Re: Girard's Comments on Psychoanalysis -- 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: 08:27:11 02/27/08 Wed
Author: j.jackson
Subject: Re: Girard's Comments on Psychoanalysis
In reply to: Kiernan 's message, "Girard's Comments on Psychoanalysis" on 07:47:37 02/27/08 Wed

I think there's been some slippage here in our understanding of Girard's definition of the "innocence" of the victim. Girard simply wants to assert that the victim of the sacrificial mechanism wasn't guilty of the crime he was being accused of--namely, of bringing discord, chaos to the community. The "victim" of the mechanism may very well have been guilty of the crime that he's being accused of (adultery, murder, robbery) but not guilty of total and complete social discord. This discord is a communal problem.

Let us not forget that even in the passage you cite, Girard announces that Potiphar's wife "is the guilty one." But she's simply guilty of making sexual advances and false accusations--not of larger social disintegration, though her accusations could indeed add to this.

I doubt very much Girard would have a problem with your citation of Christ's words in Matthew. Part of Christ's teaching here is predicated upon NOT making victims of those who have transgressed the laws--which here, then, (according to your position) applies to everyone. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," right. So who then can cast the first stone? It's really a nifty way to use an inherent self-accusatory prohibition to 1) stop communal violence and 2) to get people to repent of their own misdeeds. In other words, my need to exact justice on another person would simply remind me of what I myself have done (sins committed) and would turn my sacrificial energies elsewhere--namely where they belong: on me and my repentance.

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