The Scandal of Innocent Scapegoater & Guilty Scapegoat in Modernity

Contemporary rampant indiscriminate scapegoating is a sign of mimetic undifferentiation. In our modern post-Christian world it normally does not degenerate into violent sacrificial rituals. Instead it signifies internal mediation that manifests itself as scapegoating and that seems to be in constant search of new and ever more ingenious and outrageous, though sometimes actually only inane, forms of itself – such as could give the scapegoater the edge, if only temporary, over against his/her mimetic double.

A strange and scandalous form of this new wave of scapegoating/undifferentiation rears its head in accusations of scapegoating leveled at those who do not so much as engage in any real scapegoating themselves (sometimes no such allegations are even initially made by the accuser, though most of the time in mimetic fervor they will eventually be made), but instead refuse to see or acknowledge as scapegoating only-factually-based critical remarks, directed by them, or even by a third party, at yet another party, the latter being such that both sides of the mimetic exchange agree is a scapegoater.

The circular logic of mimetic undifferentiatiation behind it would seem to be at least partly based on a suspicion that the refusing party is a scapegoater in hiding or denial – since the acknowledged scapegoater must be the easiest target of scapegoating in our modern world, a thus the whole exercise must of necessity result in his/her being scapegoated, in the event by the refusing party. Then the suspicion is able to cast its mimetic shadow over both parties, and soon they are taking turns as both the scapegoater and one being scapegoated.

Yet there’s another characteristic of this new type of scapegoating, one related to the Girardian definition of the phenomenon in its most orthodox form, that makes it even more insidious and almost beyond control in mimetic rivalry. Scapegoating to be that must be an activity or attitude that is nonconscious. This characteristic is truly crucial and as insidious as can be: how can you defend yourself against accusations of being a scapegoater when for you to be one means not to know about it? It’s a logical impossibility and psychological trap, a veritable double bind. You either admit that you are one, where paradoxically your admission ostensibly lets you off the hook – you’re no longer technically a scapegoater, just a vile individual probably relishing doing harm or maligning your fellow human beings; or you deny it, which denial is taken up by your mimetic rival as proof of your being a scapegoater, only to be triumphantly hurled at you as an accusation, and one that cannot be deflected. So when faced with such a charge you must be reacting with anger shading quickly into rage. And then you turn on your mimetic rival, doing the very same thing to him/her. Then, as Girard might say, Satan has accomplished his task of successfully turning the lives of mimetic doubles into an accusatory duel turning on scapegoating.

The obvious observation, though in reality not that obvious to many, is that as law causes sin so does Girard’s definition of scapegoating produce and foment this form of no-violent-resolution-available-type scapegoating that becomes or is red-hot internal mediation.

If at this point the reader is curious whether the present argumentation has any bearing on the fact that any criticism of Donald Trump is interpreted by some as scapegoating him, my answer is: you bet it does. Even a criticism limiting itself to just pointing to the facts of his outrageous scapegoating of others seems to be all too easily subsumed under the term. This “defense” of Trump is then normally followed by an accusation or allegation that the one ostensibly scapegoating Trump is turning a blind eye to the misdeeds, nay, the true scapegoating perpetrated by his political rivals. In mimetic frenzy the defender of Trump is trying to run the political agenda of his neighbor whose politics differs from that of his own.  

In terms of setting the stage for scapegoating Girard was adamant about two things: that for SCAPEGOATING to be effective, or even to be termed that, it HAS TO BE NONCONSCIOUS (the scapegoater calls it justice then); and that THE SCAPEGOAT IS INNOCENT, though obviously this is not admitted or seen by the scapegoater. According to Girard that actually is what scapegoating in the mimetic sense, at least in a mythical context, is about. It seems justifiable then to say that any other configuration, e.g.,  guilty scapegoat deemed guilty by scapegoater, is not scapegoating in light of mimetic theory.

But then there is Girard's admonition to be on the lookout for possible signs of the allegedly guilty party's innocence when seeing how more and more people are ganging up on him. And even if he is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, would one not have a change of heart seeing a crowd that is undeniably mimetic, gathering around him to do their regular job of lynching, even if not necessarily physical? 

The tension between the two conditions as it is more and more experienced in modern real life scenarios, the interplay of relative importance attached to either of those conditions in a situation where there is doubt, or can be cast by mimetic rivals, whether conditions are simultaneously met,  is again such as to lead man astray into yet another round of internal mediation, over the issue as such, or its present exemplification.

Of course any distinction between scapegoating and justice, especially if unqualified, can easily come under criticism – one based both on history and, possibly even more strongly, on the Gospels: Paul’s “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin;” and, by extension, "where there is law, there is crime" (Solzhenitsyn; this sentiment is shared by some in the West). But if we proceed along these lines we will most probably be internally mediating and scapegoating one another over the issue what is justifiably penalized (as opposed to constituting scapegoating dressed in judicial garb) and what is not, and what are the real motives behind either. There’s no easy way out of the mimetic circle for man, if it is at all possible – or even truly desirable.

Yet I happen to be of the opinion that reasonable differentiation between scapegoating and justice is called for in a world that is in thrall to mimetic undifferentiation and internal mediation. If heeded what it can do in many circumstances is dissipate some of the heavy fog of undifferentiation, and afford us salutary respites from internal mediation. We must at least try to prevail over our mythical inheritance and mimetic endowment in its crudest forms.

Instead of nonconscious indiscriminate scapegoating, conscious empathetic involvement should be the order of the day. It is only the latter attitude that affords one clear seeing of the nature of scapegoating in our modern world. Empathy, mostly a right-brain faculty, is not wide-eyed innocence it is purported to be by some. Instead empathy, the basis of good mimesis, can go a long way toward inoculating one against mimetic rivalry over the issue. Even when insisting on relying on truth, good mimesis must be ready to absorb the pain and violence instead of passing them on.  It certainly is not preordained for defeat, it can also prevail, as in a spirit of hope should be believed by people of good will, certainly including Girardians, and especially Girardian Christians.Początek formularza

Dół formularza

Początek formularza

Dół formularza

Internal Mediation in Liberal Democracies of the Post-Christian World

We subconsciously fear the violence inherent in undifferentiation, so we strive to assume and then maintain an identity that would be different from that of our “others,” especially those closest to us – my neighbor, as opposed to my friend (until s/he becomes a mimetic obstacle to me); neighboring nations; social class just below my station; etc.

We no longer have the (easy) recourse to violent scapegoating that while restoring peace to the community would also bestow an identity, if only temporarily, on us, one based on a common act of violence/murder.

Since we as (post-)Christians strive not to engage in the latter, we have gradually and haltingly developed a system of liberal democracy, where majority rule is supposed to safeguard minority rights. But those of us who might expect that under such a system violence and scapegoating would disappear are of course disappointed. Also, theories abound to the effect that politics is predicated on the friend-enemy distinction or that it actually is about violence: that’s how man forges ahead. Any political theory that would, theoretically or practically, deny this imperative stands condemned as foggy thinking, to say the least. That’s also how liberal democracy is being denigrated by those who favor unashamed power politics.

For those less theoretically-minded there might be something wrong with liberal democracy inasmuch as it is felt that it denies one a definite identity that would differentiate one from one’s “other.” In search of an identity over against the other even a (post-)Christian might eventually be ready to unreflexively fall back on scapegoating, even of a violent sort. The issue is further compounded by the fact that liberal democracy does proscribe certain types of self-identity, those that the system deems as threatening to the most vulnerable, underprivileged and discriminated against.

There are excesses in this last exercise – in the shape of a growing victimhood culture – that are, still under liberal democracy, protested against. And true to form it happens in a spirit of internal mediation – the system is being accused by its detractors of seemingly disregarding other victims, many a time those that the other side, and the system, as the accusers would have it, paints as scapegoaters . But we are now at a point where instead of relying on the system to fight those excesses from within in order to curb them, the validity of the system is being questioned by many who increasingly characterize it as an aberration of sorts. No thought seems to be given to the fact that the collapse of the house of liberal democracy would most probably spell the return of unmitigated scapegoating (this is in fact already happening) that would naturally tend towards its time-enshrined violent resolution. There are ready-to-hand examples of the latter in the West’s not so distant past.  

It takes Girardian thought though to realize that liberal democracy is not this foggy wishy-washy system of decrepit nonviolence it is purported to be by some of its critics. No, any Girardian should be able to instantly realize that IN PRACTICE liberal democracy can never be about the total lack of violence – much to many of its proponents’ dismay – or doing away with the friend/enemy distinction, or with any distinct identity, for that matter. It is plain to see in the context of mimetic theory. It is after all under internal mediation of man’s mimetic desire, the one prevalent under liberal democracy, that our mimetic model/mediator becomes our mimetic obstacle, the worst enemy there could be.

(There are obviously other types of criticism leveled at it, such as that it actually serves the elites while paying only lip service to safeguarding the rights of the underprivileged; any political system does that, some more, some less openly than others, while certainly the overturning of a political system in due course will produce a new elite that in turn will be no different with respect to this phenomenon, though tables might be turned as to who gets to be elite and who underprivileged. What is of utmost interest for me is in what manner that is effected, i.e., the issue of the relative level of violence present in various political systems.)

If so, is liberal democracy any different from all the other openly violent political systems? Well, I think it is. It has less to do with its more or less openly proclaimed adherence, and many a time plainly disingenuously so, to avoiding violence, at least at home, that is. What is of paramount importance is its internal dynamic when it comes to dealing with conflict and rivalry. This dynamic in my opinion stems as much from the system as a theoretical and legal construct as it does from an internal mediation of man’s mimetic desire that is denied, by dint of culture and religion, the downward spiral into a sacrificial violent resolution. If I am not mistaken, the latter has so far been more or less disregarded by political theoreticians as a powerful mechanism underlying the system.

In the end the strength of liberal democracy does not rest on its moral grandeur or utopian beauty. It does not even consist in its undeniably less violent nature as compared to other political systems. It has to do with why this last phenomenon is actually effected, and more in practice than by design at that. In reality it consists in letting that which underlies the system, i.e., the internal mediation of man’s mimetic desire, to have free rein in a world that has seemingly learned to be sensitive to human rights and liberties as well as apparently abhors excessive violence, while, and that’s systemic as well as cultural and religious, making sure that there’s no falling back on the time-tested-and-enshrined resolution of political struggles and conflicts, on the ritual of violent expulsion/murder of the innocent scapegoat. If the latter prohibition might feel as violence (figuratively speaking) done to the community, it is because that last endeavor might still, as it always has, serve the purpose of solidifying the community’s peace (here: at the expense of that unfortunate substitutionary victim), and of bestowing a common identity on the community, though in reality it be that of murderers.

But paradoxically the systemic safeguards that are in place will be able to hold if – and as long as – internal mediation is thriving. Why not just say: is allowed to thrive? Allowing to thrive is one thing, but if it becomes less vigorous and withers, undifferentiation might already be setting in and identity problems instead of being painfully clear and thus discussed and fought about, might be working subconsciously to produce a mimetic crisis in need of a radical, yet time-honored, resolution. Such a time could easily throw up a demagogue who would work the conflict as a society restorer, in a truly demiurge-like fashion. Man is never beyond a return to sacrificial mores.

And yet I have been time and again struck how effective internal mediation in Western societies is today, and so how effectively it is able to uphold the house of liberal democracy. It actually is easy to see why: every issue is presented or seemingly presents itself as a binary. And in a true spirit of internal mediation everyone is faced with a 0-1 choice. Those binaries are in “ontological” need of proponent and opponent! It all seems to somehow correspond with Girard’s “metaphysical desire” that underlies internal mediation. And is it really a mystery that societal groupings around those binaries seemingly are of almost equal force/numbers? Maybe that’s the primal survival skill of our society. Just look at the inbuilt inequality in Rwanda (85-15) and its horrific results.

Of course not everybody in society participates in those political struggles, or rather – not in all of them. Some are indifferent to some of them, some feel powerless to effect any change, some are more tolerant and refuse to see every issue as a binary. But almost everybody will get involved at least on some issues. And then they will feel the push/pull of a mass movement at least when elections roll around. And feel drawn to join/identify with this or that crowd which of necessity is but a coalition of groups – and opinions, many of them seemingly at variance with one another. And yet it all seems to work! The miracle of the eventual us versus them equation is able to cast its society-invigorating spell.

Recent reports have it that Donald Trump is (contemplating) moving towards the center. I was expecting/hoping for that much. Under liberal democracy it’s not only normal and expected around any election time; in fact the opposite is suicidal to one’s prospects of success within the system. It is reasonable to interpret such a move as showing that one intends to play/is playing by the system’s rules. Then the struggle will be – as it is most of the time – for a tipping-the-scales majority. If this yet-putative move on his part is genuinely backed by a change of heart, if elected Trump will be able to move a bit the political center itself – around which everything coalesces. And that’s what change under liberal democracy is about.

Obviously in the event some of his supporters will be outraged at his not making good on what they thought were his major planks – and in due course new leaders will start showing up, new political agendas will start coming to light, and new coalitions will start forming to surface for the next election. The spirit of internal mediation will continue to imbue the whole political scene.

Of course a different scenario is still possible, but seems unlikely to me now. Yet once again, we’re not beyond the point of no return as it comes to sacrificial violence as a political ritual. And once again, all of us need to get involved in the political process to cumulatively stamp out that last threat – by sheer unconscious effect of an internal mediation manifesting itself as it does in our post-Christian world, if not by any other means. Let us not wait on the sidelines to become easy pickings for some hell-bent demagogue when we eventually have had it.

Yet I don’t expect to convince any of liberal democracy opponents as to its value. If I were, all I would show would be my lack of understanding what internal mediation is all about. And how it can give and/or bolster the sense of one’s identity. Why should an avowed opponent of liberal democracy suddenly drop a seemingly very significant part of his/her self-identity and come to my side, thus undifferentiating with me? No, I don’t expect or even ask him/her to do that. All I can hope for is that we can retain our disagreements, including this one, while engaging in politics under the current system. The system which is amenable to change, though as a rule only gradually and haltingly, but in a significantly less violent manner than any other political system known to or tried by man so far.

There’s one more reason why convincing anybody of the values of liberal democracy is a hard thing to contemplate, or at least it is counterintuitive for the committed Christian. Its underlying phenomenon, the internal mediation of man’s mimetic desire, is not a state of mind and spirit that the Christian would want to see prevail in man. It is very precarious in nature and always in danger of devolving – much more than its antecedent, i.e., external mediation – into a full-blown mimetic crisis replete with violent sacrificial rituals. In fact this is what war waged by modern liberal democracies outside their borders is all about. As always nobody seems to see and acknowledge the scapegoats, the true substitutionary victims of an effort to expel the bubbling violence beyond the bounds of the national community. And bestow on or restore to that community a sense of self-identity that happens to be truly sacrificial – both with respect to the domestic scapegoats (the soldiers) and the outside victims (the terrorists, real or only purported; the stubborn nations that won’t abide by the rules of liberal democracy as interpreted by the powers that be, etc.).

Toward the end of his life Rene Girard spoke of yet another form of man’s mimetic mediation, one that seemingly offers new vistas for mankind. But he seemed to be very tentative about it. And so should the committed Christian be preaching the virtues of kenotic innermost mediation of the one who has once and for all made null and void the need for sacrificial rituals, including war? Not is a traditional sense, as this would be both counterproductive as well as driven by the very logic of internal mediation. Instead s/he should be humbly offering themselves as an example to imitate, to follow, just as they – hopefully – are faithfully following Jesus Christ. The kenotic imitation of Jesus Christ must be humble inasmuch as it cannot be associated with demanding or even expecting to see any results. The preeminent Christian virtue called for in this respect is hope. And as the hoped for results will be, as they have always been, very slow in coming, if at all, “kenotic” Christians should be ready to sacrifice their lives to a loving drudgery, though one imbued for them with, and ultimately grounded in, an all-suffusing empathy enabling them to see everything as it is unfolding, in the present moment. As opposed to trying to understand everything – only to have to turn around driven by an impulse to force that understanding on others. Which would spell on their part the return of internal mediation in their interactions with those they ostensibly love, but one of a very self-righteous type.

Is there a hope and scope for true empathy under liberal democracy? Could empathy win out over against the spirit of internal meditation under the system? Those are not the questions that should concern the Christian. Instead they should make sure that their empathy is vigorous and not the caricature their detractors are ready to characterize it as. This also means that they should be ready for the ultimate self-sacrifice, that of their lives, if need be.

But this seeing, empathetic attitude has its rewards that could also mimetically draw followers. It is known to free up psychic and spiritual energy that under internal mediation is badly sapped (as well as it is by the need to understand everything). Instead of relying on anger to pull oneself up by one’s own mimetic bootstraps, empathy is able to ground the person in a gestalt-like, invigorating and loving configuration where one is at one with one’s surroundings. Tensions are not removed, yet they are paradoxically held in balance, as well as are one’s past and future. After all the Cross is both a past event and a task still to be accomplished in our lives. Man is seen as a whole, with all of their spiritual and cultural endowment. Any moral attitude must be acknowledged as to the function it plays or used to play, and reconciled in the empathetic seeing. The brunt of any lacking reconciliation should be borne and/or absorbed by the follower of Christ.

Liberal democracy permits one to hold such worthy attitudes, as opposed to many if not most other political ideologies. It’s one of its blessings. Let us all work from within the system to make it better for the sake of our neighbor – and ourselves.