis on "La vie privée à Avignon dans la seconde moitié du XVe siècle" and from his PhD thesis? Regarding atheism etc, I found who was the first to call Girard's work an atheistic theory of religion: it was Georges-Hubert de Radkowski in a review of La Violence et le Sacré in Le Monde (27 Octobre 1972): "Unique, car il nous donne la «première théorie» réellement athée du religieux et du sacré." His review is reprinted in the Pluriel edition of La Violence et le Sacré, which I recently added to the bibliography. Cordialement, --ChristopheS (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The question I think is what is meant by "Girardien" (Girard disciple, person influenced by him) here. Of course one may pick up some of his work and develop it, take it as a starting-point of reflection, but if one would accept all of his system it seems to me it has to include a Christian conviction too, and subscribing to his particular re-evaluation of the Gospel and History. I don't see how one could be a Jewish or Muslim believer in a faith-based sense and accept his exposition of the gospels and of the nature of man. In Des Choses Cachées he declares that the gospels and Jesus affirm the pre-eminence of Judaism (probably right), but he implies that this is only for the pre-Christian age and that Judaism, the Jewish community and culture, has no real reason to exist post Jesus, and that the destruction of the second temple (maybe the first one in 587 BC too) was ultimately due to a drift into violence, chaos and mimetic rivalry within the Jewish people. In fact his theory begs the question how it is possible that Judaism has stayed alive for 2.000 years after Christ, often under the most severe persecution. Because, for most of that time, it has been wholly unsupported by a state or empowered, dominant cultural order of its own and it has been the subject of efforts to convert its members to other religions and to dismantle its social presence outright! As far as I know - I haven't read his later books, past The Scapegoat - he makes no effort to explain this. Strausszek (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

US English
As far as I can tell, the first edit to disambiguate the variety of English used in this article was made on April 16, 2005 in which it is said that Girard is the "Honorary Chair" of the CV&R. This would mean that US English is the variety appropriate to this article. (See "National Varieties of English" in the MOS.) If no one supplies evidence to the contrary, I'll make appropriate changes to the article in a few days. --SgtSchumann (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The spelling of honorary is the same in US and British English, even though the spellings of honor/honour and honorable/honourable are different. So the spelling of "Honorary Chair" does not disambiguate the variety of English. (A few days ago, I changed something to US English and José Fontaine undid that change, so I checked for spelling elsewhere in the article.) I hope we won't have an edit war over this; there is more valuable work to be done here. (By the way, I checked "National Varieties of English" in the MOS before I made those changes.) --ChristopheS (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. That'll teach me not to use Google as a spell checker. In that case an edit made on 2006 Aug. 2 may be the first edit to disambiguate (with the word behavior), so per Wikipedia guidelines US English should still be the variety we use here. But if you or José Fontaine want to use UK English, don't worry: I won't start an edit war. --SgtSchumann (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ChristopheS, I  changed  perhaps in favor into in favour? I don't remember, sincerely...  I am used to speak French which is a language theorically with one only spelling, theorically... It is likely the reason why I changed in favor  into in favour, (as I would have done it in French with the opinion there is only one  good spelling). I must begg your pardon. I am able to give many informations about Girard but I speak bad English and I write a terrible grammar: if you would change something I wrote, you would be always right. I speak English scarcely at an intermediate level and you (and Sgt) are absolutely better than me. If I am correcting you or if I am changing a spelling or something so, you may undo what I have written. Hartelijk and sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The origin of language
I made a proposal. This title must to be more ambitious: the origin of language is also the origin of humanity, culture etc., the birth of humanity. I am perhaps wrong but I think there was not a so accurate description of this origin: you have the murder into the work of Darwin or Freud but it is in a sense, vague. Into Girard's thought - even if it is during million of years - it is not vague.That's the whole human being: language, culture, State, Justice, religion, wars (old and contemporary wars as for instance in Achever Clausewitz but also in Things hidden...), violence... You have the explanation of funerals, dance, carnival, feast, envy, laugh, genocids, etc .This anthropology is not only anthropology but a very important philosophical system. In my view, it is stronger than Rousseau (I learned, Girard doesn't like Rousseau but it would be possible-not on Wp - to show that Rousseau is not so far from Girard);or Kant, or Hobbes (I learned a little). A paradoxical evidence of that is the fact Girard has now (now!), a better reception in France. It would be interesting to have (as on the French Girard's site), some pictures of Francisco Goya for instance, Abraham and Isaac or something else. It is only a proposal. José Fontaine (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bonjour José, I have no problem with the current title because explaining the Origin of language is no small thing; I think it's actually very ambitious! It is possible to expand this section, but I am also concerned about the balance of the article: we should not devote much more attention to it than Girard does in his own work compared to other parts of his theory. (Neither Girard nor Eric Gans are mentioned in the Origin of language; I suppose a theory on the origin of language would also take into account biological issues, such as those discussed in The Biology and Evolution of Language by Philip Lieberman (1984), and cognitive issues (which are now also being researched through simulation, see Simulating the Evolution of Language with Cognitive Agents and Robots ).) Cordialement, --ChristopheS (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goede morgen ChristopheS. You are right : itis a great thing. I am worry about that : what is the most important thing in Girard's thought? I would reply very basically : the theory of the wole humanity. The ambition of the title Things hidden.... Françoise Giroud was very critical about that, but Girard has this theory. I think we must strongly underline this aspect which is not only anthropological but philosophical. I.E  the shift from animality to humanity. Perhaps we must say  that firstly in the introduction? I heard so many naïve opinions about the birth of humanity (superstition, human, being who are almost animal without  being very clever and all these stupid things - Levi-Strauss  is also severe about that and all the antropologists), about domestication, about religion, about society. I will make a more accurate or concrete proposal, perhaps a new section as for instance the critical view of les maîtres du soupçon Marx, Nietzche, Freud, who are so important in our current contemporary  spirit or culture. Hartelijk, José José Fontaine (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Economics, Globalization
This reads too much like an essay instead of an overview of responses to the implications of René Girard's theory for economics. In other words, it is too much about other authors and their comments upon each other, instead of economists etcetera commenting on or using René Girard's theory. --ChristopheS (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goede namiddag ChristopheS. I hope I understand what you mean, but it was very hard for me to write these section, not because of my English this time, but because it is not simple to make it clear. And there is a really very direct link to Girard, I don't agree with you said. But it is hard to understand Orléan (in Cahiers de l'Herne). Andrew Feenberg wrote his whole article about  Girard's view on economics (with this allusion to Goldman who is also very near Girard). But it is very hard also to understand him without reading (or re-reading)  The Gambler of Fyodor Dostoevsky and so I choose to write the section with the help of M.Anspach who is more understable. I would prefer to make myself this section shorter and more linked to Girard. It is perhaps possible to summarize what Anspach is saying. But the importance of that for a page about  Girard is without any doubt: for instance the contemporary world as a primitive people, you can find that in all his books, the mimetic desire as the foundation of economics too. And Michel Aglietta is one of the great French economist (école de la régulation). His book was very depending on the Girard's thought. I have no time at this moment (I am not at home Thursady and Friday) to improve the section but I promise you I 'll do it. For me, it is very astonishing to meet Aglietta here and in the Alglietta's theory Girard is not a short influence but a very long influence (Aglietta published an other book  according the Girard's theory in the recent years, 2002 or something else). Nobody (I red!) is speaking about that, I was very astonished yesterday to find a so narrow bond between Girard and Aglietta. Hartelijk, José Fontaine (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you are right on an other hand: Girard says himself to Orléan that he is not very able to have a discussion about their theory of money. There is also Karl Marx and Girard...


 * I must agree with ChristopheS. As interesting as your additions are, they don't belong here. This is an entry about Girard; it is not an entry about other people's applications of Girard's hermeneutic of suspicion. --SgtSchumann (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no much time to reply but nevertheless it seems to me that these additions are at less partly the ideas of Girard himself  or very directly  inspired by himself. In Feenberg he is the central author and principally for The Gambler which is the starting point of a reflexion about economics (in Girard's thought itself). In Anspach he is quoted  four or five times in a very short article and Aglietta or Orléan se réclament de lui  (I am not able to say that in English: are invoking him?). It is difficult to separate absoluely an author from the people who are commenting him? Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The ideas may very well be an outgrowth of Girard's ideas. Don't all good Girardians quote Girard and make a plausible case for their ideas' being an outgrowth of Girard's thought? But, again, we must separate Girard's beliefs from the implications of mimetic theory. As much as it pains me to say so, Girard tends to be very conservative/reactionary when it comes to social and economic issues. He has been critical of Marxism, finding a scapegoat in Marx's thought. So even if experts have demonstrated that a critique of capitalism can be derived from mimetic theory, they have not told us what Girard himself believes. This material belongs in a different article. --SgtSchumann (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"America indeed embodies these mimetic relations of rivalry. The ideology of free enterprise makes of them an absolute solution. Effective, but explosive. These competitive relations are excellent if you come out of it as the winner, but if the winners are always the same then, one day or the other, the losers overturn the game table. This mimetic rivalry, when it turns out badly, always results eventually in some form of violence. In this regard, it's Islam that now provides the cement that we formerly found in Marxism. "We will bury you," Khrushchev said to the Americans. ..Bin Laden, is more troubling than Marxism, in which we recognize a concept of material well‑being, prosperity, and an ideal of success not so far removed from what is lived out in the West." René Girard, Le Monde, 6 November, 2001 - Translated for COV&R ΑΩ (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is npot easy to separate the Girard's criticism against the marxist economical theory who inspires Michel Aglietta who is really a marxist, the Girard's critical view of stalinism, the Girard's critical view about Marx (as well as Nietzsche and Freud), refusing religion as superstition, alienation, illusion : it is well-known that Girard is thinking that this kind of antireligious way of thinking is a new myth, because this kind of atheism ( not the atheism in itself but the atheism of the masters of suspicion), renew the ignorance (méconnaissance in French, misreading?),of the violence into the myths. Tarot learned very accuratly this issue of the possible reactionnarism (right word?) of Girard. For him, Girard is very different from  eg Eliade. Eliade is a religious thinker but  he rejects the contemporary world, sciences, democracy, reason etc. Eliade is a reactionnary,not Girard. I had a friend in the Université catholique de Louvain who taught Girard : he was very crititicized because of the critical Girard's view on the modern society, not as so far as this society is modern (science, democracy, liberty, etc.), but because this society is violent. Girard is speaking about the Global warming in the framework of his theory of mimetic rivalry: for him (in Achever Clausewitz but also in previous works), the economical struggle is a threat for  humanity as exactly  the mimetic disruption was a threat for primitive people who often died totally because of the rivalry. It is interesting to make the exact quotations of Girard as ΑΩ (talk just did it. But Anspach makes absolutely the same comparison as Girard: we are as a primitive people whose the violence can destroy them. That is not antimodern I believe. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I should thank you, first, for making me aware of Camille Tarot's le symbolique et le sacré. I'm working my way somewhat slowly through it, as my French is not so good... The quote I made from the Le Monde interview was mostly meant to "tell what Girard himself believes" - as SgtSchumann would seem to be asking for. From what I've read here there would seem to be, as you're saying (in your above answer to ChristopheS), a very direct link. The attempt to apply Girard's "problem-solving machinery" to the field of Economics/Globalization surely must be relevant to this article. Regards, ΑΩ (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just spoke yesterday with a colleague about Girard and she replied immediately that she has learned Michel Aglietta as a man who was very influenced by Girard. I know (a little) Aglietta, but I didn't know he was linked to Girard (and I think very deeply). "Les Cahiers de l'Herne" underlined this influence. Orléan (who is working with Aglietta), wrote in this book Girard is very interested  in their economical work, he encourages them. We need the help of all the contributors and it seems to me that ChristopheS and SgtSchuman are right to ask more accurate link between Girard's  economical views. In France (but also in other countries, I think), Aglietta is certainly a great man. And so it is very interesting to seek something about that. Tarot is a sociologist of religion. He doesn't speak about this topic. You are very courageous to read a so large book. For me, Tarot's book  is going to change the reception of Girard in France. Girard had during years and years very bad reception among French intellectuals, even among French christian or catholic intellectuals (Valadier, Domenach, Professors in Lumen vitaein Brussels etc.). Kind regards also, José Fontaine (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * La violence de la monnaie by Aglietta & Orléan has been sitting on my bookshelf for ten years, so I'm definitely "aware" of their work ;-) I never meant to say it isn't relevant but a discussion of their book and Feenberg's article belongs in a separate article, e.g. mimetic theory and economics or La violence de la monnaie. We could then reference that article from René Girard. In the section on Reception and criticism I would expect comments and criticism on Girard's own statements about economics, and that is not what we have in this section. (A subsection on economics under "Girard's thought" - if such a subsection is desirable - should ideally be based on a systematic discussion of economics by Girard, not just on a grab bag of isolated quotes.) Best regards, --ChristopheS (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goede namiddag, ChristopheS. We need short citations. I may write here some clear sentences of Orléan in French (I am not able to translate them, even in simple English), sentences illustrating the content of the possible subsection you are speaking . If you agree with that I 'll try to write the most significant sentences of Orléan (in Cahiers de l'Herne)? Hartelilk, José Fontaine (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC) On the other hand, I think also ΑΩ (talk) quotes is relevant. Even if this Girard's opinion doesn't belong to economics as a science.It is nevertheless an opinion about economy?
 * I agree that the economics section should be in a separate article, if anywhere. I wouldn't mind if someone created an entry entitled mimetic theory and economics or even just mimetic theory. --SgtSchumann (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why these following sentences are relevant in a Girard's entry ////{lang|fr|René Girard}}'s work is also attracting increasing interest from empirical researchers investigating human imitation (among them Andrew Meltzoff and Vittorio Gallese). Girard's views on imitation (developed decades before empirical research prompted a resurgence of interest in the matter) resonate with the most recent findings.///and not statements about a very nearly link between economics and Girard's thougt? It is only a question I write before writing some statements of Orléan (in French, I am not able to translate them but may be ChristopheS), where it is possible to see the same things, in an other domain (economics),as the relationship between psychology and Girard's thougt. Mimetism exists also in economics. In reading this French text I don't sincerely see the difference. I am not very honest if I don't write these sentences in order to help translation of them,but I need some times.... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the quotes regarding observations in neurology directly support observations that Girard himself has made. The quotes regarding economics are for the most part at least one step remove from Girard's thought; they support views that someone else has said follows from what Girard says. Compare this to another situation: Many philosophers agree that negative utilitarianism entails that humans should annihilate themselves. This would be an important point to bring up in a piece on negative utilitarianism. However, in an article about an individual utilitarian we would not devote a section to the view that humans should be annihilated. Even if negative utilitarianism does entail this view, we must not go beyond the words that individuals have written. We must recognize that people are sometimes wrong about what an individual's views entail and that even when they are right, it is sometimes the case that the individual failed to see what his/her view entailed and might be horrified to make the realization. As I've said before, in all that I've read Girard seems more critical of Marxism than capitalism. I don't like it, but those seem to be his views, and I think we owe him the respect of going no further than his own words in presenting what he said. --SgtSchumann (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But "Economics and Globalisation" is a subsection to the heading "Reception and criticism". Shouldn't the subsection "Economics and globalisation", then, simply be encompassing whatever reception and criticism of Girard's work there is, within that field ? ΑΩ (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment of Orléan
I am able to translate a part of the statements :''Girard's thought was for us (i.e. Aglietta and Orléan) essential. What's more, it was a conceptual schock because of its solution: the unanimous violence is making order (...) In economy, this unanimity which founds the market... French:La pensée de Girard a été pour nous essentielle. Mieux encore, elle a été un véritable choc conceptuel par l'originalité de la solution qu'elle propose: c'est la violence unanime qui est productrice d'ordre. En économie, cette unanimité qui fonde l'ordre marchand... (After, it is hard for me to translate) c'est la polarisation mimétique de tous les désirs des acteurs en quête de richesse sur un même objet, polarisation qui clôt la crise en donnant une forme socialement reconnue à cette richesse si vivement désirée (...) la monnaie.'' (Cahiers de l'Herne, octobre 2008, p. 265). José Fontaine (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Girard's view about literature revealing mimesis disputed
This section needs another title. The current title suggests that there is a big dispute about this, but the content of this section doesn't bear that out. The (overly) long quotes are evidence of awareness of mimetic desire in other sources but don't justify the word "dispute". I think that something like "other revelations of mimetic desire" would work better. --ChristopheS (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Goede avond, ChristopheS! The dispute (but I am aware of the exageration), is about the fact Girard thinks the mimetism was only in literature. It is also in philosophy. He said also he is very original in philosopohy with this theory (the desire's mimetism). The citation of Tocqueville is now horter. In my view, it is hard to make shorter the Palaver's citation. It seems to me that there is a new idea in each sentence : (1) Girard's thought) (2) The more our pride (3) all rivals (4) insurmountable obstacles (5) we increase the resistance (6) the fatal conclusion that violence is the true God (7) we seak defeat (8) ontology of violence and Hegel. This citation "must" explain the Montréal Massacre. It is possible to have a much shorter citation of Tocqueville. Hartelijk, José Fontaine (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Students of René Girard (infobox)
The infobox allows us to add notable students of René Girard. Sandor Goodhart was a "student of René Girard in the Department of English at the State University of New York at Buffalo" (Sandor Goodhart: "The End of Sacriﬁce: Reading René Girard and the Hebrew Bible" in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 14 (2007) 59-78); Eric Gans was a student of Girard and got his PhD in 1966 at Johns Hopkins University (while Girard was professor there) but it isn't clear if Girard was his supervisor. It seems that Gil Bailie was also a student of Girard, but I don't have the right details. --ChristopheS (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gans and Girard have opposite views about the shift from animality to humanity, but Girard hold Gans in high esteem  (he wrote it  somewhere) and the latter wrote an an article over Girard in Cahiers de l'Herne (octobre 2008)... José Fontaine (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bonjour José, In spite of opposing views, "The Girardian element in GA [Generative Anthroplogy] is well known," according to Eric Gans, in the "Introductory Remarks" to Anthropoetics II, no. 1 (June 1996).

Another student is François Lagarde. From the back cover of René Girard ou la christianisation des sciences humaines (1994): "François Lagarde est assistant à l'Université du Texas à Austin où il enseigne la littérature française du dix-septième siècle. Ancien élève de René Girard, il a obtenu son Ph.D. à l'Université de Stanford (Californie) en 1985.(...)." --ChristopheS (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

According to James G. Williams' article [http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/AP0201/girardw.htm "René Girard without the Cross?" in Anthropoetics II, no. 1 (June 1996)], Paisley Livingston and Tobin Siebers are also former students of Girard. Paisley Nathan Livingston got his PhD at Johns Hopkins University in 1981 and published Ingmar Bergman and the Rituals of Arts (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press) in 1982; this book seems to be an analysis of Bergman's films through René Girard's theory. Tobin Siebers got a PhD in comparative literature at Johns Hopkins University in 1980. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Theil was a student of Girard. Hugetim (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done
Hey everyone,

I don't have anything for discussion in particular. I just want to post a note saying great job to the people who put this article together. It's one of the best I've seen, and the links to information on Girard and on interviews that are available online are very helpful. Thank you!

~ Aaron 165.134.140.102 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have read Girard's books and been familiar with his thought this article is very basic and incomplete. I suggest some parts of the french one to be translated to improve this article.Beickus (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert Price
Robert Price is not a respected academic and his literary output is clearly directed to a lay audience. Further, Price is not particularly notable at all and, as such, his criticisms of Girard are not relevant to this article. Deleted. Eugeneacurry (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Eugeneacurry, why is it so hard to give other editors time to look at your arguments? Robert M. Price (you didn't even bother to identify him correctly) is a theologian and I don't see any evidence that his book Deconstructing Jesus is for lay readers (it may be more readable than some other theological publications, but for lay readers?) References to Robert M. Price were apparently introduced by User:SgtSchumann (see this diff from July 2008). Can we please have a proper discussion instead of an edit war? --ChristopheS (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Academics judge works by their contents, not by their intended audiences. Consider, for example, that the book Behind the Ballot Box has been cited in quite a few academic papers, despite the fact that it is obviously aimed at laity. As for Price's credentials, he has a Ph.D in theology, and Deconstructing Jesus has been cited by a number of scholars. If nothing else, we should leave the article as it was until a compromise can be reached. (In the interest of full disclosure I am the user formerly known as SgtSchumann.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Having heard no objections to the above, I've reverted the edits. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I again cut the Price criticism (along with some other stuff that had BLP issues). Price is not a professor at any accredited institution and the book being quoted was published by a marginal press. Further, Robert M. Price is widely considered an extremist in the field of biblical scholarship since he denies that Jesus even existed at all. WP:IRS says (under "Questionable sources")that extremist sources "should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves... [and] are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Eugene (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see no evidence that the criticisms violate the biography policy in any way whatsoever. The claim that the author is non-notable is contradicted by his article. It is inappropriate to remove criticisms simply because one disagrees with them. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting criticism of Girard from Price would be like quoting criticism of a politicism offered by David Duke. Price doesn't teach at an accredited school and his book mentioned here is from a marginal press. Eugene (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The status of the institution in question is irrelevant to a consideration of the criteria for inclusion here. You've made bogus claims about the nature of the criticisms, which, to be honest, make your objections dubious. The author's article is fully sourced, as far as I can tell, and clearly establishes notability. Unless you can establish your claims that this represents an extremist criticism with citations that support them, the section should remain. Restoring in lieu of that evidence. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, you have once again removed this material, making the claim that it violates the policy on biographies of living people and promising to provide evidence supporting your claims at a later date. That is most inappropriate. Firstly, it is clear to any neutral observer that there is no violation. If you feel there is, you need to detail that here first. Secondly, you cannot remove material on the basis of claims about its notability and relevance when other Wikipedia articles, which are sourced, refute your claims. You need to provide the evidence to support your deletions here first before deleting it from the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting my statements. The material in question is of two kinds: criticism sourced with a book written by Robert Price, and other criticism not sourced at all.  I will continue to remove the unsourced criticism as often as needed as it violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Further, such removals on my part are exempted from 3RR considerations according to WP:GRAPEVINE.  As for the material sourced to Price, I will leave it in pending a review of the source material. Eugene (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The resurrection of Christ
I know this is a complicated point with many modern theologians and not just Girard, but since he affirms so strongly that the insight about the innocence of Jesus the victim - who, when he hung on the cross, was perceived, roughly, as a troublemaker who had provoked endless trouble and whose death would bring the books in order again - of Jesus and, by extension, the innocence of all sacrifical victims - cannot come from within historical human culture itself. Okay, then the question becomes pertinent: does he see the resurrection of Christ as an actual physical and historical event (the sudden resuscitation in some kind of body of Jesus, as it's told in the gospels) or as a metaphor of some kind of "change of thinking" in the disciples? Remember, they all sided with the crowd who wanted Jesus killed, and Girard's insistence on the all-encompassing fever of mimesis and its lies, breaking down all resistance, seems to make it hard to claim that the disciples might have thought it up for themselves that Jesus had been innocent unless it was triggered by an actual major event or some kind of intervention from the "Word".

Girard points out, as he is discussing the first lines of John, that the Logos (Christ) is shown as someone who is chased out of the world of men, who is not allowed a place, so the outsider position of the truth would seem to imply that the new insight, soon after the death of Jesus, must have been born out of a sudden "intervention" from outside into the experience and the minds of the disciples. This intervention is shown in the gospels as the resurrection and the following weeks up to Pentecost, but if it wasn't a physical event then what does it stand for? Girard makes it very clear that the idea of "a cheap juggling of life and death" is unacceptable and mythical, but at least in Things Hidden he never addresses the issue of what the resurrection stories actually refer to as other than literature. Strausszek (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mimetic desire: simply the model-obstacle
To make it short and simple.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mimetic-desire

Takima (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

James G Frazer?
Rather astonishing that this subject could be discussed without any reference to James G Frazer IMHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.178.171 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he makes many references to Frazer when discussing sacrifice and primitive religions in his seventies books; he uses some of Frazer's material and claims JGF was on to important things but dismisses him as naive as per his theoretical framework - a criticism also made by many other people in comparative religion, e.g. Mary Douglas. There is a link to Frazer, but it's difficult to describe it clearly here under WP norms without falling either into plagiarism of RG, into vagueness (when Girard criticizes other scholars he is sometimes more swaggering than in-depth clarifying) or into what some people would regard as WP synthesis.Strausszek (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NYT obit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/arts/international/rene-girard-french-theorist-of-the-social-sciences-dies-at-91.html -hugeTim (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on René Girard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429013257/http://www.unipd.it/en/area/area-51.htm to http://www.unipd.it/en/area/area-51.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214123114/http://www.gf.org/gfellow.html to http://www.gf.org/gfellow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on René Girard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074007/http://girardianlectionary.net/covr2004/garrelspaper.pdf to http://girardianlectionary.net/covr2004/garrelspaper.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074008/http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/cont/pdf/Cont.%2012-13%20Garrels%2047-86.pdf to http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/cont/pdf/Cont.%2012-13%20Garrels%2047-86.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119161211/http://mimetictheory.net/bios/articles/Anspach_UNESCO.pdf to http://www.mimetictheory.net/bios/articles/Anspach_UNESCO.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074008/http://web.ustpaul.uottawa.ca/covr2006/Document/RebeccaGirard.pdf to http://web.ustpaul.uottawa.ca/covr2006/Document/RebeccaGirard.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074007/http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/bulletin/Bulletin_26.pdf to http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/bulletin/Bulletin_26.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517200619/http://www.french-ital.ucsb.edu/substance/ to http://www.french-ital.ucsb.edu/substance/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003122417/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/apocalypse-now to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/apocalypse-now
 * Added tag to http://library.ispso.org/library/how-scapegoat-leader%E2%80%A8-refresher-course-those-who-do-not-need-it
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102225719/http://linguaromana.byu.edu/trevor6.html to http://linguaromana.byu.edu/trevor6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074008/http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Girard_Christology.pdf to http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Girard_Christology.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074009/http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Plato_Girard.pdf to http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Plato_Girard.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074011/http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Patillo_Ellul_Girard.pdf to http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Patillo_Ellul_Girard.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling mistake
"Les immortals" should be "Les immortels".

Ken McAloon 2601:19D:400:6B50:3426:C3BA:6377:4D88 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This is one of Wikipedia's best articles
In my sincere view, this article is really well done considering the large contribution of so many different people. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section may need new revising
Under the "Non-mimetic desires" section, the sentence "In Girard's defence on the other hand, Jean-Michel Oughourlian exemplifies the situation by noting that "one homosexual admitted to me that he just wanted to be somebody else,"' is uncited and seems entirely irrelevant without the source text to give context. And at any rate, an anonymous claim from "one homosexual" is not a counter-argument.

Additionally, the "Beneficial imitation" section needs its tenses changed, since Girard passed away several years ago.

I'd consider making these changes myself, but I'm not familiar with the source material, and this is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia. Fibinock (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits miss the point
Im tired of guarding this page, so I'm not going to change anything, but I really think that the edits that changed most of the first few introductory paragraphs miss the point of Girard's thought and instead introduce concepts from psychology that read into what Girard was saying, and then present what he never thought or argued. Girard didn't believe that mimicry is incidental to the pursuit of material things, he believed that the mimicry is the end goal itself. He didn't think it made any sense for a person to desire a car in and of itself - they desire the car because they want the life of the person they imagine they would be - relative to other people - while owning the car, which Girard believed had to have been perceived at some level of someone else.

It isn't that mimetic reciprocity is about learning what to desire, it's that even desire itself is copied from observation of the state of being of the one being mimicked. He didn't believe merely that the two subjects would get into conflict over their rivalry over a particular object, especially such an object is rare, he believed that the two are almost inevitable to get into conflict because the person being copied is invariably in a position of greater power and status, and since the pursuit isn't actually about the object, the desire of the other person will either assume their position or higher or will be defeated, or the two will blame someone else, as an alternative to the peaceful resolution doesn't exist even if the second subject were to take the object of their desire - unless the first subject dies or loses their status, the copier will continue desiring the life of the person being emulated.

This was his way of understanding particularly why the most closely related groups hate eachother the most - Irish Protestants vs Catholics, Serbs v Croats, Russians v Ukrainians, French Canadians vs English Canadians, etc. His conclusion was that because they are fundamentally identical, they have to create an oppositional identity for themselves in order to somehow separate from their double - by scapegoating or demonizing the other identity for everything wrong in their lives. And long after the conflict is over and the seeming substance of the issue in dispute, say some piece of territory, is resolved, you can see that the object wasn't in fact what was actually causing the conflict since the conflict invariably perpetuates and continues and simply switches its causes and reasons.

Historiaantiqua (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As is often the case when replying to academics like Girard, it appears that the "missed point" is more to the point than the point itself. 64.85.227.176 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)