Mimetic desire, the subjective nature of scarcity, and the pitfalls of equality

Michel Bauwens: We met Kim Becher at the historical first conference on P2P held in Leuven, Belgium; Kim is responsible for the very well done full “article-by-article” Topical Index to P2N News, which gives a whole added value to the 2,000 pages of background material that we’ve collated in the last 2 years.

Kim is also a philosophy student and the following entry is a summary of the interconnection of mimetic desire (we want objects because other want them to); the fact that scarcity has strong subjective components (since it is dependent on human desire, not just needs), and the competition created by equality. There are difficult, and troubling, problems, that are quite well explained here.

For some additional background, see our entries on Abundance vs. Scarcity, and on Mimetic Desire.

Kim Becher:

I became interested in Girard’s work while preparing my thesis on Hans Achterhuis, a Dutch philosopher who wrote interesting books on utopism, scarcity etc. In his theory of scarcity, Achterhuis employs Girard’s notion of ‘mimetic desire’.

Â

According to Girard, desire is generally ruled by a triangular mechanism, i.e. it’s not directly linked to an object, but mediated by another subject. That is why desires have a tendency to be insatiable, as they are not satisfied by simply obtaining a desired object.

Humans are mimetic by nature. According to Aristotle, their ability to imitate behaviour is one of the things that distinguish humans from animals. So mimetism is not a bad thing in itself, but mimetic desire entails a risk of violent conflict, notably when the model becomes a rival, as occurs when the model’s possessions or achievements appear to be unattainable for the mimetic subject.

Traditional societies are very aware of the dangers of mimetic desire, and therefore establish a whole set of tabu’s, differences and institutions to avoid the risk of a ‘mimetic crisis’, i.e. when violent rivalry infects society as a whole, potentially leading to a ‘war of all against all’.

Analysing a wide range of written and oral myths and religious texts, Girard discovered a universal mechanism underlying them: the ‘founding murder of the scapegoat’: when these societies experienced a mimetic crisis, group violence was diverted to a scapegoat, who stood out because of distinct traits, which become even more conspicuous in a mimetic crisis, when everyone appears identical to the other.

After the scapegoat is sacrified, peace is restored, and the group is saved. And so, paradoxically, the scapegoat becomes the Saviour of the group. The collective peace is attributed to him. Only, this truth is too infamous and complex for the collective murderers to accept, so they rearrange the facts and conceal the collective murder in their founding myths.

In Christianity, according to Girard, the scapegoat-mechanism is finally exposed, as Christ embodies the ultimate innocence and symbolises all the victims of collective murders from the beginning of mankind. From now on, people have to accept this truth and find more peaceful ways of solving their (mimetic) problems.

Â

Hans Achterhuis used Girard’s notion of mimetic desire to highlight the subjective nature of scarcity. In modern economic theory (Adam Smith), scarcity is considered to be an objective fact: the scarcity of resources is inherent to nature. This view has certain moral implications: according to John Locke, Europeans had a moral right to capture the land from the native Americans, as it was their duty to overcome scarcity by hard labour and efficient production. Locke justified the privatisation of common lands on the grounds that it would foster productivity, which serves the common good.

As Marx pointed out, the Industrial Revolution was made possible by the expropriation of English peasants and the closure of the ‘commons’. The commons were a feudal institution precisely aimed at avoiding scarcity: they were common lands shared by peasants and bondmen to secure their subsistence in a sustainable manner. To create the necessary industrial workforce, the commons had to be closed, as willingness to work in a factory was minimal among English peasantry (wage work in factories was equated to prostitution in medieval times).

Â

Modernity is in many ways based on exactly the opposite premises of traditional societies. Modern societies encourage rivalry, equality and individuality among subjects, whereas traditional societies regard them as sources of conflict.

The potential for mimetic crises seems boundless in modern societies. Girard has shown that the risks of envy and mimetic contagion are much higher among equal subjects than between people who belong to distant groups. One of the terrifying experiences of early modernity was that people lost ther traditional places as members of a certain class or group, and were rocked into a boundless space in which they had to compete with masses of equals. This enhanced rivalry and productivity, but provoked also much envy and fear. Being aware of these dangers, theorists like Locke stressed the importance of economic growth as a ways of offering hope and perspective to the working classes. This was also one of the underlying motives of English imperialism. As Cecil Rhodes noted: “If we don’t want a civil war in England, we have to become imperialistsâ€?. Achterhuis argues that economic growth perhaps seems a better way of diverting a mimetic crisis than sacrifying a scapegoat, but economic growth in the West has created other victims, namely the third world and mother nature. And the more we try to combat scarcity by increasing production and productivity, the more we seem to install it.Â

Â

In this context, I find the plea for a ‘New Commons’ (open software etc.) and a Universal Wage an interesting aspect of the P2P–movement. It wouldn’t solve everything, but it could be a way of curtailing the realm of scarcity to some extent.

Â

If you are interested in a very readable Dutch book, I would certainly recommend “Het Rijk van de Schaarste� by Hans Achterhuis. It’s very accessible for non-philosophers, and offers an interesting perspective on modernity and the ideas that helped to shape it, including a detailed description of modern philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx and Foucault. Achterhuis has also written an extensive book on Utopism (“De erfenis van de utopie�).

Â

My favourite works of Girard are “Le bouc émissaire�, “La violence et le sacré� and his works on literary criticism: “Critique dans un souterrain“ (about Dostoievski) and “Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque�.

1 Comment Mimetic desire, the subjective nature of scarcity, and the pitfalls of equality

  1. Pingback: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Adrian Chan on mimetic desire

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.