Healthy Mimesis
finding hope in the middle of René Girard's potentially regressive mimetic theory
What am I watching or reading? Hmm, glad you asked …
I saw Barbie with my partner recently (ha, and about a hundred other women in the theatre). I liked the show, both from an entertainment and content standpoint. I was hoping, as it reached its conclusion, that it would go a little less women-as-good vs. men-as-evil (something I hope the balance of this week’s writing begins to address), but I cannot blame the film’s creators for standing strong in their judgment against an unhealthy patriarchy. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that, initially, those on the underside of an unhealthy system must be able to point out injustice. Ultimately, I hope it goes somewhere less binary, but it’s understandable and probably needed in the beginning. (Btw for explicating theory in and around the show, see McGowan’s and Engley’s take on their Why Theory Podcast.)
Speaking of unhealthy systems, I also watched Jesus Revolution recently. While it was great to be reminded of a story about how one preacher repented (metanoia) of his exclusionary ways, who then stood up to the establishment in the name of grace and mercy… it is deeply troubling to recognize that that same establishment is alive and well in it’s current forms of hierarchy, not the least of which is in its homophobia. Sigh. Troubling indeed. (Keith Giles actually gives some personal commentary on this issue in my podcast interview with him.)
I’ve been re-reading Caputo’s The Insistence of God: A Theology of Perhaps. I’m doing this because I love Caputo’s writing, but also, he’s been on my mind lately, given that he wrote a really nice endorsement for the book I’m currently working on! (Sign up for updates on the book here.) I never dreamed I would be in a position to gain an endorsement from John Caputo, but Catherine Keller encouraged me to ask him. (And yes, for those wondering, that is a subtle way to work in two name-drops in the same paragraph.) The Insistence of God reminds us that “The truth of God may or may not come true.” In other words, our actions, decisions, and choices matter. We are, in part, what enables the truth of God to actually become true.
I hope to play some small part in the truth of God becoming true by moving on to today’s thought, which is some of the most important stuff I write about in Theology of Consent: Mimetic Theory in an Open and Relational Universe (pp. 196-199). The previous comments in this post about the “good vs. bad binate” so prevalent in our culture set us up here. So what I think is …
I think love invites us to point out injustice but in ways that promote overall health. When I speak of health, I have in mind, first of all, consent, agency, and autonomy, and second of all, environments free from scapegoating for scapegoating is terrible not only for the victim but also the vicimtizer.
I won’t take time to get into the second part of that definition, but let’s get into the first part … if you read or listen to much of anything I have to write or say, you know that I take Girardian insight into desire to be accurate—that our desires are the desires of others, and that in our imitation of those desires, all kinds of troubling issues emerge. I’m not the only person who has pointed out how challenging this thinking is, among other reasons, because it makes it difficult to see how real change is possible.
More troubling still, for those of us interested in grace, the very idea that we are required to change can foster competition between us and the other, including God.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to jonathan_foster to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.