Women as Morally Superior According to Girard
Rene Girard’s theory inverts our ideas of superiority to show that women, in truth, show moral superiority over their male counterparts by largely not participating in the cycles of mimetic contagion which have led to violence, murder and wars over the ages:
I find it strange that women so badly want participation in the male power of archaic societies, for it is precisely their real superiority that women don’t appear, for the most part, as the primary agents of violence. If they want now to join the power games of the males, and that is understandable, are they not losing their real moral superiority?
As important as the apostles are in the Gospels, the women around Jesus are just as important but in a different way: they are that part of humanity which has nothing to do with scapegoating him. They are the ones who stick with him through the crucifixion…
If anything my hypothesis is pro-woman. It is peculiar how people moved by new ideologies want to be part of the power structure even retrospectively, and to be seen as responsible for some of the horrors that have left their mark on us. This greed to participate in violence of men is incomprehensible to me.
Rene Girard, ‘The Anthropology of the Cross: A Conversation with Rene Girard’, in James G. Williams (ed.), The Girard Reader, (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1996), 275-276.
Hi Dave
It seems condescending to me to suggest that this theory is pro-women because it suggests a moral superiority of women. Surely we ought to be pro-women whether or not they are morally superior?
Also, I find the comment about the women in the gospels somewhat confusing. I take it that these women too were sinful and so they too were responsible (as all of us are) for the death of Jesus, whether they abandoned him or not. Can it actually be said that there is a “part of humanity which has nothing to do with scapegoating him”?
Tamie
Really? Morally superior? I think we’re as bad as each other, men might punch and kill, but women can be poisonous and vitriolic with their tongues…I’d have thought both genders suck a bit, we just have different ways of showing it?
Yahooooo – I love talking about Girard, so when people post it gets me excited!
I don’t think he is suggesting that is theory is ‘pro-women’ purely on the basis that, according to his theory, women have shown a moral superiority. I think they are two separate comments: 1) his theory is pro-women, and 2) women have shown moral superiority over men because they are less involved in violence. So to paraphrase, he’s saying something like ‘the mimetic rivalry/scapegoat theory is pro-women, it is not too far to stretch it to suggest that women have actually shown moral superiority over men for the way in which they do not participate as actively in the spread of violence.’
In terms of the women in the gospels comment, you have to note that he is talking purely in a anthropological sense. He is not talking in a spiritual sense. Did the women deny Jesus like Peter did and just join in with the crowd in implicitly or explicitly demanding the death of Jesus? He would still maintain that we all are caught up in mimetic rivalry and scapegoating (thus all have sinned).
Hey Nelle – welcome to Doozy! haha According to his theory – mimetic rivalry (desiring an object of your neighbours possession, which leads to conflict) starts this escalating cycle of violence which inevitably leads to murder, and scapegoating. He’s not talking morally superior in the sense of generally, but just that in the pattern throughout all cultures (which makes sense within patriarchal (archaic??) societies) it has been men who tend to commit most violence/murder. Not that women aren’t just as much part of it as men. And I agree wholeheartedly that men and women can be just as bad as each other and show it in different ways…Just that throughout history it has been men who have expressed the most violent expression of rivalry – we all do it, just men are the most violent, which makes women morally superior in that limited sense.
Hmm, I still reckon I’m with Nelle here. It seems that he defines ‘morally superior’ as ‘less prone to physical violence’. As if physical violence is somehow worse than other forms or manipulation or oppression?
I was wondering, Dave, where the link is with the Bible? I’m trying to think of an example where the Bible upholds women as morally superior (other than the anecdotal reference Girard takes from the gospels) but all i could come up with was Eve being deceived rather than Adam (1 Tim 2)!
Yeah I think that’s fair Tamie – he would define morally superior as less prone to physical violence. But I don’t think his claim about the theory being pro-women is dependent upon the moral-superiority of women – it’s still pro-women without it.
He would suggest that most?/all? violence throughout history has been at the hands of men, isn’t this the argument of patriarchal societies? That men had the power? I think that’s fair. Isn’t this also the premise of the egalitarian reading of Scripture? That the ‘complementarian’ passages can be exegeted in light of a patriarchal culture? It doesn’t mean you have to agree that this makes women morally superior, but I can see why Girard would suggest it (as a very side comment, and not part of his major thesis – I just thought it interesting!)
There’s no link to the Bible on this one! Maybe you could look at all the murders in the Bible and see who was responsible – mostly men?? This point about women is more an extrapolation of his mimetic rivalry theory than Biblically discovered – remember, his idea not mine! I just find it very interesting, and often not very PC! His theory though, overall, I think has a very strong Biblical basis.
I don’t think he’s saying that women ‘are’ or ‘should be’ morally superior to men from a Biblical stance, just that they have shown themselves to be morally superior by the fact they have been less responsible for as much violence throughout history (and by violence he probably means all conflict, not just fisty-cuffs, which if not scapegoated, ends up in murder).
Fun times – you guys grilling me makes me think and understand it more, so I’m very thankful for your thoughts and critiques!!
It seems a little immature to posit that violence (an all its forms) should be the talisman for our moral state. It is not surprising that Girard arrives at this point. Pacifism is de rigueur for most academics working in Arts related fields. And why would it not be? We hardly look to these people for our defence and protection. It is also very passé for Christians to embrace an attitude of acceptable violence. Most prefer peace at all costs . .
What I do enjoy about Girard is his method of reasoning. His discourse has much to offer us and can help to unearth the interpersonal and group ‘imaginary’ conflicts that surround much of life. However, he goes too far and extrapolates his theory into impractical and idealistic notes.
The aftermath of world wars effecting us as they may, and the distrust post-modernism has taught us about conflict, violence has and always will remain an integral and necessary part of human existence. It is only a failure to act violently if we regard rights as unnecessary and voluntary.
While the academics may see ‘rights as utility’ from their ivory towers, those who live in fear of their life will continue to have violence as part of their armoury against tyranny.