What do you think?
Rate this book
All Desire Is a Desire for Being
How we are motivated to imitate wanting what others desire—Girard’s theory primed for the social media age.
A Penguin Classic
René Girard eludes easy categories, bridging the fields of literary criticism, anthropology, sociology, history, religion and theology. Influencing such writers as J. M. Coetzee and Milan Kundera, his insight into contagious violence looks ever more prophetic and relevant seven years after his death. In many ways he is the thinker for our modern world of social media and herd behavior. In this newly selected collection of writings, Cynthia L. Haven has created an approachable anthology of his work, addressing Girard's thoughts on the nature of desire, human imitation and rivalry, the causes of conflict and violence, the deep structure of religion and cultural subjects like opera and theatre. Girard spoke in language that was engaging, accessible and often controversial. A long-time friend and colleague, Haven shines a spotlight on his role as a public intellectual and profound theorist, inviting a new generation to his corpus.
A Penguin Classic
René Girard eludes easy categories, bridging the fields of literary criticism, anthropology, sociology, history, religion and theology. Influencing such writers as J. M. Coetzee and Milan Kundera, his insight into contagious violence looks ever more prophetic and relevant seven years after his death. In many ways he is the thinker for our modern world of social media and herd behavior. In this newly selected collection of writings, Cynthia L. Haven has created an approachable anthology of his work, addressing Girard's thoughts on the nature of desire, human imitation and rivalry, the causes of conflict and violence, the deep structure of religion and cultural subjects like opera and theatre. Girard spoke in language that was engaging, accessible and often controversial. A long-time friend and colleague, Haven shines a spotlight on his role as a public intellectual and profound theorist, inviting a new generation to his corpus.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2023
118 people are currently reading
1471 people want to read
About the author
René Girard
137 books814 followersRené Girard was a French-born American historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science whose work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
April 17, 2025
Wow… I don’t know where to begin with this book. I started out intrigued by the literary analyses in the first half, but as it went on, it just got… weirder. Like I was watching Girard become more and more unhinged in real time.
In his work, or at least in this selection, Girard advances two major ideas: 1) that all of history and social relations are fundamentally mimetic—that is, the consequence of imitation; and 2) that all of myth and literature revolves around the narrative of a scapegoated victim murdered by a mob, with Jesus standing alone as the only scapegoat who was viewed as innocent. So let me address these two major ideas first.
The claim that mimetics are so fundamental is almost mundane. To his credit, Girard doesn’t claim to have originated this idea, but he grossly over-exaggerates his own prestige for advancing it. His best use of this tool is in intensive analysis of short Biblical passages, like that of Peter’s denial or the “adulterous woman”. But as soon as Girard takes mimetics outside of texts or specific social interactions, his theory just becomes sloppy. He draws tenuous causal or metaphysical connections between narrative artifacts that only serve to construct an arbitrary history of culture and art, yet portrays this as some of kind ontological discovery.
As for the scapegoat meta-narrative; well, first, it’s just false. There were there myths and stories before Christianity that either didn’t revolve around a scapegoated victim or whose victim was in fact portrayed as innocent (e.g. Socrates). And second, it’s circular and suffers from confirmation bias. On the one hand, one could certainly interpret Jesus’ death as an innocent victim murdered by a guilty mob, but doing so unravels the theological significance of the narrative. The entire point of the Gospel is that it was constructed deliberately over decades *in order to* set itself apart from other sects. Girard regards it however as if it appeared in a vacuum, and was by some miracle a break in the grand scapegoat meta-narrative of history.
What’s worse for Girard—this self-exceptionalizing is a tendency in many religions, which all have to bolster their own unique differences, and from which one can make the exact same argument about originality.
Girard is at his strongest intellectually when he sticks to literary criticism. He face-plants when he broaches political/cultural criticism, or makes gross generalizations and metanarratives. Girard’s nationalism, Christian exceptionalism, etc. only become more bold and overreaching with each new field he decides he’s an expert on. By the time I got to the last essay, ‘Literature and Christianity: A Personal View’, I felt like I was reading a boomer’s Facebook rant about how liberal snowflakes don’t let him say racial slurs anymore:
“…we have replaced 'new' by 'post’, and that is why the postmodern and post-Christian era is upon us. It came along with the poststructuralist era which is also post-metaphysical, post-philosophical, post-everything in sight. Everything is so 'post' that we are rapidly becoming post-post.” (pp. 260).
Girard was a privileged academic with a relatively secular upbringing. And I don’t know why, but this isn’t the first person in such a position to convert later in life and bring his hot new take to the entire Christian narrative. There is an immense irony in his writing—as perhaps the great theoretician of scapegoating—in that he can’t help himself from constantly invoking the reactionary right-wing scapegoats of today; from ‘postmodernism’, to communism, to identity politics. If Girard was around today he’d be a glorified J. Peterson raving about ‘wokeness’ and Christian persecution.
None of this is the fault of the editor of this volume—Cynthia Haven chose a good selection to showcase the range of Girard’s thought and his key ideas. And there really are some useful tidbits throughout it, when taken in appropriate portions. But Penguin chose to publish Girard as a ‘Classic’ and I’m afraid this is just not it.
In his work, or at least in this selection, Girard advances two major ideas: 1) that all of history and social relations are fundamentally mimetic—that is, the consequence of imitation; and 2) that all of myth and literature revolves around the narrative of a scapegoated victim murdered by a mob, with Jesus standing alone as the only scapegoat who was viewed as innocent. So let me address these two major ideas first.
The claim that mimetics are so fundamental is almost mundane. To his credit, Girard doesn’t claim to have originated this idea, but he grossly over-exaggerates his own prestige for advancing it. His best use of this tool is in intensive analysis of short Biblical passages, like that of Peter’s denial or the “adulterous woman”. But as soon as Girard takes mimetics outside of texts or specific social interactions, his theory just becomes sloppy. He draws tenuous causal or metaphysical connections between narrative artifacts that only serve to construct an arbitrary history of culture and art, yet portrays this as some of kind ontological discovery.
As for the scapegoat meta-narrative; well, first, it’s just false. There were there myths and stories before Christianity that either didn’t revolve around a scapegoated victim or whose victim was in fact portrayed as innocent (e.g. Socrates). And second, it’s circular and suffers from confirmation bias. On the one hand, one could certainly interpret Jesus’ death as an innocent victim murdered by a guilty mob, but doing so unravels the theological significance of the narrative. The entire point of the Gospel is that it was constructed deliberately over decades *in order to* set itself apart from other sects. Girard regards it however as if it appeared in a vacuum, and was by some miracle a break in the grand scapegoat meta-narrative of history.
What’s worse for Girard—this self-exceptionalizing is a tendency in many religions, which all have to bolster their own unique differences, and from which one can make the exact same argument about originality.
Girard is at his strongest intellectually when he sticks to literary criticism. He face-plants when he broaches political/cultural criticism, or makes gross generalizations and metanarratives. Girard’s nationalism, Christian exceptionalism, etc. only become more bold and overreaching with each new field he decides he’s an expert on. By the time I got to the last essay, ‘Literature and Christianity: A Personal View’, I felt like I was reading a boomer’s Facebook rant about how liberal snowflakes don’t let him say racial slurs anymore:
“…we have replaced 'new' by 'post’, and that is why the postmodern and post-Christian era is upon us. It came along with the poststructuralist era which is also post-metaphysical, post-philosophical, post-everything in sight. Everything is so 'post' that we are rapidly becoming post-post.” (pp. 260).
Girard was a privileged academic with a relatively secular upbringing. And I don’t know why, but this isn’t the first person in such a position to convert later in life and bring his hot new take to the entire Christian narrative. There is an immense irony in his writing—as perhaps the great theoretician of scapegoating—in that he can’t help himself from constantly invoking the reactionary right-wing scapegoats of today; from ‘postmodernism’, to communism, to identity politics. If Girard was around today he’d be a glorified J. Peterson raving about ‘wokeness’ and Christian persecution.
None of this is the fault of the editor of this volume—Cynthia Haven chose a good selection to showcase the range of Girard’s thought and his key ideas. And there really are some useful tidbits throughout it, when taken in appropriate portions. But Penguin chose to publish Girard as a ‘Classic’ and I’m afraid this is just not it.
December 19, 2023
“everywhere and always, when human beings either cannot or dare not take their anger out on the thing that has caused it, they unconsciously search for substitutes, and more often than not they find them”
chills.
chills.
July 8, 2024
I got this book upon reading an interview with the author, who talked about how Girard understood the basis of human relationships. In a nutshell, Girard’s thesis is that human beings all desire, but we don’t know what to desire until we see what someone else wants. Then we desire that, and it puts us in competition with the other who see us desiring the same thing back, which intensifies their desire in response. This bounces back and forth and escalates the desire in both, resulting in competitiveness. Girard calls this mimetic theory, and unchecked the competition for desire escalates until it reaches the point of conflict and even violence.
Girard further claims that ancient religions developed as a way of dealing with mimesis on a social level. As conflict transcends individuals to the group level where groups end up competing with each other and ultimately end up in conflict, their anxiety fixates more and more on a smaller group of individuals. Ultimately, the fixation goes to one individual, a scapegoat, that the rest of the group (the mob) then eliminates. This restores calm to the rest of the group as a whole. Girard says that the ritual of sacrifice is a way that ancient religions attempted to reenact this kind of social harmonizing by re-creating the act of killing off the scapegoat.
He arrived at this thesis primarily through literature, in analyzing literary plots e.g. in Shakespeare, who play off the theme of mimetic conflict to both comedic and tragic ends. However, the implications for anthropology and sociology become clear. He also claims that Christianity is the one religion that identifies with the scapegoat rather than the mob, revealing the dangers of mob dynamics in the process (Jesus and the Crucifixion). This founds what ultimately becomes the Western orientation toward empathizing and acting on behalf of the victim. (Girard said that pre-Christianity, there were not movements to revile genocide, for example.) This empathizing with the victim as the source of the new desire has defined our modern age. (A good quote from the book: “On political correctness: It’s the religion of the victim detached from any form of transcendence (p. 277).”
The most powerful part of Girard’s mimetic theory is how it forces one to reflect on one’s own actual human, day-to-day living. For example, from this book I have gotten striking insights about the dynamics in my own partnership with my spouse, with moments when I experience escalating anger when driving or stuck in line at the grocery market, or with office politics in my workplaces. Girard articulates that we are, by default, prone to escalation to conflict as we see others perpetrating against us and feel justified then in perpetrating back. The only problem is that the other doesn’t see their initial perpetration as a perpetration, but they do see our response as a perpetration towards them. The cycle towards conflict has thus begun. It is worth quoting Girard’s description of this process in full:
“You can describe very roughly what goes on when a relationship becomes bad. The first thing to observe is that, in most relationships, we all tend to feel that initiative belongs to our partner, not to ourselves. We receive a message and it provides us with a means to evaluate the temperature of the relationship — it may be hot, it may be cold, it may be lukewarm and so forth. Normally we are polite to each other but if we feel someone is not quite as polite as they should be, we will return the message with some added emphasis. We do not think we are changing the relationship. We only want to inform our partner that his or her message has been interpreted in the spirit it was sent. Our partner sees things very differently because he also sees himself as the one at the receiving end of the relationship and he will interpret what we regard as legitimate retaliation as a gesture of unprovoked hostility. Accordingly he will interpret the small increment of sympathy or antipathy as more significant than we feel it is, and then he will return the message with an added emphasis of his own. It takes very few exchanges of this type for the relationship to escalate to open hostility. Neither partner understands why the relationship has gone sour (pp. 247-8).”
My jaw dropped in first hearing this idea in the interview with the author, as I felt I could see it reflected across situations in my own life. What a blindspot we all have! This is what made me want to read this book. And as Girard discusses, the only way out of this dynamic is to recognize our own responsibility for producing it, our own proclivity for blind self-righteousness, our own capacity to escalate to hostility and violence.
The book is an interesting read as the chapters are different writings of Girard’s presented chronologically, and the reader can see the development of his ideas over time. In particular, the first few chapters are by far the most complicated, with the theory emerging in simpler and clearer form as his thinking develops throughout the book’s progression.
A couple of additional quotes I found worth capturing:
“Mimetic desire is the mutual borrowing of desire by two friends who become antagonists as a result. When mimetic rivalry becomes intense, tragic conflict results… When mimetic rivalry escalates beyond a certain point, the rivals engage in endless conflict which undifferentiates them more and more; they all become doubles of one another (p. 99).”
I think back to a previous relationship with an ex, when I realized startlingly that for every single thing for which I was mad at them, an argument could be made that I was guilty of the same offense. Girard notes that exactly this happens in mimesis — that conflict causes us to mimic each other without realizing it, only further escalating the conflict.
On the Western paradigm we are in: “We Westerners are never content with what Heaven sends us, we all dream of unprecedented conquests and matchless exploits (p. 234).”
This reminds me of the book I just read before this, The Uncontrollability of the World, and how the Western drive for controllability of all things ends up bringing about anxiety and a recession of the sacred from the world.
Girard further claims that ancient religions developed as a way of dealing with mimesis on a social level. As conflict transcends individuals to the group level where groups end up competing with each other and ultimately end up in conflict, their anxiety fixates more and more on a smaller group of individuals. Ultimately, the fixation goes to one individual, a scapegoat, that the rest of the group (the mob) then eliminates. This restores calm to the rest of the group as a whole. Girard says that the ritual of sacrifice is a way that ancient religions attempted to reenact this kind of social harmonizing by re-creating the act of killing off the scapegoat.
He arrived at this thesis primarily through literature, in analyzing literary plots e.g. in Shakespeare, who play off the theme of mimetic conflict to both comedic and tragic ends. However, the implications for anthropology and sociology become clear. He also claims that Christianity is the one religion that identifies with the scapegoat rather than the mob, revealing the dangers of mob dynamics in the process (Jesus and the Crucifixion). This founds what ultimately becomes the Western orientation toward empathizing and acting on behalf of the victim. (Girard said that pre-Christianity, there were not movements to revile genocide, for example.) This empathizing with the victim as the source of the new desire has defined our modern age. (A good quote from the book: “On political correctness: It’s the religion of the victim detached from any form of transcendence (p. 277).”
The most powerful part of Girard’s mimetic theory is how it forces one to reflect on one’s own actual human, day-to-day living. For example, from this book I have gotten striking insights about the dynamics in my own partnership with my spouse, with moments when I experience escalating anger when driving or stuck in line at the grocery market, or with office politics in my workplaces. Girard articulates that we are, by default, prone to escalation to conflict as we see others perpetrating against us and feel justified then in perpetrating back. The only problem is that the other doesn’t see their initial perpetration as a perpetration, but they do see our response as a perpetration towards them. The cycle towards conflict has thus begun. It is worth quoting Girard’s description of this process in full:
“You can describe very roughly what goes on when a relationship becomes bad. The first thing to observe is that, in most relationships, we all tend to feel that initiative belongs to our partner, not to ourselves. We receive a message and it provides us with a means to evaluate the temperature of the relationship — it may be hot, it may be cold, it may be lukewarm and so forth. Normally we are polite to each other but if we feel someone is not quite as polite as they should be, we will return the message with some added emphasis. We do not think we are changing the relationship. We only want to inform our partner that his or her message has been interpreted in the spirit it was sent. Our partner sees things very differently because he also sees himself as the one at the receiving end of the relationship and he will interpret what we regard as legitimate retaliation as a gesture of unprovoked hostility. Accordingly he will interpret the small increment of sympathy or antipathy as more significant than we feel it is, and then he will return the message with an added emphasis of his own. It takes very few exchanges of this type for the relationship to escalate to open hostility. Neither partner understands why the relationship has gone sour (pp. 247-8).”
My jaw dropped in first hearing this idea in the interview with the author, as I felt I could see it reflected across situations in my own life. What a blindspot we all have! This is what made me want to read this book. And as Girard discusses, the only way out of this dynamic is to recognize our own responsibility for producing it, our own proclivity for blind self-righteousness, our own capacity to escalate to hostility and violence.
The book is an interesting read as the chapters are different writings of Girard’s presented chronologically, and the reader can see the development of his ideas over time. In particular, the first few chapters are by far the most complicated, with the theory emerging in simpler and clearer form as his thinking develops throughout the book’s progression.
A couple of additional quotes I found worth capturing:
“Mimetic desire is the mutual borrowing of desire by two friends who become antagonists as a result. When mimetic rivalry becomes intense, tragic conflict results… When mimetic rivalry escalates beyond a certain point, the rivals engage in endless conflict which undifferentiates them more and more; they all become doubles of one another (p. 99).”
I think back to a previous relationship with an ex, when I realized startlingly that for every single thing for which I was mad at them, an argument could be made that I was guilty of the same offense. Girard notes that exactly this happens in mimesis — that conflict causes us to mimic each other without realizing it, only further escalating the conflict.
On the Western paradigm we are in: “We Westerners are never content with what Heaven sends us, we all dream of unprecedented conquests and matchless exploits (p. 234).”
This reminds me of the book I just read before this, The Uncontrollability of the World, and how the Western drive for controllability of all things ends up bringing about anxiety and a recession of the sacred from the world.
October 18, 2023
A powerful theory of human drive.
December 28, 2023
Been interested in reading Girard for a while. This came out recently and seemed like a good introduction.
Mostly consists of short essays and interviews with Girard centering around his ideas of mimetic desire and scapegoating. Especially enjoyed the essays on Shakespeare's Midsummer Nights Dream and Julius Caesar.
Section of maxims at the end was cool too.
Mostly consists of short essays and interviews with Girard centering around his ideas of mimetic desire and scapegoating. Especially enjoyed the essays on Shakespeare's Midsummer Nights Dream and Julius Caesar.
Section of maxims at the end was cool too.
October 27, 2024
This collection of Girard’s writings is profound and timely. Girard’s review of Camus, Sophocles, Shakespeare’s Julius Cesar, the Gospels, and the Passion of the Christ for traces of mimetic rivalry and mob violence against the scapegoat are profound. Like C.S. Lewis, Girard found patterns in literature/myth that led him to a faith in Christ. The decay of social bonds, the decline in belonging, and the subsequent cry from the mob for a scapegoat to “pay” for the present troubles is a cyclical pattern that we see in literature, history, and current events. I fear hard times are ahead. Maybe a scapegoat will satisfy the crowd, maybe the crowd will realize the scapegoat is the innocent victim, who knows. All I guess anyone can do is live with character/conviction and hope to survive the storm.
January 21, 2024
I read this shortly after 'Things Hidden Since the Foundation of The World' and as it's a collected works, was concerned there maybe some repetition. I found this not to be the case. Overall the style is much less academically inclined and aimed at a more general readership. There's several decent pieces of literary criticism, interviews and speeches, all of which combine to give a good outline of Girard's speculative thepry of anthropology and general psychology of the human species.
If you're unaware of his theories this is a good place to start.
If you're unaware of his theories this is a good place to start.
August 9, 2025
Full review to come, but I think that Girard (at least as this collection presents him) is unfortunately a little too one-note for my taste. Perhaps that’s a failing on my part, perhaps it’s a desire for systematization in thought, or perhaps it’s just because the editor of the volume chose very general essays to showcase Girard’s mimetic theory. I’ll have to read a full-length book of his to get the full picture.
That being said, there are three fantastic essays in here that are 5/5 in my book: 1) Shakespeare in Comedy and Tragedy (really 2 short pieces), 2) Belonging, and 3) The Mystic of Neuilly. Definitely give those a thorough read if you’re working through this one, they’re well worth it.
That being said, there are three fantastic essays in here that are 5/5 in my book: 1) Shakespeare in Comedy and Tragedy (really 2 short pieces), 2) Belonging, and 3) The Mystic of Neuilly. Definitely give those a thorough read if you’re working through this one, they’re well worth it.
January 30, 2025
First couple pieces in this collection reminded me that almost every philosophy class I attended in college I just sat through without saying a word to anyone while struggling to just digest the conversation.
February 17, 2025
I went into Girard's essays really wanting to like them. However, his persistent reduction of anthropology, history, literature, and religion to just 'mimetic desire' and 'scapegoat theory' ultimately fell flat for me.
For an analysis of Girard and the somewhat weird position he occupies within philosophy and literary criticism, this Harper's article is worth checking out: https://harpers.org/archive/2023/11/o...
For an analysis of Girard and the somewhat weird position he occupies within philosophy and literary criticism, this Harper's article is worth checking out: https://harpers.org/archive/2023/11/o...
August 27, 2024
Excellent compilation of Girard's ideas.
September 18, 2024
reading this book was the push I needed to finally become a committed alcoholic
March 4, 2025
Incredibly academically and spiritually rigorous - a true joy and pleasure to digest
April 15, 2025
this was a ride. it took me SO long. i‘ve been kinda dipping my way back into academic reading & more essay based things but i ended up just constantly running out of time to read.
i think it had to do with my responsibilities at work getting more taxing & then i finally went back to school this year. it made me realize that i actually handle & do a lot more than i thought i did damn. but with all that added responsibility, stress manifests in strange ways. my stress being, getting the flu for the first time in my life & my wisdom teeth getting infected in the same week. turns out going to the club & numbing teeth pain in numerous n creative ways doesn’t fix the problem long term. unfortch. then all this running around dealing with that and going through numerous complications post op surgery.. i had this book in numerous bags i took to & fro from my parents house, to the dentist (3 offices), to work, back to the city to be remote… the problem was.. from being so malnourished, i kept losing my footing on my appreciation for the established idea of mimetic desire. essentially, i just got really stupid & downloaded apps & watched TV while being fried on pain killers & delta 9 weed gummies.
what really stuck with me though is the essay i read of his before my surgery. about his skin cancer scare. i remember reading it & confronting my own fears of skin cancer (i live & breathe by SPF) but what i failed to realize is my damn teeth mirrored his exact thought process in the essay. but also.. scarily enough, it happened the exact same day. i had my stupid wisdom teeth surgery on ash wednesday just like girard going to an appt & was diagnosed with skin cancer at the time. totally unrelated but when i realized it i was like "oh fuuuck u.“ but the essay wasn’t entirely about having a come to jesus moment rly, but i certainly had one. it made me want to participate in lent this yr.. by giving up alcohol but then i went to the first venue i went to shows at late in hs & college & went to go see a punk band n had to have 2 modelos 5days post op to cherish the moment ofc.
anyway, briefly speaking with someone else who read this.. the theory got repetitive after awhile. he made some interesting points but that mfer applied it to everything n anything.. even if it didn’t really need to be there. he lost the theory of mimetic desire, mimetic crisis, etc & flat out fell on mimesis even though he quite literally states that his theory is more refined & better than plato‘s. excuse me… plato ? u think you have better thoughts than plato. okay sir.
one thing i figured out really quickly is never in my life have i ever wanted to dig up a mfer from their grave n argue with them. he had such an ego on him it was insane. so insane that he literally defended not only mel gibson‘s passion of christ.. but mel gibson.. as a person n his intentions. like are u kidding me ? fucking insane.
also, he‘d say some pretentious shit such as: "i don’t like modern media.. i only like shakespeare, the bible, and the stranger by camus" like okay loser would it really kill u to stray from the aesthetic for one second ? then omfg he does a memorial speech for a past cardinal to honor him n was like "idk this man n this is how he failed his religion several times but great guy"
also don’t even get me started on the transcription of conversation he’d have with mark anspach.. like mark would say "and you said…" & girards ass would be like "i never said that" it was like listening to two old ladies in a memory rehabilitation center argue at eachother while saying the alphabet. complete disconnect istg.
the translation for this was horrible though too. so many typos & grammatical errors n that’s coming from me who types like a ****** literally on purpose.
anyway, i was insanely entertained though. i loved the analysis of shakespeare & candide. i fucking loved candide. so i ate that shit up ofc.
but also.. i loved how he explained his appreciation for christianity in not a "this is the best thing ever & everything else is sinful n wrong" way. it seems like his relationship with spirituality is quite aligned with mine n it was kinda refreshing. i think as of late, ive had a year or two in my life where i‘m revisiting my religious upbringing n making peace with it. it’s quite an experience. i love how his essays provoked my brain in such a frustrating n helpful way.
not only was it interesting through a literary n biblical lens.. but his commentary on public behavior n relationship dynamics was so cool too. the chapter abt the challengersism of it all that breaks up the homies.. heartbreaking.
anyway, i remember that i picked this up bc someone fully making a claim such as "differences don’t cause conflict.. what makes us similar does" was such an attention grab if there ever was one.
he sure loved making that point that in myth, readers don’t sympathize with the protagonist n they are actually guilty of what they are accused of.. whereas in the gospels.. the scapegoat is always innocent n known to be was sorta eye opening.
finally, girard is fucking brilliant for introducing his theory of how we need to start viewing ourselves as persecutors to begin understanding the mimetic desire model fully. i was like.. yes. wow. brilliant.. keep telling me more
then, finally all his maxims at the end? i‘d turn to my deskmate at work n be like "u wanna hear a banger?" n she‘d be like "no" & i‘d still tell her. i‘m a delight.
but girard, what an insane man. rip. if he woulda talked at app state.. i think i wouldn’t have dropped out.
i think it had to do with my responsibilities at work getting more taxing & then i finally went back to school this year. it made me realize that i actually handle & do a lot more than i thought i did damn. but with all that added responsibility, stress manifests in strange ways. my stress being, getting the flu for the first time in my life & my wisdom teeth getting infected in the same week. turns out going to the club & numbing teeth pain in numerous n creative ways doesn’t fix the problem long term. unfortch. then all this running around dealing with that and going through numerous complications post op surgery.. i had this book in numerous bags i took to & fro from my parents house, to the dentist (3 offices), to work, back to the city to be remote… the problem was.. from being so malnourished, i kept losing my footing on my appreciation for the established idea of mimetic desire. essentially, i just got really stupid & downloaded apps & watched TV while being fried on pain killers & delta 9 weed gummies.
what really stuck with me though is the essay i read of his before my surgery. about his skin cancer scare. i remember reading it & confronting my own fears of skin cancer (i live & breathe by SPF) but what i failed to realize is my damn teeth mirrored his exact thought process in the essay. but also.. scarily enough, it happened the exact same day. i had my stupid wisdom teeth surgery on ash wednesday just like girard going to an appt & was diagnosed with skin cancer at the time. totally unrelated but when i realized it i was like "oh fuuuck u.“ but the essay wasn’t entirely about having a come to jesus moment rly, but i certainly had one. it made me want to participate in lent this yr.. by giving up alcohol but then i went to the first venue i went to shows at late in hs & college & went to go see a punk band n had to have 2 modelos 5days post op to cherish the moment ofc.
anyway, briefly speaking with someone else who read this.. the theory got repetitive after awhile. he made some interesting points but that mfer applied it to everything n anything.. even if it didn’t really need to be there. he lost the theory of mimetic desire, mimetic crisis, etc & flat out fell on mimesis even though he quite literally states that his theory is more refined & better than plato‘s. excuse me… plato ? u think you have better thoughts than plato. okay sir.
one thing i figured out really quickly is never in my life have i ever wanted to dig up a mfer from their grave n argue with them. he had such an ego on him it was insane. so insane that he literally defended not only mel gibson‘s passion of christ.. but mel gibson.. as a person n his intentions. like are u kidding me ? fucking insane.
also, he‘d say some pretentious shit such as: "i don’t like modern media.. i only like shakespeare, the bible, and the stranger by camus" like okay loser would it really kill u to stray from the aesthetic for one second ? then omfg he does a memorial speech for a past cardinal to honor him n was like "idk this man n this is how he failed his religion several times but great guy"
also don’t even get me started on the transcription of conversation he’d have with mark anspach.. like mark would say "and you said…" & girards ass would be like "i never said that" it was like listening to two old ladies in a memory rehabilitation center argue at eachother while saying the alphabet. complete disconnect istg.
the translation for this was horrible though too. so many typos & grammatical errors n that’s coming from me who types like a ****** literally on purpose.
anyway, i was insanely entertained though. i loved the analysis of shakespeare & candide. i fucking loved candide. so i ate that shit up ofc.
but also.. i loved how he explained his appreciation for christianity in not a "this is the best thing ever & everything else is sinful n wrong" way. it seems like his relationship with spirituality is quite aligned with mine n it was kinda refreshing. i think as of late, ive had a year or two in my life where i‘m revisiting my religious upbringing n making peace with it. it’s quite an experience. i love how his essays provoked my brain in such a frustrating n helpful way.
not only was it interesting through a literary n biblical lens.. but his commentary on public behavior n relationship dynamics was so cool too. the chapter abt the challengersism of it all that breaks up the homies.. heartbreaking.
anyway, i remember that i picked this up bc someone fully making a claim such as "differences don’t cause conflict.. what makes us similar does" was such an attention grab if there ever was one.
he sure loved making that point that in myth, readers don’t sympathize with the protagonist n they are actually guilty of what they are accused of.. whereas in the gospels.. the scapegoat is always innocent n known to be was sorta eye opening.
finally, girard is fucking brilliant for introducing his theory of how we need to start viewing ourselves as persecutors to begin understanding the mimetic desire model fully. i was like.. yes. wow. brilliant.. keep telling me more
then, finally all his maxims at the end? i‘d turn to my deskmate at work n be like "u wanna hear a banger?" n she‘d be like "no" & i‘d still tell her. i‘m a delight.
but girard, what an insane man. rip. if he woulda talked at app state.. i think i wouldn’t have dropped out.
December 31, 2024
I thoroughly enjoyed this tight little collection of Girard’s work. Girard’s ideas are not that complex. Really they are all one idea: a theory of mimetic desire. All desire, Girard points out, is mimetic, meaning we learn what to want from others. This is why Augustine says we cannot trust our desires. If we learn what to want from other sinful human beings.
Girard says that mimetic desires cause us to resent one another. We call this envy. Over time communities develop mimetic crises, where the resentment can no longer be contained and violence erupts. In order to control this violence, communities developed the scapegoat mechanism whereby an individual from the margins of society is selected. They are then murdered and the mimetic crisis is quelled. The scapegoat is viewed as guilty, once they are murdered because of their guilt they are divinized. This is the basis of all primordial religions and myths. Girard then identifies Judaism and Christianity as different. The texts of Judaism and Christianity are always pointing out the innocence of the victim. This culminates in the persecution and murder of Jesus, a scapegoat who is explicitly labeled by the text as innocent. Thus, the murder and resurrection of Christ unmasks the hypocrisy and falseness of the scapegoat mechanism. Christianity, Girard is clear to point out, is not stabilizing. It is implicitly destabilizing, implicitly disorderly. The Christian religion states that the only way to avoid mimetic violence is not through the scapegoat mechanism but by loving Love. In other words, the only person it is healthy to imitate is Jesus, God.
I really like René Girard. He is a humble, likable, rather faithful man. He had an idea that he kind of fell in love with and spent the rest of his life justifying and spreading those ideas. I also think his theory is broadly correct. I think he is totally right about the mimetic nature of desire. I think scapegoating is a part of ancient religion and that it is bad in that it is the ritual murder of an innocent individual. I think Christianity is different and that it is an unmasking destabilizing force. I think Girard’s anthropological analysis of Christianity is deeply interesting. Most importantly, Girard is instinctually against violence of any kind, and he gives a deep, intellectually deep justification for pacifism.
Girard can have bouts of grumpiness or crabbiness. He also has a bit of tunnel vision. In an essay on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” he glibly dismisses claims of antisemitism over the movie, which are undoubtedly present, because he thought the movie fit his theory over violence. This isn’t to say Girard was antisemitic, he wasn’t. He was just blinded to other critiques because he was so focused on justifying his ideas.
I hope to read more Girard. I have found him extremely helpful and interesting. Mimetic desire when well directed can power amazing good. When is maldirected, as it often is, it can be dangerous.
Girard says that mimetic desires cause us to resent one another. We call this envy. Over time communities develop mimetic crises, where the resentment can no longer be contained and violence erupts. In order to control this violence, communities developed the scapegoat mechanism whereby an individual from the margins of society is selected. They are then murdered and the mimetic crisis is quelled. The scapegoat is viewed as guilty, once they are murdered because of their guilt they are divinized. This is the basis of all primordial religions and myths. Girard then identifies Judaism and Christianity as different. The texts of Judaism and Christianity are always pointing out the innocence of the victim. This culminates in the persecution and murder of Jesus, a scapegoat who is explicitly labeled by the text as innocent. Thus, the murder and resurrection of Christ unmasks the hypocrisy and falseness of the scapegoat mechanism. Christianity, Girard is clear to point out, is not stabilizing. It is implicitly destabilizing, implicitly disorderly. The Christian religion states that the only way to avoid mimetic violence is not through the scapegoat mechanism but by loving Love. In other words, the only person it is healthy to imitate is Jesus, God.
I really like René Girard. He is a humble, likable, rather faithful man. He had an idea that he kind of fell in love with and spent the rest of his life justifying and spreading those ideas. I also think his theory is broadly correct. I think he is totally right about the mimetic nature of desire. I think scapegoating is a part of ancient religion and that it is bad in that it is the ritual murder of an innocent individual. I think Christianity is different and that it is an unmasking destabilizing force. I think Girard’s anthropological analysis of Christianity is deeply interesting. Most importantly, Girard is instinctually against violence of any kind, and he gives a deep, intellectually deep justification for pacifism.
Girard can have bouts of grumpiness or crabbiness. He also has a bit of tunnel vision. In an essay on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” he glibly dismisses claims of antisemitism over the movie, which are undoubtedly present, because he thought the movie fit his theory over violence. This isn’t to say Girard was antisemitic, he wasn’t. He was just blinded to other critiques because he was so focused on justifying his ideas.
I hope to read more Girard. I have found him extremely helpful and interesting. Mimetic desire when well directed can power amazing good. When is maldirected, as it often is, it can be dangerous.
April 20, 2025
Girard's work has been cited by some in the American right as an inspiration for their own ideas, which is completely ridiculous, but they say the same about Bonhoeffer and even Jesus when their ideology has more in common with Herod and Hitler, so no surprise they get Girard so completely wrong. There's a good concise article on that subject (https://axdouglas.substack.com/p/rene...) that is praised by Girard's son, so no need to go over the same issues. But what I find more disappointing is that some who are opposed to the far right have nonetheless swallowed their line on Girard and as a result portray him as "one of them". One the contrary, his work is vital for understanding and undermining the whole system of scapegoating which is the essence of the far right.
The essays by Girard that are included in this book are mostly quite readable and the intro by Cynthia Haven is a worthwhile read in itself. The book shouldn't be read in a hurry, especially as it has some profound moments that call the reader to put the book down and ponder. On the negative side, there was just a bit too much repetition of the summarised version of Girard's core ideas on mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism (though it would have been impossible to avoid such repetition altogether). Highlights: chapter 4 on Nietzsche and chapter 7 on the execution of John the Baptist.
The essays by Girard that are included in this book are mostly quite readable and the intro by Cynthia Haven is a worthwhile read in itself. The book shouldn't be read in a hurry, especially as it has some profound moments that call the reader to put the book down and ponder. On the negative side, there was just a bit too much repetition of the summarised version of Girard's core ideas on mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism (though it would have been impossible to avoid such repetition altogether). Highlights: chapter 4 on Nietzsche and chapter 7 on the execution of John the Baptist.
November 23, 2024
Girard's core idea on mimesis is both profound and enduring. The writer deserves credit for compiling his arguments in a way that highlights their significance.
That said, Girard’s work isn’t without flaws. He falls into familiar traps that plague many big-picture thinkers—self-serving bias and confirmation bias are quite evident as he stretches his theory to explain nearly everything, almost like a "theory of everything," which, alas, it is not. At times, his reasoning feels tangled, even a bit unhinged, which weakens the overall argument.
Still, his overarching claim remains indispensable. Like many big ideas, it’s not perfect, but it’s intellectually significant and well worth studying for anyone trying to understand human nature and society.
That said, Girard’s work isn’t without flaws. He falls into familiar traps that plague many big-picture thinkers—self-serving bias and confirmation bias are quite evident as he stretches his theory to explain nearly everything, almost like a "theory of everything," which, alas, it is not. At times, his reasoning feels tangled, even a bit unhinged, which weakens the overall argument.
Still, his overarching claim remains indispensable. Like many big ideas, it’s not perfect, but it’s intellectually significant and well worth studying for anyone trying to understand human nature and society.
January 8, 2025
pretty decent book, a lot of nuggets of wisdom
honestly it's like a guidebook,spoonfed girardian thought
I especially liked the analysis of l'estranger by albert camus, as well as the analysis of scapegoating mechanism
would read the Shakespeare chapter, but don't really have much background knowledge, it'll be something I'll have to revisit as I continue exploring the classics
good intro to girard, way better than his magnum opus for beginners
honestly it's like a guidebook,spoonfed girardian thought
I especially liked the analysis of l'estranger by albert camus, as well as the analysis of scapegoating mechanism
would read the Shakespeare chapter, but don't really have much background knowledge, it'll be something I'll have to revisit as I continue exploring the classics
good intro to girard, way better than his magnum opus for beginners
January 3, 2025
Great collection of essays and maxims from throughout Girards life. If you are a fan of Girard this is a great book to add to your collection. If you are not familiar with Girard I do not recommend starting with this book.
March 11, 2025
The literary analysis is very engaging, the biblical studies zealous and a bit overeager imo. But then again “those who aren’t ready to understand certain things will never be convinced by logical and anthropological arguments”. I guess that’s my bad.
February 9, 2025
Smart, but not much to do with the title - Girard is more of a sociologist of violence.
February 19, 2025
I think you can either rate this book highly, or remain voluntarily blind to the mimesis at play in your core. Let’s all be authentically fundamentalist in our belief in this absolute.
March 19, 2025
The core idea on Mimesis is intriguing and the literary analysis is worth the read, but the passion of the Christ stuff is a slow die out at the end
March 22, 2025
ILY GIRARD
March 25, 2025
Im freeeeee
April 9, 2025
I guess I'm still not into philosophy
May 9, 2025
3,5 stars;
August 15, 2025
DNF at roughly 35% alas I am not well versed enough in the literary canon to understand his analyses thoroughly
August 30, 2025
… kind of crazy how a bunch of Silicon Valley ghouls think life is supposed to play out like the plot of Challengers?
November 15, 2023
I have nothing to edify me besides Girard. I feel like frodo, with the voice of girard whispering from the other realm like gandalf
Girard said that Nietzsche was the greatest theologian of the 19th century. It is not Rosenius nor any other romantic zealot who tries to provide opiates for the masses. The genius of Nietzsche is that he understands the relationship between the scapegoat and the crowd, and the birth of metaphysics.
Girard said that free will exists in relationship towards the crowd, and is put to test in exceptional circumstances such as the stoning of the adulteress. The paraclete, the helper, acts as an inspiration to move the will, which depending on the person will be moved to use free will to achieve individuality to different extents, integrated with the personal representation of the individual person. This is in agreement with cognitive neuroscience and PERHAPS proves that the catholic view of grace is more correct than the swedish protestant one, certainly, but perhaps even in the dispute during the reformation does the catholic view come out as more true.
Girard said that Nietzsche was the greatest theologian of the 19th century. It is not Rosenius nor any other romantic zealot who tries to provide opiates for the masses. The genius of Nietzsche is that he understands the relationship between the scapegoat and the crowd, and the birth of metaphysics.
Girard said that free will exists in relationship towards the crowd, and is put to test in exceptional circumstances such as the stoning of the adulteress. The paraclete, the helper, acts as an inspiration to move the will, which depending on the person will be moved to use free will to achieve individuality to different extents, integrated with the personal representation of the individual person. This is in agreement with cognitive neuroscience and PERHAPS proves that the catholic view of grace is more correct than the swedish protestant one, certainly, but perhaps even in the dispute during the reformation does the catholic view come out as more true.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews