“Interview with René Girard: Comments on Christianity, Scapegoating, and Sacrifice”: Summary and Critique

1. Key Discoveries in Girard’s Intellectual Journey

Girard identifies three major breakthroughs in his thought: mimetic desire and rivalry, the scapegoat mechanism, and the unique revelation of the Bible (Girard, 1997, p. 249). His realization that human desires are imitative (mimetic) laid the foundation for his theory that societies stabilize themselves through scapegoating. He further claims that the Passion of Christ reveals and disrupts this hidden social mechanism (p. 250).

---

2. Christianity and the Exposure of the Scapegoat Mechanism

Unlike myths, which conceal the injustice of scapegoating, the Bible makes the victim’s innocence explicit. Girard argues that the Gospels do not promote scapegoating but unveil it, correcting the misunderstanding of many theologians who see Christianity as a scapegoat religion (p. 250). He compares this to the Dreyfus Affair, where those defending Dreyfus were paradoxically accused of scapegoating (p. 251).

---

3. Historical and Literary Parallels to Scapegoating

Girard illustrates scapegoating through Joan of Arc, whose divinization or demonization parallels how societies treat scapegoats (p. 251). Similarly, Herod’s belief in John the Baptist’s resurrection reflects how myths arise from scapegoated figures (p. 252). The Gospels differ by acknowledging the victim’s innocence, setting Christianity apart from other religions and myths.

---

4. Christianity as a Non-Sacrificial Religion

Girard challenges the traditional sacrificial reading of Christianity, distinguishing between sacrifice as murder and sacrifice as renunciation (p. 253). He credits Nietzsche with recognizing Christianity’s uniqueness in defending victims rather than justifying sacrifice, though Nietzsche rejected this ethic as harmful to society (p. 254).

---

5. The Role of the Passion in Understanding Scapegoating

The Passion of Christ provides a clear anthropological revelation of the scapegoat mechanism. The denial of Peter illustrates how even close followers succumb to scapegoating pressure (p. 255). Christ’s unwavering refusal to participate in mimetic rivalry demonstrates an alternative to violence, which Girard sees as the true meaning of atonement (p. 256).

---

6. The Gospels’ Narrative Against Violence and Exclusion

Girard critiques how Christianity has been misused to justify violence, particularly against Jews (p. 257). He argues that the New Testament does not single out Jewish authorities but implicates all of humanity in scapegoating Jesus. He likens this to the myth of Purusha in the Vedas, where a victim’s dismemberment creates social order—a dynamic the Gospels expose and reject (p. 258).

---

7. Theological Implications: Christ as the True Scapegoat

Girard ultimately accepts the scapegoat label for Christ, but only in reverse: rather than a society-constructed scapegoat, Christ consciously takes on the role to expose its injustice (p. 259). He interprets Isaiah 53’s Suffering Servant as a precursor to this revelation (p. 260).

---

8. Rethinking Atonement and Sacrifice

Girard critiques the satisfaction theory of atonement, arguing instead for an atonement based on reconciliation rather than divine retribution (p. 261). He supports Jean-Luc Marion’s idea of a “God without the sacred”, meaning a God free from the violent mechanisms of human religion (p. 262).

---

Conclusion

Girard’s interview presents Christianity as a unique revelation that unmasks and transcends the scapegoat mechanism. His theories challenge traditional readings of sacrifice and atonement, offering a non-violent, anthropological interpretation of the Gospel. Christianity, in his view, subverts sacred violence rather than perpetuating it, making it a pivotal force in human history (p. 263).

Contribution of “Interview with René Girard: Comments on Christianity, Scapegoating, and Sacrifice” to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Mimetic Theory and Literary Desire

• Girard’s theory of mimetic desire has a profound impact on literary theory, particularly in the study of character motivation and narrative conflict.
• He argues that human desire is imitative rather than autonomous, which shapes literary plots, character interactions, and conflicts (Girard, 1997, p. 249).
• This aligns with his earlier work in Deceit, Desire, and the Novel, where he demonstrated how classic literary figures (e.g., Don Quixote, Emma Bovary) exhibit mimetic patterns of desire.
• Reference: “First was mimetic desire and rivalry, when I realized that it accounted for so much” (p. 249).

---

2. Scapegoat Mechanism in Myth and Narrative Structure

• Many literary works encode the scapegoat mechanism, wherein a character or group is blamed and expelled to resolve social tensions.
• Girard’s reading of the Passion as an exposure of scapegoating influences the analysis of myth, tragedy, and religious narratives.
• Classical and modern tragedies—from Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex to Shakespeare’s King Lear—follow the scapegoat pattern Girard identifies.
• Reference: “The second was the discovery of the scapegoat mechanism. This basically completed the mimetic theory” (p. 249).

---

3. The Bible as an Alternative Literary Model to Myth

• Girard contrasts the Gospels with traditional myth, arguing that myths conceal the victim’s innocence, whereas the Bible exposes the mechanics of sacrifice and violence.
• This insight influences poststructuralist and deconstructive readings that question dominant sacrificial paradigms in literature.
• Reference: “The Gospels seem so close to myth in a way, and yet they are poles apart” (p. 251).

---

4. Christianity as a Non-Sacrificial Narrative Model

• Unlike traditional myths that validate sacrifice, Christianity subverts the sacrificial logic found in literature and religious texts.
• This insight informs literary ethical criticism, which examines whether texts endorse or critique violence and exclusion.
• Girard’s reading of Joan of Arc’s trial exemplifies how scapegoats are demonized or divinized, a pattern seen in literary figures from Hester Prynne to Frankenstein’s creature.
• Reference: “The people who put her on trial divinized her, or ‘demonized’ her, in the sense of regarding her as a witch” (p. 251).

---

5. Girard and Nietzsche: The Literary Struggle Between Victim and Power

• Girard builds on Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity but inverts its conclusions—whereas Nietzsche saw the Gospel’s defense of victims as weakness, Girard sees it as a revolutionary transformation of human culture.
• This has implications for political literary theory, especially in postcolonial and feminist readings that critique structures of oppression.
• Reference: “Nietzsche was the first thinker to see clearly that the singularity of Judeo-Christianity was that it rehabilitates victims myths would regard as justly immolated” (p. 254).

---

6. Political Correctness and Literary Representation of Victims

• Girard’s discussion of political correctness (PC) and scapegoating influences the study of literature that engages with social justice, victimization, and power relations.
• His work raises questions about whether some modern narratives perpetuate or dismantle scapegoating structures.
• Reference: “The upholders of PC can find a strange kind of support in his writings. He was entranced with violent differentiation” (p. 251).

---

7. Atonement Theory and Literary Redemption Arcs

• Girard’s distinction between satisfaction-based atonement and reconciliation-based atonement affects the study of redemption narratives.
• Many modern novels, dramas, and films (e.g., Les Misérables, Crime and Punishment) explore whether atonement requires sacrifice or transformation.
• Reference: “Atonement is ‘at-one-ment,’ becoming reconciled with God, and this is the work of Christ” (p. 261).

---

8. The “God Without the Sacred” and Postmodern Literary Criticism

• Girard’s rejection of sacred violence challenges theological and philosophical readings of Western literature’s portrayal of God and the sacred.
• This relates to Derrida’s deconstruction of logocentrism, questioning whether traditional texts reinforce or resist sacrificial logic.
• Reference: “‘God without being’ could be translated as ‘God without the sacred’—God without sacred violence, God without scapegoating” (p. 262).

1. Overgeneralization of Mimetic Desire

• Critics argue that not all human desires are mimetic and that some desires are autonomous or biologically driven rather than purely imitative.
• Girard’s theory downplays individual agency and the role of personal will in shaping human behavior.
• Counterpoint: While mimetic desire is influential, human motivation is complex and cannot be entirely reduced to imitation.

---

2. Reductionist View of Myth and Religion

• Girard suggests that all myths conceal the scapegoat mechanism, while the Bible uniquely reveals it.
• However, some scholars argue that other religious traditions also critique violence and sacrifice, such as aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, and indigenous spirituality.
• Counterpoint: His binary view—myth obscures, Christianity reveals—oversimplifies the diversity of religious traditions.

---

3. Questionable Interpretation of Christianity’s Uniqueness

• Girard’s claim that Christianity uniquely exposes the scapegoat mechanism is seen as Christian exceptionalism, which ignores other traditions that critique violence.
• Critics point out that Jewish prophetic literature and other religious texts also reveal the injustice of scapegoating.
• Counterpoint: The Bible does emphasize the innocence of the victim, but this does not mean it is the only tradition to do so.

---

4. Ambiguity in the Role of Sacrifice in Christianity

• Girard shifts between rejecting and accepting sacrifice, making his stance on Christian atonement unclear.
• He initially rejects the traditional sacrificial reading of Christ’s death but later accepts the idea of sacrifice as renunciation.
• Counterpoint: His distinction between sacrifice as murder and sacrifice as renunciation is insightful but lacks precision in defining how Christ’s death functions theologically.

---

5. Misinterpretation of Nietzsche’s Critique of Christianity

• Girard argues that Nietzsche misunderstood Christianity’s concern for victims (p. 254), but some scholars suggest that Girard misrepresents Nietzsche’s position.
• Nietzsche criticized Christian morality as an oppressive force that weakens human potential, rather than simply failing to understand the scapegoat mechanism.
• Counterpoint: Girard’s reading of Nietzsche is too one-sided, missing the nuance in Nietzsche’s critique of resentment and power dynamics.

---

6. Inconsistencies in Historical and Literary Comparisons

• While Girard uses examples like Joan of Arc, the Dreyfus Affair, and biblical narratives, critics argue these comparisons oversimplify historical complexities.
• For example, Joan of Arc’s trial was political and gendered, not just a case of scapegoating.
• Counterpoint: While these examples illustrate Girard’s theory, they risk ignoring other socio-political factors beyond scapegoating.

---

7. Underestimating Structural and Systemic Violence

• Girard’s focus on scapegoating as a social mechanism does not fully account for institutionalized and systemic violence such as colonialism, racism, and capitalism.
• His theory emphasizes individual and communal violence but does not address structural oppression as effectively as Marxist or postcolonial critiques.
• Counterpoint: The scapegoat mechanism may still be a foundational insight, but Girard does not extend it sufficiently to systemic violence.

---

8. Political Correctness and Victimhood Critique Lacks Nuance

• Girard’s skepticism about political correctness (PC) and modern victimhood narratives is ambiguous and potentially dismissive of legitimate social justice movements.
• Some critics argue that he misinterprets PC as a misguided continuation of scapegoating rather than a response to historical injustices.
• Counterpoint: While some uses of victimhood can be problematic, Girard’s critique does not fully engage with the positive role of victim-centered discourse in human rights advocacy.