Procrustean Bed Criticism from Girard? Genesis 4 & 27, Odyssey 9 -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:15:00 02/03/08 Sun
Author: Hwaet!
Subject: Procrustean Bed Criticism from Girard? Genesis 4 & 27, Odyssey 9

I appreciate Girard's interpretation of the stories of Cain & Abel, Jacob & Isaac, and Odysseus and Polyphemus (the Cyclops), but so far I'm not buying it.

I agree that in all these stories, sacrifices are �an act of mediation between a sacrificer and a deity� (Violence and the Sacred 6). I agree that the Cain/Abel situation is a mimetic crisis of jealousy culminating in Cain slaying Abel; perhaps it is also true that if Cain had animals to sacrifice, he would not have killed Abel. But I disagree with the statement, �To say that God accedes to Abel�s sacrificial offerings but rejects the offerings of Cain is simply another way of saying�from the viewpoint of the divinity�that Cain is a murderer, whereas his brother is not� (4). According to the story, God rejects Cain�s sacrifice well before Cain murders Abel. And it appears that God rejects Cain�s offering because Cain gives less than his best, while Abel �brought the fat portions from the firstborn of his flock,� not because Cain is a murderer, or is violent, or lacks an outlet for violence (Gen 4:4).

But Girard uses that story as an introduction; he makes his argument with the stories of Jacob & Isaac and Odysseus & Polyphemus. I now see that the kids of the flock can and should be read as a sacrifice on Jacob�s behalf; they protect him from the wrath of his father. Similarly, Polyphemus�s sheep are a sacrifice for Odysseus, shielding him from the wrath of the Cyclops. But Girard uses these stories as examples of animal sacrifice as an outlet for violence. This strikes me as procrustean. The animals shield the sacrificers from violence, but they are never actually used as scapegoats. They are not used as outlets for violence. That the kids are killed is incidental; Jacob just wanted some fur on his arms. Odysseus�s use of the sheep is likewise incidental; in fact, no violence is done to the sheep; Odysseus simply rides out of the cave under it.

Girard�s reading has shown me sacrifices that I never saw in these stories, but to read the kids and sheep as victims sacrificed to quell violent urges is a bit of a stretch.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]