Download - PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
1/15
Mecaskey 1
Hannah M. MecaskeyPH 2000- Modern Philosophy
Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P.Term Paper
22 November 2010
Hobbes Social Contract Compared vs. Girards Scapegoat TheoryMimetic Violence Operative in bothLeviathan and the Scapegoat Mechanism
Introduction
Theorists belief systems are often betrayed by the anthropologies underlying their socio-
political theories. For Thomas Hobbes, the naturalistic state of man in his social contract theory
is violent and animalistic, only controllable when the general public is able to redirect their
individualistic fear and anger at one particular personan absolute monarch. This system seems
very similar to a more modern reconstruction of society by Ren Girard, whose theory of
mimetic rivalry and violence, especially Girards scapegoat mechanism, function very similarly
to Hobbes ideal state, the Leviathan. For Girard, mans natural state is also violent, not only
on an individualistic level but on a societal level as well. However, human animosity is too
cyclic to be constrained by redirection to one member of society and remain in the society, so
one person becomes the scapegoat, the communal vessel of guilt, for the whole of the society.
While Girard and Hobbes have created very similar systems analyzing human society, theirs
solutions to mimetic rivalry differ dramatically: Hobbes accepts a notion ofkatchon, that
human institution can quell mimetic rivalry, while Girard accepts only a divine solution.
Thomas Hobbes Social ContractTheory
The primary text of Hobbes from which I will construct Hobbes social contract theory is
Leviathan. In describing the common-wealth or state as Leviathan, the ancient biblical beast
which appears in the book of Job as a symbol of primordial chaos, Hobbes designates his ideal
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
2/15
Mecaskey 2
state as an Artificial Man1
which is in fact greater than natural man. Hobbes begins in his
introduction by decreeing that it is mans duty to create artificial life is exemplified in this state,
imitating of the creative ability of God. Already, we see the concept of mimesis in human beings
primordially functioning as imitation of Gods action, not other humans, as creators of that initial
motion of life. Perhaps Hobbes conceives as all of life as automated, since he describes life as
merely the motion of limbs, mechanistically moving about.
In like manner, the body of the state is animated by an absolute monarch, whom Hobbes
terms the Artificial Soul of the mechanistic body of the state. Designating mankind as creator
of this nationalistic beast Leviathan as well as man composing the Leviathan, Hobbes says that
the Leviathans artificial life comes through the making of covenants which designate what
are the rights and just power or authority of a sovereign; and what it is that preserves and
dissolves it.2
It is upon these covenants which bring about the existence of the Leviathan state
through social contract theory that I will focus.
Beginning with a discussion of human nature in Chapter 17, Of the Causes, Generation
and Definition of a Common-Wealth inLeviathan, Hobbes determines that human beings have
a need for the common-wealth/state to preserve individual security. Describing the creation of a
common-wealth as mankinds final cause in order to preserve individual lives from that
miserable condition of War which results from the natural Passions of men since Hobbes
finds no visible Power to contain their natural violence by threat of punishment.3 Since mans
chief desire is for self-preservation, Hobbes argues that this desire gives rise to a desire for
1Thomas Hobbes.Leviathan. MacPherson, C.B., ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd., 1968), 81.
2 Ibid., 82.3 Ibid., 223.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
3/15
Mecaskey 3
pleasure,4
leading humans to try and store pleasure for the future, requiring a certain amount of
power which Hobbes defines as the means to satisfy our desires.5
These descriptions evidence
that Hobbes finds mankind unable to maintain a natural peace, unlike certain living creatures, as
Bees and Ants, live sociably with one another.6 Why is mankinds natural disposition not
towards peaceful co-existence with fellow mankind?
To this question, Hobbes offers six reasons in response: First, Hobbes believes that
humans are always in competition with one another for honor and dignity,7
stirring up envy
and strife which lead to war.8
Second, Hobbes says that this envy and jealousy is so heightened
in mankind that he cannot enjoy anything which does not selfishly pertain to himself.
9
Thirdly,
Hobbes describes human beings and prideful about their own intellects, causing political strife by
constant attempts to reform the state.10
Fourth, Hobbes finds humankind to be deceptive because
of our linguistic abilities, further frustrating our fellow humans.11
Fifth, Hobbes describes human
beings as boastful about their own knowledge, especially concerning state governance, which
breeds discontent on a political level.12 And finally, Hobbes does not believe human beings
naturally agree to things, unlike irrational creatures, thus peace comes through an artificial
covenant.13
In these six ways, Hobbes distinguished between human nature and that of irrational
animals, seeming to conclude that human rationality makes men more violent than capable of a
simplistic peace.
4 D.D. Raphael.Hobbes: Morals and Politics. Political Thinkers, 6. Geraint Perry, ed. (London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., 1977), 30.5 Ibid., 31.6 Thomas Hobbes.Leviathan. MacPherson, C.B., ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd., 1968), 225.7 Ibid.8
Ibid., 226.9 Ibid.10
Ibid.11
Ibid.12 Ibid.13 Ibid.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
4/15
Mecaskey 4
Given this negative anthropology, Hobbes concludes that the only way for humans to live
in peace with one another is to intentionally covenant with one another, every man with every
man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man.14
This individualistic covenant
between persons agrees that each will subjugate himself to the rule of an absolute monarch,
receiving punishment for wrongful actions. Hobbes thinks that such a covenant will unite the
whole multitude of individuals into one person he calls the Moral God, the Leviathan state.15
Thus all the persons united as individuals convey the power of their submission to one
individual, the absolute monarch, who is granted sovereign powerso much power and strength
that he is actually able to terrorize the individuals composing the state unchecked.
16
Hobbes says
that the absolute monarch embodies the essence of the common-wealth in as much as it is one
person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another have made themselves
every one the author of the city-state to the end that he may use the collective means and
powers of the individuals as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defense.17
Thus Hobbes solves his perceived problem of human natures propensity to violence for
the sake of individual benefit by harnessing that energy through social covenants with one
another to grant the power for protection and self-preservation to an absolute monarch, whose
absolute authority terrorizes the people who comprise the state. So in the Leviathan, mimetic
rivalry on the level of individuals is dissolved when each agrees to redirect their animosity
towards one person, functioning as a civil god, who almost seems to have an imitative
relationship rivaling God Himself. Having stated in his introduction that he was reacting to the
Aristotelian concept of nature, Hobbes has destroyed the social nature of human beings, and
14Ibid., 227.
15Ibid.
16 Ibid.17 Ibid., 228.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
5/15
Mecaskey 5
has taken that conclusion to its natural extreme in the belief that all human beings are so
concerned with individualist self-preservation and survival that community is an artificial
product of a social contract to preserve individual needs. It is interesting that Hobbes requires a
specifically visible presence for the maintenance of human peaceand that the sovereign he
erects is one endowed with absolute, unquestioned authority. Seeing elements of the sovereigns
mimesis of God, Hobbes creates his own parallel of God, a human epitome of absolute power
and unquestionable authority, in anti-Christ form, for the monarch rules through fear and terror.
Wolfgang Palaver describes the sovereign monarch of Hobbes social contract theory as
a katchon, a term referring to the restraining or holding back force
18
for the mimetically violent
natures Hobbes reads as inherent in humanity. Palaver recognizes characteristics mimetic rivalry
as defined by Ren Girard within Hobbes system of human violence, along with redirection of
that violence towards one person in Leviathan as parallel to Girards scapegoat mechanism.
Hobbes version of mimetic theory, described as humankinds equality of ability (to kill one
another) and the equality of hope in attaining the same ends as the processes which puts human
beings in conflict with one another.19 Since Hobbes does believe that two people can both enjoy
the same end, he says that they become enemies, endeavoring to destroy or subdue one
another.20
Having seen traces of Girards mimetic rivalry in HobbesLeviathan, I will describe
Girards own theory of mimetic rivalry, culminating in the scapegoat mechanism, as a way to
better elucidate the humanistic implications of Hobbes social contract theory.
The Mimetic and Scapegoat Mechanisms of Ren Girard
18 Wolfgang Palaver.Hobbes and the Katchon: The Secularization of Sacrificial Christianity. Contagion: Journal
of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture. (Vol 2., Spring 1995), 61.19 Thomas Hobbes.Leviathan. MacPherson, C.B., ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd., 1968), 184.20 Ibid.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
6/15
Mecaskey 6
To introduce Ren Girards framework of mimetic theory, especially the scapegoat
mechanism, I will briefly explain the mechanism with the aid of Michael Kirwan, a Neo-
Girardian, before drawing out my analysis. Kirwan is very careful to describe Girards theory as
closely as possible, and seems to do an extremely accurate job, even according to the originator
of this scapegoat mechanism himself, Girard. Thus arguing from Kirwans book Discovering
Girard, I feel as if I am dealing with a translation of Girards theory, the actual substance of his
thought in slightly varied presentation. Girard himself describes mimesis, the basis of his
theory, as a behavioral tendency towards imitation,21
in the case of mimetic theory, basically the
imitation of desire in that one desires what one sees another person desiring because that other
person desires it.
It is important to understand what is meant by mimetic rivalry if one is going to correctly
grasp Girards concept of the scapegoat mechanism, which rests upon the acceptance of mimetic
violence within human society. Briefly put, mimetic rivalry is the violence that arises in
interpersonal, even inter-societal relations when one person or society desires what another has,
and views it as necessary for his/their happiness. Mimetic rivalry is the impetus, the
psychological or spiritual violence of envy and covetousness which impels mimetic violence,
which is violence done in attempt to selfishly acquire whatever was desired of the other. Keeping
this in mind, it will be much easier to understand how Girard characterizes the rising up on
mimetic violence within the scapegoat mechanism. Appealing to children to exemplify mimetic
conflicts, Girard describes Augustines illustration of two children who have the same wet nurse:
the nurse has more than enough milk for both children, but they simultaneously desire the same
21 Ren Girard with Pierpaolo Antonello and Joo Cezar de Casto Rocha. Evolution and Coversion: Dialogues on
the Origins of Culture. (New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2007), 60.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
7/15
Mecaskey 7
thing.22
Girard says that this exemplifies a desire beyond acquisitive, that has become a
competitive desire: even if there is more than enough milk for both children, each wants to
have it all in order to prevent the other from having any.23
Girard also claims that this kind of
desire is operative among adults, a selfish desire for a thing which another person also wants or
needs, while desiring to present the other from having the thing as well.
Clearly in Kirwans presentation, Girards theory of the scapegoat mechanism arose
mainly through his analysis of classical literature such as Tolstoy and Shakespeare. I will briefly
describe the major components of what Girard calls the scapegoat mechanism. Expanding his
prior theories of mimetic rivalry and interpersonal violence into a more general theory of social
order, Girard stated that it was a societys conception of the sacred through which
interpersonal violence was contained, preserving the social order.24
It is within this context of
the sacred, within religion itself, that Girard sees the scapegoat mechanism as operating
opportunistically.
The scapegoat mechanism operates at two different levels of a societys self-
understanding, that of divine-human interaction, as well as interpersonal relations, beginning
with the distinct cosmic realms of sacred and profane which are brought into being through
sacrifice of a victim through expulsion or execution. Describing the scapegoat mechanism as a
social process, Girard characterizes the time when a community begins to seek out a victim as
when the cultural order is destabilized or endangered by the escalation of mimetic desire25 and
plunges into crisis. Characterizing the crisis as perceived in almost apocalyptic proportion, the
community as becoming collectively obsessed to the point of seeming possessed in a unified
22Ibid., 61.
23Ibid.
24 Michael Kirwan.Discovering Girard. (Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 2005), 38.25 Ibid., 38.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
8/15
Mecaskey 8
manner, especially when it seems that the crisis cannot be found without resorting to violence.
Thus, according to Girard, the crisis is resolved by a realignment of the aggression, all against
one,26
venting blame for the cause of the communal disturbance onto the shoulders of one
person. Having selected its victim, the scapegoat through which the community hopes to regain
peace, the group becomes unified in violently eradicating the victim they deem profane from
within their midst through the victims death or expulsion. This experience of being united in
aggression against a common enemy allows the group to experience a transcendence and
harmony which seem to have come from outside.27
The communal threat abated and a state of beatitude achieved through the removal of the
scapegoat victim, the mob that expelled/exterminated the victim attributes the beatitude of their
new state to the victim itself, allowing him/her to acquire a sacred numinosity, even a divine
status.28
Thus the victim is attributed with conflicting qualities: demonization as the attributed
cause of the communitys disaster, as well as some kind of salvific role. Girard assigned the
purpose of cultic prohibitions, rituals and myths as functioning to control a societys impulses
towards mimetic violence, even if they do so by contradictory means such as permitting ritual
sacrifices.29
While prohibitions serve to separate the community members from potential sources
of conflict and violence, sacrificial rituals serve as momentary relaxation of taboos, whereby the
community allows itself an acceptable dosage of violence and chaos, serving as a kind of
inoculation against the infectious spread of mimetic violence.30 In bringing together his analysis
of literature and conception of myth, Girard establishes a link between mimetic desire and
26 Ibid., 38.27
Ibid., 39.28
Ibid., 39.29 Ibid., 39.30 Ibid., 39.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
9/15
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
10/15
Mecaskey 10
brought to a greater light through comparison with Girards mimetic theory. To restate the
definition ofkatchon, Palaver suggests the term can refer to the restraining of chaotic violence
through violence.34
We see this in the social contract theory of HobbesinLeviathan, where the
uncontainable violence of individual persons is restrained by their mutual agreement to be ruled
by an absolute, tyrannical sovereign. Reversing Scholastic Christianitys claim concerning
humanity in the image of God, Hobbes pinpoints human rationality as that which allows human
beings to develop mimetic rivalry of which animals are incapable. Writing in the wake of the
Protestant Reformation, Hobbes did not identify the Catholic Church with a political katchon as
the Medievals had,
35
no longer recognizing any kind of religious institution which could
maintain order. Instead Hobbes creates, in the terminology of Carl Schmitt, a political
theology36
which exemplifies secularization in Hobbes analogous depiction of God and his
concept of the state and of sovereignty.37
Instead of looking to God to restrain human violence, Hobbes chose one of the great
biblical images of the principle of disorder38 the Leviathan, as a civic symbol of order. Palaver
notes that mimetic theory helps to explain this reversal of a principle of disorder to a principle
of order, for it shows us that sacrificial order itself is a product of chaos.39
Palaver claims that a
transfer of sacrificial theological concepts40
is evident in Hobbes social contract theory through
not just a secularization of the Catholic empires katchon power which comes from Divine
authority, but also in the way that Hobbes state functioning a katchon, holds back the advent of
34 Wolfgang Palaver.Hobbes and the Katchon: The Secularization of Sacrificial Christianity. Contagion: Journal
of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture. (Vol 2., Spring 1995), 65.35
Ibid., 66.36 Ibid., 65.37
Ibid.38
Ibid.39 Ibid.40 Ibid.,66.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
11/15
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
12/15
Mecaskey 12
finds an external focus for its aggression, an enemy without who similarly unites them.45
In
this way, Girard provides a sacrificial outlet for internal violence of a group through elimination
of a group member or redirection of animosity to an outsiderwhom Hobbes has designated as
the sovereign monarch.
Placing Girards terminology in the framework of Hobbes explication of the functioning
of Leviathan, the mimetic rivalry for Hobbes is solved when the individuals redirect their
collective animosity towards the sovereign monarch. Yet it is this depiction of the Leviathan as
solution to a peoples realized need for a katchon that Girard objects to as implausible.46
Instead
of agreeing that they need an outside aggressor as scapegoat in time of peak violence allowing
them to cease their hostilities, Girard thinks war more immanent than agreement to submit to an
absolute sovereign.47
Seeing Hobbes system of diffusing mimetic rivalry as entirely improbably,
Girard suggests a temporary violence of all against one person,48
either eliminating them or
throwing them out of the community. This persons eradication from the presence of the all
triggers a united experience of a transcendence and harmony which seem to have come from
outside.49 Yet later, Girard thinks remorse will set in and cause the scapegoatted person to be
viewed in an extremely positive light for having served to bring about the unity now enjoyed.
While Girard himself may scorn Hobbes system of regaining harmony, Girards own scapegoat
mechanism allows for Hobbes system without the concluding remorse and magnification of the
scapegoat (for Hobbes the absolute monarch).
Conclusion
45 Michael Kirwan.Discovering Girard(Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 2005), 38-9.46
Ibid., 45.47
Ibid.48 Ibid., 38.49 Ibid., 39.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
13/15
Mecaskey 13
Both Hobbes and Girard share a similar conception of the individual person in their
natural state: violent, scared for their own existence in an animalistic way. Yet where Hobbes
pits individual against individual, Girard sees individual violence melding together in communal
violence rather than communal peace. While for Hobbes fear and survival instincts drive this
individualistic state, for Girard it is something called mimetic rivalry, competitive selfish
desires which drive individuals into conflict with one another. Hobbes suggests a mitigation of
his conception of individual violence through the creation of a social contract where, for the
survival of all, each individual agrees to act in harmony with one another, allowing an absolute
monarch to hold a tyrannical over them as individuals. Girards scapegoat mechanism offers a
way in which the transfer of aggression from individual rivalry to Hobbes absolute sovereign
can occur, enabling this system to act as katchon for the mimetic rivalry between individuals,
though allowing it to reign at the level of the sovereign monarchs activity towards the people.
Girard has openly rejected Hobbes conclusion to a system so similar to Girards
scapegoat mechanism, denying that people would be able to agree to a social contract that would
allow this transfer of aggression to the sovereign monarch. However, Girards theory of the
scapegoats blame and elimination is exactly the same as Hobbes, considered in the redirection
of animosity towards the sovereign which allows the people of the state to live in harmony with
one another, except for the fact that Girard insists the scapegoat mechanism will result in feelings
of remorse from those who victimized, causing them to praise the scapegoat victim for their
newfound unity. According to Girard, this scapegoat mechanism will cyclically continue
whenever a dire situation rises in a group or community, whereas for Hobbes, the sovereign
monarch is the solution to individual persistence in survival though it does not entirely eliminate
animosity, since the people of Hobbes Leviathan will live in terror of the monarch. The double
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
14/15
Mecaskey 14
transference of Girards victim, as author of violence and author of peace,50
makes Girards
conception unique when compared to Hobbes. Both systems demonstrate sacrificial operations,
the redirection of violence from all-against-all to all-against-one, only Girard rejects the notion
of a katchon, generally a conception of politics where the overriding purpose of political
institutions is the restraint of conflict,51
while Hobbes maintains it. For Girard, the only true
solution to mimetic rivalry is found through the Gospel accounts of the sacrifice of Christno
human work will satisfy this.
50 Ibid., 52.51 Ibid., 45.
-
8/8/2019 PH2000-HMecaskey-CompletedPaper2ndVersion
15/15
Mecaskey 15
Bibliography
Girard, Ren with Pierpaolo Antonello and Joo Cezar de Casto Rocha. Evolution andCoversion: Dialogues on the Origins of Culture. New York: Continuum International
Publishing, 2007.
Hobbes, Thomas.Leviathan. MacPherson, C.B., ed. Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd., 1968.
Kirwan, Michael.Discovering Girard. Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 2005.
Palaver, Wolfgang.Hobbes and the Katchon: The Secularization of Sacrificial Christianity.
Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture. Vol 2., Spring 1995. Pg. 57-74.
Raphael, D.D.Hobbes: Morals and Politics. Political Thinkers, 6. Geraint Perry, ed. London:George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1977.