I've always had a few worries about the Girardian model, viz, parts of it do not seem to have a strong connection to other parts.
The biggest seeming hole: the theory of mimetic desire seems like over kill in establishing a relatively simple point, viz, our desires are rivalrous. Moreover, mimetic desires can be non-rivalrous, and, at least conceptually, rivalrous desires can be non-mimetic- so it's unclear that mimesis does the job as an explanation. It seems like Girard has encountered a relatively simple phenomena (rivalry of goods) and reached for a very elaborate explanation which, arguably, doesn't even do the job it's supposed to.
Then there's a second gap, not as large but still troubling. The mechanism by which rivalrous desires leads to conflict is pretty clear, but it's hazy why sacrifice should resolve that conflict. Intuitively it makes some sense through the mechanism of scapegoating, but one would like to see the reasoning for *why scapegoating works* spelt out more clearly.
I've always had a few worries about the Girardian model, viz, parts of it do not seem to have a strong connection to other parts.
The biggest seeming hole: the theory of mimetic desire seems like over kill in establishing a relatively simple point, viz, our desires are rivalrous. Moreover, mimetic desires can be non-rivalrous, and, at least conceptually, rivalrous desires can be non-mimetic- so it's unclear that mimesis does the job as an explanation. It seems like Girard has encountered a relatively simple phenomena (rivalry of goods) and reached for a very elaborate explanation which, arguably, doesn't even do the job it's supposed to.
Then there's a second gap, not as large but still troubling. The mechanism by which rivalrous desires leads to conflict is pretty clear, but it's hazy why sacrifice should resolve that conflict. Intuitively it makes some sense through the mechanism of scapegoating, but one would like to see the reasoning for *why scapegoating works* spelt out more clearly.