Rene Girard Violence And The Sacred Summary

I will now look at a passage focusing on Rene Girard’s ideas from his book Violence and the Sacred. “Once his basic needs are satisfied (indeed, sometimes even before), man is subject to intense desires, though he may not know precisely for what. The reason is that he desires being, something he himself lacks and which some other person seems to possess. The subject thus looks to that other person to inform him of what he should desire in order to acquire that being. If the model, who is apparently already endowed with superior being, desires some object, that object must surely be capable of conferring an even greater plenitude of being. It is not through words, therefore, but by the example of his own desire that the model conveys to the

subject the supreme desirability of the object.” (Girard, pg. 146). It is interesting to note that Rene Girard introduces three basic keywords throughout this passage: object, subject, and model. He describes the model as being someone who possesses an object that the subject assumes is desirable based on the model’s level of prosperity, or the appearance of the model’s superior being. Thus, the object is something that appears important or valuable, simply based from the model’s appearance of desire for the object. The subject is the person who is lacking something that the model seems to have, which is the sense of being. The object is the physical focus of the desire that the model is in possession of, which makes the subject think that they need it too in order to be successful. As Girard says, if the subject obtains the desired object, he too will be conferred being. From this passage, it appears that Rene Girard is simply introducing each element of the relationship between the subject, object, and model and why it occurs but there is still a question of how it occurs.
In another portion of Rene Girard’s Violence and the Sacred, I am going to investigate how he thinks the association comes alive. “We find ourselves reverting to an ancient notion–mimesis–one whose conflictual implications have always been misunderstood. We understand that desire itself is essentially mimetic, directed toward an object desired by the model.” (Girard, pg. 146). After reading this piece, we can note that Girard presents another term to the audience: “mimesis”. First, Rene Girard explains that mimesis has misunderstood conflictual consequences. We do not understand the implications of imitation or where it may lead us, suggesting it can produce conflict. He tells us that desire is mimetic and we only are drawn toward the object because it is what the model desires. Mimesis is defined simply as the act of imitation. From these sections, it appears that Rene Girard believes that this association is quite common and that if we examine similar situations, this formula is the foundation of each relationship.
Foremost, there is a looming question about how and why this relationship starts. Rene Girard says that it is usually started due to a subject having “intense desires” and it is implied that these desires do not include a person’s fundamental needs or necessities (pg. 146). Based on the passage, it describes the intense desire for a sense of being in which we lack. When I think of being, I imagine a person who has made it, or is successful in their life; and everyone wants to be successful. But it is interesting to note that Girard uses the word “seems” when describing that the model possesses being. This is intriguing because even though the subject might see the model as someone accomplished, the model may not be even close to successful. As Girard says on page 146, when the subject sees that the model has the object in which he desires, he wants to imitate (“mimesis”) and essentially become the model; and this is what forms the connection. This association works well because the subject feels as though he is becoming closer to what he desires and the model takes satisfaction in being mimicked (pg. 146). Although this may seem like a beneficial alliance, Girard points out that both lack true originality and character, which leads us to ask if this relationship is healthy and works in the long term.
Unfortunately, as there is a pattern of imitation, there is a pattern of conflict between the subject and model as well. Rene Girard says, “Two desires converging on the same object are bound to clash. Thus, mimesis coupled with desire leads automatically to conflict.” (pg. 146). Surprisingly, Girard even calls the conflict “inevitable”. Possessing or desiring the same object as the model brings the subject closer to becoming the model. Usually it would be assumed that people who are alike would be more compatible as friends but eventually, since they are both after the same object, they are bound to collide and fight over that thing in which they both desire.
After reading Rene Girard’s ideas, I remembered a situation that I was in during my earlier school years. In fifth grade, we had a new student in our class named Anthony. I had about 3 other best friends and we decided to take him under our wing, if you will. Right away we hit it off and it honestly felt like he was a long lost brother. As soon as we were hanging out at recess, it felt like we were almost the same person as far as our likes, dislikes, and personality. It was mind-blowing! Throughout the years I had noticed that he started dressing more like me and listening to the music I liked when he never had before. Obviously at the time I didn’t think anything of it, but now it stands out to me as a pivotal point. I felt somewhat honored subconsciously, because imitation is the highest form of flattery, and as Girard says, the model does enjoy being mimicked. We had been each other’s closest friends since fifth grade and I always thought we would be friends for the rest of our lives.
When I began playing football in eighth grade, it was because I wanted to try it out since I never had before. Subconsciously, I wanted more popularity in school because I thought it was important for some reason. I thought that popularity brought about a sense of being, when in reality I’m sure the “popular kids” had their own problems as well. We both had always discussed how awesome it would be to be popular and I used to think football could lead to that. Perhaps I had a model as well if I desired that. Guess who ended up playing as well… Anthony. He even played the same position as I did! This was the point in which things got ugly. I believe that we both wanted that object of popularity and soon enough we clashed because we were both going for the same thing. Ever since then, there had always been tension between us. At the time I never understood it, but now it makes sense reviewing Girard’s model of mimesis.
While examining Girard’s ideas, I noticed that desire plays a big role in this subject-model relationship.

Based on his explanation of the desire on page 146, he appears to believe in an Epicurean idea of natural vs. empty desires, since he tells us that this desire for the object is not a necessity. Here is an excerpt from Martha Nussbaum’s The Therapy of Desire. “Using his intuitive picture of health and impediment as a guide, Epicurus now divides human desires into two basic groups: the ‘natural’ and the ‘empty.’ The natural are those whose appropriateness is witnesses by their presence in the uncorrupted creature. The empty are products of teaching and acculturation, absent from the uncorrupted condition.” (Nussbaum, pg. 111). We see that Epicurus has created two groups of different types of desires; the natural and empty. He describes the natural desires as being present in the “uncorrupted creature”, or a human being who has not been exposed to corruption. The empty desires, however, are wants that are taught to the individual, most likely from society or culture. These are all the desires that are not present in a uncorrupted human and Girard seems to use these ideas as he describes his explanations. This leads us to ask whether the passion to imitate a model to gain being is a natural or an empty desire because the lines are

blurry.
Rene Girard says that the desire of a subject to mimic a model in order to obtain an object the model deems valuable is (usually) after his basic needs are already fulfilled, possibly implying that it is an empty desire.

It is not essential to the function of life. However, you can argue that having a sense of being is essential to our well-being; Girard even says that the desire may come before our basic needs are met. But I believe that this is an empty desire because later in the passage, Rene Girard suggests that the model may not even have a sense of being but it only appears as if he does. You can still survive without being but it definitely gives our existence more meaning. If we were to be completely uncorrupted and alone in nature, I think our ideas of success would be a lot different. In an uncivilized society being could be something as small as having a successful hunting day or creating

a
After analyzing Rene Girard’s ideas from Violence and the Sacred on mimesis and how it inevitably leads to conflict, I have a better understanding of how and why these subject-model relationships start and why they will eventually never work. I also understand at how we can classify the desire for being. We, as subjects, due to our empty desire for being, look to models who appear to have success and mimic them, while we both go for the same object, thus leading to conflict between both parties.