7/11/12 mimesis

1/3csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm

WorksCited

Notes

keywordscrossreferences

Auerbach,Erich.Mimesis: TheRepresentation of Reality in WesternLiterature.Princeton:PrincetonUP,1953.

Benjamin,Walter."OntheMimeticFaculty,"Reflections.NewYork:SchockenBooks,1986.

Bhabha,Homi."OfMimicryandMan:TheAmbivalenceofColonialDiscourse,"October,28:(Spring,1984).

Caillois,Roger."MimicryandLegendaryPsychoasthenia,"Trans.JohnShepley.October,31:(Winter,1984).

Gebauer,GunterandChristophWulf.Mimesis: Culture­Art­Society.Trans.DonReneau.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992.

Hansen,Miriam."BenjaminandCinema:NotaOne­WayStreet,"CriticalInquiry 25.2(Winter1998).

Jay,Martin."UnsympatheticMagic,"Visual Anthropology Review 9.2(Fall1993).

Koch,Gertrud."MimesisandBilderverbot,"Screen 34:3:(Autumn1993).

Taussig,Michael.Mimesis and Alterity.NewYork:Routeledge,1993.

Sorbom,Goran.Mimesis and Art.Bonniers:ScandanavianUniversityBooks,1966.

Spariosu,Mihai,ed.Mimesis inContemporary Theory.Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,1984.

[1]Edwards,Paul,ed."Mimesis,"TheEncyclopedia of Philosophy ,vol. 5&6 .(NewYork:Macmillian,1967)335.

[2]Oxford English Dictionary Online"Mimesis"

TheUniversityofChicago::TheoriesofMedia::KeywordsGlossary::mimesis

mimesis

Nature creates similarities. One need only think of mimicry. The highest capacity for

producing similarities, however, is man’s. His gift of seeing resemblances is nothing other

than a rudiment of the powerful compulsion in former times to become and behave like

something else. Perhaps there is none of his higher functions in which his mimetic faculty

does not play a decisive role.

­­­WalterBenjamin,"OntheMimeticFaculty"1933

ThetermmimesisisderivedfromtheGreekmimesis,meaningtoimitate[1].TheOED

definesmimesis as "a figure of speech, whereby the words or actions of another are

imitated"and"thedeliberateimitationofthebehaviorofonegroupofpeoplebyanother

asa factor in social change" [2]. Mimicry is defined as "the action, practice, or art of

mimickingor closely imitating ... themanner,gesture,speech, ormode of actions and

persons,orthesuperficialcharacteristicsofathing"[3].Bothtermsaregenerallyused

to denote the imitation or representation of nature, especially in aesthetics (primarily

literaryandartisticmedia).

Within Western traditions of aesthetic thought, the concepts of imitation and mimesis

have been central to attempts to theorize the essence of artistic expression, the

characteristics that distinguish works of art from other phenomena, and themyriad of

ways inwhichweexperienceand respond toworks of art. Inmost cases,mimesis is

defined as having two primary meanings ­ that of imitation (more specifically, the

imitationofnatureasobject,phenomena,orprocess)andthatofartisticrepresentation.

Mimesisisanextremelybroadandtheoreticallyelusivetermthatencompassesarange

of possibilities for how the self­sufficient and symbolically generated world created by

people can relate to any given "real", fundamental, exemplary, or significantworld [4]

(seekeywordsessaysonsimulation/simulacra,(2),andreciprocity).Mimesisis integral

to the relationship between art and nature, and to the relation governingworks of art

themselves. Michael Taussig describes the mimetic faculty as "the nature that culture

uses to create second nature, the faculty to copy, imitate, make models, explore

difference,yieldintoandbecomeOther.Thewonderofmimesisliesinthecopydrawing

onthecharacterandpoweroftheoriginal,tothepointwherebytherepresentationmay

evenassumethatcharacterandthatpower."[5]

Pre­Platonicthoughttendstoemphasizetherepresentationalaspectsofmimesisandits

denotation of imitation, representation, portrayal, and/or the person who imitates or

represents. Mimeticbehaviorwasviewedas the representationof "somethinganimate

and concrete with characteristics that are similar to the characteristics to other

phenomena" [6]. Plato believed that mimesis was manifested in 'particulars' which

resembleorimitatetheformsfromwhichtheyarederived;thus,themimeticworld(the

worldof representationand thephenomenologicalworld) is inherently inferior in that it

consistsofimitationswhichwillalwaysbesubordinateorsubsidiarytotheiroriginal[7].

In addition to imitation, representation, and expression, mimetic activity produces

appearancesandillusionsthataffecttheperceptionandbehaviorofpeople.InRepublic ,

Platoviewsart asamimetic imitationof an imitation (artmimes thephenomenological

worldwhichmimesanoriginal,"real"world);artisticrepresentationishighlysuspectand

corrupt in that it is thrice removed from its essence. Mimesis is positionedwithin the

7/11/12 mimesis

2/3csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm

[3]Oxford English Dictionary Online"Mimicry"

[4]Kelly,Michael,ed."Mimesis,"TheEncyclopedia of Aesthetics, vol. 3.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998)233.

[5]Taussig,Michael.Mimesis andAlterity .(NewYork:Routeledge,1993)xiii.

[6]Kelly,233.

[7]Edwards,335.

[8]Kelly,234.

[9]Durix,Jean­Pierre.Mimesis, Genresand Post­Colonial Discourse:Deconstructing Magic Realism .(NewYork:Macmillian,1998)45.

[10]Kelly,234.

[11]Kelly,236.

[12]Kelly,234.

[13]InBenjamin'sOn the MimeticFaculty ,hepostulatesthatthemimeticfacultyisevidentinallofman's"higherfunctions"andthatitshistorycanbedefinedbothphylogeneticallyandontogenetically.Children'sbehaviorisaprimeexampleofthemannerinwhichmimeticbehaviorisnotrestrictedtomanimitatingman­inwhichthe"childplaysatbeingnotonlyashopkeeperorteacherbutalsoawindmillandatrain"(WalterBenjamin,Reflections ,p.333)

[14]Kelly,236.

[15]WalterBenjamin,Reflections. (NewYork:SchockenBooks,1986)336.

[16]AsopposedtotheaestheticizedversionofmimesisfoundinAristotleand,morerecently,Auerbach(seeErichAuerbach'sMimesis: TheRepresentation of Reality in WesternLiterature (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1953).

[17]Taussig'stheoryofmimesisiscritiquedbyMartinJayinhisreviewarticle,"UnsympatheticMagic".

[18]Spariosu,Mihai,ed.Mimesis inContemporary Theory .(Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,1984)33.

[19]Forafurtherexplicationof"magicmimesis"(Dialectic of EnlightenmentandAesthetic Theory )seeMichaelCahn's"SubversiveMimesis:TheodorAdornoandtheModernImpasseofCritique"inSpariosu'sMimesis inContemporary Theory .

[20]Spariosu,34.

[21]Spariosu,34.

[22]Kelly,236.

[23]Kelly,236.

[24]Kelly,236.

[25]Kelly,236.

[26]Kelly,237.

[27]Kelly,237.

sphere of aesthetics, and the illusion produced by mimetic representation in art,

literature,andmusicisviewedasalienating,inauthentic,deceptive,andinferior[8].

The relationship between art and imitation has always been a primary concern in

examinations of the creative process, and in Aristotle's Poesis , the "natural" human

inclination to imitate isdescribedas "inherent inman fromhis earliest days;hediffers

from other animals in that he is themost imitative of all creatures, and he learns his

earliest lessons by imitation. Also inborn in all of us is the instinct to enjoy works of

imitation"[9].Mimesisisconceivedassomethingthatisnaturaltoman,andtheartsand

media are natural expressions of human faculties. In contradiction to Plato (whose

skeptical and hostile perception of mimesis and representation as mediations that we

mustgetbeyondinordertoexperienceorattainthe"real"),Aristotleviewsmimesisand

mediation as fundamental expressions of our human experience within the world ­ as

meansof learningaboutnaturethat,throughtheperceptualexperience,allowustoget

closer to the"real". [see reality/hyperreality,(2)]Works of art are encoded in such a

waythathumansarenotdupedintobelievingthattheyare"reality",butratherrecognize

features from their own experience of the world within the work of art that cause the

representation to seem valid and acceptable. Mimesis not only functions to re­create

existing objects or elements of nature, but also beautifies, improves upon, and

universalizesthem.Mimesiscreatesafictionalworldofrepresentationinwhichthereis

no capacity foranon­mediated relationship to reality [10]. Aristotleviewsmimesis as

somethingthatnatureandhumanshave incommon­that isnotonlyembedded in the

creativeprocess,butalsointheconstitutionofthehumanspecies.

In 17th and early 18th century conceptions of aesthetics, mimesis is bound to the

imitation of (empirical and idealized) nature. Aesthetic theory emphasized the

relationship ofmimesis to artistic expression and began to embrace interior, emotive,

and subjective images and representations. In the writings of Lessing and Rousseau,

thereisaturnawayfromtheAristotelianconceptionofmimesisasboundtotheimitation

of nature, and a move towards an assertion of individual creativity in which the

productiverelationshipofonemimeticworldtoanotherisrenounced[11].

In 20th century approaches to mimesis, authors such as Walter Benjamin, Adorno,

Girard, and Derrida have defined mimetic activity as it relates to social practice and

interpersonal relations rather than as just a rational process ofmaking and producing

modelsthatemphasizethebody,emotions,thesenses,andtemporality[12].Thereturn

to a conception of mimesis as a fundamental human property is most evident in the

writingsofWalterBenjamin[13],whopostulatesthat themimetic facultyofhumans is

definedbyrepresentationandexpression.Therepressionofthemimeticrelationtothe

world,tothe individual,andtoothers leadstoa lossof"sensuoussimilarity"[14]. "In

thisway languagemaybeseenas thehighest levelofmimeticbehaviorand themost

completearchiveofnon­sensuoussimilarity:amediumintowhichtheearlierpowersof

mimeticproductionandcomprehensionhavepassedwithoutresidue,tothepointwhere

theyhaveliquidatedthoseofmagic."[15]

MichaelTaussig'sdiscussionofmimesisinMimesis and Alterity iscenteredaroundWalter

BenjaminandTheodorAdorno'sbiologicallydeterminedmodel[16], inwhichmimesisis

posited as an adaptive behavior (prior to language) that allows humans to make

themselves similar to their surrounding environments through assimilation and play.

Through physical and bodily acts of mimesis (i.e. the chameleon blending in with its

environment,achildimitatingawindmill,etc.),thedistinctionbetweentheselfandother

becomesporousandflexible.Ratherthandominatingnature,mimesisasmimicryopens

up a tactile experience of the world in which the Cartesian categories of subject and

objectarenotfirm,butrathermalleable;paradoxically,differenceiscreatedbymaking

oneself similar to something else by mimetic "imitation". Observing subjects thus

assimilate themselves to the objectiveworld rather than anthropomorphizing it in their

ownimage[17].

Adorno's discussion of mimesis originates within a biological context in which mimicry

(whichmediatesbetweenthetwostatesoflifeanddeath)isazoologicalpredecessorto

mimesis. Animals are seen as genealogically perfecting mimicry (adaptation to their

surroundingswiththeintenttodeceiveordeludetheirpursuer)asameansofsurvival.

Survival, the attempt to guarantee life, is thus dependant upon the identification with

7/11/12 mimesis

3/3csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm

something external and other, with "dead, lifeless material" [18]. Magic constitutes a

"prehistorical" or anthropological mimetic model ­ in which the identification with an

aggressor (i.e. the witch doctor's identification with the wild animal) results in an

immunization ­aneliminationofdangerand thepossibility of annihilation [19]. Such a

modelofmimeticbehaviorisambiguousinthat"imitationmightdesignatetheproduction

ofathinglikecopy,butontheotherhand,itmightalsorefertotheactivityofasubject

whichmodelsitself accordingtoagivenprototype"[20].Themannerinwhichmimesisis

viewedasacorrelativebehaviorinwhichasubjectactivelyengagesin"makingoneself

similartoanOther"dissociatesmimesisfromitsdefinitionasmerelyimitation[21].

In Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, mimesis (once a dominant

practice)becomesarepressedpresenceinWesternhistoryinwhichoneyieldstonature

(asopposedtotheimpulseofEnlightenmentsciencewhichseekstodominatenature)to

theextentthatthesubject loses itselfandsinks intothesurroundingworld.Theyargue

that,inWesternhistory,mimesishasbeentransformedbyEnlightenmentsciencefroma

dominantpresenceintoadistorted,repressed,andhiddenforce.Artworkscan"provide

modernitywithapossibilitytoreviseorneutralizethedominationofnature"[22].

Socializationand rationalitysuppress the"natural"behaviorofman,andartprovidesa

"refugeformimeticbehavior"[23]. Aestheticmimesisassimilates social realitywithout

thesubordinationofnaturesuch that thesubjectdisappears in theworkofartand the

artworkallowsforareconciliationwithnature[24].

Derrida uses the concept of mimesis in relation to texts ­ which are non­disposable

doubles that always stand in relation to what has preceded them. Texts are deemed

"nondisposable"and "double" in that theyalways refer to something thathaspreceded

them and are thus "never the origin, never inner, never outer, but always doubled"

[25].Themimetictext(whichalwaysbeginsasadouble)lacksanoriginalmodelandits

inherentintertextualitydemandsdeconstruction."Differénce istheprincipleofmimesis,a

productive freedom, not the elimination of ambiguity; mimesis contributes to the

profusion of images, words, thoughts, theories, and action, without itself becoming

tangible" [26]. Mimesis thus resists theory and constructs a world of illusion,

appearances,aesthetics,andimagesinwhichexistingworldsareappropriated,changed,

and re­interpreted. Images are a part of ourmaterial existence, but alsomimetically

bindourexperienceofrealitytosubjectivityandconnotea"sensuousexperiencethatis

beyondreferencetoreality"[27].

MichellePuetz

Winter2002

TheUniversityofChicago::TheoriesofMedia::KeywordsGlossary::mimesis