Mimetic Theory, and Scaping ‘em Goats.

Hi, and welcome to Studious! I’m your host, Stuart Byers. Every week, we’ll be getting Studious, talking topics of particular interest to me, and hopefully of interest to you, the listener, as well. If not, consider this one of those great podcasts to fall asleep to.

This week on Studious, we are going to try and tackle Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory. First, we will examine the concept, and later we’ll see how this concept shapes behavior in the real world with practical examples.

Last week, on our pilot episode, we explored The Ship of Theseus. This week, we’ll take a similar approach to Mimetic Theory. I want to do a shallow dive on some of the progenitors that influenced Girard’s ideas. Hopefully, that will help round our understanding of this theory.

René Girard’s mimetic theory of desire first began as an observation, but then blossomed into a grand theory on human interaction. Based initially on literary insights, Girard saw human desire not following a linear process as previously understood. Take this as an example: a child is hungry. He sees an apple. His hunger and desire are mutually aligned to want that apple. That’s a pretty straightforward linear process. In this case, the apple has inherent or intrinsic properties that will elicit desire should they coincide with the proper timing of hunger.

Now I have walked past hundreds of thousands of apples in my lifetime. I can’t recall a time in recent history where I thought to myself, “God, I’m so hungry, I need to have that apple, and I need it now!” Now my son, Little Stu loves apples. He sees an apple, and he wants that apple. We have different relationships of desire with this particular food.

Have you ever seen a person enjoying an apple? They take that first bite, and you hear by the sound of it, the crisp cacophony of chewing. You see the juice dribble down their chin. Maybe coveting thy neighbor’s apple may make you desire the apple more, or maybe this is a poor analogy.

Perhaps to sell this idea a little better, we need to harken back to a time where we had simpler drives and desires. When you are young, that prefrontal cortex hasn’t fully formed yet, so we lack that section of the brain that informs our decision-making process. For you Freudian followers, we are ruled more as children by our id than our ego or superego.

So think back to your childhood if you haven’t witnessed any child behaviors as of recent. When I was in elementary school, I had to go to daycare after school and during the summer. The owner’s son was spoiled by my estimation as he owned toys that I could only dream of having. In fact, all the toys available for play at the daycare were his discarded old ones. Even his old toys were cool: giant Lego castles with armies of medieval knights, enough Lincoln logs to build your own miniature New Salem, he even owned cabbage patch dolls, just because they were hard to come by.

He always was bringing some new toy in for us to all be jealous of. That’s a small example of mimetic theory there, but a starker contrast would be when the owner’s son would become jealous of us Lego peasants.

Every so often, someone would be really enjoying some of the old toys and having fun with them, and now the owner’s son would want it back. Seeing what others wanted engendered feelings of desire within him, for as a spoiled child, he quickly grew tired of the latest toy trend. None of it held particular significance with him, because there was no importance placed on these material goods. You want to ruin a child’s Christmas? Buy them every toy they ever wanted. None of it will mean anything and hold no value.

Or think back to the Cabbage Patch Dolls once again: you may think that we live in a genderless society, but this wasn’t true in 1983. We had clearly defined boy toys and girl toys. I’m not opining here, that’s just how it was. However, the Cabbage Patch doll changed all of that. The mania and craze around them was at such a fever pitch, that it became my first introduction to a status symbol. I could have cared less about dolls at age 8. However, I wanted me a Cabbage Patch Kid. That was mimesis in action. I wanted it because that’s what everyone else wanted.

Around the very same time, the same shiz happened with Care Bears. Damn, my generation needed some cuddlin’. Maybe it was to balance us out from all our war inspired toys. Regardless of the whys, the 80’s represent some of the greatest toy crazes ever. This is just another component of mimesis, the mania. Things tend to ramp up to a fever pitch with these mimetic desires created by societies on the whole. When I hit Junior High, sure I was still collecting Transformers and G.I.Joes, but now I was starting to distance myself of such childish pursuits, because puberty began fueling my desires. Now mimesis was starting to curate my wardrobe. You wanna look cool? Maybe get yourself a pair of parachute pants in 5th grade. By 6th grade, you see the older kids wearing these Coca-Cola rugbies, so now you want one of those. Maybe in the summer, you are wearing some Ocean Pacific, or Bermuda jams. You may have completely missed out on being one of these United Colors of Benetton, but there’s no doubt you wanted a Swatch. And you didn’t want just one. To be at your best and Swatchiest, you needed at 4 running up your forearm.

That is an example of mimesis when we first approach how we’ll behave as adults. We want the shit that everyone else wants, because if we are cool enough to get it, that will signify to the other cool kids that we belong. We may just be beginning to develop individuality or a sense of personal style and taste. Some people never develop either.  This may sound like a slam, but personal tastes are well and varied, and for some, there just isn’t any great reason to concern themselves with such things. You can be the world’s greatest individual fully expressing yourself externally, and still live at home with your parents.

So what we’ve been discussing up to this point is acquisitive mimesis. Some would say it is at the heart of our very economic principles, for once we know of a commodity’s scarcity, its value soon increases. Mind you, this is regardless of our need for a commodity. The shiny things of life are hardly a need. Some precious metals still hold intrinsic value for their technical applications, as well as diamonds, but that’s not what is contributing to their perceived value.

Take diamonds for instance. It’s become somewhat common knowledge as of recent, the history of the engagement ring in relation to the De Beers company, the largest diamond mining company in the world. In 1870, huge diamond deposits were discovered in Africa. This is where supply and demand take a backseat to mimesis. With large stockpiles of diamonds and relatively low demand for them… mind you, at the turn of the century, diamonds were viewed as a luxury reserved only for the extremely wealthy… so we have high supply and low demand. By any estimation through an economic lens, this spells trouble for De Beers. They immediately began to plan on how to control the market by monopolizing the diamond industry to control the release of diamonds for sale. 50% of the problem was artificially relegating the supply chain, but how do they solve the demand issue?

The industrial age not only created wealth for the early robber barons, for the first time in history, we see this large emersion of the middle class in society, those who could begin to afford little extravagances. Mind you, after World War I, Capitalism takes its first major blow with the stock market crash of 1929, and it will be a decade and another World War before Americans bounce back to surplus coinage.

Before World War II, only 10% of engagement rings contained diamonds. By the late 30’s, De Beers hired marketing firm NW Ayer to launch their ambitious campaign. NW Ayer didn’t market diamonds outright; they created a narrative. They told stories and sold the idea of tying diamonds to nuptials. With very little intrinsic value, they needed to attach emotional sentiment, and what is more sentimental than young love? The plan was to create a situation where every young couple feels compelled to purchase a diamond for their engagement. By telling stories how a diamond was the ultimate gift of love, the market was now primed. In 1948, a simple concept was brainstormed by Frances Gerety at AW Ayer… “A Diamond is Forever.” The slogan is as timeless and classic as its stratagem implies. Now we have a transitive property added to the diamond: it symbolizes perpetuity. This can now be linked to that eternal love the young couple craves.

So, with women all over the US beginning to expect a diamond engagement ring, AW Ayers’ job is complete. It rivals Edward Bernays marketing campaign touting breakfast as the most important meal of the day and fostering a love of bacon for breakfast. Now Ayers can sit back and let mimesis take over. Women will desire simply what other women desire, and the men purchasing those diamonds will forever be doomed to try and figure how to satiate that yearning.

Ok, so now we have a bit better understanding of mimetic theory. If desire was purely based on intrinsic qualities, we wouldn’t see such a varied range of values distributed amongst cultures, for at the very heart of that word, “culture” is this passing on of learned behaviors and values. We humans are herd animals, and we often have to lean on the rest of the herd for direction.

Take social media for instance. There’s a reason those with the most reach on there are called influencers. When we log in, we all are passively being influenced, most often on a subconscious level. We could see a shirt or necklace that we like, see a person we find entertaining or attractive. In these cases, we may make a conscious decision to like what we see. Far more often, we are being subtly or passively influenced. We are getting slowly nudged in different directions. This is thanks partly to mimesis.

Now mimesis isn’t evil, per se, it’s just how the human condition works. It does have potential for harm if we are unaware of how we can be prone to manipulation. There’s perhaps an even darker side of the coin when it comes to Mimetic theory, and that pairs with the concept of the scapegoat.

Remember when we were talking about the toy crazes of the 80’s? What can often occur with mass mimesis, is this ramping up to a fever pitch as the acquisitive objects of desire become scarce. Logic and reason can be quickly abandoned in this feeding frenzy if conditions align properly. Do you remember Jingle All the Way with Schwarzenegger and Sinbad? In the film, the two respectively play dads in pursuit of the “it” action figure during the holiday sales season. It’s the comedic version of the darker reality of people being trampled to death during Black Friday. It illustrates the insanity that can elevate during mass mimesis.

And the insanity isn’t limited to pursuit of material goods. Often times, it can be a pursuit of power, control, or freedom. As the mass mimesis builds, it usually has this negative side which shows us our unsavory or darker sides of expression. This needs a collective resolution. As a whole, we need someone to blame for our problem, someone to eradicate. The removal of this perceived threat will hopefully correct the course and assuage our guilt. We need a scapegoat. And even if this person isn’t directly the cause of our woes, they may serve well as a symbol of the cause of our collective distress. If the symbol holds enough power, it will suffice. If not, it will make a poor sacrifice.

If we look at power dynamics, often times political leaders like monarchs, presidents, and kings represent the ultimate authority. It’s very easy to turn the king into a future scapegoat should things go wrong. Fortunately enough for the king, he could also consolidate and transfer blame to another scapegoat should he get ahead of the problem fast enough.

The French Revolution provides us with a particular insight into this scapegoat component of mimesis. To set the stage, about 15 years after the birth of the United States, France was in a period of economic depression with high unemployment and food prices. So scarcity is this prime component to fuel the fire of mimesis. High national debt, a rise in literacy and new influences on public opinion, the influence of the Enlightenment Period on European Ideals… France was a powder keg ready to blow.

Now you say you want a revolution…

January 21st, 1793 saw the beheading of King Louis the 16th by way of guillotine. He is reported saying upon execution, "Gentlemen, I am innocent of everything of which I am accused. I hope that my blood may cement the good fortune of the French." How very interesting indeed. He understood his role as scapegoat and his place in history.

Now if executed properly, the role of scapegoat usually finalizes the cycle of mimetic frenzy, but for the French, this wasn’t the case. Subsequently, we have the Reign of Terror where many mass executions were performed. Maximilien de Robespierre becomes this head revolutionary figure for France, calling for execution of King Louis the 16th despite having reservations against capital punishment. He is elected public accuser first, then later added as a member of the “Committee of Public Safety” which functions as a provisional government during the French Revolution. Even though this committee is nonhierarchic by intent Robespierre’s voice perhaps resonated more in the court of public opinion with detractors campaigning that Robespierre was trying to create a dictatorship. Mind you Robespierre was elected as president of the National Convention, so his elevation in status wasn’t completely unfounded. The events transpiring during these times were incredibly complex and can’t be summed summarily. To get more to the point, even Robespierre and several of his conspirators were not immune to scapegoating themselves. On the 28th of July, 1794, only a year and a half after the execution of King Louis the 16th, Robespierre himself visits the guillotine. Coincidentally, had not Robespierre fallen, American patriot and supporter of the French Revolution, Thomas Paine was selected by Robespierre for arrest and execution. He had been invited to the National Convention for his support and ideals. As a Quaker, Thomas Paine objected to the execution of King Louis the 16th and was a proponent for his exile to the Americas. It was this position that perhaps bristled Robespierre so.

Surely all of this national history must have informed Rene Girard in his development of Mimetic Theory.

Let’s examine for a moment Thomas Hobbes and his social contract theory. Hobbes in well known for his sentiment about life in that it is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes touches on the import of the scapegoat in his social contract theory: by Hobbes’ estimation, the ruling elite played by their own rules, but as part of the social contract, this was not to be flaunted. When any ruling member of the social elite was caught egregiously offending these principles openly and publicly, there was then an imposition to enforce the scapegoat clause: such an open display was sure to upset the mimetic apple cart. In this case, the person in offence would need sacrificed to maintain order. We can think of Nixon and Watergate, but spying on your political opponent now seems like child’s play in comparison to modern party politics. However, the rules at the time demanded sacrifice. Journalism at that time was at stake. We have since loosened our rules on journalistic integrity.

The modern-day example we have of the elite scapegoat is Jeffrey Epstein. He had risen to the heights of the social elite. He rubbed elbows with heads of state, the highest in entertainment, and academic intellectuals alike. He represented the dark side of power and excess and thus was sacrificed Hobbes’ style for the benefit of the public. It was rather fortunate that this coincided before anyone else could be named.

As a society were we calling for heads? Did anyone care about Ghislaine Maxwell and her culpability? She names hardly no one, because our need in this case for a scapegoat has been successfully satiated. Epstein suffices for the carnal nature of his crimes. It’s almost as if by design of the social contract, that we aren’t going to get further explicit details. If societally we cared more, or if we weren’t quickly averted to another feigned crisis, perhaps we’d demand further sacrifice.

The same notes are just repeated in history. Think of the Salem Witch trials. In this case, it’s the very mania itself that is quick to testify, quick to find another scapegoat, but in this case, one wouldn’t suffice, because it couldn’t suffice. There wasn’t enough evidence to clearly satiate the crowd, so now it becomes opportunistic. It becomes like this free for all Purge. This is similar to the Reign of Terror period in France.

And since our Witch trials are tied inexorably to Christianity, I can’t help but be reminded of that sacrificial lamb: Christ himself. Girard thought that Christ actually filled the role of sacrifice well as being an innocent, thus breaking the cycle of mimesis. Did that lose you, because it kind of loses me too. Unless sometimes the sacrifice stands in place to remind us that we are just horrible, judgmental animals in the end of it. However you decide to look at it, Religion supposedly stands the test of time because it often fulfills Girard’s requirements for resolution of mimesis. Whatever the symbolism is, it fulfills our sacrificial needs of catharsis.

Quick aside: I may not be the foremost authority on world religions, but that seems particularly exclusive to Christianity and the previous Zoroastrian, Messianic religions preceding it. Sure, the scapegoat is seen throughout human history in the guise of virginal sacrifice or other literal scapegoats, as the term literally refers to the animal (or persons) symbolically sacrificed for societal woes.

Which brings us back to the modern day and how mimetic theory currently affects us. For every proponent of this theory, there are surely detractors. For now, let’s examine the theory more closely as if the tenets were closer to fact than far from it.

I think social media and our current proclivities towards Cancel Culture perhaps are the current representations of mimetic theory. In this cycle, there are forever new demands for sacrificial lambs, because none of them seem truly seem to satiate our desires or are enough to break the mimetic cycle. Seldom do we get to fully scratch that itch. But as creatures under the influence of repeated social constructs, we are further influenced in mimesis. Our only hopes to break these patterns is to tune out to repeated messaging. It seems as we get into our bubble behaviors, we don’t keep our intellects open to debate. We constantly subject ourselves to external influence, telling us what we should think, what we should believe, what we should value. I’m not here to tell you what to believe. I’m here to just implore you to think. Stop and think next time before you blindly accept.

And listen, I get it. Our lives are complicated. It’s much easier to take a backseat and just get fed the information others will find relevant for us. We think by passively scrolling through “newsfeeds” that we are actively pursuing information. If you believe that in a world of algorithms, then I’d suppose voting between two candidates that are preselected by a governing elite may actually seem like a choice. In fact, now that we are talking choices, I’m gonna take a moment to transition into our next week’s Episode: Ain’t Nuthin’ Free: Especially Your Will. We are going to examine the world of human choices and get down deep to the nitty gritty of how we human make our decisions, and what that means to us individually and perhaps existentially.

In the last 30 years, mimesis shaped our collective desires as a culture. Celebrity for the sake of celebrity became a thing. With our puritan history, who would have forseen that a sex tape could launch an empire or familial dynasty. I talked earlier about Robespierre. In the context of the French Revolution, he may have been cast somewhat as a revolutionary, and perhaps later as a villain, but what I neglected to mention that Robespierre and the French put way more emphasis in their revolution on the concepts of human equality. Robespierre championed for the end of human sufferage and the abolition of the slave trade for French colonies. It was argued, “From the beginning he made his mark, speaking articulately over 500 times in the National Assembly in behalf of the lower classes, defending the rights of Jews, black slaves, actors, opposing the royal veto and religious discrimination.” Think of how far we have come. Now our actors are not only escaping oppression, but now they help inform our public policies. It’s a whirlwind as new channels of communication develop, and we are further mimetically influenced.

One last note on Mimesis: If you want a clear representation of mimesis enacted in real time, just go back to the past few seasons of the Housewife franchises. In particular, examine the cast of Beverly Hills. If you aren’t a fan of the show, this next part may seem nonsensical. It all started with the cast turning on Lisa Vanderpump. This business with Dorit was crazy in the wake of Lisa losing her brother to suicide. We are supposed to care about some he/said she/said drama with Dorit and her failure to adopt a few fucking mutts? These shows are a constant Hunger Games for social acceptance, and Lisa Vanderpump was the big dog needing scapegoated. If you disagree, look at Bethany Frankel or subsequently the treatment of Denise Richards post the Vanderpump departure. For the un-initiated, Richards was a ruling elite for that show garnering the highest salary of a housewife on Beverly Hills to date.

That’s all I got on the subject of Mimetic Theory. Tune in next week when we again examine our reality and discuss Free Will or the lack thereof. See you next time, and thanks again for your support.