table of contents

05/07/2020

Robert Harrison on mimetic desire, social media, and biotechnology

This episode is a pre-recorded show that originally aired on March 4th, 2019 on Christopher Lydon’s “Open Source” podcast.In this conversation, Christopher Lydon and professor Robert Harrison discuss René Girard and his theory of mimetic desire. Additionally, professor Harrison also comments on social media, and recent advancements in biotechnology.

download transcript [vtt]
00:00:00.000
[Music]
00:00:29.000
[Music]
00:00:34.000
This is your host Robert Harrison,
00:00:36.000
as entitled opinions idols away during the Corona virus lockdown this spring season.
00:00:42.000
We thought to offer you up the following conversation I had with Christopher Leiden last March 2019.
00:00:50.000
It originally aired on his open source, a remarkable show coming out of Boston
00:00:56.000
and anchored by Chris Leiden, who is a journalist and thinker, who a mutual friend of ours,
00:01:02.000
Kelly Z and Rome aptly calls an intellectual ecstatic.
00:01:09.000
We hope you enjoy this broad-ranging conversation about mimetic desire, social media, biotechnology, and other related topics.
00:01:20.000
I'm Robert Harrison for entitled opinions.
00:01:27.000
[Music]
00:01:35.000
[Music]
00:01:43.000
[Music]
00:01:45.000
[Music]
00:01:52.000
I'm Christopher Leiden, and this is an open source extra, playing catch, so to speak,
00:01:58.000
coast to coast with Robert Poe Harrison.
00:02:01.000
He's a teaching legend at Stanford in the humanities.
00:02:05.000
He's a Dante scholar, but he's a contemporary, and a podcaster,
00:02:10.000
of ideas, of all things.
00:02:14.000
Poe Harrison, you keep opening doors for me into the weeds of social media, for example,
00:02:20.000
into the source power, and now maybe the shipwreck of things like Facebook.
00:02:26.000
You got it because your colleague and friend Renee Girard understood it as an almost philosophical proposition.
00:02:34.000
Twenty years ago, I see a story of ideas here, Poe Harrison, and in opening for you and me to have a conversation.
00:02:43.000
Okay, well Chris, thanks for having me on.
00:02:45.000
I'm delighted to engage in this conversation, coast to coast.
00:02:48.000
I feel a little bit like Ken Keezy to your Timothy Leary, speaking to you from Stanford, and you being there in Boston.
00:02:56.000
On that question of social media, the funny thing is that just before coming into the studio,
00:03:01.000
a friend of mine called me who said that she had been reading a very interesting article by Greg Jackson in the hedgehog review called "The Inner Life of a Sinking Ship",
00:03:14.000
which is about social media.
00:03:16.000
I didn't know that people now on the average check their phones about 150 times a day,
00:03:22.000
and most of that is in order to check their Instagram or Facebook.
00:03:28.000
And the point that Greg Jackson is making from what I learned from this friend of mine is that most people do that in order to sue anxiety,
00:03:37.000
in order to feel less lonely, but it actually creates this addiction as you call it.
00:03:42.000
And that addiction is couched in the idea that we do the addicting behavior to sue the anxiety.
00:03:48.000
But Jackson's point is that social media and other forms of media actually shift what we think of as our choices and agency.
00:03:57.000
And this is something interesting to think about. I'm an addictive personality, but I do not understand the addiction to social media.
00:04:05.000
It's something like Facebook to me.
00:04:08.000
What the appeal is to have a prosthetic self or a prosthetic social life or a prosthetic friends, I say prosthetic because as a student of mine,
00:04:20.000
who my query to freshman, when I asked of what would happen if they took your Facebook page away and he said to me very seriously,
00:04:32.000
if my Facebook page didn't exist, I think that I would no longer exist.
00:04:37.000
Wow.
00:04:39.000
For me, I've been in the Facebook world sort of cured myself, former addict, gone called Turkey, maybe.
00:04:47.000
But your man, Renee Girard, the French intellectual, died about three years ago.
00:04:53.000
He saw something here and he told his student Peter Thiel about it enough so that Peter Thiel became the first huge outside investor in Facebook.
00:05:04.000
I have a feeling your man Girard saw the power, but also the crash that we may be witnessing certainly in Europe already.
00:05:13.000
What crash now are you referring to, Chris, because from what I'm reading, Facebook is bigger than ever, it has more millions of viewers.
00:05:21.000
It doesn't seem to be crashing in any quantitative sense of the word.
00:05:27.000
What is some level that's been revealed as exploitative?
00:05:30.000
England, especially the parliament, is hounding Mark Zuckerberg until they get him in front of them and they're going to rake him for all kinds of business practices,
00:05:39.000
but the fundamental idea is being attacked too, that these are not real connections, they're not real friends, it's playing with language for the crassest commercial use.
00:05:49.000
But anyway, quite apart from that, it's the idea of in Girard's work, this word mimises from the Greek imitation that we are in imitated species,
00:06:00.000
something with a terrible envy built into it, a competitive desire to be like some ideal of the other person, and that Facebook was the perfect mechanical vehicle of it.
00:06:15.000
Well, for the sake of our listeners, let me just take a step back and say who Renee Girard was.
00:06:22.000
He was a colleague of mine, a good friend of mine here at Stanford.
00:06:26.000
He came to the United States in 1947 from France and taught as at a number of American universities, always in departments of literature, although he had his PhD in history.
00:06:38.000
He published this foundational book in the 1960s called "Deseet Desire and the Novel" in English as a different title in French.
00:06:51.000
In that book, he put forward this theory for which he's rightly kind of famous today, which is called the "Mimetic Theory".
00:07:00.000
He said that word "Mimises" comes from the Greek word for imitation, and Girard claims that our desires are actually not our own.
00:07:11.000
We have this illusion that there's nothing more proper to myself than my own desires, but the argues in that first book of his that it's actually other people's desire that we imitate.
00:07:26.000
That "Mimetic Desire" becomes a syndrome that he uncovers in a number of the great novels of the 19th early 20th century.
00:07:37.000
We're talking about Stondale and Dussewiefsky, Flobaire, Pruste, Cervantes, even.
00:07:44.000
This theory of "Mimetic Desire" leads him to all sorts of insights into human psychology that I think are directly relevant to the social media phenomenon.
00:07:57.000
He didn't have a lot to say himself about social media because he was not a practitioner of it.
00:08:03.000
But as you mentioned, he had a student in the late 80s, early 90s, Peter Thiel, who, by the way, as we speak teaching a course, co-teaching a course here at Stanford in my department.
00:08:16.000
Wow, in what?
00:08:18.000
Well, it's about ideas of sovereignty and globalization, and of course, Renee Girard is one of the thinkers that he is dealing with.
00:08:28.000
Peter Thiel, yeah, he took these courses with Renee Girard. He understood the "Mimetic Theory" and thought that it really was a key to human behavior and psychology, and also to the geopolitics of our world.
00:08:41.000
I don't think it's by chance that he was the first investor in Facebook.
00:08:45.000
I think he understood that Facebook was going to become this vast theater of "Mimetic Desire" and "Mimetic Envy."
00:08:53.000
You write in that article that hooked me, you said it took a highly intelligent Girardian that is Peter Thiel.
00:09:01.000
Well-schooled in "Mimetic Theory" to it early on, that Facebook was about to open a worldwide theater of "Mimetic Desire" on people's personal computers.
00:09:12.000
Peter Thiel himself, in interviews, has confirmed Girard's influence on him.
00:09:17.000
You'd have a lunch discussion or a discussion with him at some of the colloquium seminars that we did at Stanford, where one would really be struck just by his incredible perceptiveness into the human nature.
00:09:35.000
I suspect that when the history of the 20th century is written circa 2100, he will be seen as truly one of the great intellectuals, but it may still be a long time until it's fully
00:09:46.000
fully understood.
00:09:48.000
And in fact, this article that I was referencing earlier raises a question of what is social media doing to human agency and what is doing to our sense of who is actually making our choices for us?
00:10:01.000
Are we making choices for ourselves?
00:10:04.000
Or are our choices mediated hopelessly by this vast network of social media that most people are connected to these days?
00:10:13.000
Explain how social media and friending and showing your vacation pictures or your cats or your grandmother's death or whatever serves this idea of imitation.
00:10:29.000
Well, look, if I go to Greece for the summer and I post pictures of my wonderful vacation in the beaches of Greece and so forth, well, if you're one of my online friends, the chances are that you're eventually going to post pictures of an equally desirable destination.
00:10:49.000
Or if I start posting comments and photos of a dinner party that I gave, chances are you're going to do the same because, as Renat
00:11:01.900
beings are profoundly memetic, we imitate each other in our behavior but what his original insight was that we don't only imitate behavior, we imitate each other's desires and therefore if you want to be, I want to be, Jean-Grees.
00:11:20.900
And yet so much of social media is about the envy of what we perceive to be a fullness of being in those people whom we are rivalrous with or who serve as our models of emulation and who we think are somehow playing the game better than we are.
00:11:41.900
If you say Renat's rod among the human scientists, the great ones of the last century and more, you know, is all inclusive as deep in certain ways as Freud or Marx in what motivates them, in what motivates us, explain that in terms of desire.
00:12:01.900
How is Nimesis different from Freudian desire?
00:12:07.900
To begin with, it doesn't apostulate an unconscious, which is one of the theoretical problems with Freudian desire.
00:12:16.900
It looks at human behavior and can actually, empirically show, originally, Gerard looked at literature for his forensic evidence.
00:12:28.900
But the reason that book made such an impression on people is because they recognize themselves in the memetic desire that they saw in the characters after Gerard had pointed out how it works.
00:12:39.900
So I don't think it's, I think that the theory of desire is much more intuitive and something that is almost unproblematic in nature, whereas the Freudian theory of deeply buried, edible complexes and so forth,
00:12:57.900
is a harder cell from the scientific point of view.
00:13:02.900
What you see, Mimesis and Imitation, in your case, I mean, you see it everywhere.
00:13:07.900
You quote a VS Night Paul character, but there was a writer who went deep.
00:13:14.900
One of his characters says, "We become what we see of ourselves in the eyes of others."
00:13:22.900
Correct. And that is in a book that Niphal published called "The Mimic Men," which is the way in which the ex-colonial ruling class people have taken the British colonizers as their models of imitation.
00:13:42.900
Yet they know the narrator in his book "The Mimic Men" knows that he will never be accepted within that society of the British ruling class.
00:13:53.900
Yet it serves as, you know, that's the model, it's the ideal, the ego ideal.
00:13:59.900
And we become what we see in the eyes of others is something that that narrator realizes is the source of his...
00:14:10.900
Well, the secondary nature of himself and also a source of constant frustration.
00:14:18.900
I was struck, Paul also, our man, William James, who knew Freud very slightly, but he plumbed consciousness as Freud did the unconscious.
00:14:27.900
He wrote about imitation. He said in his principles of psychology, 1890, he wrote, "We start with instinct to suckle and cry out, and from then on man is essentially the imitative animal. His whole edge of ability."
00:14:44.900
And in fact, the whole history of civilization depended on this trait, which his strong tendencies to rivalry, jealousy, and equisitiveness reinforce.
00:14:53.900
And, says, "William James, there is the imitative tendency in masses of man and produces panics and orgies and frenzies of violence in which only the rarest individuals can actively withstand."
00:15:08.900
Yeah, that's beautiful. That's so convergent with Scharard's theory of mimetic desire.
00:15:15.900
And there you go, you see, William James and Scharard are looking at desire in the social world, in the world of human relations. Freud's theories of desire are rather enclosed within the psyche of the individual self, and the individual self's family history.
00:15:37.900
James and Scharard locate desire in our relations with others, and therefore it becomes a hugely important social, and as well as political force in history.
00:15:52.900
You persuaded me in what I've read so far, Paul, that, "Renegereard, there's nobody so obscure out there in the world of big ideas who is so relevant, who's had more to say about the metal distress that we are all living through in the 21st century. I want to know more."
00:16:15.900
True that Scharard is not nearly as acknowledged as he deserves to be yet, and yet more and more it's becoming clear that his insights into the mimetic mechanism, as well as what he later developed as the scapegoat mechanism, that these two fundamental ideas of his entire corpus get more and more confirmation through our social, as well as our historical geopolitical history.
00:16:44.900
And it seems to me to be inevitable that this relatively obscure French intellectual, pretty well known within the walls of academia, is going to become much more of a major figure in the world at large.
00:16:59.900
Yeah, can I quote you on the world of 2019, you say the explosion of social media, the resurgence of populism and the increasing virulence of reciprocal violence, all suggests that the contemporary world is becoming more and more recognizably Girardian in its behavior.
00:17:19.900
Where else can you see?
00:17:20.900
Yeah, I can add there that this relationship between desire and violence is fundamental because while desire is mimetic, violence is maybe the one thing that is even more mimetic than human desire.
00:17:40.900
If you hit me, I'm likely to hit you back, or if you start as a nation arming yourself, that means your neighbor nation is going to start arming itself.
00:17:50.900
The mimetic contagion of violence is something that Girard spent the second half of his intellectual career thinking a lot about.
00:18:00.900
And there's no doubt that the psychology of reciprocal violence is at work in many places in the world as we speak.
00:18:10.900
To jump ahead toward the end of his life, he sounds obsessed with the danger of modern military violence as was William James, too, a hundred years earlier.
00:18:22.900
The birth of the American Empire scared him to death. But here's Girard at the end of his life, toward the end of his life. History, you might say, is a test for mankind, but we know very well that mankind is failing that test. He wrote that in the 21st century.
00:18:39.900
He said, in some ways, the gospels and scriptures are predicting that failure since it ends with eschatological themes, which are literally the end of the world.
00:18:50.900
And when Majora's conclusion was, we must face our neighbors and declare unconditional peace. Even if we are provoked, challenge, we must give up violence once and for all.
00:19:04.900
That's easier said than done, Chris, as you know. And I think Girard is far more compelling in his diagnosis of the problem of violence rather than what he offers as a kind of alternative, which is a kind of pacifism that one shouldn't actually discount it.
00:19:22.900
The idea that this refusal to retaliate, he believed, was really the only recommendation, the only sane recommendation in the face of this vortex that international violence could create.
00:19:37.900
If I can quote from the last book that he published called "Baddling to the End" where he's analyzing war, and it's actually a book where he goes back to visit the thought of "Cloudsovich, the great theorist of modern warfare, Carl von, the class of its 1780 to 1831, Girard writes, "Cloudsovich sees very clearly that modern wars, or as violent as they are,
00:20:06.900
only because they are reciprocal." Now, when we hear the word "reciprocal" here in the Girardian context, that means also "mimetic." I continue.
00:20:16.900
"Mobilization involves more and more people until it is total," as Ernst Euler wrote of the 1914 war, that famous concept of the total war.
00:20:26.900
It was because he was responding to the humiliations inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles and the occupation of the Rhineland that Hitler was able to mobilize a whole people.
00:20:37.900
Likewise, it was because he was responding to the German invasion that Stalin achieved a decisive victory over Hitler.
00:20:44.900
It was because he was responding to the United States that had been Latin, Plan 9/11.
00:20:49.900
The one who believes he can control violence by setting up defenses is in fact controlled by violence.
00:20:58.900
And that seems to be a syndrome without a way out, and that's why this recommendation of non-retaliation, of not striking back, it was why Girard thought that that was the only kind of sane ethic that he could propose.
00:21:18.900
For us all.
00:21:21.900
There's more of Girard I want to get into, Paul, but I also want to introduce you, and specifically your own podcast.
00:21:28.900
You call yours entitled "Pinions."
00:21:32.900
We call ours American Conversations with Global Attitude.
00:21:36.900
People keep telling me there's a meeting of minds to be made here between us, but specifically, I love it that in the opening to entitled opinions,
00:21:45.900
you tease your audience about setting the bar pretty high, maybe too high for some listeners.
00:21:53.900
Warning.
00:21:54.900
The following is an unadulterated unusually concentrated intellectual discussion.
00:22:00.900
It should be avoided by anyone who does not have a very high tolerance for thinking.
00:22:05.900
If you have an aversion to the exchange of ideas, if you're deficient in curiosity,
00:22:11.900
if you suffer from common American anti-intellectualism, then please tune out now.
00:22:17.900
This show promotes the narcotic of intelligent conversation.
00:22:21.900
It takes us into the garden and seats us at the banquet table of ideas, where we feast on the bread of angels.
00:22:29.900
Clear and distinct thinking, intuitive analysis, and an enriched use of English.
00:22:35.900
We bring them all to bear on the pursuit of self-knowledge, so be warned.
00:22:40.900
We don't dumb things down around here.
00:22:43.900
We ratchet up and let it rip.
00:22:46.900
I hear spoken in podcast, who listens, who gets it, who doesn't,
00:22:54.900
what students think of it, how different it is from teaching, how do you avoid it becoming pedagogical or pedantic?
00:23:04.900
How does it go?
00:23:07.900
Well, the way it works with me, Chris, might be different than what you have going on over there in Boston.
00:23:14.900
I share my radio.
00:23:18.900
It's primarily a radio show.
00:23:20.900
I insist it remaining a radio show, even though it airs on Stanford College radio,
00:23:26.900
and it only reaches a Bay Area audience live, but nevertheless, even though 99.9% of my audience is in the podcast medium,
00:23:36.900
I like the idea that it's still a radio show.
00:23:39.900
And for me, I don't have any sponsors.
00:23:42.900
I don't need to worry about ratings or clicks or we don't have social media.
00:23:49.900
I'm very happy, and in fact, eager for entitled opinions to be a cult show that operates really under the radar, underground, as it were.
00:24:01.900
It has developed a wide following around the world precisely because it is unabashedly about ideas.
00:24:10.900
It doesn't worry about the general anti-intellectualism of American society.
00:24:16.900
I hate to say it, but we are to a great extent, an anti-intellectual.
00:24:21.900
We have an anti-intellectual strain in our society.
00:24:25.900
As I say, often in my shows, we descend into the catacombs, and that's almost literally because KZSU, which is the radio station here at Stanford,
00:24:37.900
you have to walk down about five or six steps, and it's entering into the underworld, and that we go down into the catacombs in order to practice this persecuted religion of thinking.
00:24:48.900
And in those catacombs, that's where new religions are born.
00:24:53.900
If I were a founder of a religion, I would hope it would be a religion of just thinking.
00:25:00.900
Exchange of ideas, revisiting the great works of literature, philosophy, issues of science, of the cosmos.
00:25:09.900
And I have the luxury of not having to worry about sponsorship or ratings and so forth.
00:25:17.900
It's unabashedly intellectual in a high-octane mode.
00:25:22.900
Dante spoke of the Bread of Angels as the kind of intellectual nourishment that comes from the study of science and cosmology and philosophy and so forth.
00:25:33.900
This kind of Bread of Angels is actually available for free, and not a lot of people avail themselves of it, either because they don't know where to go to find it,
00:25:46.900
or because we tend to, those of us in this business feel that we always have to dumb things down if we're going to maintain an audience.
00:25:58.900
But I think you're absolutely right that the hunger for a serious exchange of ideas is out there, and it's up to those of us who are able to do so to provide that nourishment.
00:26:13.900
What's your range, Pogue? One of the limits of what you like to cover in terms of science, philosophy, history, literature, as you say.
00:26:24.900
It's a broad range, very wide range.
00:26:28.900
The shows I do about topics that are not in my wheelhouse of, let's say, specialty, like science, cosmology, medicine.
00:26:39.900
I have to do a lot more homework for those shows, and yet I feel that there's always some reward in doing that homework because I want to be an intelligent interlocutor with my guest, whoever he or she is.
00:26:56.900
And therefore, I do cover mostly the wheelhouse's philosophy and literature.
00:27:06.900
The history of, and we're going back from the Greeks to the present day.
00:27:12.900
But since I am at Stanford, and I have this wide array of faculty members here at my disposal to engage in conversations with,
00:27:24.900
it's more and more going into realms of science, as well as political, political theory in the last few years.
00:27:34.900
Maybe the election of Trump has something to do with this, but in the last couple of seasons of entitled opinions had a much stronger political slant than they did earlier.
00:27:46.900
Pogue We Are Drawn as you are into sciences, but you're not most especially because the gene editing boom is, seems to be concentrated here in Boston, Cambridge, as well as in Berkeley.
00:28:01.900
There's a great rivalry over who's going to own the CRISPR patents and make tons of money on them, but there are huge questions of understanding of humanistic tradition.
00:28:15.900
And who are we? What can be? What cannot be amended? Where's the soul in all of those genes? And what part of intelligence, for example, can be tweaked?
00:28:28.900
I know you have been to the mountaintop with those scientists and some of the conferences scientists here who remember you very vividly for speaking for connecting Dante and the trial of Ulysses going back to sea
00:28:44.900
out of the Mediterranean to his death in the Atlantic Ocean as a kind of metaphor of where the gene scientists are heading. But how do you do it? How much science do you have to know? How ready do you find the scientists to talk in your humanistic tradition?
00:29:03.900
Well, those scientists are not going to talk in the humanistic tradition, but for some reason I was invited, I know the reason is because I'm very skeptical about what's taking place in the gene editing CRISPR technology.
00:29:21.900
It's true that Dante's Ulysses is almost like the archetype of scientific discovery. He is the one who wants to venture into the unpeapled world. He tells his crew at the Straits of Gibraltar, let us continue to pursue virtue and knowledge. That is what you are meant to be your humans.
00:29:43.900
You are not brought us to virtue and knowledge. The scientific enterprise is following in this Ulyssian wake to explore newer and newer frontiers.
00:29:57.900
I think that there is a line that is being crossed today, which is that of taking the role of creation into our own hands and presuming to know better than nature what it is that nature should be doing with itself.
00:30:21.900
I think here is where one has to also question the motivations that are sponsoring a lot of biotechnology.
00:30:34.900
These motivations are always couched in extremely benevolent terms that you are trying to eradicate diseases or you are trying to save a child's life. There is always the pathetic appeal, pathoslatin, not pathetic in the sense of pathetic, but pathoslatin appeal to making sure that people no longer die of malaria because we can now re-engineer mosquitoes so that we can wipe out the malaria mosquitoes.
00:31:03.900
But what gets forgotten is the first principle of the Hippocratic Oath which is do no harm. There is a fundamental difference between presuming to do good and then to do no harm.
00:31:20.900
Because in the name of doing good you can license a lot of harm. We know that even from our political history if you believe that the end justifies the means.
00:31:34.900
So on the one hand there is this rhetoric of benevolence and that is why I bring in Dante also another figure from Dante's Divine Comedy which is the monster Jerry on.
00:31:46.900
And he is a monster who stands for fraud in Dante's Inferno.
00:31:54.900
And he has the face of a gentle and kind smiling man. He has a furry body and he has the tail of a scorpion.
00:32:02.900
Now when it comes to CRISPR and gene editing technologies, other biotechnologies, what we are shown is always the face of the smiling kind man.
00:32:16.900
And I want to know where the scorpion tail is hiding in this new explosion of biotech because I think that there is such a tail that we have to take into account.
00:32:31.900
You can take your pick of scorpion tails. I mean as eugenics there is kind of the folly of improving the human being, breeding it for speed or whatever.
00:32:42.900
There is also the scorpion tail of the sheer commerce. The numbers of people that will pay thousands and more for a straighter nose or a white or teeth or thicker hair or you name it.
00:32:57.900
Oh sure. And here we go back to desire Chris because if we have the means at our disposal to genetically design our own children, how many of them are going to be blonde and tall and athletic, how many of them are going to actually correspond to the Nazi ideal area type.
00:33:21.900
I'd say a great many of them, maybe also for memetic reasons, who knows. But I've said this before in company, I've never said it on air, but I'll say that mangele, he will eventually be recognized as a visionary of the 20th century, even though his methods will be condemned and his Nazi affiliations will never be endorsed.
00:33:50.900
But the idea is that he had this vision of eugenics that so much of our contemporary biotechnology is following in these mangelean protocols as far as I can tell.
00:34:04.900
So I'll throw that out there.
00:34:08.900
Wow.
00:34:10.900
I'm so fascinated in the applications of one word, mimesis, and imitation. I wanted to take one more crack at another's your ride before we're done. He said fascinatingly, people are against my theory because it is at the same time an avant-garde and a Christian theory.
00:34:31.900
The avant-garde people, he said, are anti-Christian and many of the Christians are anti-evon-garde and even the Christians have been very distrustful of me, says Reneejurard, who was a kind of unorthodox Christian, but he became sounded more and more Christian as he moved along.
00:34:49.900
Explain that piece, and then I want to hear specifically his thoughts on religion, where worship and churches and a lot of the less savory pieces of it, including scapegoating and sacrifice, are wrapped up in Christ is thinking.
00:35:08.900
Yeah, so after he published that book, "To Seat Desire in the Novel in the 60s," in 1972 he published a book called "Violence and the Sacred," and it took people who knew his earlier work very much by surprise because it no longer dealt with the world of literature and the novel.
00:35:27.900
He had now become a cultural anthropologist and he was proposing a theory of the violent origins of archaic religions in what he called the scapegoating mechanism, where he imagined these memetic crises, these moments in a pre-historic primitive society where for one reason or another a crisis could be famine, it could be drought or some other natural disaster or just social tension.
00:35:56.900
And where everyone now starts imitating the other's hysteria and getting to a point where either that primitive community is going to destroy itself through a war of all against all, but she wrote, I hypothesized that those that avoided that self-immolation did so by identifying rather arbitrarily a scapegoat, one person or subgroup of people who are not
00:35:57.900
where everyone now starts imitating the other's hysteria and getting to a point where either
00:36:05.820
that primitive community is going to destroy itself through a war of all against all.
00:36:12.240
But Shirobert hypothesized that those that avoided that self-immolation did so by identifying
00:36:21.320
rather arbitrarily a scapegoat.
00:36:25.260
One person or subgroup of people in the community slightly different than the rest and
00:36:30.780
blaming them, accusing them of being responsible for the disorder, and through a collective
00:36:39.140
lynching of the community of that victim, all of a sudden magically the community was
00:36:46.020
healed.
00:36:47.340
So an act of unanimous violence leads to the restoration of a spirit of unanimity and
00:36:55.420
harmony and order.
00:36:57.380
So much so that that victim developed a magical power of healing and was often sacralized.
00:37:07.380
And through this mechanism, Shirobert presumed to account for the sacrificial origins of so
00:37:11.580
many of the archaic religions.
00:37:13.660
This view of Christianity, to come to your question now, was that the gospels in particular,
00:37:21.500
Hebrew scriptures also, but more overtly in the Christian gospels, you have a figure in
00:37:32.220
Jesus who is a victim of a scapegoat mechanism.
00:37:40.620
Yet the difference between the Christian scripture and archaic religions is that it reveals
00:37:45.700
the fact that the victim is essentially innocent and that those, the persecutors and the
00:37:52.220
lynchers are the guilty ones.
00:37:54.940
And therefore, Shirobert believed Christianity in essence was the revelation of the scandal
00:38:00.340
of the violent foundations of all previous religions.
00:38:04.660
In fact, in Christianity, I believe he says, Christianity in effect undoes religion or
00:38:14.700
is it the end of religion or is the last religion?
00:38:17.540
Because in fact, there is the flaw in the whole creation of such things.
00:38:21.980
Yeah, and I can quote him on that.
00:38:25.220
I'm quoting Christianity is not only one of the destroyed religions, but it is the destroyer
00:38:30.420
of all religions.
00:38:32.580
The death of God is a Christian phenomenon in its modern sense.
00:38:36.380
Atheism is a Christian invention.
00:38:40.660
And he believed that indeed Christianity eventually put an end to all previous archaic
00:38:50.340
violent religions.
00:38:52.420
Yeah.
00:38:53.420
So, and the strange part about the whole cycle is that Reneejurad came to see the Bible as
00:39:01.580
true, true in its observation of anthropology in a way, but really of human history.
00:39:11.260
There was a description in this realization of the innocence of the victim.
00:39:16.220
There was a real progress, a climb up from barbarity and a response to violence, to the whole
00:39:24.020
idea of violence.
00:39:25.020
I mean, that's exactly.
00:39:28.020
It's deep.
00:39:29.020
It's deep for a podcast, Pogue.
00:39:32.700
It is.
00:39:33.700
It is.
00:39:34.700
Yeah.
00:39:35.700
And there's two important aspects.
00:39:38.900
One is the notion of the victim and how much of our own contemporary culture is still
00:39:45.140
victim obsessed and victim oriented and on the side of the victim.
00:39:50.700
And this is from Echerard's point of view, a kind of secularized instantiation of the
00:39:58.660
Christian message that the scapegoating of victims is largely in arbitrary and what he
00:40:08.380
called satanic phenomena.
00:40:11.620
Satan is the other important thing.
00:40:13.860
Satan is not a devil.
00:40:16.580
Satan is in Hebrew.
00:40:18.540
It means the accuser, the prosecutor, the adversary.
00:40:25.300
Accus lynchings and scapegoating begin with accusation.
00:40:32.660
And that accusation spreads, mimetically, from individual to individual until everyone is
00:40:40.620
on the same page in terms of he or she is the guilty one.
00:40:44.260
It could be the which, it could be the, and then through that sort of collective or
00:40:51.380
jastic froth comes a murder or some kind of victimization.
00:40:58.180
Two millennia of Christianity have made it rather impossible for us to believe anymore
00:41:03.940
in the scapegoating mechanism and to believe in the actual guilt of victims.
00:41:08.940
We tend to think that victims are, arbitrarily victimized more often than not.
00:41:15.420
And in that sense, Christianity has, yes, it has had a enormous sort of effect on the way
00:41:22.140
we think about these issues.
00:41:24.780
And yet the spirit of accusation has not gone away after two millennia.
00:41:28.820
We still belong very much to an accusatory kind of society where we're always pointing
00:41:38.020
at someone else.
00:41:39.020
And reciprocal violence is out there too, obviously.
00:41:42.380
Oh, yes.
00:41:43.980
It's out there.
00:41:44.980
And it's not out there only in the tribal warfare of, you know, primitive societies.
00:41:48.900
It's out there, even in the geopolitics of the 20th century in the First World War
00:41:56.460
and the Second World War and the US Soviet relations in the Cold War continuing on in
00:42:04.540
our own time, the Middle East, the reciprocal violence seems very alive and well in that regard.
00:42:12.140
And the other great insight of Rizurar is that violence is more, is produced more by
00:42:20.180
sameness, identity rather than difference.
00:42:23.860
It's when the two opponents or enemies or rivals are so identical to one another that
00:42:29.580
you have the greater possibility of violence breaking out.
00:42:34.900
So this insight that identity rather than difference is more responsible for violence is
00:42:41.380
another fundamental insight of his.
00:42:44.740
Robert Pocherson, this is totally fascinating to me.
00:42:46.820
We haven't even begun on Girard's theory of literature.
00:42:51.100
I mean, the author seems to be disappearing in a lot of postmodern literary studies.
00:42:57.260
He says the author is the story in a writer like Dostevsky, for example, who starts
00:43:03.060
with poor folk and notes from underground and ends up in the kind of exalted spirit of
00:43:09.580
Aoyosha in the brothers Karamatsu.
00:43:12.100
That's one instance.
00:43:13.180
I want to ask you the next time is Girard's body of work in itself autobiographical of
00:43:19.780
his own progress from cynicism toward a kind of exalted, not simple, but ecstatic view
00:43:29.340
of the possibilities.
00:43:31.420
But this will do for the first effort, Pocherson.
00:43:35.420
I enjoyed intensely.
00:43:37.220
We admire your work hugely on entitled opinions.
00:43:40.540
It was wonderful.
00:43:41.540
Well, I hope that I hope the heads aren't going to be spinning too much.
00:43:45.020
My it is.
00:43:46.020
Yeah.
00:43:47.020
But we'll get over it.
00:43:48.020
Robert Pocherson.
00:43:49.020
Good.
00:43:50.020
Good to talk to you.
00:43:51.020
Thank you.
00:43:52.020
Thank you.
00:43:53.020
[ Music ]
00:44:02.660
[MUSIC PLAYING]