54 ms·
Well, if you look at Oedipus and Jesus, they appeal to Girard’s definition of being scapegoats in that they didn’t do anything wrong, but are presented as resol
by leoh 5y ago
Well, if you look at Oedipus and Jesus, they appeal to Girard’s definition of being scapegoats in that they didn’t do anything wrong, but are presented as resolving a serious problem, which they don’t actually solve. In the case of Oedipus, he is accused not merely of marrying his mother and marrying his father, but of bringing a plague into Thebes, which is just silly and demonstrably impossible; and his death does not resolve. With Jesus, he irritated a bunch of Jews and Romans, but wasn’t really guilty of causing that problem either.
In both these cases, Girard is being plenty honest and reasonable, and his point still stands (which you take issue with) — namely: that those that engage in scapegoating don’t realize they have, which is also true— the people of Thebes and the Jews/Romans, respectively.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBut if I understand correctly, that isn't Girard's point. Girard is saying that they do realize that they are scapegoating, though they don't admit it publicly. The society knows, but it's on the quiet - they don't acknowledge it out loud, but they know. So, yeah. Evidence for that is somewhat lacking - it requires interpretation, which a cynic could call "making stuff up".
- leoh 5y agoWe are not in agreement. Girard takes issue with any process where someone is blamed for misfortune, for which they are not actually guilty — ie the process of scapegoating. You propose that all the individuals involved in scapegoating are always aware. This does not accord with my reading of Girard. What Girard does believe, in my understanding, is that individuals _can_ become aware of the fact that they scapegoat; he is even perhaps hopeful in that he proposes that some folks even _hide_ the fact that they are scapegoating from themselves; but can become aware of it, with the advantage of truth on the other side.