The Raven Foundation Revisited

Back in 2008, I wrote a post about a new (then) site that focused on mimesis, mimetic rivalry and Girard’s theory called The Raven Foundation.  By (divers and sundry) happenstance  I found myself there again tonight. 

My how they’ve grown!!!

There is so much information there for anyone interested in learning about mimetic rivalry.  There are a lot of links at the top of the page.  Hover over and a drop down list appears with a plethora of links to blogs, movie reviews, events, online study guides that all deal with Girard’s theory of mimesis, mimetic rivalry and scapegoating.  The focus is on how an understanding of mimetic rivalry can further the cause of peace on earth, goodwill to men. 

It really is worth a visit….but if you explore even a few of the many resources available there.  plan to stay awhile.

Oh and a side note…in my original blog post….several years ago, I linked to an article called Girard For Dummies.  It is now a dead link and unfortunately, I can’t find the article anywhere else online. 

No Clean Hands – about this world domination thing….

It is not Islam that is the problem.  It is not Christianity that is the problem.  The problem is the carnal mind/egoic mind or in Islam…the nafs… that perverts and selfishly tries to make itself the king of the universe. The egoic mind with its propensity to covet what the other guy has.  And “other” is the key word there.  The carnal mind is oh so ready to deem someone “other.”  Not one of us.  One of “them”…ewwwwww.  And once someone is so deemed it is infinitely easier to distance ourselves from their humanity.  Which is one short step away from declaring them not only “other” but also “enemy.”  Running late….more to come….

Interview with Rene' Girard....

I digress...again.  This morning I followed a link on someone's facebook page to a you tube video of John Dominic Crossan discussing the differences between literalism and fundamentalism.  From there I clicked on some of the you tube videos in the side bar...always an eclectic mix there....and eventually ended up at a site called Fora TV.  I watched an interview with Rene' Girard....a recent interview that mentions text from his most recent book, Battling to the End.

He is difficult to listen to because of his strong French accent. I think that may be the reason his books are difficult to read.  They begin if French and are translated to English so they sometimes seem a bit stilted or awkwardly phrased.  I have gotten a lot more clarity from the writings of those who write about the anthropological discovery of Girard....mimesis and mimetic rivalry that leads to scapegoating. 

And Girard seems to be a "glass half empty" kind of guy too. He seems to have a pessimistic view of how it will all eventually work out.  In the interview he says:

Mankind has the truth and the reality of Christianity....and the truth has been there for 2000 years, but instead of moving ahead and becoming more widespread it is becoming more restricted.  Christianity is less and less popular every day.  It is accused of all sorts of things that smell very much like a scapegoating process.

He does not focus on positive mimesis which seems to me might work just as well as the negative.  Since we are mimetic creatures....born with this propensity to unconsciously copy the desires of others...it  enables us to participate in positive mimesis. 

I have read several articles that focus on the positive....and plan to write about it.  It is in the queue.

There was nothing really nothing startlingly new in this interview.  He pointed out that people not only imitate each other in their desires, but that they imitate each other in their dislikes and their feelings.  So when one member of a community caught in the throes of escalating violence caused by mimetic rivalry identifies one they feel is guilty of causing the crisis, it can spread quickly among the community.  It finally reaches a point where the community unanimously selects and converges on the scapegoat who  must be killed, banished or gotten rid of in some way. 

He also pointed out that even though in the ancient world the objects of desire were different, the structure of desire, the triangular relationship of desire object, model, subject are the same today. As is so rightly penned in Ecclesiastes which also seems to take a pessimistic view of thing...

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Back to the spiritual side of Islam and the Quran...soon.....

Still More - Scapegoating....

At the close of my last post I mentioned that many cultures and religions were started by a "founding murder" and I listed several examples.  If you are interested you can google any of them and get more information...

The articles I have been relying on to help solidify some of the thoughts in the churner from the far and wide, now and then, here and there reading I have been doing about Girard for the past few years talks about a specific example written by Gil Bailie:

Scapegoats then found, preserve, and unify culture. Countless examples can be found in antiquity; a graphic illustration is provided by Bailie’s in his examination of the decline of the Aztec God-king
Quetzacoatl, the feathered serpent whose reign ended soon after the arrival of a stranger (the god
Tezcatlipoca). “Like the Greek God Dionysus, the flamboyant behaviour of this strange and fascinating man plunged the society into social chaos. Eventually he was slain by the very crowd that had found him so intriguing (sounds familiar), a slaying that coincided with such a restoration of religious awe and social harmony that it was obvious to everyone that the one they had slain must have been a god. A cult dedicated to him arose and on its altars regular human sacrifices were offered.

Note that there are similarities there between Tezcatlipoca and Jesus....

The article goes on to tell more about the myth of Tezcatlipoca....how people followed him like a pied piper to the river  where they converged on a bridge....which collapsed under their weight

“Like a bacchalian pied piper... Tezcatlipoca led his revellers out to the river. So great was the throng that the bridge collapsed under the weight and many people fell and were turned to stone.”

This is supposedly a mythical cover up for mob violence....

As Bailie notes, people who fall from a collapsing bridge don’t turn to stone. They are drowned or
crushed. “In many primitive societies, the most typical form of spontaneous violence involves the throwing of stones. Stones fly and people fall dead. When the mythological mind recollects the frenzy of a full-blown violent crisis, it muses (filters, enchants). Evidence of mob violence doesn’t always disappear, for if the myth is to serve as the ‘sound-track’ for future sacrificial re-enactments, these hints of violence cannot be altogether erased.”

After a number of incidents like the collapse of the bridge, the myth tells us that Tezcatlipoca spoke
to the community, now little more than a frantic mob, and tells them that to avoid future disasters
such as these, they should stone him to death (and they did). It was his presence he explains that caused such death and confusion. “Except in myth, people don’t ask to be stoned to death. In retrospect, the stoning of Tezcatlipoca would have been understood as having the god’s own warrant, for it is only in retrospect that the sudden peace that accompanied his murder had to be accounted for, and gods don’t die at the hands of mortals unless they want to.”(very prophetic)

Very prophetic, indeed.  In an article written by Mark Heim he asks the question:

Is Christ’s death unique? It is not, since it is crucial to the saving "work" of the cross to recognize that Jesus’ death is precisely the same as that of so many other victims. And yet by virtue of this identification it is unique because it is the one of all these deaths that have been happening from the foundation of the world that irreversibly shows us the sin in which we are every-where enmeshed and in which God has acted on the side of the victims.

So according to Heim, the circumstances of the crucifixion have to demonstrate all the major points of the scapegoating process so that we can easily identify them....so God, through Jesus, can finally repudiate this kind of sacrifice. In that way, the crucifixion is not unique.  In my next post, I will write more about the crucifixion and how Jesus mirrors other scapegoated victims down through the ages.  As Heim points out, it is imperitve that we make the connection...beyond any doubt....so that God can condemn the whole sordid process...... 

More tomorrow.....

More on Scapegoating....

I have been rereading many articles I have saved on my computer and in my bookmarks/favorites to help me write this series. 

I want to highlight (and urge you to read in their entirety) The Theory of Rene Girard and its Theological Implications - Part I

and Part II  both written by Rob Moore.

These writings provide an excellent explanation about mimetic rivalry and scapegoating.  My special thanks to Mr. Moore for providing so much food for thought through his research, his quotes and his own insights. 

They can be found at a site called kyrie.com self described as

a site for those who seek to remain in that space between the outer and inner life, between being active and contemplative, and to find, in the words of Thomas Merton, how "we can become what we already are".

Now some of my muddled thoughts....

Scapegoating has been going on since the dawn of time, in all cultures, all over the world.  It is hidden in the founding myths that describe the origin of cultures, societies and religions.  In a nutshell (even though I am very good at this nutshell stuff) A group of people living together fall into mimetic rivalry...which escalates to the apocalyptic "all against all" situation.  When mimetic rivalry reaches this fever pitch it becomes metaphysical and the participants usually don't even remember what the original rivalry was about.  Think of long standing feuds...between countries, between sports teams, between families.  Sort of the Hatfield's and McCoy's thing. 

Even animals have a form of mimetic rivalry referred to as animal mimicry which is also acquisitive and follows a pattern very similar to the human variety, however, animals have a built in "braking mechanism" that prevents the "group destroying violence." In animals, the rivalry usually stays at the level of competing for the coveted object and does not become metaphysical the way it does in humans (as I mentioned in the example above where the object that was the original cause of the rivalry has long since been forgotten)  In the animal kingdom, the weaker animal usually submits to the stronger animal and the conflict ends there....not contaminating the relationships of the rest of the group (pack).

So, in humans, when violence has reached the point where the survival of the group is threatened, the all against all becomes all against one. The angry mob focuses their murderous rivalry on a victim...one who is different or weak....someone they can blame for the escalation of violence and calamity and all the problems they are facing (including their sense of guilt and shame.)  Then they vent their collective displaced anger on the innocent (or not nearly as guilty as presumed) victim. 

Or as James Fredericks in the Cross and the Begging Bowl words it:

“By organizing retributive violence into a united front against an enemy common to all the rivals, either an external enemy or a member of the community symbolically designated as an enemy, violence itself is transformed into a socially constructive force.”

Or as Girard says:

All the rancors scattered at random among the divergent individuals, all the differing antagonisms, now converge on an isolated and unique figure, the surrogate victim.”

  

       

(From the Missouri State University Department of History website)

The surrogate victim can be an outsider (from a different clan/race/geographic location).  Or someone from within the community that is different (deformed/mentally ill/poor) or one that is especially valued and often the object of rivalry (Virgins...as in the poor unlucky victims tossed in the flames to the volcano god, or animals vital to the survival of the society....as in spotless lambs and red heifers.)

(From the Missouri State University Department of History website)

So again...to avert the destruction of the "all against all," the "all" diffuses their anger and frustration on "one"...one who becomes the victim of the all.  Since the violence against the one is usually unanimously agreed upon by the all, it is a form of sanctioned violence.  And it works!! 

As if by magic, their rage dissipates....and there is cohesion in the crowd. 

It is at this point, after the fact, the angry crowd suddenly realizes there is comradery and goodwill...replacing the anger and division that was present before the sacrifice.  They are awed and conclude that the victim must surely have been supernatural, a god of sorts, if his sacrifice and death could bring calm where before there was so much chaos. So they immortalize the victim, turn him into a god and hide the violence with a myth.  There are countless examples of this down through the ages.

After originally discovering mimetic rivalry in  great and enduring literature...the classics... Girard went on to study the creation stories of ancient societies and religions. In their myths, he found evidence of the scapegoat mechanism as the birth of the society/religion/culture, however, the founding murder and violence is often disguised and glossed over and hidden.

As Gil Bailie has written:

Myth then remembers discretely and selectively; the violence inflicted upon the scapegoat remains hidden.

Examples of these founding myths abound....and Girard discusses some of these examples in his book "I See Satan Fall Like Lightening." We did a book study several years ago on the Beautiful Heresy message board on this book.  Some of his examples include:

• Sumerian mythology – cultural institutions emerge from a single  victim (Ea, Tiamat, Kungu)
• India – the dismemberment of Purusha by the mob offering sacrifices (and if I remember correctly from reading the book...the distribution of her body parts) produced the caste system
• Similar myths in Egypt, China and the Germanic people

And there are many others.  One in particular is discussed in the article I mentioned in the beginning of this post.  More on that tomorrow......

Girard and the Bible

Once upon a time....a long, long time ago...before I got sick...and before we headed off on vacation, I started a series of posts about Girard's theory of mimesis, our inborn propensity to mimic the desires of others, the resulting mimetic rivalry that eventually leads to scapegoating and the Bible's progressive revelation of the whole sordid mess...

The purpose of this series of posts is not to point out that because of mimesis we're pretty much screwed (although Girard does think that left unchecked there is that possibility) but rather to focus on the solution found within the pages of scripture. I came across an article...who knows when, that I had saved on my computer. It is called

Prayer Unbinding Desire, The Meditation Teaching and Practice of John Main by Stuart Sandberg

For Girard the Bible provides a unique source for revealing the victimage systems that are ordinarily hidden in religion and culture. He discusses Abraham not sacrificing Isaac, the story of Joseph and his brothers, Solomon’s wisdom in determining the mother of the baby, the Psalms in which the victim finds a voice, the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah, Job and most clearly in what the Gospels and the New Testament reveal: the reversal of the ordinary justification of violence against the victim. While the God of sacrificial religion, who imitates human violence in vengeance and punishment, also appears in the Bible, Girard describes it as a “text in travail.”

One of the definitions of travail is the "effort and pain of childbirth." I'm not sure exactly what Girard means by text in travail...but it occurs to me that the progressive revelation of the scriptures is a lot like childbirth. Scripture seems to be in the throes of a birthing process from Genesis to Revelation.

The revelation that God is not on the side of the crowd that crucifies Jesus but is the one who is crucified only comes to consciousness in the Bible as in human history with the same difficulty that it comes to consciousness in us.

The article also states that:

Based on his study of literature, anthropology, and the Bible, Girard exposes a universal structure in which a subject imitates the desire of a model or mediator and becomes a rival with him for the desired object. The more models of desire become shifting rivals, obstacles and objects of desire themselves, they create the attraction and repulsion that has come to be known as a double bind. Awareness of this mechanism is not enough to stop it, or to raise one’s level of consciousness, but it might lead to asking what will.

And what will stop this mechanism?

Near the end of Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, Girard recommends Jesus and the Gospels as an alternative model for “the prisoners of violent imitation”.

In the Gospels, 87 times Jesus bids us, "Follow me" and Paul urges us to imitate him as he imitates Christ Jesus. The idea being that we will imitate someone, it is inborn in us, but if we imitate Jesus we find no "push back" from him....no rivalry, no competition. There is no resentment or hostility in Jesus so he does not generate rivalry in those who imitate him. It is what Girard refers to as “good mimesis.”

Obviously, there is more to it than "imitating" Jesus. It is putting on the mind of Christ....putting on the new man. Scripture says that we HAVE the mind of Christ and that our old man WAS crucified. The old man who grows corrupt with deceitful lusts (aka in the Greek.... desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust) is dead.

I will close this post with a snippet from The Girard Reader

"Mimetic desire is also the desire for God.”

More to follow....

Mimesis in a Nutshell….

Okay...so a week or so ago, I posed the question....Church?  Good or bad?  And followed up with several posts on fundamentalism. 

The next few posts, while related to the church question... will also touch on something I haven't really talked about for a while.  Mimesis...mimetic rivalry and scapegoating. Even though it was one of the founding topics on my blog, I haven't written much about it lately. For a bit of background, check out this series of posts if you aren't familiar with mimesis. 

And..to put it in a (very small) nutshell, mimesis is an unconscious form of imitation.  Mimesis is inborn in all of us. It is similar to imitation…but not exactly.  Imitation is something we do consciously...and it is more or less a neutral morally and is, in fact,   a vital part of growing up...babies learn to talk, walk, behave through imitation. But mimesis is the shadow side of imitation.  We take on the desires of others...without thinking...like a reflex.  Mimesis is something we do unconsciously...which is where the danger lies.  We are not aware of it.  The website "preaching peace" describes the process thusly:

Mimesis is best understood as desire passed from one individual to another. We do not simply imitate each other’s actions, attitudes and beliefs but more fundamentally we imitate one another’s desires.

We want what others have.  We want what others want. Sometimes we even want to "BE" what others ARE. The person we "catch" our desires from is called the model. This becomes a problem if there is a limited supply or if we perceive that there is a limited supply. We become rivals with those who possess what we desire.  We become angry and frustrated....

One of the best examples of mimetic rivalry that I've read is the one that goes...

Two kids in a room full of toys. Any toy in the hand of another child is infinitely more appealing than the plethora of toys scattered about the room.  This applies even if it is the shabbiest toy there. That one particular toy becomes the most appealing toy there, in fact, it becomes the only toy in the room worth playing with.  All other toys pale in comparison to this particular toy. Any one who has spent any time with kids can relate to this. They can also relate to the inevitable fight that it causes. It is lack...or a perception of lack...that turns mimesis into rivalry...which sets up the whole scapegoating process. 

           

The scapegoating process itself is even more elusive and difficult to explain simply because we all do it but we don't/can't see it and we won't/can't acknowledge it.  Probably in its simplest terms, we take our pent up anger and frustration…the result of all the unfulfilled desires and ,singly or more often, collectively vent it on an innocent (or not nearly as guilty as presumed) victim. This not only promotes camaraderie between everyone but the victim....it diffuses everyone's anger.  It is a "safety valve." We see it on a small scale in our interpersonal relationships and on a much larger, grander scale...in society at large. 

Every time I try to explain mimetic rivalry, I feel like I have done a woefully inadequate job.  Fortunately, there are about a zillion resources on the internet. Check some of them out if you need more clarity... There are a few in the side bar in the links section....some in the posts I've written...and of course, as always, a seemingly endless supply on google. 

One more thing I should add is that Rene' Girard, the guy who is credited with "discovering mimetic rivalry" which pervades all facets of culture including religion...perhaps especially religion...feels that the Bible is the only holy book that exposes the sacred myth of the scapegoat.  From Genesis to Revelation, it becomes clearer and clearer with each book of the Bible...with each progressive chapter...with the turning of each page.  And it not only exposes it, it provides an answer to the problem.  The answer?  Have this mind in you that was also in Christ Jesus.  Put on the mind of Christ.  More on that in my next post……

A Toss Up....

I've got ideas for several new series rattling around in my brain. Granted, I have more (half baked) ideas than I can keep track of whizzing around in there....but several that have congealed into a theme. I've come up with a mental outline of a succession of posts written around a somewhat vague central theme....intended to get a point across.

Okay...hold on...who am I kidding here? The "point" I am trying to get across is oft times a work in progress that kind of morphs as I write. But "it's all good" because I learn as I write...and hopefully those who graciously visit this blog learn something too.

So right now it's a toss up between a series on "mystic mimesis" about how mimesis does not always have to turn to rivalry. The trick is to take on the desires of our heavenly Father and imitate him...and not each other, which only leads to grief. I've come across several very thought provoking writings which birthed quite a few ideas for posts.

The other notion was born when I read a blog post by Greg Boyd reviewing Eckhart Tolle's book, A New Earth. (yes, I really like Greg Boyd and am ever so grateful to him for providing so many ideas for me to write about here on my blog) He had some positive things to say about the book...and some negative things to say.. Some of it I agreed with, other stuff I did not. He also expressed what he considered crucial, deal breaking differences in what Tolle teaches and the edicts of Christ.

Boyd suggested two Christian authors whose teachings are a "Christ-centered way of learning how to live "in the present moment".... Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach’s Practicing His Presence and/or J. De Caussade’s The Sacrament of the Present Moment. I researched those two authors on google (and actually read Brother Lawrence) and came up with ideas within ideas...likeminded quotes and plenty of thoughts to morph into what is hopefully a "point" to get across.

It's after ten. I'm tired. I am going to post this and toddle off to bed. Perhaps tomorrow I will flip a coin to see which series to write about. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I would certainly welcome any and all.....g'night.....

Jesus is our Model...the OTHER other....

Perhaps my last post about mimesis in Ephesians was “putting the horse before the apple cart.” I mentioned what Paul had to say about mimesis…and how he proclaimed himself as a model for those living in his era…and for the rest of us down through the ages. Imitate me…as I imitate Christ. Mimesis is inborn…it is in you…you will pick a model whose desires you will take on as your own…so choose to imitate me….as I imitate Christ. Choose, as James Allison refers to him, the OTHER other.

Jesus, of course, knew all about mimetic rivalry and scapegoating and it was, in part, what he came to save us from. He “knew what was in man”…..our mimetic nature and our egoic mind, oozing with the travails of the pain body…which has been passed down from the time of Adam, not only individually but also corporately. But also dwelling within us…. the Christ nature…the light that lights every man that comes into the world…...the nature of our Father…whom Jesus perfectly represented and demonstrated for us….for all the world to see.

As Girard emphasizes, the Bible is the only sacred writing that points a finger at mimetic rivalry and scapegoating. Obliquely in the Old Testament…..with more clarity in the New after the veil had been rent and Jesus had played out the drama of the innocent scapegoat right before our very eyes. Once you begin to look for it in scripture you can find it everywhere. The Bible exposes. Other sacred writings are part of the cover up. And the Gospels, probably more than any other part of the Bible, addresses humanity’s ugly little secret….our need to vent our individual and collective displaced anger on an innocent (or not nearly as guilty as presumed) victim…and then cover it up (even in our own minds) as a justified and oftentimes sacred act.

Jesus came to set us free. His life was an example of the way to live non-violently….the way to overcome our rivalrous natures……

"For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. John 13:15

Jesus often said, "Follow me."  I read somewhere the exact number of times he entreated people to follow him in the Gospels....but I'll be darned if I can find it now...even on google.  He said it a lot though...and I think he meant it as an all around do as I say, do as I do kind of thing.  From the Amplified...both from Matthew:

4:19 And He said to them, Come  after Me [as disciples--letting Me be your Guide], follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men!

16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to be My disciple, let him deny himself [disregard, lose sight of, and forget himself and his own interests] and take up his cross and follow Me [cleave steadfastly to Me, conform wholly to My example in living and, if need be, in dying, also].

Mimesis in Ephesians

As I mentioned in my last post, I have been doing most of my reading lately at the gym…and I’ve read through Galatian, Ephesians and Philippians…and read through them again. As I read scripture, I now take note of the themes of the christ within, the egoic mind/carnal man and one of the slyest tricks of the ego…mimesis and it’s black sheep twin…mimetic rivalry.

When I came upon Rene Girard a year or so ago…and his theory of mimetic rivalry and scapegoating, it shed so much light on the Bible, the crucifixion, the atonement, the nature of conflict and sacrifice. However, I know that Girard’s theory is not the whole enchilada. It is only a facet of our cunning egoic nature and an example of its determination to set clear cut boundaries between who is the “other” and who is “me.” The ego has to have another in order to strengthen itself. It prefers an other who is also an enemy.

Girard claims that we are mimetic creatures and that born within us is the inescapable tendency to imitate others. Jesus knew this (and this was, in fact, one of the reasons he came to dwell among us). Paul knew this and addresses mimesis in many of his writings. In Ephesians, the following verses stood out as Paul’s acknowledgement of the mimetic process and our need to imitate.

Ephesians 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.

The ESV even uses the world rivalry….and points out the ulterior motives of others who are preaching the gospel.

2:3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,

And the admonishment to be aware of our motivations…to do nothing from rivalry (there’s that word again) and to have the mind of Christ.

3: 17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. 18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.

And the solution? (at least until deliverance comes in the form of a heart change…regeneration) imitate Paul and those who walk according the example he sets. If you have this inborn predisposition to imitate….well, then imitate Christ….make Christ your model.

Not The Whole Puzzle II

When Keith and I used to talk about Girard....back when EU was doing the book study on "I See Satan Fall Like Lightening" and on the list we were all very caught up in the implications of Girard's theory...past, present and future--Keith used to say that he didn't doubt the theory played out in terms of human behavior but that Girard was missing something.  Those may not have been his exact words, but they convey the gist of his meaning.  And what was missing was more of a spiritual thing....although there definitely are spiritual elements involved in Girard's theory.  The Paraclete (holy spirit/spirit of truth) plays a huge role. 

 In an article with excerpts from Rene Girard's essay "Satan" the Girardian Lectionary points out that....

....... he (Jesus) is called the first Paraclete. After he is gone, a second Paraclete will continue his work.

 

From Wikipedia

Rene Girard, a Christian anthropologist / philosopher, argues that Paraclete ought to be translated as the Defense Attorney who is defending human beings against the assaults of Satan (the Prosecuting Attorney, the Accuser, the fomenter of violence). See Girard's book, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, pages 189-90, for his argument.

 

And an excerpt from the Girardian interpretation of the Lectionary reading for John 14:15-21, Preaching Peace says:

Jesus commands positive mimesis, the mimesis of love.

How? By coming to us, each of us and all of us, as our model, our teacher, our guide. He does this in the sending of another just like himself, a counselor, a defense attorney, an advisor, a friend, a mentor. We not were not left bereft, nor forlorn and abandoned, we were given the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Jesus. We hear his voice, he is our good shepherd. We ‘see’ him, we factor Jesus and the Spirit into our ‘theories’ (our seeing, our perspectives).

So there is definitely a pronounced spiritual aspect in Girard's teachings.  Girard also claims that the Bible is the only holy writing that reveals mimetic rivalry and the resulting scapegoating mechanism at work.  It illuminates and reveals more and more from Old Testament to New Testament...but with revelations and hints included from the earliest writings in Genesis right on through.  There are Girardian aspects to the story of the fall in the Garden, Cain and Abel, Cain's founding of the first city etc. etc. etc.  But sometimes there is a "two steps forward, one step back" progression.

But still......Girard is only a piece of the puzzle..a very big piece...but not the entirety of the puzzle.  I was reminded of this in my early morning web findings (at about 6 am) in the preface to an unpublished series of articles from 1995 called "You Have It Coming: Good Punishment. The Legitimate Social Function of Punitive Behavior" by John Howard Yoder. 

As the reader will soon see, much of the learning process to which these pages testify was sparked by the work of Rene Girard. I am grateful for Girard's most creative contribution to the field of study, and for his impetus to my own search, although I have had to conclude that the effort of some of his admirers to make of his analyses something like an einsteinian "general field theory," capable of explaining everything, has done a disservice to Girard by overreaching.(6) I have therefore felt free to liberate some of the sections of what follows from needing always to dialogue with the Girardians, as some of the paragraphs drafted earlier did.

And in the foot notes Yoder writes:

6. He (Girard) himself denies that claim. He disavows the intention to provide "a reductive notion" or "a rigid mold into which to fit the diversity of forms." Cf. Hamerton Kelly pp. 106-111. Girard uses his own tools very freely and confidently over a wide variety of themes, but he disavows the claim, which some of his devotees seem to assume, that they explain everything.

I will provide links below to the articles in this series.  Very scholarly writing....but just in case anyone is interested....

 

CHAPTER I: DURKHEIM: IN GOD'S NAME OR IN OURS.

CHAPTER II: ANTISTHENES: THE CULTURAL IMPERATIVE OF LÈSE-MAJESTÉ.

CHAPTER III: AFTER ANTISTHENES:

CHAPTER IV: THE POWER OF INNOCENT SUFFERING

CHAPTER V: WITH AND BEYOND GIRARD

CHAPTER VI: MOTHER KNOWS BEST

CHAPTER VII: THE OLD MAN MUST GO

CHAPTER VIII: EMPOWERMENT

CHAPTER IX: ENTERING A NEW AGE

CHAPTER X: FURTHER AGENDA IN THE GIRARDIAN SYSTEM

CHAPTER XI: BACK TO THE REST OF SOCIOLOGY

CHAPTER XII: WHAT THEN SHOULD THE OLD MAN DO?

CHAPTER XIII: JESUS IN RELATION TO THE "SOCRATES" SECTION

 

You can find more of John Yoder's writings at his page on the Notre Dame website

Girardian Widgets....

Note - 3/15/10 The links in this post are "broken." I've googled the articles and can't find them on the internet. I am leaving the post however because of the quotes I took from one of the articles. I guess that is the nature of blogging. People "up and move" on you...taking their stuff with them. *****

Yesterday I mentioned Phillip Hunt's site. Following are a few of his writings that pertain to mimesis/mimetic rivalry. Did I mention he lives in Australia? That explains the focus on topics like...oh, a cricket match or how Girardian theory applies to the founding of Australia. Following is a list of some of his writings....

Why Cricket's Stumped

Applying the Girardian Hypothesis to crowd misbehaviour at One Day Cricket Matches. Written for 'The Age' in January 2002

Zadok: Violence & The Scapegoat

A summary of the Girardian hypothesis, commissioned by Zadok magazine after I spoke along these lines at the Prophet's Pulpit in Fitzroy, Melbourne. Written in October 2001. This is the longer, unedited version which I think is a bit easier to follow.

Borrowed Desire and Blame In The Office

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to blame in the office. Written in October 2001 for the Spirituality, Leadership and Management Conference.

Cultural Blindness

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to our responses to the September 11 events. Written in September 2001

We Can't We Leave Our Racism At The Door?

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to Australia's treatment of asylum seekers and the issue of racism. Written in August 2001

Israel & Palestine

Applying trhe Girardian hypothesis to the Middle East tensions, and proposing the way of revolutionary forgiveness and peace making as a way forward. Written in August 2001

Something Strange About Refugees

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to the scapegoating of refugees in Australia. Written in July 2001

The Scapegoater's Fate

Applying the Girardian Hypothesis to Milosevic and the Balkans conflict. Written for 'The Age' in July 2001

Myth and the Media

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to media reporting of international events, spin doctors and myth. Written in June 2001 for the MEDIAting Globalisation conference

The Meaning of Football

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to Australian Rules Football and its machinations. Written for 'The Age' in May 2001

Which Day Makes Australia Truly Great?

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to the founding of Australia. Published in 'The Age' in May 2001

The Myth of Violence

Applying the Girardian hypothesis to "religious" murders in Indonesia. Published in 'The Age' in Jan 2001

I gleaned a lot of insights from the article about mimesis in the office. How about this snippet of insight:

The ultimate office tool for scapegoating is blame. This is also an ancient ritual. God discovers a missing apple and asks Adam. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the Serpent.

Following is a paragraph that I thought captured the gist of mimetic rivalry brilliantly...

If I have a nice shiny and unique widget and my desire for it awakes a similar desire in you, we have a problem. Two desires. One widget. In fact, of course, you have the bigger problem than me, since I have the widget and you don't. I am flattered by your desire for my widget, and indeed it increases my own desire for it, since I borrow some of your desire. But I am also going to be more protective of my widget now, because your desire for it has increased my desire to keep it. But what if your desire is very strong. Soon there is going to be a fight.

Girard For Dummies...

I am on a "Girardian" list on ecu.net. I came across the rather scholarly list when Girard's teachings were a major focus for me and the group I hang out with in cyberspace. We even did a book study together on one of Rene' Girard's books. Brian, a friend from cyberspace, hosted the study on his message board, The Beautiful Heresy. You can find the thread, I See Satan Fall clear at the bottom of the page under Book Studies.

I am not sure how mimesis/mimetic rivalry fits together with "awakening" kind of teachings. Clearly, mimetic rivalry seems to be part of the egoic mind. Yet, it seems that mimesis is deeply ingrained in our beings for a purpose...be it the fleshly, the soulish or the spiritual part of us....I don't know for sure. Could mimesis be a path to awakening? Perhaps. I don't have it all figured out yet (and probably never will) but I will continue to ponder.

So anyway...the link on the scholarly Girardian list, led to the web site of an interesting guy from Australia...with many interests....all of which seem to be represented on his site. He has quite a few articles that he's written about mimesis/mimetic rivalry. Girard For Dummies was the article recommended on the list. (Note 3-7-10) The above link leads nowhere...but here is another link to a place called the Raven Foundation and a really good...concise, yet thorough..explanaiton of mimesis.

It is a bulleted list of one or two sentence facts, in a sequence, about mimesis which leads to rivalry. Some of the points he makes are:

• Humans are fundamentally imitating creatures. We imitate others. Girard argues that imitation (mimesis) is the most significant fundamental. It is how we learn and grow.

• We imitate the desires of other humans. We learn to desire (things, values etc) by imitating the desire of others. It is not merely that we desire the same things, it is that we imitate the desire. This is called mimetic desire.
• Mimetic Desire leads to rivalry (for the thing desired).
• Rivalry leads to conflict.
• Conflict leads to violence.
• Since we are essentially imitative creatures, we must ask whom we shall imitate? Whose desires shall we imitate? We are creatures who are constructed-by-another. Who will that other be?
• Is it the Father of Jesus Christ who makes us anew with peaceful and loving desire? Or is it the other of distorted desire which continues to enmesh us in pride, rivalry and scapegoating?

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Joshua 24:15 Choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

• This is what the phrase in our mission statement – to follow Jesus – truly means. To allow our desires to be shaped through living in Him.

There's more to the list...check it out and check out his site. I think I have one more post in the queue about his writing.....

The Telephone Game...

I recently joined a yahoo group which was formed around the teachings of Eckhart back when the Power of Now was in its hay day.  It is still active and discusses not only Eckhart Tolle but also similar teachings and teachers.  I like the group.  Recently someone compared the Bible to the telephone game.  You know where you have a line of people...you tell the first person in line a sentence and by the time it gets to the end of the line it has been distorted, added to and embellished.  So, he thought, was the case with scripture.  I wrote the following post in reply.

I am not your run of the mill Christian.  Nor do I have a run of the mill view of the Bible.  I don't think it is inerrant and in many places, I think it was written out of the egoic and not the spiritual nature of the authors.  The OT especially.  The sacrificial system....jihad....all of that.  But throughout there are snippets of enlightenment....which grow clearer and clearer until they finally reveal Jesus.  The Bible is the story of man trying to find God...and how he fumbles and messes up in the process....and totally misses him time and time again.  And isn't that sort of a corporate story of what we go through individually?  At least for most of us, spiritual awakening is a process.  Two steps forward, one step back. 

The Garden of Eden?  Eckhart uses that as a description of when the egoic nature took over and took precedence over our spiritual natures.  Pure genius in the Biblical description.  They ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...rather than the tree of life.  God put adam to sleep.  It says nowhere in the text that he woke him up again.  I find layer upon layer of wisdom in scripture.  Bring in the meanings of some of the words in the original languages....search out the hidden meanings of methaphors, cliches, similes, hyperbole and there is so much meaning that can be mined out in a course the spirit designs for us personally....just us.  A private class.  When the student is ready, the teacher will appear kind of thing. 

Another interesting thing about the scriptures came to light when I studied some of Rene Girard's work.  He was a French anthropologist, who, while studying famous literature and trying to discern what makes some works endure forever and others fade away quickly came upon what he coined as mimesis and mimetic rivalry.  A nutshell version is difficult...and I won't attempt it but info abounds on the internet.  It deals with the ugly little secret of mankind's predisposition to scapegoating, their need to sacrifice to appease their angry deities...and how this is all born out of the turmoil that occurs because we "catch" our desires from each other, and then as we compete for things that are in limited supply (not just material things but also things like fame, respect etc.)  mimesis turns into mimetic rivalry....which turns into violence.  A scapegoat, a victim upon which to lay all the blame is the safety valve which releases some of the pent up steam...literally sacrificed in times past but more commonly in today's world by shunning...prejudice etc. 

As I said, it is hard to describe in the scope of this post, but I found it to be a fascinating manifestation of the ego.  The ego at it's trickiest....so subtle we don't even know it is happening.  What does this have to do with the Bible?  Girard studied many ancient religions and holy writings and literature and he came to the conclusion that the Bible was the only one that progressively revealed this secret mankind so wants to sweep under the rug and not see.  Which is how the ego survives afterall. 

Once we shine the light of awareness on it, it loses its power.  Since scapegoating is still so prevalent and destructive even now (think war in Iraq and groups of people who are ostracized and discriminated against, think unrest in Israel where the mimetic struggle for a tiny strip of land has gone on for so very long, think about the dog eat dog world of corporate life, the cliques that form in schools.)  I think it all ties in with what Eckhart says about making another our enemy...a trick of the ego to strengthen itself. 

This post is getting long....so I will wrap it up with one last point.  I read the following quote (paraphrased because I read it a long time ago) on a message board.  It has stuck with me. 

"You can read it (the Bible) in the King James Version, the NIV, the Concordant Literal, the original Greek  but unless you read it "in the spirit" you will never hear Abba speak."  (Abba is the name Jesus coined for God which is a very personal form of the word for Father....sort of like papa) 

So for me personally, how do I weed out the stuff in scripture that is a result of the telephone game?  I know when I hear "Abba" speak, because the spirit within me stirs and I have the inner knowing that what I am reading is truth.  Like a baby in the womb who kicks, I get a spiritual kick from the holy spirit within (who Jesus promised would lead us into all truth) and I know that it is for me.  I don't just get that kick when I read the Bible... I get that same stirring when I read Eckhart and other similar authors.  I don't think that the Bible is the only way to God....to enlightenment.  Nor do  I think it is the only place where God's message to the world....to mankind can be found.  However, I don't think it should be discounted to those of us who hear the voice of Presence, Awareness....the voice of our Father recorded in the pages of scripture.  

The Binding of Isaac Revisited

During my cyber journeys this morning, I came upon a blog post called A Girardian Interpretation of Genesis 22:1-14 on a blog called Faynights. It looks like the last post was sometime in 2007 so it is not a currently updated blog. The post about the Binding of Isaac was written as an essay for the author's Hebrew class. It brought out a few Girardian points I have not seen mentioned anywhere else. Isn't it amazing what you can find on google!!!???

One of the points she brings concerns the knife referred to several times in the text:

As Abraham prepares to kill Isaac, the language used is not that of ritual but that of butchery. In his translation of the Pentateuch, Robert Alter points out that the word מאכלת, which is used throughout for the knife, usually refers to a cleaver used in butchering rather than a weapon used for sacrifice. Likewise, עקד (verse 9), while it does not appear elsewhere in the Old Testament, is used in rabbinic Hebrew to mean trussing the legs of animals, and שחט (verse 10) means not “sacrifice” but “slaughter.” 5 It is difficult to see the attempted killing as having the dignity of a divinely approved ritual when this brutal vocabulary is used.

Now that is interesting indeed, eh? Makes me think of comparisons of Scripture to an onion...layer upon layer upon layer. Or another way of looking at it is that the deeper we dig, the more we find.

Another interesting facet of the tale when examined from a Girardian perspective is that Isaac is identified as the victim/sacrifice and the text clearly stresses his innocence. Scapegoats are usually perceived as guilty of something...and in fact, it is because of the belief in their guilt that the whole thing works as a kind of catharsis for the mimetic rivalry that is threatening to erupt into the all against all scenario. In this essay she says:

Indeed, it may be to emphasize his innocence that the author depicts him as if he were a young child, even though the timescale of Genesis suggests he would have been an adult. Girard believes that this acknowledgement of the victim‘s innocence is the first step in dismantling the sacrificial process:

She also discusses the "name change" of God in the text. I think I discussed this in one of the posts in the "series." I originally got the idea from the Girardian Lectionary...which she also quotes in her essay. About this name change she says:

Another very significant change in vocabulary occurs when the angel saves Isaac. Up to this point, the word used for God has been אלהים. While often used in the Old Testament to mean the God of Israel, this is really a generic term that can refer to any god or goddess. Only when Isaac is rescued does the true name of God -- יהוה, “the Eternal” -- appear in the text.

She also discusses some very interesting thoughts about the ram that was caught in the thicket....things I have never pondered before. Why a ram? If Isaac is a "picture of Christ" as many believe, then why not a lamb...a sheep? Why a ram? A wild animal? And although it is thought astounding to many that the ram was caught in a thicket, in nature it happens often during mating season when they are in a mating frenzy. She says:

How did the ram come to be caught by its horns? This sort of accident is not uncommon among wild hoofed mammals during the battles of mating season. It usually happens either when the animal is ‘horning’ vegetation to intimidate a rival, or as it charges in a blind rage. An animal caught this way is doomed: it will either be killed by a predator or starve. 8 Could it be that the ram appears in the story, not to provide Abraham with a “surrogate victim" 9, but as another warning of the destructive effects of rivalry and violence?

There's that onion again...layer upon layer. Then she goes on to mention the name Abraham gives the mountain....not "God spared my son" but rather "The Eternal Sees." I have not checked this out in any other resource. I am taking her word for it. It does make sense...and what is it that the "Eternal Sees" that we don't yet...even still to this day? This whole mimetic rivalry thing...pent up anger...the need to find a scapegoat...a victim to hang all societies ills upon. We still scapegoat as surely as they did in ancient times. The ritual is different, less crude, perhaps more subtle and hidden, but the heart of it, the purpose is still the same.

Lastly, in the footnotes, she cites some sources that discuss the ram:

In her classic account of the wildlife of the American Southwest, The Land of Little Rain, Mary Austin describes finding the skeleton of a young ram with its horns still embedded in the trunk of a tree (p. 58). And Richard Despard Estes, an expert on the hoofed mammals of Africa, tells a true story that could just as well serve as a parable. Two fighting springboks found their horns inextricably locked; each spent the rest of its life face to face with its rival as they starved to death together (African Mammals, p. 83).

My sincere thanks and accolades to Laura Brown, the author of this essay. She brought out several points that peeled another layer off the onion. And my sincere thanks, as always, to google, for the many vistas it has opened for me....the information that came to me with the click of my mouse. Someone told me that yesterday was "shut it off" day...a challenge to turn off your computer for 24 hours to see if you could do it. Now why would I ever want to do such a thing??

Thinking Some More About This Old Testament Stuff....

Some of these recent posts (inspired by recent reading) have really got me thinking. Even though in the past, I have alluded to the belief that God had nothing to do with the violence in the OT. That can't quite be true because it is pretty obvious...if only by his inaction...that he did. In other words, even if he did not directly order the wars and pillaging and plundering, he let it all happen and is therefore responsible for it. Ultimately, the buck stops with God. I am musing here. What follows are random thoughts that are not refined...are not thought out. Much of this blog is made up of research and random thinking. I am on a journey, an exploration. Sometimes in determining what we do not believe, we come to find out what we do believe and hold it nearer and dearer to our hearts.

At this point, I do believe that something pivotal happened in the garden...or a very early part of our human journey began there. (There is the question of pre-existence...which cannot be tackled in this post...but might make a good series at some point in the future) When we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it began the process whereby we would become acquainted with evil and by which God would make us into his image and likeness. Girard thinks the fall had to do with mimesis...mimetic rivalry....when the serpent enticed Eve by telling her that God possessed something she did not...something that would open her eyes and make her like God and that he was trying to keep it for himself. She fell prey to mimetic rivalry and the whole scapegoating process began. Tolle believes that the fall took place when we acquired the ability to think and our thoughts overtook us and alienated us from God. Tolle's beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with Girard's. Did we have a choice in the garden? I don't know. Someone who used to post on some of the same forums as I did believed that we did have an element of choice, but that if mankind had not "fallen" in the garden, they would have fallen sooner or later.

Perhaps to take us from where we were after the fall to where God wants us to be (a process that is still taking place) mankind had to go through all the wars, the OT atrocities, the sacrificial system etc. But the flaw, the weakness, the propensity toward violence and mimetic rivalry, the vengeance etc. is in the heart of man, not in the heart of God. He endures with long suffering the vessels of wrath (us) fitted for destruction. Us.

It is still hard to reconcile the God we see in Jesus with the warrior God of the OT. Perhaps, like the God Quest site proclaims, satan was the one who handed down most of the commands in the Old Testament. I am thinking, perhaps, God allowed him the liberty to direct mankind for a while. He gave satan some slack in the leash he is on, similar to the slack God gave him when he tormented Job. Granted, God called satan's attention to Job and when "prompted" gave satan permission to torment Job. God did set clear limits on how far satan could go but did not specifically say just what those tortures and torments would entail.

Or perhaps it was just mankind's carnal nature that orchestrated most of the violence in the OT...with God coming to the rescue when they got themselves in too big of a bind to get out of.

Just musing here....lots of thoughts running through my mind...including the fact that it is time to make dinner.

It All Begins in the Garden

I think a very good case could be made for mimesis gone bad as the reason for the fall. The serpent entices Eve....whispering seductively..."did God really say?" "He knows that the day you eat thereof your eyes will be opened and you shall be like God. God has something he isn't willing to share with you, something he is trying to keep for himself. Something you can't have!! "And then Adam "caught" his desire from her. And acquisitive mimesis was born.

I've heard people question why God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden to begin with. Perhaps it is symbolic of mimesis. (JUST musing here...this is all hot of the press ponderings) Mimesis is necessary for us to learn to do all the things we need to learn to grow from a baby to a full grown adult. It is by mimicking others (our parents, grandparents, siblings) that we learn to talk and eat and all the other eccentricities that form our cultures. If the tree of good and evil is symbolic for mimesis, God couldn't have "left it out of the Garden." I'm not sure how that fits with the Tree of Life...will have to ponder that a bit more.

So anyway, mimetic rivalry may very well have begun in the Garden and we all know "the rest of the story" (Thanks, Paul Harvey)

More to follow.....

A Girardian Look at the Old Testament

In my meanderings and web journeys and here and there and everywhere surfing, I came across an article written by John Hemer called Violence and the Bible. It is from a series of post Easter talks and it takes a look at the violence we see in the Bible from a Girardian perspective...especially the violence in the Old Testament.

He starts by pointing out:

There are in the OT roughly three hundred passages which talk of people doing violence to each other, either a report or a threat or a command, or a lament. There are roughly a thousand passages which talk of God’s violence or wrath; either a report of his slaying someone, or his threatening people with violence or descriptions of him as a man of war.

Violence is a huge part of the Old Testament. We cannot ignore it. We can not chose to focus on the "good" passages in the OT. Neither can we justify the violence by acknowledging that it was acceptable because so much of it was God ordained/ordered. The violence that was not God ordained/ordered was dealt with by violently punishing the perpetrator at "God's command"

He goes on to say that:

Violence is not peripheral to the Bible it is central, in many ways it is the issue, because of course it is the human problem. The central icon of our faith depicts an act of mob violence against an innocent victim. The Bible is in fact the story of the slow, painstaking and sometimes faltering escape from the idea of a God who is violent to a God who is love and has absolutely nothing to do with violence.

And so Girardians believe that one of the main reasons for the Bible is to hold the mirror up to our dirty little faces and make us look our dirty little secret right in the eye. We are mimetic creatures...who form our desires based on the desires of others. When obtaining these desires is thwarted (by others who are trying to obtain the same things we are) we become frustrated and bitter and our anger burns within us. It leads to violence, both private and collective....and takes many shapes and forms from relatively benign to apocalyptic. I often wonder if mimes is the "vanity" creation was subjected to not willingly? (interesting choice of wording) Is it what is meant by original sin? If the dawning of acquisitive mimesis was the fall?

Mr. Hemer explains it this way:

Almost all human conflict is the result of people modeling themselves, (albeit unconsciously) on others and then entering into rivalry with others. All human conflict is about wanting what someone else has and desires – money, land, prestige, a spouse, a friend, power etc. every human society is threatened by this desire which becomes rivalry which leads to conflict.

Girard thinks it was quite by accident that societies (and individuals) stumbled upon a way to ease the tension and avert the displaced anger that is the result of mimetic rivalry. We scapegoat. We find a victim to either oust or sacrifice. And it eases the frustration and releases the pressure as people who were formerly rivals and enemies join together against a common enemy. Peace reigns...but it is a temporary peace because mimesis is part of who we are...and the cycle begins again.

So, the point of this article that I mentioned many paragraphs ago is to look at some of the events in the OT from this Girardian perspective....to see the violence there, not as God ordained but rather for what it is. Man's dirty little secret. Violence, blood lust, sacrifice, the me, me it's all about me attitude we have, looking out for number one....the antithesis of what Jesus meant when he said, "Follow me." And the antithesis of what his Father desires for us.

I think we make a huge mistake when we try to make God the instigator of all the OT violence and try to somehow justify it with types and shadows and his ways are higher than our ways kind of thinking.

More on this to follow....

Contagion

For anyone who wants to investigate mimetic rivalry, Rene Girard, scapegoating etc. this is a great place to start.  There are links from this home page to all the issues of Contagion...a journal of violence, mimesis and culture. 

Following is a copy and paste from the home page:

 

 

This is the home page of the COV&R which contains yearly journals from the:

 

COLLOQUIUM ON VIOLENCE AND RELIGION, an international association of scholars founded in 1990 and dedicated to the exploration, criticism, and development of René Girard‘s mimetic model of the relationship between violence and religion in the genesis and maintenance of culture. COV&R is concerned with questions of research and application. Scholars from diverse fields and theoretical orientations are invited to participate in its conferences and publications. Membership includes subscriptions to CONTAGION and to the organization‘s bianual Bulletin which contains recent bibliography, book reviews, and information on the annual conference as well as on relevant satellite sessions in conferences of diverse disciplines.

 

Dismemberment and Community Sacrifice

Still digging in the Diigo archives....

I came upon an article called Dismemberment and Community Sacrifice and the Communal Body in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a 21 or so page article that deals with a premise of sacrifice that differs from Girard's. In fact, this guy pretty much seems to say that Girard is full of crap and his theory full of holes. Not in so many words of course....but he does not see things the same way Girard does. An excerpt follows:

Rene Girard's thesis that "sacrifice serves to protect the entire community from its own violence" (8), and "to prevent conflicts from erupting" (14) finds no support in the earliest chapters of Genesis, where the first sacrifice results in violence: Cain murders Abel.The subsequent history of ritual sacrifice in the Hebrew scriptures—Noah's propitiation of Yahweh on Ararat; Abraham's offering of Isaac;the innumerable morning and evening burnt offerings of Exodus, Leviticus,and Numbers; the sacrifices of the days of Atonement, of Pentecost, and of the Festival of Booths—has less to do with any violence inherent in the "Israelites" themselves than it does with staving off the violence and/or seeking the favor and assistance of Yahweh. This view is seconded by Baruch Levine, following the early twentieth-century scholar George Buchanan Gray, when he argues that Hebrew sacrifice reflects a "contractual relationship ... [in which the] worshipper pledges a gift to the deity in an effort to secure his assistance"

I think he's missed the point. Sacrifice did not cause the violence that erupted between Cain and Abel...but rather the murder of Abel was caused by Cain's perception that God was more pleased with Abel's sacrifice. It was a case in point of mimetic rivalry. This view also confirms (to me anyway) that the Israelites were worshiping a god of their own making...one who could be appeased with the slaughter of a suitable substitute...one who could be placated with blood spilled and cast his favor on the spillers of that blood. That darkness originates in the heart of man....not in the heart of God.

The article talks in some length about the Levite and his concubine...the story considered by many to be one of the most disturbing stories in the Bible. Stranded at night, in the city of Gibeah, on his way home from fetching the concubine from her father's home, they were taken in by an elderly man. The men of the city came to have sexual intercourse with HIM....to humiliate and degrade him (which has its implication in mimetic rivalry as well) The Levite threw his concubine out to save his own skin and to appease the men of Gibeah who had come for HIM. The host offered to throw his own daughter out with the concubine if the men would agree to leave the Levite alone. The story reeks of Girardian scapegoats (the Levite, a homeless stranger in Gibeah, his concubine...a women...a secondary wife....no status at all in the view of society...the daughter, again a women with no rank or worth in that time) The whole mimetic rivalry thing seems obvious. The concubine is raped all night and finally collapses in the doorway. When the Levite comes to her in the morning, it is assumed she is dead because she does not answer him. I read another article that questions whether she was really dead at that point or just badly injured (which I'll post about later).

So anyway, to make a long story short, the Levite loads her on his donkey and later proceeds to cut her in 12 pieces to send to the different tribes of Israel. (again...more on this horror in another post) This article sees the murder of the concubine (who is referred to as "Beth") as a two way sacrifice "explained" in the snippet below:

However, if sacrifice is viewed as a gift marking a plea to enter into a contractual relationship with God promising submission in return for his favor and assistance, as suggested by Gray, then Beth's dismemberment can be seen as a sacrifice in two ways: it serves to facilitate a contractual arrangement between the Levite and the elders of the non-Benjamite tribes, and further, it serves as a contractual arrangement between this nascent group and God, serving to bring them together into a community focused on God and God's role in the vengeance they wish to take on the men of Gibeah, and the tribe of Benjamin generally (the city of Gibeah is in the territory of Benjamin). If viewed as a covenant between a superior and an inferior, as Schwartz suggests, further sacrificial dynamics can be seen in the dismemberment of Beth. The Levite is landless, a stranger in whatever territory he resides,being a member of the one tribe that does not—at the time of this narrative—have its own inherited territory. As such, the Levite belongs to a group that includes foreigners, women (especially widows—see the story of Ruth), and orphans. As Ilse Müllner argues, such groups are particularly vulnerable: "the fact that the laws in Deuteronomy are aimed at ...social groups especially in need of protection ... tends to indicate that these groups were not treated this way as a matter of course" (135). In this scenario, both the Levite (the sacrificer) and Beth (the sacrificed) are, in a very real sense, inferiors, strangers in the land of the as-yet-disunited tribes of Israel. The sacrifice of Beth serves as a plea from the Levite, not directly for the favor of God, but for the favor of the elders of the landed tribes. In Schwartz's terms, the "inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior" (22), is the Levite, who enters into a covenant with the tribal elders, who have never seen "such a thing since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt" (Judges 19.30). Each party in the covenant receives something from the sacrifice: the Levite is held blameless for the death and dismemberment of Beth, and the tribal elders, "the chiefs of all the people" (Judges 20.2) are united—albeit temporarily—as a military force.

Isn't"it serves as a contractual arrangement between this nascent group and God, serving to bring them together into a community focused on God and God's role in the vengeance they wish to take on the men of Gibeah, and the tribe of Benjamin generally" and "Each party in the covenant receives something from the sacrifice: the Levite is held blameless for the death and dismemberment of Beth, and the tribal elders, "the chiefs of all the people" (Judges 20.2) are united—albeit temporarily—as a military force."
exactly what Girard's theory declares? Sacrifice serves to bring the community together and stave off the all against all violence. But is is a band-aid and the rivalry begins anew...thus the "albeit temporarily....united military force." While disputing Girard's theory, this article seems to confirm it!!!

And what about:

"further sacrificial dynamics can be seen in the dismemberment of Beth. The Levite is landless, a stranger in whatever territory he resides,being a member of the one tribe that does not—at the time of this narrative—have its own inherited territory. As such, the Levite belongs to a group that includes foreigners, women (especially widows—see the story of Ruth), and orphans. As Ilse Müllner argues, such groups are particularly vulnerable: "the fact that the laws in Deuteronomy are aimed at ...social groups especially in need of protection ... tends to indicate that these groups were not treated this way as a matter of course" (135). In this scenario, both the Levite (the sacrificer) and Beth (the sacrificed) are, in a very real sense, inferiors, strangers in the land of the as-yet-disunited tribes of Israel."

Ahhhhhhhhh.....uh-huh....doesn't this further confirm Girard's theory? The Levite is landless, a stranger...a member of a group that included foreigners, women and orphans. Easy victims of scapegoating, perhaps? And am I reading it correctly when it seems to say that these underdogs, ripe for scapegoat picking, are not usually treated that way because of the laws in Deuteronomy aimed at protecting social groups in need of protection. To me, that seems like God's provision of protection for the very people the Israelites would most likely pick to abuse.

This article left me unsettled for some reason. Probably because within the examples the author uses to discuss his view of sacrifice...and especially the example of the murder of "Beth"....lies all the depravity in the human heart. These may be flat, one dimensional words on a page, but when one adds just a bit of imagination to the scene it would be a rival for modern day horror flicks like the SAW trilogy....or is Saw 4 that is out now? Which would make it a tetralogy...and yes, I did have to look that term up on google. To think that "god" would be appeased, placated, approving of such a display...such a sacrifice is unthinkable. Would it not be more in line with the God we see in Jesus for the Levite to throw himself to the angry mob rather than throw out his concubine? Is that not something that so much more seems to fit the character and nature of our great God? More about "Beth" in later posts.......