The 2016 U.S. Election as Seen Back Then

Below there is a summary of my posts to the Rene Girard Facebook group concerning the 2016 US election. Their dates are also shown – two of them preceded the election, while two others followed it closely. The first post elicited a vigorous debate between a fellow Girardian, George Dunn, and myself. Echoes of this argument are also contained here, George’s interventions are shown in quotation marks.

My last post in the series is moved to the top position, while the others are in chronological order. Quotations from sources other than George appear with attributions. Slight additions made to the texts are signaled with brackets.

Nov.20, 2016

We ain’t seen nothing yet as regards rivalrous mimetism or mimetic rivalry. Here’s Girard’s model configuration of what’s in store (if not already happening):

“Above all we are going to have reciprocal fighting that will be endless, because we’ll probably be evenly matched. The more alike we are with our enemies, and usually we are evenly matched, the more we will fight forever. We persecute ourselves pretty efficiently in the sense that we make our enemies so similar to us that they have equal strength, until we mutually wipe each other out.” (Reading the Bible with Rene Girard: Conversations with Steven E. Berry, Location 2502, Kindle Edition.) – words spoken by Girard in the context of our present post-Christian “apocalyptic” times, where “hatred without a cause” is the norm, rounding out any hatred that might be viewed as having “legitimate” causes.

This scenario has been in the making for several decades now, with social media playing an increasingly significant role over time.

In this model Girardian situation it must be obvious that what temporarily makes for humanity’s survival is the equal strength of any opposing sides – whatever those sides might be. Unless, that is, people fall back on models of loving mimesis, [and, equally importantly, are able to engage them in modes other than internal mediation of desire. Which would be either external mediation, or, much more powerfully, innermost – kenotic – mediation.]

Nov.3, 2016

It is shaping up again as a 50-50 contest – as always recently, as far as I am concerned. It’s what liberal democracy is predicated upon. It’s actually a functioning liberal democracy at work, man’s naturally mimetic, naturally rivalrous instinct playing out in the least harmful way. Which does not change the fact that it is totally un-Christian, totally un-loving. Love, Christian agape, is not natural, it is a lofty project man mostly fails at.

Yet I think we as Christians shouldn’t be dismayed by what underlies it all. Rather, while aspiring to be loving, we should be acknowledging this ritual’s katechon-like work. And though its effective homeostasis at times seems unpalatable and it also is only tentative, the alternative is a Hutu-Tutsi (85-15)-like situation, where we feel strong enough to carry our huge advantage to its “logical” conclusion. Then, with no “other” within our own bounds anymore we again either “miraculously” find or otherwise designate one as such, or we turn on an outside enemy, after the fashion of a “unanimous” Nazi Germany.

As opposed to this instability, near the other end of the political spectrum we can find another example of precarious political equilibrium, one worked out by the communist countries of the recent past: a ritual whereby so-called people’s democratic elections would invariably return results around 99-1 percentagewise. Now to Girardians this symbolic figure and its context might uncannily evoke images of scapegoating, of an all against one horror.

But this ritual was also katechonic in a sense; a scapegoat was there: the one (percent) malevolent figure (minority) preventing the 99 (percent) righteous ones (majority) from experiencing societal unanimity, societal bliss. And though the class struggle was never-ending, a vigilant party was there to track down and eventually flush out the hideous, cowardly and secretive figure(s). In fact the party was continually busy doing that, from time to time turning the screw on them and announcing their – variously designated as people’s enemies, kulaks, traitors, etc. – successful apprehension and elimination. With a premeditated 99-1 split, it could have been but a ritual officiated by party apparatchiks, and in fact it was most of the time, now rather brutal now less so.

It’s good to realize that neither of those three real-life scenarios has anything to do with Christian charity. Politics is always a-Christian and very often totally un-Christian. Jesus’ parable of the good shepherd also uses a 99-1 figure. But instead of abandoning the one lost sheep or scapegoating it, the good shepherd lovingly searches it out in order to return it to the fold, to reunite it with the remaining ninety-nine. That’s the direction for our attempts to overcome our mimetic limitations.

DISCUSSION

“The effectiveness of the electoral katechon depends on each side accepting the outcome as fair – not necessarily welcome, to be sure, but at least something that we can live with. Or, to put it another way, it depends on the willingness of political adversaries to regard each other at the end of the day as fellow citizens and not as evil enemies or as a blight that must be expelled from the body politic. Less and less is that an accurate description of our political culture.”

Certainly it’s a different type of katechon, but a katechon nonetheless – if, and as long as, both sides are able to maintain a precarious equilibrium, mutual hatred notwithstanding.

But this new, exacerbated type throws in stark relief what is really needed for modern societal relations to have any semblance of civility – nothing but Christian(-like) love will do now. Politics as usual will not do, it is totally discredited.

“What allows electoral politics to function as a katechon is not the equilibrium or the rough parity of numbers between the opposing parties. Rather, it is the willingness of all parties to accept the outcome as legitimate, but mutual hatred destroys any incentive to do so. Where an underlying spirit of amity is absent, the 50/50 split only exacerbates the likelihood of violence by emboldening the losing side.”

There are examples aplenty of the winning side – one winning decisively, not 50-plus percentagewise – being “emboldened” to the extent of driving their win to its “logical,” undemocratic and often violent conclusion. In light of that, maintaining a hateful equilibrium or parity of numbers shouldn’t be judged as the worse possible scenario.

But the more important issue is, how to overcome this modern societal malaise in a civil manner. I posit that only Christian(-like) love would be able to accomplish that. We need a new breed of public figures that could be positive models of that love.

“If there are examples a plenty of electoral landslides emboldening the winners to set aside democratic norms and persecute the losers, perhaps you can cite some of them. When I think of the most recent totally lopsided elections in American history – 1972, 1964, 1956 – we find that they did not result in violent repression of the losing side. Again, what seems to be decisive is not the margin of victory but the willingness of all parties to respect the procedural rules.”

In terms of persecution the example that would easily come to everybody’s minds would be pre-war Germany, and a slew of other European countries of that time. And I’m afraid the US elections you’re citing are ancient history now, we’re in a different, social-media dominated world today.

Social media is a hotbed of uncivility and hatred. But if mimetic theory is of any value here, it teaches me that it also helps ensure that the electoral split will be roughly equal, no matter what other circumstances might be. So when you’re saying, George, “Where you see a katechon, I see an accelerant,” it is fair, but, paradoxically, the opposite is also true: it’s both a kathechon and an accelerant.

We’re living in a time of a very precarious equilibrium, one that verges on an apocalypse of our own making. And I’m afraid there’s no going back to politics as usual, not with social media around. This double bind of ours, this katechon/accelerant or ever-so-close-to-apocalypse situation can only be resolved by Christian(-like) charity, which begins with not being instantly scandalized by our opponents.

“I don't think that the solution is to ratchet up the hostility between contending parties and hope that they'll achieve a close enough parity to inhibit each other from transgressing the norms of democracy.” It is not a “solution” offered by anybody, in a world of social media it happens as if of itself – both the ratcheting of hostility, and the inhibiting of transgressing the norms. But the latter obviously never is a foregone conclusion.

“Perhaps you could explain why you believe that mimetic theory predicts the 50-50 split that afflicts American politics. One might think that it would predict just the opposite, namely, a movement toward unanimity. And I still don't see why you regard hostile polarization as a katechon. It can't be both katechon and accelerant, can it? Either it's holding back the apocalypse or it's hastening its arrival. It can't do both simultaneously. Finally, you apparently believe that the parity between the hostile parties inhibits any transgression of democratic norms. Yet I presented arguments as to why that isn't so, which you have not bothered to address.”

Mimetic rivalry in a post-Christian world cannot be resolved in a unanimity produced by the scapegoat’s sacrifice – and that is the only unanimity predicted by mimetic theory as far as I am concerned. Instead, with social media enveloping us whole, the exact opposite tends to obtain, namely a 50-50 split. That’s how I see it anyway.

Now hostile polarization is a katechon by virtue of its in fact being the obverse side of the impossibility, in this post-Christian climate, of zeroing in on the scapegoat in order to kill him. But it obviously psychologically seems to be the opposite, an accelerant. And obviously it would be that in a pre- or non-Christian setting.

I see it as a very precarious katechon, one that needs to give way to Christian charity before its power is totally spent. It won’t be able to be effective endlessly.

A physical war of all against all within the bounds of a functioning post-Christian liberal democracy? I posit that the 50-50 split is the modern liberal democratic equivalent, and we’re the better for it, for this modern katechon of ours, as idiosyncratic as it may seem.

Obviously understanding the politics of a place, as it unfolds in its actual setting, requires much more than just mimetic theory. But the latter can shed some light on it, and we do not seem to see eye to eye on what it exactly is.

A few more words on katechon in the form of a random quote from a book entitled Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt: The Politics of Order and Myth by the Swedish political scientist Johan Tralau: “Schmitt, by contrast, welcomes a civil war-like state of exception as the katechon of liberal politics responsible for the state’s downfall.”

Here it seems the term katechon takes on yet another, slightly different, signification, yet probably closer to mine than to the orthodox one, if there is such a thing. There seems to be a wide scope to its use in political science these days. Given this you might be right advocating abandoning its referencing in the context of modernity as verging on meaningless. But it is still in use for better or for worse.

To reiterate my position (and still employing the term): in a modern post-Christian liberal democracy mimetic rivalry cannot take on the peace-bestowing form of a unanimity leading to killing a common scapegoat. Unresolved hostility, simmering or erupting, is manifested not as “war of all against all,” but rather as a continuous division within society. It is most pronounced when it splits society almost exactly in half. Paradoxically, the latter also has a katechon-like effect, since doing away with (the rights of) half of a society by the other half is virtually impossible. But if this division shows signs of change in terms of its proportions, or one side becomes less active in expressing their stance, this obviously could happen.

But in an age of social media this reduced vigor on the part of either side is significantly less likely – the social media makes it very easy to be “active”: its users consider themselves active and thus have a stake in the process, and the opposing side is put on notice as to their active involvement.  

“Respect for democratic institutions and human rights can be a katechon, but that in no way requires that the polity be as polarized as it is now.” Of course it does not. But since the polity is polarized, the katechon-like effect comes from this polarization being roughly perfect – for reasons I have already stated and restated several times.

I would agree though that this situation points to a major failure of liberal democracy. Katechon in the form of a near civil war is not only precarious, but also highly detrimental to human psyche. We either close ranks going to an outside war (a horrible prospect; and again this closing ranks today would be very, very iffy), or…?

The only solution is in loving innermost mediation of Jesus Christ, or other figures like Him in other cultural or religious traditions. Weaning ourselves away from scandal would or could be a first step. This might give us back empathy and compassion.

My assertion is that mimetic theory predicts that liberal democracies OF THE MODERN POST-CHRISTIAN SOCIAL-MEDIA-DOMINATED WORLD tend to produce a 50-50 polarization between the major parties and their electorates. This claim cannot be belied by “much history,” because it is a new development.  

“If your argument is only that there's an entire constellation of factors, one of which is the human mimetic propensity, that accounts for the extreme polarization of contemporary American politics, then I would certainly agree.” That is an important part of what I’m saying.

“But doesn't that just amount to saying that this phenomenon has an explanation, one that must necessarily include established facts of human nature? How could it be otherwise?” Yes, again; with a caveat that these “established facts of human nature” for me are first of all and most importantly man’s preponderant mimetic propensity. But it is actually only rarely (or only perfunctorily) enlisted by political scientists in their accounts of what drives man in the political realm. The reason to me is obvious: it might be established, but it is rarely acknowledged as crucial, or is overlooked as to its implications, by many researchers.

“However, unless and until you tell us what that explanation is, you haven't said anything informative.” Now whether it was informative or not, it’s a judgment call. I think that I offer a rather important part of an explanation for the current extreme polarization of modern social-media-dominated liberal democratic societies, something that prevails today not only in America, but one that should be rather obvious for Girardians, not a revelation of any newly-found truth. As such it might not be all that informative. But in my opinion it certainly doesn't obscure anything either.

There are of course other factors contributing to today’s extreme polarization in the West, but I’m not going to delve into them here. As to what they are, that has been addressed on many occasions. Now whether they are more important as compared to man’s rivalrous mimetism in today’s world: we might all benefit if you cared to address that issue yourself.

“Whether what you said was informative depends on whether you've offered a real explanation for our contemporary 50-50 polarization (which would be informative) or whether you're merely saying that mimetic theory can contribute to such an explanation, without telling us what it is (which is not really informative at all). I don't doubt that human mimetic propensities are in play here, as they are in all social phenomena, but they were also in play when our politics was not polarized along a 50-50 split. Why they should split the polity so evenly at this moment in history is precisely the thing that requires an explanation.”

My hypothesis is that what has recently been exacerbating man’s rivalrous mimetism, actually whipping it into a frenzy in the political realm, is the newly ascendant social media. That is the crucial new factor in the mix. As McLuhanites might characterize it, it is a crucial extension of man’s sensorium, one that is making a difference.

Now Western man is still operating in a post-Christian mental climate, one that has led him to develop liberal democracy. But it is quickly becoming overripe now. Respect for it is dwindling in society. Christian love is almost never even mentioned in political discourse, not in a sincere manner, that is. All that is left to restrain us is our tentative ability to hold each other in check.

I hope that it still is too bleak a characterization of our situation. But for how long?

Nov.6, 2016

We are witnessing now what Rene Girard has called escalation to extremes, referring to man’s rivalrous mimetism. What – on top of all the fair grievances people might have – is whipping man’s mimetic propensity into an ever more conflictual frenzy is something that in itself should not be viewed as bad, let alone pernicious: the ease with which everybody can today participate in public discourse – or so it seems to everybody, with social media at everyone’s fingertips.

But in the West this happens against the background of a culture that inhibits overt violent scapegoating and especially any violent ritual sacrifice. This inhibition still seems impressed on Western man’s moral makeup. It is still a force to be reckoned with, and so rivalrous mimetism is apparently denied here its most effective cyclical remedy.

How can Western society somehow, at least for the time being, be reconciled to being incessantly exposed to contradictory forces pulling its members as they are in opposite directions? I posit that this is accomplished via a veritable “miracle,” one seemingly on a par with that of the scapegoat’s sacrifice, or its ritual repetition. And as much counterintuitive as the latter, or, rather, irrational. But in a sense also much inferior to it in terms of what it bestows.

As Rene Girard was wont to say in his last works, with this escalation to extremes Western society will not be able to be peaceful anymore. It will be in fact teetering on the verge of apocalypse, until...? Our hopes are based on the fact that nothing here is predetermined. 

So this tentative “miracle” must only be of a very inferior sort, one that allows us to preserve physical peace, or a semblance of peace, within our bounds (well, almost), but which “peace” is in fact not “peaceful” at all. The vent of an outside war is used from time to time, if not in fact almost continuously, but that is less and less effective back home.

And what is this “miracle,” inferior as it is? True to form, it is paradoxical: polarization in society that is never far from a perfect 50-50 split, right down the middle, so that we can mutually hold each other in check – since we have to be so angrily divided anyway. Various leaders are and will be appearing from now on to lead the way for their respective tribes – or maybe just to epitomize what is happening, to embody this mutual hatred. And thus also to potentially become scapegoats in a brave new world that would ensue then.

God save us from such a miracle! We need agape, Christian charity. We need political leaders who would embody love, whose model would be a kenotic Jesus Christ, or at least the Jesus of the Gospels, with all that this entails.

Nov.8, 2016

The electoral vote for one side, the popular vote for the other… It’s true that this has happened in the past. But…

If my contention of a mimetically- and technologically-induced escalation to extremes in the form of an entrenched 50-50 polarization in society, of a flattening out of the political scene that might actually feel like an “acceleration” beyond safety limits is true, what we will be seeing is a further deepening of a historical trend (see below a Pew Research Center report) towards lower and lower approval ratings of the new President throughout his Presidency among those who did not vote for him – including hardly any benefit of the doubt at the beginning of the term – regardless of any possible conciliatory messages on his part, or policies introduced subsequently.

Paradoxically, what might work toward breaking this polarization would be his disappointed supporters turning on him, which is not implausible given that making good on their real expectations is a very difficult endeavor to pull off – at least in a civilized manner. But then he might become their scapegoat. I consider this scenario as rather unlikely, though – Trump’s charisma is by no means spent and is bound to work miracles on them.

Plus obviously the simple alternative is the bread and circuses of a Mexican wall or deportation operations, deepening the intensity of the polarization. Then there is the danger of overstepping the bounds of liberal democracy in a systemic manner…

But even in the absence of the latter, which I still think is unlikely, in my opinion the 50-50 polarization is here to stay. So can one safely predict now what Trump’s approval ratings among those that did not vote for him might look like throughout his presidency? You bet!

"Views of the president among members of the opposing party have steadily become more negative over time. Our [Pew Research Center's] 2014 report on political polarization documented this dramatic growth in partisan divisions over views of presidential job performance. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, his average approval rating among Democrats has been 80%, compared with just 14% among Republicans.

During Eisenhower’s two terms, from 1953 to 1960, an average of 49% of Democrats said they approved of the job the Republican president was doing in office. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, an average of 31% of Democrats approved of his job performance. And just over a quarter (27%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of Clinton between 1993 and 2000. But the two most recent presidents – George W. Bush and Obama – have not received even this minimal level of support."

The Ultimate Scandal of Withholding Forgiveness

Forgiving past wrongs, whether real or perceived, sometimes may not be a big problem. Much harder, if not impossible, is trying to forgive an ongoing wrong. Or one with long and lingering harmful consequences, as happens all the time in situations of a continuous imbalance of power – in relationships, in politics, etc. How to simply “forgive” being stuck, seemingly powerless, on the receiving end therein? Staying in an oppressive situation while continually forgiving seems an impossible situation. Do you forgive and move on/run away – if the latter is at all possible?

Is there perhaps another attitude better suiting such situations, but still witnessing to the same spirit, a spirit laid so much store by Christianity? Or one that supplements forgiveness, making it more humanly possible? Even Jesus seemingly rationalized his forgiveness, saying, “for they know not what they are doing”: was it because he was addressing his Father, ostensibly doing even more, asking God to forgive them too? Can we imagine him on the Cross just saying, “I forgive you”? Should we allow ourselves to rationalize too, in the same vein – for our own sake? For the sake of others? If we were able to forgive at all, that is…

There is an uncanny relationship between lack of forgiveness and scandal. If only humanly possible, perhaps I should forgive to release myself from my neighbor’s sin that so affects me, that so scandalizes and oppresses me – as well as mine, committed out of a spirit of reciprocity that I cannot seem to disentangle myself from. Forgiving, releasing myself from the spiritual bondage of unrelenting mutual accusation, I would be free. In other words, I would be doing it for my own sake first and foremost. 

But how to even begin making forgiveness more humanly possible, especially when there is no sign of repentance in our wrongdoer/oppressor? Just as there is a relationship between lack of forgiveness and scandal, there is one too between forgiveness and kenosis – and a model of both…

In the following meditation several sources, Christian in inspiration as well as representing some other spiritual traditions, are consulted and referred to in order to shed light on the subject, including Catholic anthropologist Rene Girard’s mimetic theory (MT). It culminates, as it does for all Christians, in the Gospels’ revelatory self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, with its imagery of forgiveness at the moment of suffering a cruel death on the cross, and, more broadly, as a way out of scandal brought on by mimetic reciprocity that always tends to devolve into conflict, rivalry and violence.  

xxx

The Bible contains powerful stories and examples of unfolding human mimesis and mimetic desire, set against the backdrop of what may seem as God’s denial of maturity to humans (the commandment not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil), arguably implying a prohibition of any and all manifestations of mimesis, and subsequently, of its conflictual forms (the Ten Commandments), mostly having to do with mimetic desire – and how it went largely unheeded by humanity.  

One of the most powerful expositions speaking directly to conflictual human mimesis is the whole of Matthew 18, an extended narration that starts with Jesus’ warnings against scandalizing the “little ones,” then moves through a scene depicted with strokes of “inverted” Girardian-like imagery, only to proceed to an admittedly disquieting scene of an otherization backed up by an apparent display of self-righteousness, and finally finds its denouement with His call for repeated, unstinting forgiveness, reinforced by the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave  – and not just the first 10 verses dealing with scandal only, as might be acknowledged at first. Here it is (sans the parable): 

‘At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” ² And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, ³ and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. ⁵ And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; ⁶ but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

⁷ “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

⁸ “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. ⁹ If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

¹⁰ “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven. ^11 [For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.]

¹² “What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? ¹³ If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. ¹⁴ So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

¹⁵ “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. ¹⁶ but if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. ¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

¹⁹ “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. ²⁰ For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

²¹ Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” ²² Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.’

Jesus has only the sternest of admonitions for those culpable of scandalizing their brethren, especially “the little ones,” and ostensibly there is no reproof of those taking scandal. But in a mimetic exchange there truly is no innocent party, participants by turns cause one another to stumble. The inevitable corollary fight over who is to blame for actually starting the cycle, always shifting the blame onto the other party, is humanly unsolvable. Does that mean that trying to stay innocent we should always endeavor to keep away from any verbal fray, if at all possible?

It should be stressed, however, that Jesus’ words warn specifically against scandalizing “the little ones.” Who are those little ones? The context refers one back to children, or – maybe – child-like persons. Dealing with such people one would certainly do well abstaining from any heated debate – for many reasons, not only those having to do with a threat of scandal.

So again: it seems at first that the onus is only on those causing scandal. Apparently it is OK to feel scandalized. But our attention should focus on the fact that Jesus expressly and favorably speaks here also about those who humble themselves. His words in fact are a powerful praise of the virtue of humility itself – when He sets those humbling themselves as exemplary models of humility, such as makes them the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Now the obvious reason that such humble “little ones” or children should be shielded from scandal is that they are humble because they do not (are not able to) exercise judgment yet. Scandalizing such “naturally” humble is an outrage, is a scandal.

Yet mature adults, even  those who “are converted and become like children,” should not be so thin-skinned as to be scandalized easily, they should exercise proper judgment and discernment. Discernment entails for example seeing into whether the “scandal” is real, rather than caused by a self-conscious and grandiose image of oneself that the one scandalized might be nourishing. Those easily scandalized are not humble, on the contrary, they evince hubris. A truly humble person would never, or at least should never, experience humiliation, or else would use it as a way to becoming even more humble.

That things are not clear-cut  is also testified to by how the problem is dealt with in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. His insights on the matter apparently go totally against the grain of any straightforward reading of the Gospel message, or, alternatively, arguably on account of its paradoxical and seemingly inextricable nature, his extensive analysis of the subject at times might seem to be lacking in consistency. It certainly shows, though, the importance he accords it. An excerpt:

“…scandal is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly passive scandal is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succumbs to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin. Yet there can be passive scandal, without sin on the part of the person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as for instance, when a person is scandalized at another's good deed.

In like manner active scandal is always a sin in the person who gives scandal, since either what he does is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it should always be left undone out of that love for our neighbor which binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbor's spiritual welfare; so that if he persist in doing it he acts against charity. Yet there can be active scandal without sin on the part of the person scandalized,…,” but that only happens when in effect “there is active without passive scandal, for instance when one, by word or deed, provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent.”

Here is the crux of Aquinas’ argumentation: “Therefore scandal is not found in those who adhere to God perfectly by love, according to Ps. 118:165: ‘Much peace have they that love Thy law, and to them there is no stumbling-block (scandalum).’" He also states: “…scandal is opposed to a special virtue, viz. charity,” and approvingly quotes Jerome as saying: "Observe that it is the little one that is scandalized, for the elders do not take scandal," where the onus again is squarely on those exposed to scandal.

And Jesus, who warned against scandalizing “the little ones,” himself does in fact a lot to scandalize them. For could anyone confronted with His words in John 6 about a truly cannibalistic need to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life, or even life as such, be really mature enough so as not to be scandalized? Not react as a little one, as an innocent one? No, not in His age, as reported by John; and hardly in our times, where Christians now tend to gloss over the true meaning of this demand, having struggled over the dogma in the past. 

Was Jesus placing us in a double bind?, a situation so impossible of reconciliation, so adverse to it, that we could only disentangle ourselves from it by a huge leap of faith and trust? But why? And what would this leap amount to, anyway?

According to Irenaeus, a second century saint of the Church and one of its preeminent early thinkers, man’s original state of moral purity and innocence couldn’t but have been one of immaturity, due to his de facto spiritual childhood. Though created in the image of God, man is not eternal and thus not perfect. But for Irenaeus the true meaning of history was a slow process of maturation, “from image into likeness,” whereby man was eventually to achieve the divine likeness: “God became man so that man might become a god,” in which sentiment he actually preceded Athanasius. One might  say, however, that with Jesus’ intervention man was actually given a crash course in humanity.

So the whole John 6 scene might be viewed as one of Jesus seemingly jolting His listeners into growing spiritually in His presence, right there on the spot, into getting a glimpse into the truly horrific nature of sacrifice that was still well-entrenched at the time. One where, as Caiaphas said (John 11:50), “…it is expedient… that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” 

But having come full circle as it were, does spiritual maturity/divine likeness not mean that we should not only refrain from scandalizing others (we are not divine after all), especially the little ones (and how are we to know how spiritually mature those we are dealing with are?), but, moreover, in view of the above, also that we ourselves must not succumb to being scandalized, not ever?

If we understand that being scandalized is already being involved in mimetic reciprocity, if not full-blown rivalry, heading toward violence as it does most of the time – the answer should be clear: no, we should not, we must not. That is what Thomas Aquinas in effect has established in his study. And that is what in the context of scandal spiritual maturity means, that is what divine likeness is about.

This is also what nonviolence is, both as regards others and ourselves. For being scandalized is violence, at least against oneself if not against others: “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble [be scandalized], cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble [be scandalized], pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.”

Christ’s injunction seems paradoxical, but the truth is that as long as one is involved in scandal on either side of it, there is no way of extricating oneself from it other than self-mutilation. Actually, in scandal there are no sides, there is just an abyss into which most fall instantly, in tandem with whoever happens to be our partner-in-scandal – given our mimetic, interdividual nature. That is why moment-to-moment spiritual discernment or mindfulness is necessary – that one may know what he/she is in fact doing.

Now for some insights from a different spiritual tradition: it is discernment that was supposed to govern the behavior of the Malamatis, or the people of blame, when they engaged in deliberate scandalizing of their fellow Muslim community members, for the sake of both bursting their own egos and jolting their neighbors into overcoming their idolatrous propensities and into a higher level of spiritual awareness. The Malamatiyya, the way of blame, used to set great store by the problem of hypocrisy and hubris as obstacles to spiritual growth on its path to wisdom through humility acquired by both self-scrutiny and self-blaming as well as incurring blame. The discernment also involved knowing who was allowed to do the scandalizing and who was not. It was reserved in fact for those well-advanced spiritually, but such as were also highly regarded by their community, if not renowned for their spirituality and  wisdom – the latter for the sake of its expected unqualified and indisputable impact. Some of the best known exemplars manifesting this approach include the martyr al-Hallaj on the practical side and the philosopher and Malamati apologist Ibn al-Arabi, on a more theoretical. 

Though in Christianity there is a tradition of fools for Christs (St Francis of Assisi is often seen as such), including the characteristic yurodivy version in Russia, which might also be the closest in spirit, there has never been a Christian counterpart as radical as the Malamatiyya. But there is one thing in common: if we as regular Christians nevertheless for some reason, e.g., for the sake of justice – and certainly not out of contempt, from manifesting which we are enjoined by Jesus next in the Matthew passage – were to scandalize our neighbors, we should be ready to absorb all the violence generated. From the Christian perspective this would entail falling back on Jesus Christ, the kenotic self-sacrificing victim of violence, and being ready to share His fate. Which obviously is easier said or imagined than done. But the Christian in such a situation has no other option than trying again and again, in hope, faith and trust, actuated by His love.

Now St Irenaeus on his part went on to say reassuringly that man’s fall should not be seen as a rebellion against God or His strictures, but rather as an impulsive, then increasingly prideful, desire to grow on one’s own, which also meant: prematurely, before one’s proper time. Yet this process might rightfully be called hominization, and mimetic theory fully corroborates that view from several angles. Individually, our hope and trust in Christ is sustained by the fact that in imitatio Christi there is also scope for our continued growth, a growth that can be unforced and tolerant of others – truly nonviolent, both on our neighbors and ourselves.

What follows then in Matthew’s Gospel is a passage that resorts to imagery and language that must strike Girardians as familiar, namely the image of ninety-nine and one, apt to evoke an even more powerful image, that of all and one. That it does not become all AGAINST one – as in Girard’s tale of a scapegoating that ends in sacrifice for the sake of the community – is made possible by the shepherd, a loving leader of that community. Instead of pouncing on an opportunity to solidify his grip on power by presenting the lost one as a sacrificial scapegoat, or reinforcing that perception – thus acting as a sacrificial high priest out to unite the fold around the sacrificial altar – he makes every necessary effort to bring it back to and reunite it with the community. “It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.”

Having passed on that archaic yet effective peace-bestowing stratagem, Jesus seems then forced by the logic of events to propose something else in its stead. The next verses show it to consist in attempting to win one’s transgressing – which must also include the causing of scandal – brother by having him admit his guilt and mend his ways, then, in case of that not happening, actually shunning him, as one would a tax collector in Jesus’ times.

Is shunning a charitable response? It certainly does not seem so, even if not done for all the wrong, evidently unchristian-like, motives. But for the Girardian it must be obvious that it is the proper, or at least adequate, recourse enabling one to avoid being forcibly drawn into the mimetic fray, where one is exposed to far greater spiritual dangers and violence than those involved in the shunning. While Jesus cannot be conceived as universally advocating such a practice, His doing so here might be construed as holding out an imperfect solution to a moral predicament facing an imperfect – as yet – humanity, a lesser of many possible evils, if you will.  

Many progressive Christians might be actually scandalized by this apparent advocacy of shunning. But by being scandalized they would obviously be falling into a mimetic reciprocity that would certainly be lacking in charity and, most of all, in humility. They would instantly find themselves in a double bind that is the lot of so many well-meaning and seemingly loving people, intent on doing good by their neighbors. What they would be evincing would certainly be pride, or at least insufficient humility. And they might easily find themselves succumbing to the mimetically-stoked violent impulses just beneath the surface of their civility.

Now what seems to be behind Jesus’ admonition here – if we were to attempt to square it with the thrust of progressive Christianity, including “Girardian” varieties, for that matter – is advocacy of a humility that is able to recognize one’s inability to get the better of one’s conflictual mimetic propensities, such as are easily able to subvert any love that one might have. Observing what happens to so many progressive Christians in the political arena makes this admonition to be one of utmost practicality, even if it appears to amount to falling short of the lofty ideal of charity. That is what true humility is about: being able and ready to recognize in oneself an imperfection of charity, one that stems from, as well as corresponds with, that of a humanity still in the throes of maturation.

But next in the narration comes something apparently even more disturbing: Jesus’ seeming justification of the shunning – not just an admission of its expediency – the kind of  reinforcement of otherization that might tend to stoke one’s self-righteousness that is trying to get the better of one’s more charitable motivations. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven” – if seen in the apparently obvious context of excluding the unrepentant from the community (“…let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” and “whatever you bind…” or “…loose on earth…”) just preceding it, the “agreed request” scene suddenly becomes redolent of a conflictual mimesis in search of equilibrium, and finding a modicum of that by ganging up on the shunned. All that is expected is that it all be done in Jesus’ name.

What redeems the whole narration, at least from a progressive, Girardian perspective, is Peter’s intervention: “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Responding, Jesus enjoins now a virtually infinite forgiveness. Taking into account exegetical nuances of the “binding… loosing” passage (meaning “forbidding” and “permitting” something; thus it “shall have been forbidden…” or “…permitted in heaven”), having God “loose [i.e., permit] in heaven” (or, conversely, “bind [i.e., secure] in heaven,” in some popular readings) an act of exclusion on earth turns out not to be the best of solutions after all. But what is also important here is that this last admonition is offered in response to a question testifying to an admittedly advanced level of spiritual sensitivity on the part of the one asking.

It is obvious that forgiveness can hardly be imagined to be consistent with unashamed exclusion. Shunning one’s brother in the context of acknowledging the need of forgiveness could only be motivated by recognition of one’s own spiritual imperfection, or immaturity. Far from glorying in self-righteousness, if accompanied by earnestly imploring God’s mercy, it might then actually be a sign of a humility recognizing one’s inability to refrain from lashing out when scandalized or harmed. It might, or maybe even should, feel also like self-exclusion, not only that of one’s brother, from the wider Christian fold. For the Christian on a spiritual path scandal should always be recognized as claiming victims on both sides of whatever divide it creates.

Pope Francis is one spiritual leader who sees it very clearly. In his teaching he devotes much time to the problem of scandal (as well as to gossip, its seemingly a bit more innocuous variety). He also stresses in this context the importance of forgiveness, for “a Christian who is not able to forgive scandalizes: he is not Christian,” as he stated in one of his homilies. Forgiveness is difficult because the concept of forgiving as we ourselves are forgiven, taught in the Our Father, is not one which can be understood by human logic, which leads us rather towards revenge, hate, and division. But “if I do not forgive,” the pope says, “I do not have the right – it seems – to be forgiven,” and do not understand what it means to have been forgiven by God.

The predicament of falling into scandal of not being able to forgive the one scandalizing us should be well understood by Girardians. But even if that be in fact the case, it does not vaccinate us against the mimetic contagion of scandal, with its meanderings involving self-righteousness on the one hand, and varieties of emotions pivoting on or stemming from anger, on the other. It also involves being insensitive, being blind to our causing scandal in others. And although the latter situation is probably a clearer sign of spiritual immaturity, the former must also be treated as such.

From this perspective the human maturity spoken of by Irenaeus would first and foremost consist in acquiring wisdom, not just a knowledge of mechanisms; a discerning wisdom whose operation in man would be able to unlock his latent capacity to be transparent to God’s grace, to “putting on the mind of Christ,” and opening oneself to growth “from image into likeness” of God. A wisdom able to unlock man’s reservoir of humble, Christ-like love capable of self-sacrifice if need be, but also, short of attaining that ideal, constantly able to beg God’s mercy and forgiveness – for the sake of us all.

In the meantime, while praying for the grace of forgiveness, while learning and maturing into it, we must tend to becoming less and less scandalized by others, while also growing more and more sensitive to others’ scandal-taking sensibilities. Otherwise humanity’s cycle of violence that pivots on scandal is not going to be subverted, ever.

And if withholding forgiveness is the ultimate scandal, denying humanity its potential to grow beyond the spiritual station of the “little one,” mimetic theory should be able to contribute significant insights. Scandal is about undiscerning mimetic reciprocity, and MT has a lot to say about that, including what models to choose to be on the side of loving mimesis. MT recognizes in Jesus Christ the model most conducive to human growth, understood as man’s increasing capacity for humble, forgiving love. Jesus’ forgiveness from the Cross, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing,” is also a wisdom teaching that must be familiar to students of MT, pointing as it does to blind spots in those engaged in scapegoating.

Yet Jesus is also the preeminent model for Christians on the path of kenosis, something hardly explored by MT. Kenosis as exemplified by Jesus’ self-sacrifice on the Cross and more widely by His posture of self-emptying, if metaphorically seen as man’s day-to-day or even moment-to-moment responsibility, can best be learnt in and nurtured by contemplative practices. They are known for their capacity to cut if not eradicate the roots of rivalrous mimesis in man, if engaged in faithfully, on a steady basis. Christian contemplative masters have over the centuries been able to derive inspiration for their spiritual path from the person of Jesus. We would do well to follow their example whereby we might progress and mature “from image into likeness” of God.

Significantly, forgiveness and kenosis are inextricably bound together: true forgiveness is predicated on ongoing self-emptying, the former is impossible without the latter. The ultimate scandal of withholding forgiveness can only be undone in this most radical, Christ-modeled state of receptivity to the grace of God, a state allowing for continued growth of human maturity, which, paradoxically, also means being continuously “converted [to] become like children.” Only then the truly Girardian question: "who is going to forgive first," might start receding from its initial unbearable poignancy into oblivion. Which obviously does not solve all the problems of the world but at least is a beginning.