Girard and Allegory

At first, each of the protagonists believes that he can quell the violence; at the end each succumbs to it. All are drawn unwittingly into the structure of violent reciprocity --- which they always think they are outside of, because they all initially come from the outside and mistake this position and temporary advantage for a permanent and fundamental superiority (69)

.... That's a "French Theorist." Rene Girard, from Violence and the Sacred. (Which, I keep typo-ing as Violence and the Scared, and slaying myself ... ok, no points there.) ANYway, That quote covers the latter half of the 20th Century and the close of the Second Millenium. Here's one that gets to the opening of the Third Millenium:

The force exerted by the three men in the struggle corresponds to each man's illusion of superiority, his hubris. In other words, nobody possesses sophrosyne, and on that level, too, the differences among them are illusory and quickly effaced (70).

"Sophosyne" n. grk. (@ Wierd Words (love That!), and more drily @ the Dictionary of the History of Ideas.)

OK, so this is part of the introduction to Girard's analysis of Oedipus Rex, in the context of the rockin'ly solid theory of scared (there i go again), ahem, SACRED violence, which hinges on a number of factors and has a number of results, prime among which are: The Maintenance of Differences (indentity), and the exorcism of always already potential, random violence within the community (security).

Now, I'm a Difference Gal. ... So, I grock the need for Difs, the recognition of them, and am deeeeeeeeeply perplexed by the need of voilence to Define, Maintain, and Secure differences, many of which are obvious on their face. I'm Happier Difference gal, seeking ways to make differences Productive and Lovely and Fun even as they challenges us to be better (which is hard, and good [see "Irigaray's Eastern Turn" in the margin there]). So, I'm learning A LOT here with Rene and the scared reciprocal violence. (yawn) (translation: "Evil is a fucking bore." -- Rob Breszny)

Quotation the First: Nobody is very good at remembering their own potential for violence, damage, chaos. That this particular violence is Sacred (and scared) is of interest, NOW. What with What's Going On (linked for those of you who follow Gen X and therefore may not know this song....... which freaks me out).

Quotation the Second: When one's relation to the sacred is at stake, or when one stakes one's relation to the sacred (rather!), sophosyne flies out the window. Witness. And machinery of Jackiarchy goes to work. Why? Because:

Far from bringing differences into sharp relief (and assuring all these Jacks that they exist), the plunge into opposition reduce the protagonists to a uniform condition violence (sameness); they are engulfed in the same storm of passion (70).

To re-establish difference among the players, and thus each player's identity, place, proper name(Derrida, Socrates. Socrates, Derrida.).

Now, I suspect Girard will get to this point toute suite as he's alluded to it just moments ago: The culture of Oedipus, Medea, et al. was not quite the culture of Athens. We have typically interpreted these plays, in which: death, insanity, fratricide, patricide, matricide, incest, and general terror of all kinds are the rule, in light of the Classical Greek ideals as laid down by Socrates/Plato, as if these ideals had always been firmly inplace and were something other than IDEALS in the first place. No, no, no! The myths related and transposed in the plays are from a culture in transition (KEY POINT FOR US NOW) from one set of ideals to another. They were warrior cultures, religious cultures, they kinds of cultures Girard talks about in Chapter One, but coming apart as cultures eventually do. --- So are we, now. We are in cultures on a teetering point between Modernity and Pre-Modernity, between patriarchy and something newer than Modernity, and in which players set in opposition (The West v. Bad Faith Islamists) are lost in the "passion" of war, the sameness of our violence. So, we need to read Greek Tradegy some more: the lesson there is -- that never goes well. Duh.

What's also urgently interesting for the opening of the Third Millenium is the notion that all passion erases difference/identity, that the "uncleanness" and general phobia o'women in ancient cultures has to do with blood. All blood not spilled in a regilious and sacrificial context is unclean, has the potential of unleash barely suppressed violence within the community (cuz boys have never had much self-control). Now, I'll go somewhere really useful with this in print someday soon, but for now a joke. Remember the sexist saw? "Don't trust anything that can bleed for five days and live."? Well, here's a dumb thing: in warrior cultures, in which there is no understanding of the connections between menses, sex, and babies (usually), and in which what you Need are people who can survive well: the reverse saw should be the case: "Don't trust anything that can't bleed for five day and survive."

And now we're into Hegel for a second, but only to point there for now. Why? (Antigone) Because of the symmetrical structure of tragedy so clearly laid out in Chapter Two. Which, seems to be pretty well the structure of history... and I Don't Think I'm the First to Say THAT, in general or about Girard.

What I want to note is that people would do well to read this book, again?, now. Along with that book on hate I can't remember the title and loaned to my mom (no comment on Fleur de Lys, there, she wanted to read it), and then counter that with Irigaray's Between East and West (the title immediately following is kismet in this context) and Kristeva and Clement's The Feminine and the Sacred. This is a good recipe. Not as good as that grappa/nonino I'm still hunting for, but very good. Clearly am cooking up another idea. One aspect of this thinking of difference is that, ahem, no one's relation to the sacred is put at stake by another. See, this thinking of difference insists that such staking is always already a choice (not an existential or fundamental condition -- this is why Liberty leads the revolution into battle with no shirt on...sexy is the freedom).

Also, just this: I LOVE books that feel prophetic. Older books that feel prophetic. I don't always like/agree, but I still love them. ANNNNDDDD: Double bonus points and sparkels to Girard for some of the most tightly perfect paragraphs -- in an astonishingly Strunk and White kind of way for un Francais -- I've read in AGES! Adoration there. (paragraphs so very unlike mine in this blog) I could teach a whole writing/anthropology/religion/literary analysis class from this book.