Interesting theory. Our forebears probably reasoned thus: to keep our innate bloodthirst in check, it's better to select one person (the sacrificial lamb) and take it all out on him/her, in this way satisfying everyone's violent streak until ... the next sacrifice. The alternative - societal collapse - would've been unacceptable.

Girard's idealized pattern of the scapegoat process requires that a mob unanimously attribute guilt to a non-guilty victim. But he seems to ignore/dismiss alternative attitudes toward sacrifice. Maybe new attitudes grew out of initial spontaneous acts of scapegoating. People thought that because sacrifice is good (for whatever reason) it is good to be sacrificed, either by a spontaneous selection or by volunteering.

For example, in this telling of the Corn Mother myth, the corn mother tells her community that she must be killed/sacrificed for their well being. This is voluntary(?) ritual suicide, not a spontaneous scapegoating. We could interpret this as a kind of deity giving a life sustaining gift to her sons and daughters. But maybe there is a version in which the Corn Mother is a victim (or relative to our contemporary moral facts, Corn Mother is a victim).

Looking at the Gombe Chimpanzee War we see a very human-like parallel of violence in a social species of our closest living relatives. Chimps fight over territory/resources just like we do. This is a different kind of violence with regard to what the scapegoating pattern is supposed to achieve. Does a successful kill of one's rivals temporary suspend the desire to continue to kill? One kill doesn't stop the war. But such escalation of violence in terms of wanting what others have does fit with mimetic desire (which is kind of an unoriginal observation).

Girard's idealized pattern of the scapegoat process requires that a mob unanimously attribute guilt to a non-guilty victim. — Nils Loc

Reminds me of the utilitarian-consequentialist conundrum where you hang an innocent man to prevent a riot. :chin:

Corn Mother myth — Nils Loc

I'vr heard of mother spiders who let their spiderlings feed on them. Watch baby spiders eat their mothers alive. Perhaps similar human behavior is a throwback to our humbler arachnid origins or maybe not. Worth pondering upon in my humble opinion.



What do you know, I'm a spider!

Could some-kind of social/psychological response evolve from this? — Nils Loc

I wonder how empathy (or the lack thereof) comes into play considering and assuming empathy to be an innate trait in primates ("the ability to understand and share the feelings of another"). To violently execute another (guilty or not) or agreeably enjoy such a violent act there has to be a total lack of empathy (towards the assumed perpetrator), atleast at the very moment, and with a manifestation of (some) sadism as well ( with the collective sadism most probably to be the result of empathy for any (assumed) crime(s) against the/any victim(s) (of the perpetrator) ).

I'vr heard of mother spiders who let their spiderlings feed on them. Watch baby spiders eat their mothers alive. Perhaps similar human behavior is a throwback to our humbler arachnid origins or maybe not. Worth pondering upon in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

Thanks for sharing that, it offers an intriguing view in the face of instinctual behavior for the good of the species.

Thanks for sharing that, its an intriguing view in the face of instinctual behavior for the good of the species. — Seeker

I don't know what to say except I like spiders. :snicker: Something about them fascinates me to no end. I should've opted for arachnology; oh well, can't turn back time!

A fun fact follows ...

Hisdosus' commentary is the only source (albeit in Latin paraphrase) for Heraclitus' comparison of the soul to a spider and the body to the spider's web (DK 22B 67a) — Wikipedia

Reminds me of the utilitarian-consequentialist conundrum where you hang an innocent man to prevent a riot. — Agent Smith

Consider Pontius Pilate's supposed ambivalence with respect to the trial of Jesus. The historical hearsay of Pilate paints him as brutal/corrupt governor of Judea, who sentenced many to death without trial for practical purposes. He is recalled to Rome later in life for excessive and unjust brutality. His giving into the will of the Jewish mob during the trial of Jesus might be a pragmatic concession that brings peace to the crowd but also protects himself from the fall out of his own transgressions against the Jews.

For the Jews Pilate's worst offense was belittling the taboo against graven images by introducing military standards into the city, and depositing golden shields inscribed with the name of Tiberius, imperial cult objects in other words, in the palace of Herod. As Philo tells it, Pilate worried about the Jewish protest over the shields, because he feared that if they actually sent an embassy they would expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without a trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty (Philo Emb. 302). — https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub390/entry-5754.html

.

I wonder how empathy (or the lack thereof) comes into play considering and assuming empathy to be an innate trait in primates ("the ability to understand and share the feelings of another"). — Seeker

I've heard that empathy is somewhat of a double-edged sword. We can empathize someone who we believe is a victim, then violence/aggression can be perpetuated against those responsible on behalf of said victim.

____________

What is interesting about the Gombe Chimpanzee War is that the individuals who divided into warring tribes once composed a community (needs citation). Wouldn't there be a memory of social relations, fond memories of kinship that could mediate violence in the future? All of a sudden alliances somehow change, probably with respect to what the leader chooses to do.

I have a distinct memory of turning against one of my good friends in a rather bullying way as a kid. My brother seldom allowed me to join with his friends. I was an annoying cling-on to be shunned. Except one day I got to be part of a tag along and we formed a kind of bicycle gang. My good friend became a bully target and I joined in from a kind of enthusiasm of being part of my brother's group. We knocked my friend off his bicycle in the middle of the street and he bawled his eyes out. My alliance had changed spontaneously because I wanted to be part of my brother's company. I'm not so sure if there was a reason for it. My friend was always a target as a kid, he was always bullied but it is hard to remember why exactly. Kids found him annoying... Possibly he visibly lacked some kind of social etiquette that was normal by his age. I was very Chimp like in that instance of betrayal, emotionally fickle.

The Rwandan Genocide and Nazi Holocaust are probably a good example of fickle bonds. Folks who grew up with others and had bonds of friendship, Hutus aside Tutsis, Germans aside Jews, all of a sudden are polarized by identity politics and scapegoating narratives, to a point where mass murder takes place. Folks are swept up in the movement/demands of the crowd (i.e. "you're either with us or against us").

The archaic Greek ritual of the Pharmakos (a scapegoat ritual sacrifice) is very interesting with regard to the content of Greek tragedy. It is a myth/rite which structures/influences some famous tragic plays. Aristotle's purgation of emotion (catharsis) for the spectator watching tragic drama is also a word that refers to the magic medicinal function of the Pharmakoi (scapegoat as drug/medicine). The scapegoat cleanses the city, cures a collective ailment, just like a potion or drug might cure an individual of an ailment.

The pharmakos [1] was a human embodiment of evil who was expelled from the Greek city at moments of crisis and disaster. The name is probably, but problematically, connected with pharmakon, ‘medicine, drug, poison’. [2] Both poison and drug were originally magical; so a pharmakon is a magical dose (Greek dosis ‘gift, dose’, cf. the German Gift ‘poison’) causing destruction or healing. Pharmakos then would be ‘magic man, wizard’ first, though the borderline between magic and religion is not easy to define; the early pharmakos might have been ‘magic man’ or he might have been ‘sacred-man’. Then, presumably, he or she was ‘healer, poisoner’, then later, expiatory sacrifice for the city and rascal, off-scourings, and so on. [3] On the one hand, the pharmakos could be the medicine that heals the city (according to scholia on Aristophanes Knights 1136c, the pharmakos is used in order to obtain a therapeia—‘service, tending, medical treatment’—for the prevailing disaster [4] ); on the other, he could be the poison that had to be expelled from the system (he is often ugly or criminal). Thus these two interpretations are not exclusive. [5] — Compton, Todd M. 2006. Victim of the Muses: Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior and Hero in Greco-Roman and Indo-European Myth and History. Hellenic Studies Series 11. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

I suppose the ritual of the Pharmakos is a sort of idealized jewel/motif that serves as the Girardian model of the scapegoat.

Consider Pontius Pilate's supposed ambivalence with respect to the trial of Jesus. The historical hearsay of Pilate paints him as brutal/corrupt governor of Judea, who sentenced many to death without trial for practical purposes. He is recalled to Rome later in life for excessive and unjust brutality. His giving into the will of the Jewish mob during the trial of Jesus might be a pragmatic concession that brings peace to the crowd but also protects himself from the fall out of his own transgressions against the Jews. — Nils Loc

:up: Strict blasphemy and apostasy laws - the death penalty (e.g. in Islam) - maybe just a cover for human sacrifice. :scream: Think about that!

Vide Salman Rushdie who just barely escaped an assassination attempt a coupla weeks ago.

The archaic Greek ritual of the Pharmakos (a scapegoat ritual sacrifice) is very interesting with regard to the content of Greek tragedy. It is a myth/rite which structures/influences some famous tragic plays. Aristotle's purgation of emotion (catharsis) for the spectator watching tragic drama is also a word that refers to the magic medicinal function of the Pharmakoi (scapegoat as drug/medicine). The scapegoat cleanses the city, cures a collective ailment, just like a potion or drug might cure an individual of an ailment.

The pharmakos [1] was a human embodiment of evil who was expelled from the Greek city at moments of crisis and disaster. The name is probably, but problematically, connected with pharmakon, ‘medicine, drug, poison’. [2] Both poison and drug were originally magical; so a pharmakon is a magical dose (Greek dosis ‘gift, dose’, cf. the German Gift ‘poison’) causing destruction or healing. Pharmakos then would be ‘magic man, wizard’ first, though the borderline between magic and religion is not easy to define; the early pharmakos might have been ‘magic man’ or he might have been ‘sacred-man’. Then, presumably, he or she was ‘healer, poisoner’, then later, expiatory sacrifice for the city and rascal, off-scourings, and so on. [3] On the one hand, the pharmakos could be the medicine that heals the city (according to scholia on Aristophanes Knights 1136c, the pharmakos is used in order to obtain a therapeia—‘service, tending, medical treatment’—for the prevailing disaster [4] ); on the other, he could be the poison that had to be expelled from the system (he is often ugly or criminal). Thus these two interpretations are not exclusive. [5]
— Compton, Todd M. 2006. Victim of the Muses: Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior and Hero in Greco-Roman and Indo-European Myth and History. Hellenic Studies Series 11. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

I suppose the ritual of the Pharmakoi is a sort of idealized jewel that serves as the Girardian model of the scapegoat. — Nils Loc

Really interesting stuff! Theater (Greek plays) maybe a more benign way of venting, a safety valve for our bloodust via mock human sacrifice (tragedies).

Vide Salman Rushdie who barely escaped an assassination attempt just a coupla weeks ago. — Agent Smith

The Salman Rushdie attempt is also interesting with regard to the potential escalation of agression/violence. Is Rushdie at an even greater risk now? I think the event precipitated a new rush to buy the Satanic Versus (even I want to read it now). Some will herald the criminal as a martyr/hero which may inspire imitation, making the old conflict new with respect to relative systems of justice/morality.

How many young fundamentalist Muslims, who never heard of Salman Rushdie, have now been educated about the existence of the Fatwah.

The Salman Rushdie attempt is also interesting with regard to the potential escalation of agression/violence. Is Rushdie at an even greater risk now? I think the event precipitated a new rush to buy the Satanic Versus (even I want to read it now). Some will herald the criminal as a martyr/hero which may inspire imitation, making the old conflict new with respect to relative systems of justice/morality.

How many young fundamentalist Muslims, who never heard of Salman Rushdie, have now been educated about the existence of the Fatwah. — Nils Loc

We can only hope that the growth in the ranks of muslims who want to murder Salman will be offset by a similar increase in numbers among his sympathizers.

Muslims should realize that killing Salman will only alienate them further from non-muslims. Islamophobia will intensify and for a very good reason now. Too bad, c'est la vie.

Social instability/stress due to famine, plague or war is classically coupled with the scapegoating myth of the Pharmakos.

Today we've these same stressors and the crowd contagion is visible. The political tribalism of the Left and the Right and their corresponding spheres of propaganda end up in an aggressive blame game which seems to be escalating. Fear/anxiety causes more fear/anxiety with respect to social/crowd projections. Our last president, Mr. Trump, shows absolutely no constraint in blaming just about anyone/anything. The mass hysteria of the conspiratorial right takes up a lot of headspace. But they dance in step to the moral indignation and social justice theater of the Left. Girard had a notion of doubles (rivals) that are caught in a bind of aggressive escalation. I think the caricatures/projections of the Left and Right are an example of this.

Killing/murders, whether from police brutality or vigilantism, doesn't seem to calm folks down at all. They serve as fuel for targeting corrupt transgressors in offices of power. We lack any formal ritual that would transfer blame in religious way. A new scapegoat (external threat) would have to unify the entire national crowd. We've heard the notion that if aliens landed (Independence Day style) there would be a unifying focus toward the aggressor. Or maybe due to accident/impasse, we'd project onto these aliens a threat that isn't altogether true.

A new scapegoat (external threat) would have to unify the entire national crowd. We've heard the notion that if aliens landed (Independence Day style) there would be a unifying focus toward the aggressor. Or maybe due to accident/impasse, we'd project onto these aliens a threat that isn't altogether true. — Nils Loc

Recall what happened to the Jews in Europe - they were blamed for everything bad that happened in the village/city, rounded up, and executed in pogroms. BBC has a report on some bodies found at the bottom of a well - all Ashkenazi jews, includes children - in the UK. Historians believe they were killed and their corpses dumped in the well. Aaah!, sic vita est.

rounded up, and executed in pogroms — Agent Smith

It's worrisome our human history is so rife with genocide/war. We're never out of the woods as far as the potential for mass violence is concerned, though we like to believe we've made great progress.

________

Richard Wrangham proposes that collective violence, in disposing of violent males, actually played a role in diminishing the reactive violence of our species, as a process of self-domestication. Apparently chimps display far more reactive aggression (tit for tat) than we do. Maybe this was a hurdle for our ancestors to overcome toward developing a more complex culture.

A Bold New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves (Melvin Konner, Atlantic Magazine)

I somewhat agree - there's probably a natural selection pressure against aggression but I'm not quite sure how effective it is or even whether it isn't the other way round. Time will tell I suppose.

probably a natural selection pressure against aggression but I'm not quite sure how effective it is or even whether it isn't the other way round — Agent Smith

It's all probably far too complicated for us to take any simple speculations too seriously. Somehow proactive violence (planning to take out a psychopath/outlier by coalition) puts an evolutionary check on impulsive violence. If the impulse for this kind violence wasn't removed genetically, it was possibly checked genetically/behaviorally with respect to the growing regulatory powers of the cortex. If you can't emotionally regulate according to the the norms of your tribe to a point, you're at risk of being purged.

What's interesting about the old Greek motif of the scapegoat is that it deals with outliers (very high status and low status victims). The king has transgressed moral law (there shall be no incest, no kinslaying) and must be taken out for the social welfare. Or, that old ugly, lonely outsider does not exemplify the norm as far as participation is concerned, so let's purge them from the group.

We can understand viscerally the emotional power of ethical norms as the result in our senses of admiration or disgust for social outliers (and those who become the subject/object of mass interest).

I was of the view that human sacrifice was distinct from punishment (by death) of criminals; intriguing that even altruists qualified as fit victims (they are outliers too). Aristotle's aurea mediocritas comes to mind: bad is bad but too good is equally bad or worse than bad. Hence, as per some sources, the sacrificial lamb was an innocent e.g. babies as in Carthage.

I was of the view that human sacrifice was distinct from punishment (by death) of criminals — Agent Smith

The scapegoat is perceived as a criminal, a target to blame for social troubles. No doubt there is in the mix of the exercise of this supposed ritual through history true criminals and true victims, relative to whatever the ethical code is. At our primordial beginning, at least for Girard, the idea is that this scapegoating process is completely unconscious/ritual-magic and there is a good/bad duality to the act (ex. "god wants a victim, get him one, there is even absurd honor in being given over ").

Aristotle's aurea mediocritas comes to mind: bad is bad but too good is equally bad or worse than bad. — Agent Smith

:up: I gotta look this up.
_____

Someone talking about this stuff brought up a scene in the Dune book series after Paul Atreides becomes the emperor/tyrant-holdfast. His mother has landed and some members of the crowd are too slow to bow in respect and they are taken away to either be imprisoned or killed even though they are composed of the old and infirm. Such an extreme social demand might result in calculated scapegoating from both the top down (from leadership) and bottom up (crowd) at the same time. Ex. "Paul's rule killed my grandpa and our lives suck... kill em!, whose with me?"/ "You heretic, I will out you and you'll be quartered in the public square."

You can imagine Chimps might not be too far off from this drama, which makes Rene Girard's Christian apologetics and mythic interpretations somewhat grandiose.

There is an interesting balancing act between the unanimity of a crowd in seeking justice against the demands of social code backed by punitive/policing action.

Well, I can tell you this: What people applaud/extol - a form of altruism exemplified by a soldier jumping onto a live grenade to save his friends - is a modern, watered down version/milder case of human sacrifice. Intriguing, oui? Altruists, poor chaps!

Altruists, poor chaps! — Agent Smith

That Captain America scene seems kind of dumb, unless Rogers knew the grenade was a fake. But if he knew it was a fake and jumped on it only because he knew, that doesn't show authentic altruism. If he didn't know, could he really expect such an action to protect anyone... it'd just be a terribly stupid act on his part.

Who is writing these scripts?

:smile:

Good points! Nothing is what it seems!

Is there an authentic story of self-sacrifice you know of? I'm too lazy to google. Apologies.

P. S. Visit The captain goes down with the ship on Wikipedia.

Girardian theory is not true; it does not make us better readers; and it’s not an exaggeration of anything important. Like the “everything is water” claim attributed to Thales, the “all desire is mimetic,” “all violence is mimetic,” and “all culture comes from violence” claims reduce, at best, to something trivial. And while Girardianism may well be “generative,” it is surely no more so than Scientology. Yet there it is, still going strong at a literature department near you. I’m not sure how we can stop it. — Joshua Landy

_____

Similarly, did we really need Girard to tell us that innocent individuals are sometimes singled out for punishment by communities in need of an outlet for negative energy? No, we already had J. G. Frazer (1913) for that, and Sigmund Freud (1930), and Kenneth Burke (1935), and Gordon Allport (1954).[42] In fact Frazer has an entire volume of The Golden Bough, running to some four hundred and seventy-two pages, dedicated to the topic. My point is not that Frazer has it right (let alone that Freud does); my point is just that everyone has always known that scapegoating happens, just as everyone has always known that mimetic desire happens, and that rivalry happens, and that violence happens. — Joshua Landy

Deceit, Desire, and the Literature Professor: Why Girardians Exist (Joshua Landy)

Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind [...] — 5:32

Jesus' crucifxion (one man for the human race - prisoner swap). Adam & Eve.

Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind [...]
— 5:32 — Agent Smith

So straightforward a rule but this is from the Quran. I can imagine that if the Passion of Jesus were just another Greek play the chorus could say this to the audience. But he was a disturber of someone's peace/order. What was the formal legal justification for the crucifixion?

As a mythical moral equation it is kind of interesting in light of the scapegoating rite.

To kill one is to save all (unconsciously).

versus

To kill one is to kill all (consciously).

Better yet... Jesus comes out of the tomb and proclaims, like a swashbuckling Muskateer,
One for All and All for One... who's with me?

And soon there would be many...

To kill one is to save all — Nils Loc

because

To kill one is to kill all — Nils Loc

I believe that's the rationale.

Sacrifice Paradox: Jesus is dead (physically), but then, in a sense, he's still alive (in our memories). Cheating death by dying. :chin: