Talk:René Girard

Does Girard present a "Christian perspective"?

from the introduction: "Yet, his work also tends to be very controversial due to his harsh criticisms of modern philosophy and his outspoken Christian perspective"

This is somewhat ambiguous though as a 'Christian perspective' is the perspective of a Christian, and Christianity itself seems to be a hypocritical failure by Girard's standards, and he says as much. I mean to say should the sentence perhaps not read "his emphasis on the Bible as the founding document of Western civilization, as the eminent ethical text instructing humans how to live their lives" etc.

I am not entirely sure whether his perspective is theological, which the current sentence seems to imply, but Girard is no theologian. If anyone has any comments please present them, otherwise I will make the appropriate changes at some point. Tsop 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do a bit of research you will find many sources that refer to Girard as a practicing Catholic. While I have not been able to find a direct quote from Girard confirming this, he does not appear to have objected to other people saying so. He is on record as saying that he considers Christianity to be superior to all other religions, and repeatedly states throughout his works that the Gospels alone hold the key to fully revealing the workings of the scapegoat mechanism. I think, therefore, that the claim that he presents a "Christian perspective" is justified. (I've added an "unsourced" tag to the sentence you've quoted, however, because it does not cite examples of the supposed controversy.)

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're basing your comments on. If you can find a reliable source that confirms Girard thinks Christianity is a "hypocritical failure," then by all means add it to the article. Please, remember, however, that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for your opinion or personal interpretation of his work. -- Perodicticus 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and agree that he represents a 'Christian perspective', but my position is that the phrase itself is ambiguous and needs to be disambiguated between Christianity as it is practised today and 'Christianity' as the ideal presented in the Gospels. As a non-theist and a 'non-Christian ' I also agree with Girard in that the Gospels are humanity's pre-eminent ethical document as well as (obviously) the founding document of Western civilization, but this is a 'Mimetic' perspective, not a theological one, which is why I am questioning the use of the phrase 'Christian perspective'. Have just read through his book on Shakespeare "A Theatre of Envy" and luckily can quote relevent passage: (in Chapter 30 'Hamlet's Dull Revenge: Vengeance in Hamlet')

"The sacrificial misreading of the Gospels made the various phases Christian culture possible. In the Middle Ages, for instance, Gospel principles were superficially reconciled with the aristocratic ethics of personal honor and revenge. With the Renaissance, this edifice began to collapse, and Shakespeare is a major witness to that event. Even after the disappearance of blood feuds, duels, and similar customs, Christian culture never disentangled itself completely from values rooted in revenge. Although nominally Christian, social attitudes remained essentially alien to the authentic Judeo-Christian inspiration." A Theatre of Envy p. 283

This shows me to be correct I believe, it shows that 'Christianity' is not wholly compatible with the Gospels, at least it was not for the periods he refers to. That this is still the case we can see in the final paragraph:

"Hamlet is no mere word game. We can make sense out of Hamlet just as we can make sense out of our world, by reading both against revenge. This is the way Shakespeare wanted Hamlet to be read and the way it should have been a long time ago. If not, at such a time in our history, we still cannot read Hamlet against revenge, who ever will?" -p. 289

earlier (same page), on modern life, "[...] the Judeo-Christian text was rejected to the outer fringes our intellectual life; it is now entirely excluded."

Much more in the same vein regarding the contemporaneous nature of this issue can be found in the same chapter.

So it would seem that a non-Christian *could* be closer to Girard's ideal (viz. the Gospels), than a practising one. And so in summation I argue the phrase "Christian perspective" is ambiguous as:

1. Possibly there are no (or very few) Christians who actually live up to this standard

1.a. as regards to this, are we going to argue over which nominations, etc. are 'truer'?

2. I believe Girard's implications are primarily ethical and not theological, he makes no references to 'God' in his work (that I have seen) though he makes frequent references to the Gospels

3. the phrase itself has connotations that will not necessarily endear a novice to Girard's project, as they may imagine that it is aligned with contemporary Christianity

I guess this seems watertight and backed by Girard's words, but I may be wrong, can you cite any sources regarding his views on contemporary Christianity, or do you have any other objections? Thus I am still in favour of a change as I intially advanced, "the Gospels as an ethical text etc." Tsop 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read the interview I may change my stance somewhat on Girard's own beliefs re God, but I still maintain that belief God is not fundamental to Girard's work; he is a professor of anthropolgy, and that is the category his works fall into. Intellectually, God is not a stable concept, either belief in, or re God's 'substance'. Girard's work regards ethical and unethical norms of human behaviour, and whether one strives to be ethical due to a belief in God or out of 'compassion' etc. seems besides the point.

So we concede that it is Christian perspective regarding the Gospels as a primary text of singular importance, but not necessarily in line with how Christianity is practised currently, or thought of.

Once again, this is your interpretation of his work and does not belong in Wikipedia, which does not allow original research and strives to present a neutral point of view. Girard's own beliefs, as confirmed by reliable sources, are the only ones that concern us here. -- Perodicticus 08:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Although nominally Christian, social attitudes remained essentially alien to the authentic Judeo-Christian inspiration". So you disagree that this quote from Girard implies that a 'Christian perspective' may well be anomolous to his stated beliefs? Or should 'Christian perspective' be ironically understood as: "While millions of Christians world wide have since the beginning of Christianity misunderstood its most basic tenets, some Christians do in fact understand the Bible, and this is the one and only Christian perspective that is right, because Christians that fail to understand the Bible aren't real Christians."

In other words, my point is not the result of 'original research', but a questioning of a phrase that is as I understand it fundamentally ambiguous. Perhaps it's best not mention RG at all; the point would be vaild for any article, I only bought up the issue of his particular stance on Christianity because it makes the ambiguity more obvious. You might argue that the Crusades occured from a 'Christian perspective', but you wouldn't find anything in RG condoning the Crusades. Tsop 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "original research" used in Wikipedia's policy on the topic is as follows:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

So, yes, the claims you have made here do qualify as "original research" under Wikipedia policy and do not belong in the article. As a general rule, statements that have to be qualified with phrases like "as I understand it," "it may well be that ..." or "as a (insert tribal allegiance here) I believe ..." should not be incorporated into Wikipedia articles. If you want to write an essay about your personal interpretation of Girard's thought or of any other subject, there are many other venues on the Web where you can freely do so.

(And BTW, yes, I do disagree with your interpretation of Girard's statement -- the key word in that quotation is "nominally.") -- Perodicticus 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To throw my 2p in here, I think and lots of textual evidence supports it that Girard is fundamentally a Christian thinker. He thinks Christianity it unambigiously superior to other faiths and that the only reason he is even able to realise this theory and the place of the scapegoat is the result of the Christian cultural background that gradually unveils it. As he has gone along his work has got more and more Christian. And he is a Catholic moreover, not some obscure kind. I am pretty sure if you e-mailed him, he would respond in the positive. That said, the phrasing is too harsh and moreover is there any recent philosopher who is not critical of modernity particularly on the continent? So this isnt controversal either.

Scapegoating

It would be really nice if this page included an explanation of what Girard calls "the scapegoat." This to me is a major concept in his work. Stevenwagner 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! Add something. We don't scapegoat people for that ... Charles Matthews 18:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the link to "mimesis" as it didn't correspond to Girard's (albeit less well known) use of the term. Shawn, Montreal, Jan. 28 2006

Move to René Girard

"Réné" is a typing error. --WAJP 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I confirm that and support the suggestion. NJWAW 08:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's done. -- Curps 09:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well done

When I first looked at this article 15-18 months ago, it was pathetic. I'm really impressed by how much it has improved since. A big pat on the back to everyone involved. Perodicticus 10:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarized?

A section of this seems to be almost directly taken from http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/girard.html