Jesus likes Heineken AND Pabst Blue Ribbon -- 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: 17:36:48 02/28/08 Thu
Author: Hwaet!
Subject: Jesus likes Heineken AND Pabst Blue Ribbon
In reply to: Kiernan 's message, "Re: A New Mimeticism" on 07:20:48 02/27/08 Wed

Differences and similarities in themselves are not inherently anything except different or similar. I think of Hamlet when he says to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern sarcastically, but not emptily, "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" (2.2.254). Christ would have us offer up ourselves to our neighbor, whether they are similar to or different from us. I think of it as working backwards from Girard's theory, which begins with mimetic rivalry and moves toward the scapegoat mechanism. Girard says that Christ's death debunks the efficacy of the scapegoat mechanism; this, however, puts everyone at risk of apocalyptic mimetic contagion. The only remedy for this is acting and reacting peacefully toward others, regardless of our differences and similarites. This will bring about unity while leaving differences and similarities in tact. Notice that in John 17, Jesus prays for unity, not uniformity.

As for those who say, to paraphrase you, that differences are the cause of all violence and must be eradicated, I recall Marx and Engles saying pretty much this. They were wrong, but they didn't get their theories from thin air. In class we usually speak of differences as being conducive to peace, and of sameness as leading to mimetic rivalry. It is easy to see, however, how class differences can appear to cause social turmoil. Class A has money and Heineken, Class D (the proletariat) has peanuts and Pabst Blue Ribbon. Marx thought that levelling these differences would eliminate the cause for outrage. Makes sense. Girard would argue, though, that the problem between Classes A and D is still rooted in sameness. Class D perceives itself to be no less deserving than its model, Class A. This makes for double, double, toil, trouble. In fact, because Class D is the working class and not the Darcy-Bingley-Lady Catherine aristocracy, it sees itself as more deserving of wealth than Class A, making the cauldron boil hotter (just as when a younger sibling overtakes the older). Yet amidst this sameness, the disparagement between Class A's wealth and Class D's poverty remains quite visible and tangible, so it is easy to see why Marx isolated class differences as the cause. A big problem with Marx is that the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars (whatever causes or forces that lead to our circumstances), but in ourselves (how we respond to our circumstances).

This discussion is relevant to the ongoing social and political debate over disparagement between classes and entitlement societies.

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