Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture

1. SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON IMITATION AS A RELATIONSHIP, NOT AS A COMPULSION

Even in the natural biological environment, where imitation has its real beginning, we find not only a subject and an object, but also a third element: René Girard calls it "the model of desire."¹ The subject desires the object insofar as the model is imagined to want the same object. Therefore, mankind's dependence on the model is, as it always was, the modus operandi of hyper-mimetic beings. It is not solely a distorted compulsion (affectus) that transforms the model into a "material" obstacle to obtaining the object.

As for mimetism, it must be underlined that rivalry is not simply a result of an accidental convergence of two desires on the same object. If it were, we would welcome the return of a hypothetical and original autonomy of desire, [End Page 1] leading to mankind's freedom from his first imitative guilt. But, from the origin and, hopefully, until the end, felix culpa leads the imitator to confront the model!

The imitator's negative/positive dependence on his model shows the prevailing affection within the process of imitative acquisition. Such dependence explains the large variety of the attitudes of human desire; it also explains the reason why imitation can arouse radical and extreme feelings of both jealousy and aversion towards the model. Moreover, it can drive the imitator to a pathological relapse.² But, in order not to be trapped into a cross-mechanism of mimetic-rivalitarian desire, we ought to avoid immediately thinking of the model as a rival and instead to recognize the imitation of the model as mankind's way of taking possession of and acquainting himself with the world.

2. THE MODEL IS A MEDIATOR AND AN OBSTACLE TO APPROPRIATIVE DESIRE

In short, we can say that the same affective relationship:

1. a. Mediates the appropriation of the "object." The relation to the model allows one to approach such appropriation in an emotional and cognitive way.

2. b. Transforms the model into an "obstacle," carrying out the double binding command. The unavoidable obstacle affects the imitator definitely. However, these psychological effects are secondary. What is primary is the indication of the object of appropriation led by the desire of the model.

Most of the literature developing the Mimetic theory focuses on the "inner" relationship of the imitator to the model-obstacle, which René Girard calls "internal mediation" due to the effects on the psychological sphere of the imitator. Under this aspect, the relationship is metaphysically transformed into a deification of the model. On the other hand, sometimes these studies have disregarded the manner in which the model, acting as mediator, produces real and manifest changes. Hence, "external mediation" has been confined, first, within the domain of religious institutions, and second, within that of juridical and political ones.³ On the contrary, the two aspects, model as an "inner" obstacle and model as an "external" mediator, constantly overlap, as it is easy to observe in cultural history.

Thus, we should focus on the conflicting effects of the meeting with a model in order to achieve a more global vision of the creative relations of humans.⁴ [End Page 2]

3.A. MIMETIC NATURE AND THE SCANDAL OF DESIRE

For the imitator, the model-obstacle is a scandal. In fact, double-binding desire contains all the features of scandal. Whoever is affected by scandal is confused; on the one hand, the scandal astonishes him, and on the other hand, it deprives him of what leads to the object of desire. The imitator loses sight of his aim. To put it more tangibly, confusion toward the model is a scandal to the eye that is transmitted to the hands and feet, thus hindering movement.⁵ Girard's image of hobbling along evokes the visible effect of this impediment. The contradictory movement forward always halts at the same point. This makes...