Is mimetic theory biblical?

Response

Mimetic theory aims to elucidate humanity’s inclination toward violence and the social mechanisms employed to maintain society. René Girard developed mimetic theory through his research across various fields, such as mythology, anthropology, and history. Girard’s interpretation of mimetic theory can be viewed as a philosophical perspective on Christian theology. He argues that the gospel embodies the ultimate manifestation of both the challenges and resolutions posed by mimetic theory in human nature. The extent to which mimetic theory aligns with the Bible is largely a matter of personal interpretation.

As per mimetic theory, humans acquire knowledge solely through imitation of others. Hence, the term “mimetic” originates from the Greek word “mimesis,” which means “imitation.” This imitation encompasses not only actions but also aspirations. For instance, a fundamental advertising strategy involves suggesting that others desire a product: everyone covets this, so should you. This strategy instills a natural longing for that product in the viewers. The issue, according to mimetic theory, is that desires arising from imitation are frequently competitive. Individuals may covet something that is exclusive to a few, leading to competition. This scenario applies to various desires, such as sexual partners, power, money, or virtually any coveted item. The outcome of competitive desires is often violence and other societal problems.

To mitigate conflicts, Girard’s mimetic theory proposes that humanity has devised certain mechanisms like scapegoating and taboos. Through scapegoating, society attributes unfulfilled desires to a single victim, who may or may not be genuinely responsible for the issue. The harm inflicted on the scapegoat satiates society’s inclination for violence in response to thwarted desires. Taboos are employed to designate certain forms of competition as unacceptable, thereby reducing conflicting desires and consequent violence. Examples of taboos encompass societal norms that forbid certain behaviors.Cest and parricide (killing one’s relatives).

Of course, mimetic theory is far more nuanced than the above summary. There are many different interpretations of how these ideas play out in history and culture. Some philosophers support Girard’s claims; others doubt them. The same is true of theologians, who variously accept or reject applications of mimetic theory to Christianity.

Interestingly, among the common criticisms of Girard’s mimetic theory is that he is “too friendly” to the Judeo-Christian worldview. That is, Girard presents the message of Jesus as the resolution to the problems of scapegoating and violence. He distinguishes Christian stories from ancient myths, especially in that only the New Testament Gospels claim both absolute innocence and absolute willingness on the part of the scapegoat (Christ). In its defense of the weak, renunciation of revenge, and empathy with victims (rather than scapegoaters), the biblical narrative is unique in human history.

There are elements of mimetic theory compatible with Scripture. Jesus said that the goal of teaching is to produce imitators: “Everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher” «The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. », (Luke 6:40). Imitation of Christ is an overt part of our calling as believers (John 13:12-15; Ephesians 5:2), even as Christ emulates God the Father (John 5:7; John 14:11; John 15:9-11). Paul promoted beneficial mimicry, too: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” «Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. », (1 Corinthians 11:1). According to mimetic theory,One danger of mimicry is that the student and teacher can become rivals as the student approaches or even surpasses the master’s skill. In the Christian context, this is impossible—we never live up to the standard of Christ (Romans 5:8; 1 John 1:8); plus, Christ would never be inclined to fear or resent us: “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” (Revelation 19:7).

Similarly, the transforming of our desires is central to our progressive sanctification (Romans 7:18; Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:22). The sacrificial system of the Old Testament, as well as the crucifixion of Christ, can be seen as divine scapegoating, where blame was transferred from a group to an individual (Exodus 29:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:23). In fact, Leviticus 16 contains instructions for an actual scapegoat that bore the sins of the people away from the camp on the Day of Atonement. These biblical teachings are certainly compatible with mimetic theory, at least in broad strokes.

Girard, though a Roman Catholic, developed his mimetic theory prior to an intensive study of the Bible. That is, mimetic theory is not inspired by Scripture but something that Girard felt the Bible confirmed. Strictly speaking, this makes mimetic theory “extra-biblical”—it’s an idea not explicitly described, supported, or condemned by God’s Word.

In short, mimetic theory is much like other philosophical attempts to define what it means to be human and how to correct our flaws. While it is far friendlier to ChrIn contrast to Christianity and certain philosophical systems, mimetic theory is not inherently biblical. It does not blatantly contradict the Bible either. Ultimately, it is crucial to evaluate the application of mimetic theory based on its alignment with Scripture, rather than assessing Scripture based on any human-made theory.