In Girard's model of mimetic desire, there are three parts: the subject, the object, and the model. The subject sees that the model has the object and comes to desire it.

There's something deeply true about this. But often, the thing you end up desiring is not an object. For example, you might observe someone else's happy relationship and want a happy relationship for yourself. But you don't necessarily want their partner. Or you might see that someone else enjoys their job and you might want a job that you enjoy...but you don't necessarily want their job.

Seen from this perspective, mimetic desire doesn't necessarily lead to conflict.

I love the scapegoat concept, it solves problems in at least 3 ways:

- resolves pressure that builds up due to social paradoxes (don't like you but have to pretend to, have desires but can't admit to them)

- reminds everyone that it could be worse, normal problems are no big deal compared to actual violence

- and promotes bonding over a shared enemy

> 8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference. For example, hatred of immigrants (and their hatred of the locals) is amplified when both live in the same neighborhood and the barriers that previously existed have been removed. There are hundreds of other examples, but they all derive from the other refusing to remain the other, and instead showing up on our street, in our country club, at our doorstep, or somewhere else where they start to resemble us.

This doesn't make any sense. Physical proximity and similarity are very different things. The correct analogy would be if immigrants assimilated, and that led to resentment by the local population.

Similar to the imitation problem, I’ve read somewhere that it’s not greed what drives people to accumulate things (wealth etc.) but envy. You don’t want more for the sake of getting more, you simply want more than your neighbor.

It’s all relative. And difficult to break the cycle.

Possibly links to point 8.

For those who want to "stay a while", Jonathon Bi did a discussion series on Girard's Mimetic Theory:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_xn3B6eWvGsILrh5v5nq...

As an outsider to the "tech" scene, who did a PhD generals field on modern European intellectual history (which included a dollop of recent continental philosophy), it's endlessly fascinating to me how people in tech have fixated upon Girard. While a few of his ilk do come up in standard reading lists, he (generally) doesn't -- he is far more prominent vis-a-vis his peers in this discourse than in his "native" one. I suspect that this owes to path dependency and his metaphysics' compatibility with the industry's participants' socio-intellectual priors (so to speak).

Girardian philosophy was one of the most profound theories i'd come across when i first heard it. I really need to dig into Girard's actual books - i've only heard of him through third parties.

Are there works that test Girard's theories? Is there some evidence?

Reading his mimetic theory was a real mind blower and one of those moments that redefines your understanding of the world. The way he seamlessly was able to describe it in so many layers and perspectives is fascinating. From a biological/evolutionary pov, to human sacrifice and scapegoating, to the birth of the 'sacred' and religions, to Christianism, and to so many facets of our modern society and human behaviour.

I like how Rene Girard spoke about Jesus. The good Samaritan for example. Jesus literally talks about how a person from a completely different ethnicity which hates Jews is taking care of a Jewish man. His message was absolute love and radical forgiveness. If we really take Jesus' message it would mean no borders, no wars, just pure love for each other. Anybody who doesn't understand that is not a real Christian.

"Mimetic desire" in businesses isn't hidden, it is actively thought after ("best practices", learning from winners etc.) - nothing shameful there as people want copy successful things and don't have trouble saying so.

Also, institutional isomorphisms are not a new observation or area of study.

As an Ad Exec in a meeting I was at once put it Monkey See Monkey Do.

For every theorist there are a whole bunch of practitioners.

I read Violence and the Sacred when I was 8... it changed my life forever.

Imitation’s apotheosis is AI

> 8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference. For example, hatred of immigrants (and their hatred of the locals) is amplified when both live in the same neighborhood and the barriers that previously existed have been removed

Aren't people living far from immigrants the biggest xenophobic group? Cities are much more progressive on immigration issues despite having more of a mix, directly contradicting that theory.

tl;dr at the end of the article:

1. People are driven to imitate others, but hate to admit it

2. Imitation is the basis of most businesses, but it's always disguised because customers are ashamed of their mimetic desires.

3. We need to expose these disguises, because the drive to imitate leads to rivalry and conflict.

4. Mimetic rivalries are the source of blood feuds and reciprocal violence —which are traditionally resolved by the sacrifice of a scapegoat.

5. The scapegoat combines opposites— and is often both victim & hero, sacred & profane, guilty & innocent.

6. The persecution of scapegoats is a uniting force behind many institutions and practices, but participants cannot admit this because it delegitimizes their efforts.

7. Humans fail to perceive their own scapegoats-so persecution continues while everybody absolves themselves of individual guilt.

8. Our most violent impulses are stirred up by similarity, not difference.

9. Enemies resemble each other, because of mimetic rivalry, but this is another secret that cannot be mentioned. Our enemy is always portrayed as our opposite.

10. Artistic idioms often originate in imitation and ritualized sacrifice.

11. We want to protect victims, and are right to do so; but we need to avoid super-victimology, in which this only leads to targeting and punishing new scapegoats.

12. We can only escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat.

I think Girard passes muster in that the theory is often useful, in conjunction with others - that is, it passes the "Condorcet barrier of utility" and one can use it as part of a toolbox to explicate certain human behaviors.

Taking it as a unified theory doesn't work, just as any -ism taken alone to explain the whole damn thing doesn't work and is often counterproductive. For example - and I would be grateful if someone with knowledge of Girard would explain it - how does one bridge the Underwear Gnomes reasoning of say #12 in the blog:

Step 1 - We point out how we all act out of mimicry

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - We "escape the endless cycles of reciprocal violence by rising above our desire for vengeance and working instead to delegitimize the urge to punish and scapegoat."

[dead]

[dead]

skip to the end for the tl;dr