Random musings on violence, theory, and hearing indigenous perspectives:
A few years ago (2018?), I picked up a book on Rene Girard's Mimetic Theory. I only made it a few chapters in because it was dry AF and I typically need some kind of research goal (like a fandom meta or upcoming podcast recording) to actually get through the more intense academic lit. But due to recent events, I decided to pick it back up. If you're not familiar with Rene Girard, he's a 20th-Century Christian philosopher who proposed a mimetic theory of violence, which is to say that he believed human violence to be universally driven by mimetic desire. Mimetic as in "mime" or imitation, so people instinctively desire to be like the other or have what they have, and so this unconscious envy often drives violence. Or at least, that was my understanding from what little I read.
Only a few pages in on my second attempt, and I could not help an overwhelming feeling of disgust. The book argues against common critiques of Girard's work, including that he has an ethnocentric (white eurocentric) view, and that his so-called "universal" theory disregards diverse perspectives. In my opinion, the defenses given were flimsy, even without having read the full critiques themselves, and to that I would add one more: Highly educated cishet white men have no place creating theories of violence when they are so rarely the object of such violence. Reducing the lived reality and trauma of predominantly women, queer, non-Christian, non-white people to an academic theory is patronizing at best and harmful at worst, because it reassures the theorist of their own righteousness without requiring them to actively DO anything to stop the violence or take responsibility for the ways people like them have victimized others throughout history. It's ivory tower bullsh*t at its absolute worst.
Now granted, I know Girard was a young man in occupied France during WWII, so I'm sure he had some firsthand experience with violence, but he spent the rest of his life in relative comfort, protected by his privileged status. And perhaps if his work had focused on more diverse sources, I might be less critical of that status, but as it is, there's a heavy emphasis on European literature. Not even historical accounts! But "great novels" of Europe's past. And these are worth studying, sure, but you can't reasonably call any theory formed from them "universal."
This is also a huge problem with the work of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Which again, IS NOT TO SAY THEIR WORK HAS NO MERIT. I personally still find it illuminating and thought-provoking. But eventually, we have GOT to stop considering white men the standard for academic and philosophical thought! It's so limiting!
And historically, given how much violence has been perpetrated by white men upon others, I think it's worth considering that any theories of violence they propose may be incomplete or corrupt, and in any case useless to the victims. Lastly, I'm not particularly impressed by many of Girard's modern proponents, who skew more right-wing and therefore are often aligned with institutionalized violence.
So yeah, I quit the book. At this point, I'm much more interested in seeking out indigenous perspectives in academic discussions. My interest in folktales has led me to many fem scholars of color who collect such sources, so I'm gradually building a reading list that I think will ring true to me more so than authors like Girard. If any of my lovely followers have recommendations or thoughts on what I've shared, I'd appreciate your input!
izzy806
snowghoul
gummygunk
pixelskylines
2087
kaledo-art
dailybridgerton
