My paper shared the analysis from the last post, how attributions of disgust, marking an individual or group as "unclean," selects the scapegoat and masks the scapegoating mechanism.
During the Q&A after the presentation I got into my first debate and disagreement with Girardian thinkers.
The issue went to a footnote in Unclean where I named anxiety as a cause of social scapegoating, an anxiety rooted in scarcity. This goes against Girardian orthodoxy which places mimetic desire at the heart of the scapegoating mechanism. What I discovered in that exchange was how central mimetic desire was to many of Girard's followers. For many Girardians, mimetic desire is the anthropological key that unlocks the treasure trove of sociological and theological insights. My interest in Girard was less anthropological. My feeling is that scapegoating has lots of sources and causes, not just one. In fact, I believe that scapegoating is caused more due to fear than mimetic rivalry. Scarcity, I felt, was the main driver of scapegoating.
For example, as I pointed out at the conference, there is an assumption of scarcity behind Girard's theory of mimetic desire and rivalry. Girard's model is often diagramed as a triangle between a subject, a model, and an object. I observe a model desiring an object. And through mimesis, I imitate that desire. Consequently, my desire brings me into rivalrous competition with the model over the desired object. Two of us are now wanting the same thing.
Notice, I shared at the conference, how there is only one object of desire for two individuals. That's an assumption of scarcity. Two are fighting over an object only one can possess. By contrast, what if there were many objects being desired by the model? What if we assume abundance instead? In that situation, my mimetic desire wouldn't bring me into competition or rivalry as there would be plenty to go around. My point was that desire only brings about competition when the object being desired is scarce, where there will be winners and losers, haves and have nots.
An assumption of scarcity also sits behind rivalries due to superior status, like we see in racism and nationalism. It's a game of King of the Mountain. Only one party can be "the best," sitting atop the hierarchy of value. Only one nation can be "the greatest nation in the world." Same with rankings of racial superiority and supremacy. If everyone, by contrast, could be the greatest or best we wouldn't be fighting over that top spot. But since only one among the many rivals can be "the best" we fight over that scarce, only-one-can-have-it, designation. By definition, there can only be one GOAT.
I think these are good arguments, but you can rest assured that the Girardians had their rebuttals at the conference. And they were good ones. Look at children, they said, playing with toys. There can be plenty of toys around, but one child will want the toy another child is playing with just because that child is desiring it, having fun with it, even when there are plenty of identical toys at hand. Plus, what about mirror neurons! And so on, and so forth.
But here's my point. We can both be right! Like I said, I think scapegoating happens for lots of reasons, and not just mimetic desire. And I'm convinced that scarcity is one of the major reasons, or paranoia about a potential future scarcity, real or imagined. Why, for example, did the Nazis scapegoat the Jews? Perhaps it was due to mimetic desire. But I think one of the major reasons was the economic hardships the Germans suffered due to the Treaty of Versailles. That experience of scarcity and loss, economic and in terms of national shame, caused the Germans to look around for someone to blame. Hitler pointed the finger at the Jews. And continued, during his rise to power, to point the finger at the Jews as a persistent and ongoing threat and danger. Fear, again, plain and simple.
Think also about how illegal immigrants get scapegoated. They are taking our jobs and soaking up our benefits! Illegal immigrants are stealing scarce goods. Throw in descriptions of illegal immigrants as rapists, drug traffickers, and criminals, as dangerous threats, and a lot of fear gets stoked, fear that comes out in scapegoating. And listen, I'm not here to adjudicate the shape of a just and humane immigration policy. I'm just asking, as a psychologist, what best explains "Build That Wall!" xenophobia? It could be mimetic desire. But I think the simplest reason is scarcity and fear. Fear, real or delusional, that an illegal immigrant is going to take away a job, receive undeserved social benefits, or hurt someone.
But again, Girardians have their answers to all this. The theory has to stay pure and uncontaminated. Only one cause for scapegoating is allowed. Everything must get stuffed into the explanatory box of mimetic desire. My view, by contrast, is that people scapegoat for lots of reasons. Mimetic desire is one. Scarcity-based anxiety, legitimate or paranoid, is another. You can think of some more.
And if this is so, we reach another dim conclusion. Anxiety is endemic to the human condition. As I describe it in The Slavery of Death, as biodegradable creatures in a world of real or perceived scarcity fear will be our constant companion. Given this, more is needed than simply exposing the mimetic roots at the heart of sacred violence. Overcoming our anxiety is necessary. Which means overcoming the biological and material realities of human finitude and limitation. And Girard's theory just doesn't traffic in those sorts of ontological issues. Simply put, Girard's theory of "atonement," how we are saved, does nothing to address the harsh material realities that cause human persons and societies to act self-interestedly and violently.
If life is like being on the Titanic, my problem isn't that you and I desire the same lifeboat. Our problem isn't mimetic desire. Our problem is scarcity, that there are not enough lifeboats to go around. You and I want the same boat because, tragically, there is only one of them left. And if your "plan of salvation" is to encourage frighted animals to give up their seat on the lifeboat in an act of heroic self-sacrifice, to "stand in solidarity" with the doomed, well, best of luck with that. Most people are going to try to get their loved ones onto that boat, at the expense of you and yours, and be very tempted to jump aboard themselves. This is a natural human response. As I describe in The Slavery of Death, fear tempts us toward self-interest. And there's nothing in Girard's theory, insofar as it eschews ontological issues, that can help us escape the underlying anxiety of the human predicament.
