Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Devin Fitzpatrick's avatar

Thanks again for this series. Martha Nussbaum's critique of Proust in her essay "Love's Knowledge" might offer an interesting perspective on Girard's moves here as well. For Nussbaum, Proust's Marcel distinguishes, perhaps similar to Stendhal, between the vanity of an intellectualist self-knowledge and the passionate truth of self-knowledge through the shock of suffering. Marcel thinks he knows he does not love Albertine, but he has mistaken for his true self his own deadening habits, which obscure his own fear and vulnerability, and the shock of loss clears those away and reveals his love. But Nussbaum argues that he has only revealed a different relationship with himself, that love and fear and envy are not distinguishable by the quality of their feeling alone but require some sort of further evidential context, and the centerpiece of her critique is an emphasis on time.

Nussbaum thinks, as I understand it, that in Proust, true knowledge -- which we might think of as direct access or an unmediated relation -- happens in an instant or in the eternity of that instant, but as such, it can only be a relation with oneself. For her, what feels like a revelation could always be a misunderstanding. All that can reveal the difference is time: time with others, time to doubt, time to trust and accept uncertainty. She uses Ann Beattie's "Learning to Fall" as the contrast here in a lovely way.

Not to say this reflects on Girard himself necessarily, but: this follows a similar authoritarian/egalitarian pattern as in the contrast between Girard and pragmatism. The response to mediation is mediation of a different sort, self-transcendence not through a self-obliterating (or "self"-obliterating) passion but through time with others, through duration, whether attending to others in loving care or deliberating alongside others in an endlessly self-revising inquiry. For the egalitarian, the uncertain self-transcendence of solidarity may be the answer. Maybe for the authoritarian, this is insufficiently certain -- or insufficiently self-regarding.

Expand full comment
NancyB's avatar

Note: it looks like the link for Part 2 is actually linking to Part 1.

Thanks for continuing the instructive Girard posts. I've been following to see if I can discern whether my puzzlement about Girard is on point or not. What puzzles me about the concept of mimetic desire is whether and how it can account for the element of mystery or inscrutability in desire––even when desire is most obviously mimetic. To take the example from Balzac in a previous post: the clerk who becomes enchanted by seeing someone's drawing room decor. The clerk will have seen dozens if not hundreds of drawing rooms across the years, so what can explain why his imagination and desire is ignited by that particular one and not the others (many of which signal just as plausibly things like class status or serenity or some other quality)?

I'm getting the impression, especially from this post, that Girard wants to use mimetic desire to enable a hierarchical schema of higher and lower psychic motives or moral traits. Desire can seem profoundly inscrutable (where does it come from? can it be altered? can we be deceived about it or is it the thing we can't deny or fully suppress even if we hide it?) It kind of looks like Girard means to take up the nearly inscrutable nature of desire as an occasion to distinguish nobler or more authentic kinds of subjects from more debased ones?

If so, it does seem in the neighborhood of Christian apologetics. If we let God locate all that is beyond human comprehension, we get a lot of leverage for comprehensively explaining humans. "Deviated transcendency" can be set off from "vertical transcendency." But maybe it is humans who are irreducibly mysterious, especially when we try to account for desire.

Finally, it may or may not be germane, but computer algorithms are probably the closest thing there is to a science of desire, at least as it operates in the arena of consumption. The premise and promise is that what we desire is completely predictable––not at all mysterious. Do tech disciples find human inscrutability as intolerable as theologians and priests?

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts