Rene Girard is a French anthropologist, most recently professor at Stanford. I think he would be very interesting to anyone interested in memetics. Please allow me to try to explain his basic theory as put forth in <i>I See Satan Fall Like Lightning</i>.

SCAPEGOATING
For Girard (and for memeticists, as far as I know, which is not very far) mimetic competition is among the primary driving forces of human behavior. I will try to summarize his theory. Like Sartre said, we all want to be God. In Genesis, the promise of Satan that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil will make us God's equal led to the original sin of Adam and Eve, which has been passed down through the generations. The doctrine of original sin does not say that humans are intrinsically evil, only that they became tainted by sin by Adam and Eve's rebellion. To get a feel for original sin really is, try to meditate. Eventually you will be interrupted by desire. Perhaps only God can persist in a meditative state without being distracted by desire. Another all-to-common result of original sin is its formal repetition in people who think that by acquiring enough money and/or power they can become immortal (I am sure that *at least subconsciously* many people actually believe that) or attain godlike power or knowledge.

Girard talks about mimetic models, these are people who are imitated. This imitation can be good or bad. Girard focuses mainly on the bad, but without mimetic desire there would be no desire for knowledge for its own sake, for charity and the other virtues for children are not born with such desires. But eventually it leads to rivalry. If, for example, I want to be a leader of some group, I am put in competition with the current leader, and if I can displace him, others will desire my role.

Girard argues that mimetic doubles result from this rivalry: where two persons or groups, in attempting to outdo each other, enact exaggerated stereotypes. In advanced capitalism, this leads, ironically, to obsessive conformity and exaggerated displays of "individuality" being essentially the same thing: mimetic rivalry to become the most Respectable Citizen and Parent, or the most Free Spirited Individual both are a function of the desire to be the most authentic bourgeoisie Americans.

In history, mimetic doubles appear in cases such as Ireland and England. The actual territorial, religious or cultural conflicts lose their relevance in a violent contagion in which the conflict itself takes priority and becomes reified in the Marxist sense. In memetic terms, the pure idea of "Ireland must defeat England" and vice-versa are selected over the more complex territorial, religious and cultural ideas. This is not surprising, since it is a more easily transmitted meme than the historical accounts and archaeological evidence that shows that the Celtic people occupied Ireland before the Saxon invaders. You can see this in an experiment (or, perhaps, it was a joke), in which the British government set up a street with Catholics living on one side and Protestants on the other. For evening amusement, the children throw rocks across the street at each other... Certainly, the British occupation causes this to some extent, but the children are probably less aware of that than of the scandalous memes of "Catholics don't like Protestants" and vice-versa. Again, the fact that the conflict has devolved to that level is the result of the contagion of mimetic rivalry (over who is the more authentically loyal, or which church is more authentically Christian) infecting even children. In fact, it is only Christianity that has kept Irish and English society from destroying themselves from within (although one could argue that almost failed in England, with every other royal succession a bloody coup and which started the industrial revolution).

On both sides, the primary force is no longer, say, respectability or individuality themselves, or Irish independence or the superiority of the British style of government (its GLORIOUS "liberty" and "democracy" which of course must be exported by force) but (in pure mimetic rivalry) the impulse to imitate and the desire to be imitated: the force of the meme and the desire for the meme representing oneself to dominate; but not in that what the meme represents is universally adopted, rather that it is universally *desired*. It is said that misery loves company, and to some extent the Irish (more recently, the African American) are guilty of selling memes causing the scandals of gluttons for punishment, organized crime, and nihilistic art -- which they model or advertise as authenticity, subversiveness and avant-garde art. Likewise, the English (who have of late passed the torch to the US) peddle the scandalous memes of alienation, insecurity, decadence and wage slavery -- but for the elite, conveniently, these same scandals work out as individualism, self-reliance, democracy and entrepreneurship.

We want people to try (but fail) to become like us, as we try but fail to become God: we want to become mimetic models, in Girard's term, those elite who select and become the objects of desire for and of the mindless herd, while remaining safely above them... As rivalries amongst and between both classes intensify, scandals appear and spread. Girard makes much of the word "scandal," noting its unusual etymology. According to etymonline.com, the etymology of scandal is:

1581, "discredit caused by irreligious conduct," from M.Fr. scandale, from L.L. scandalum "cause for offense, stumbling block, temptation," from Gk. skandalon "stumbling block," originally "trap with a springing device," from Proto-Indo-European *skand- "jump" (see scan; cf. also slander). Attested from c.1225, but the modern word is a reborrowing. Meaning "malicious gossip" is from 1596; sense of "person whose conduct is a disgrace" is from 1634. Scandalize (1489) originally meant "make a public scandal of;" sense of "shock by doing something improper" first recorded 1647. Scandal sheet "sensational newspaper" is from 1939.

Note two features of the word: (1) its modern meaning is a "reborrowing" and rather different from its roots; (2) its older meanings of "temptation," "stumbling block" and "trap." Girard focuses on the older meanings (the later, "reborrowed" one of "discredit" is based on a
Christianized judgment of the older senses, as we shall see). A scandal is something which purposively draws attention to itself (encouraging imitation). In starting or participating in scandal (which usually involves violence of some sort), we up the ante on mimetic rivalry by ignoring the laws and moral conventions which normally keep mimetic rivalry in check -- and keep society from self-destructing. In memetic terms, a scandal is an intentionally created (usually through violence) meme which either intentionally invites further participation (as in suicide bombing) or unintentionally invites further participation (as in "mysterious" murders of Russian journalists). In either case, it
intensifies the violent contagion of mimetic rivalry.

Girard has a term for the spread of scandal: violent contagion. In his more secular, anthropological mode, Girard identifies Satan as violent
contagion (rather than specifically as Lucifer the betraying angel). He notes that in the Bible Satan is not always conceived of strictly as a
creature, but also as a malevolent force: his name means, literally, "adversary, one who plots against another." Satan is that which began and encourages mimetic desire and rivalry and he is the violence by which it is conducted. Christianity does not teach that humans are naturally evil; rather, they have inherited the Original (in the sense of first, but also, importantly, in that of Primordial) Sin and (although original sin is cleansed by Baptism) continue to be tempted by Satan and to sin, which weakens their defenses against further temptation. Eventually Satan/violent contagion gains a stranglehold on a society (or a family or any group) such that it enters a Hobbesian, or beyond Hobbesian, state of war of all against all, and it is at the cusp of complete dissolution.

All this is not exceptionally original. Marx identified how competition eventually leads to civil (class) war. The Bible and the world's other great ethical traditions warn of the dangers of desire and its attendant mimetic rivalry.

Girard's great insight lies in his identification of Satan as the one who *also* weaves the social fabric back together by turning the war of
all against all into a war of all against one: namely, the scapegoat. Girard reads "Satan expels Satan" (Mark 3: 23-26) as a reference to the process by which Satan (playing, like a cat, with his prey before devouring it) turns social friction against a convenient target, usually a foreigner, a beggar, or a cripple: an outsider that the group can easily unite against by identification as Other. (It may, as in the case of Socrates, also be someone highly gifted, and whose superiority alienates him from and garners the resentment of the rest of the group.) The many scandals, crimes, accusations and counter-accusations are thus all resolved by the community's transference of guilt to the scapegoat. They must all (or nearly all) actually believe (at least on some level) that the scapegoat was the cause of the troubles, and that their ritual murder will solve them.

When asked what is to be done with an adulteress, for whom the Jewish Law proscribes death by stoning, Jesus answers, whoever among you is without sin, throw the first stone, and Girard stresses the importance of the *first stone* in scapegoating. For the thrower of the first stone, there is no model to follow. The first stone chooses the target. Satan, though, is always there, urging us to (try to) become more like him. Perhaps he whispers in the ear of one of the more brave, bloodthirsty and suggestible that there is a certain esteem associated with throwing the first stone. The stone is thrown, and, having a model to imitate, others quickly join in. Given a choice between being at war with everyone else, and being united in war with some no-name elderly foreigner, it is very difficult to choose the former. Perhaps someone whispers -- or shouts -- that it is, not a person at all, but a demon, the demon who has been plaguing the town of late. Soon the whole group has aided in the death of the scapegoat. Everyone's hands are now bloodied, but, deceived by Satan, they think them cleansed. And, indeed, Girard provides numerous historical documentation of the effectiveness of this method. In one, an old man is stoned to death, and when the tangled mush of his body is uncovered -- lo and behold! -- they "see" he was a disgusting demon after all.

Scapegoating works on the micro level, as well as the macro. It is the basic act of taking out frustration on another, someone whom we convince ourselves, at least weakly or temporarily, to be the source of our discontent. I wouldn't be surprised if much child and pet abuse is due to the scapegoating impluse. As Buddhism teaches, desire is the cause of unhappiness; Girard notes that the tenth commandment forbids coveting of any kind, and he reads that as a ban on desire itself. Without desire, there is no mimetic imitation or rivalry, no violent contagion and no scapegoating.

FROM MYTH TO TRUTH
It is clear from the historical evidence that Girard provides that this method is effective, although deceptive and temporary. Soon enough Satan begins to tempt us, and the cycle of violence beings once again. However, a true state of war of all against all is very rare. It would, perhaps, have to be exacerbated by famine, mass hysteria, or the like (or merely the lack of ethics and laws). However, it would provide a moment in which the whole culture was united as one. Girard argues that it is at these moments that new cultures are created. In uniting against the scapegoat, a group creates and identifies itself. Girard advances the argument that every cultural identity is based on a founding murder, the murder of a scapegoat, and that this event is the origin of myth.

All cultural identities, says Girard, have a foundational myth. Yet I would be surprised if any of them involved the collective murder of an innocent man. Usually they involve deities and creation stories. Girard argues, however, that the gods and goddesses of myth *are* the murdered innocent scapegoats. Firmly believing that the scapegoat has saved their culture, the people begin to regard the scapegoat as superhuman, as a god. They embellish the story of this "god" saving them, conveniently forgetting the part about murder. In memetic terms, a story like "we are a great tribe born of God" or at least something like Greek myths that can make sense of humans and the world is going to spread more easily than "we killed a 'demon.'" With a common myth serving as a cultural identity to unite and relate to, mimetic rivalries are lessened, or become beneficial: the people compete to best help the tribe rather than to dominate it.

What is common to all myth is (1) the denial of the guilt of the people vis-a-vis the scapegoat, and (2) that the myth is always written from the point of view of the tribe, the culture, the murderers. It is very rare to encounter anything from the non-Christian world affirming the innocence of the scapegoat: I can think of only Plato's Socrates and the Jewish prophets. But it is only the Jewish texts that constitute a true foundational myth; however, those are not the prophetic texts, and the Jews continued to practice the ritual transference of guilt onto a scapegoat, albeit in a much more humane form (i.e. the goat from which we get our term).

It is only in the Bible that (1) the foundational murder of the scapegoat is explicitly stated, and (2) the point of view of the scapegoat is given. First, recall that "scandal" can mean "trap." Girard argues that the crucifixion is a trap laid to ensnare Satan, and to expose him. This is what the title Girard's book <i>Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World</i> refers to: the revelation of the truth behind myth and the scapegoat mechanism. Thus we call the testimony of the apostles "good news." God in His great mercy transformed the hideous crime of the crucifixion into the salvation of humanity by revealing the truth of the work of Satan.

By the way, I think there is a rich untapped vein of research in comparisons of Girard's scandal and Debord's spectacle.