Cougars and Swingers on Nova = Mimetic Rivalry!
This morning on Nova, Hughesie, Kate and Ed were talking about their ‘Cougar Cruise’ that they organised on Valentines Day. They had 30 ‘cougars’ (women over 28) and 30 cubs (men under 28, and presumably over 18!), who came together on a 3 hour cruise with an unlimited alcohol tab. There is a four-minute video clip up at nova.com which overviews the night, and let’s just say, there’s a lot of random kissing, sexual innuendo and intoxicated noise!
I’m not sure how the conversation started this morning, but they had a ‘Swinger’ on the line talking about how morally corrupt cougars are. They then got a ‘Cougar’ who was on the cruise on the line to talk to this ‘Swinger’ and thus began a debate about who was the most ‘classy’ and who has the most ‘self-respect’. Each tried to justify their own position and belittle the other positions to show who is morally superior.
Mimetic rivalry is one of the key concepts of Rene Girard. The foundational idea is that we desire something because our neighbour has it. Then our neighbour sees that we desire it, which reinforces the fact that what they have is valuable, and so they desire it more. Our neighbour becomes our model, we copy them because they have what we want. They also become our obstacle – they are in the way of us getting what we want, so somehow we have to overcome them. This results in escalating levels of conflict (whether verbal, subtle manipulation, physical violence, judging etc.) where we have to get rid of (scapegoat) our neighbour in order to get the object of our desire.
In the Cougar Vs. Swinger scenario, the object that both parties desire is for society to see them as ‘moral’ or ‘classy’. They perceive that society gives the tick of approval to the other, and so they copy each other – trying to defend themselves as being classy. They then become each others obstacle, they start attacking each other, trying to pull the other down (scapegoat), and this conflict, if allowed, would escalate into violence.
Now, obviously in our society we have laws that prevent if from escalating to that level, but in archaic societies this would involve more and more people getting involved, creating groups of people in conflict against other groups, which ultimately leads to violence. This escalating level of violence and escalating amount of people getting involved would lead to such a crisis and such a casualty rate that everyone needs to find someone to blame. The groups somehow pick someone, usually the weakest and most vulnerable, find them responsible for the entire crisis (a very simplistic verdict!), get rid of them (by murder or excommunication or something – called ‘scapegoating’), and then all the groups experience a ‘cathartic’ effect, the pressure cooker lid is released, and the groups can return to equilibrium (peace) because the cause of all the conflict has been dealt with. The ‘scapegoat’ is innocent of the charges laid against them, but they’re not around to defend themselves anymore. This is called the scapegoat mechanism.
In today’s context, the scapegoat doesn’t get ‘killed’, we just have the luxury of being able to look down on them from a distance and not directly associating with them (villages and societies of old didn’t have that luxury!). We scapegoat the person who gets the promotion – ‘they might have got the promotion, but at least I have a life’. We scapegoat those mothers who do things differently to us – ‘their parenting style is so wrong.’ We scapegoat the bosses – ‘they’re just greedy and evil in it for the money, whilst us hard-workers make all the money for them.’ We scapegoat the celebrities and love to see them fall – ‘did you see Britney, what an immoral ‘xyz.” Here in Australia we call it the ‘tall-poppy-syndrome’, we love cutting people down, scapegoating them, to make ourselves feel important and meaningful, better than the tall-poppys in some way.
This ‘scapegoat mechanism’ is the same evil that enabled Hitler to unite a nation and commit some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. Yet, it is the same mechanism that we’re caught up in day in and day out. Christians call it ‘sin’ and look to Jesus who was the only one in human history to ever not get caught up in mimetic rivalry and who willingly chose to become the scapegoat. He was the perfect innocent victim who exposed the lie that has been hidden since the foundation of the world.
You can see this mimetic rivalry everywhere. From children with their toys, to teenagers for the latest clothes or mobile phones, to adults with their promotions and parenting styles, to grandparents with their grandchildren and super-funds. We just want to fit in, belong, find intimacy, and we’ll cut down others, scapegoat them (usually the vulnerable), to do it.
Towards the end of the discussion Ash Williams make a comment ‘the truth will set you free’ after one caller rang in and exposed the fact that the Swinger was judging the Cougar because of a feeling that everyone else judges her. His comment seemed to imply that you’ll be ‘free’ when you just allow everyone to see and know you, let your swinging lifestyle out in the open, thus the ‘truth’ will set you ‘free’. It’s really good of him to quote Jesus from John 8:32, but what Jesus is talking about is this mimetic rivalry motivated by the desire to have what others have, all in an attempt to ‘belong.’ Jesus is talking about being slaves to sin, that if we hold to his teaching, we will be set free from this mimetic rivalry and scapegoat mechanism.
Kate also made a very insightful comment saying that ‘we all judge.’ Which is true, but to make judgments about behaviour, or ideas, or morals is not wrong. What is wrong is to make judgments about others thinking that we are somehow superior to them, that we are not susceptible to doing exactly the same things that they are. Jesus puts it like this:
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
The ‘Swinger’ was trying to justify herself that she wasn’t as bad as the ‘Cougar’, and vice versa. Really, given the same circumstances, we are all just as capable and susceptible to the same sorts of evil. We have all sinned, and participated in the evil of humanity, that selfish desire to own and control. Realising this truth will indeed set you free, and the only way to see it, is in the sinless life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

hehe. Thanks Dave. I have a story. Once upon a time i had this friend….hehe..ok the friend is me…and I liked a guy. But he was actually going out with a friend of mine. But then the girl (my friend) decided that she didn’t like him after all and they broke up. Then all of a sudden he lost his appeal. It was weird. Is this mimetic rivalry with the opposite effect? But then…when i started to like him it wasn’t coz she liked him. i didn’t even know they were going out…
Can we say that mimetic rivalry could be good in circumstances where say, Jill throws away the stuff she uses to cut herself and then Hillary also throws them away because now that she has seen that Jill isn’t into cutting and that Jill thinks its crap it loses it’s appeal.
Then could we say that things have appeal or don’t have appeal when we see that other people like or dislike something.
The overall question i have is: Is this thinking/blogging about ideas helping me in any way?
I hope this is an ok comment….i’ve never commented before…feel free to comment on the quality of my comment.
Mads – that is one great comment, I don’t get many comments anyway, so my comment about your comment being great isn’t because I’m comparing you to others, but because it was personally found it very insightful! Bahahah whatever that means…
Yes mimetic desire can be bad or good, so, when we imitate Jesus, who does the will of the Father, this is good!! Mimetic rivalry is bad because it’s like ‘one-up-manship’ and trying to out do the other, beat your obstacle to the object of your desire.
So my answer, which my or may not be entirely correct, is yes!
But about your overall question – I think thinking/blogging about ideas is always going to be helpful, because it challenges you to stretch your mindddddd. But I guess the goal is not more knowledge but more wisdom, so there may come a point where thinking/blogging is not worth it???
Great quality Mads…!
Find your stuff on this guy interesting to read!
Question, which I’m not asking to trap you or anything like that but is it helpful to say all sin = mimetic rivalry? Is that even what your saying?
For example I’ve heard many people say sin = idolatry… Perhaps idolatry and mimetic rivalry are connected?
Chris!
Are you implying it’s not helpful to say all sin = mimetic rivalry?
I think that’s a fair assessment of what I’m saying. A key thing to remember about Girard, which makes him sooooo helpful (and also so scary for some!) is that he is building from anthropology upwards, not from theology downwards. So, from observations of human systems and cultures he has a cohesive and persuasive thesis that shows sin, Satan, God, Jesus, and backs up theolgoical orthodoxy. Could be the most powerful thing for engaging with people in a postmodern world where ‘personal experience’ is everyone’s starting point for truth.
I think idolatory and mimetic rivalry are definitely related. I think mimetic rivalry gives us a concrete framework, that relates directly to people’s experience, which makes it hard for the self-aware person to deny that they don’t do it. Where as idolatory is an abstract concept, ‘not putting anything above God’, mimetic rivalry shows just how we go about it every day. Maybe????
Still trying to work out how it all fits…it’s a lot of fun!
Well, I’m implying that there would be people who wouldn’t think it’s helpful.
I can’t work out whether I’m on the side of taking a strictly theological kinda definition like sin is rebelling against God or a more practical this is how it works in day to day life.
I think that the idol of self is big and the mimetic concept sounds like it relates in that way somehow. I agree that saying sin can be boiled down to idolatry is probably not the great step from abstract concept to workable practical reality of explaining sin to people…
Nerdily, it actually does sound fun.
You should read ‘I See Satan Fall Like Lightning’ – you’ll love it! It’s available at Ridley Library
I think I argued on the other thread that the problem with Girard is that he only argues anthropologically upwards. Christian theology involves both the problem from below and the revelation from above, and we spiral up and down to gain perspective. If there is no transcendent element, then Jesus really did just come to show us all how to be nice to each other. Also, mimetic rivalry seems to be a step below the ‘Fall’ in terms of the origin of sin. It is how people relate in the absence of a connection to God. Traditional analyses of moral theology would place ‘pride’ of some kind above envy and anger as the root of sin.
Keep it up, this will be a good project.
Yeah I agree Bowlesy – mimetic rivalry is the outworking/expression of sin, not the motivation or cause – he does argue only from anthropology upwards and limits himself to what is demonstrable from that perspective.
He doesn’t really answer the question of ‘why’ people descend into mimetic rivalry and the scapegoat mechanism. He does talk about ‘desire’, but yeah it’s not quite the same.
I’m realising more and more that people aren’t really interested in Girard – quite skeptical of him. Maybe that’s because it’s just another theory, or because it’s content isn’t very PC, or the way I’m presenting it doesn’t come from the Bible first (although it can be argued that way) or the way I talk about him isn’t interesting?? I’m not sure what else? I still think it’s brilliant stuff and has hugggge potential, just haven’t figured out ‘how’ yet!