René Girard’s concept of the scapegoat revolves around the idea of mimetic desire and the resulting social conflicts. When desires converge on the same object, rivalry and violence ensue. To restore order, societies often single out a scapegoat—an individual or group blamed for the chaos. The scapegoat’s expulsion or sacrifice creates a temporary sense of unity and peace. Girard argues this mechanism underpins many cultural and religious rituals, masking the violence inherent in human societies. Key works: Violence and the Sacred, The Scapegoat.

The scapegoat, in Girard’s framework, is typically an individual or group perceived as different, marginal, or weak—someone who can be easily blamed without significant resistance. Historically, this could be a foreigner, a minority, a political dissident, or even a “witch” in certain contexts. The key is that the scapegoat is a symbolic target, chosen not for actual guilt, but because their sacrifice can diffuse collective tension and restore social cohesion. Girard sees this pattern recurring in myths, religious texts, and even modern societal conflicts.

Certainly. In Girard’s framework, scapegoating is a recurring mechanism to resolve societal tensions. Here are a few examples:

1. Ancient Myths: In Greek mythology, Oedipus is blamed for the plague in Thebes, despite his ignorance of his actions. His expulsion restores order.

2. Religious Texts: In the Bible, Jesus is crucified as a scapegoat to absolve societal sins, embodying the innocent victim whose sacrifice brings peace.

3. Witch Hunts: In medieval Europe, women accused of witchcraft were scapegoated for societal ills like crop failures or disease, uniting communities through their persecution.

4. Modern Politics: Minority groups, immigrants, or political dissidents are often scapegoated during crises (e.g., Jews in Nazi Germany, or Muslims post-9/11), diverting blame and reinforcing group cohesion.

These examples illustrate how scapegoating serves as a tool to redirect collective anxiety and restore perceived order.

Certainly. Mimetic desire, a cornerstone of René Girard’s thought, refers to the idea that human desire is not autonomous but imitative. We desire objects not because of their intrinsic value, but because others desire them. This imitation of desire leads to rivalry, as multiple individuals or groups compete for the same object, status, or goal.

Key points about mimetic desire:

1. Non-originality of desire: Our desires are shaped by others, often unconsciously.
2. Escalation of rivalry: When two or more parties desire the same thing, conflict arises, intensifying as each tries to outdo the other.
3. Triangular structure: Desire involves a subject, an object, and a mediator (the person or model whose desire is being imitated).
4. Social contagion: Mimetic desire spreads through communities, creating shared aspirations and tensions.

Girard argues that this dynamic is universal and underlies much of human conflict, from personal rivalries to large-scale societal violence. The scapegoat mechanism emerges as a way to resolve these tensions, but it does so at the cost of perpetuating cycles of violence and exclusion.

The escalation of rivalry in mimetic desire occurs when two or more individuals or groups imitate each other’s desires for the same object, status, or goal. This imitation intensifies competition, as each party seeks to outdo the other, leading to conflict. The rivalry grows because the desire is not for the object itself but for the perceived value it holds due to the mediator’s desire. This dynamic can spiral into hostility, envy, and even violence, as the original object becomes secondary to the struggle for dominance or recognition. Girard sees this as a fundamental driver of human conflict, both personal and societal.

The non-originality of desire is central to Girard’s mimetic theory. It posits that our desires are not self-generated or based on intrinsic qualities of objects, but are instead borrowed or imitated from others. We unconsciously model our desires on what others want, making desire fundamentally relational and mediated. This challenges the notion of autonomous, individualistic desire, suggesting instead that our wants are shaped by social influences and the desires of those around us. This imitation can lead to rivalry, as multiple people pursue the same object, creating conflict and competition.

Mimetic desire spreads through communities via social imitation. Humans are inherently social beings, and we unconsciously model our desires on those of others, especially individuals we admire or perceive as influential (mediators). This process creates a feedback loop:

1. Observation: People notice what others desire or value.
2. Imitation: They adopt those desires, often without realizing it.
3. Reinforcement: As more people desire the same thing, it gains perceived value, further fueling imitation.
4. Conflict: When multiple individuals or groups pursue the same scarce object or status, rivalry escalates, creating tension.

This dynamic is amplified by social proximity—people are more likely to imitate those close to them (e.g., peers, leaders, or cultural icons). Over time, shared desires and rivalries become embedded in the community’s norms, perpetuating cycles of aspiration and conflict.

Correct. Girard’s concept of mimetic desire highlights the triangular structure of desire:

1. Subject: The person who desires.
2. Object: The thing or goal that is desired.
3. Mediator: The person or model whose desire the subject imitates.

This structure reveals that desire is not direct or intrinsic but mediated through others. The mediator can be a rival, a role model, or even an abstract ideal. When multiple subjects imitate the same mediator, rivalry escalates, leading to conflict. This dynamic is foundational to Girard’s broader theories on human behavior, violence, and cultural order.

Moral progress refers to the evolution of ethical norms and practices that reduce harm and promote cooperation. Institutions play a key role in this by formalizing rules and mechanisms to address conflict non-violently. For example:

1. Legal Systems: Replace vigilante justice with impartial adjudication, reducing the need for scapegoating.
2. Democratic Governance: Allow for peaceful resolution of competing interests through dialogue and compromise.
3. Human Rights Frameworks: Establish universal principles that protect individuals from collective violence.
4. Economic and Social Policies: Address inequalities that often fuel mimetic rivalries, reducing the conditions for conflict.

These institutions reflect humanity’s capacity to transcend Girard’s cyclical violence by creating structures that channel competition and desire into constructive, rather than destructive, outcomes.