GirardViolenceSocialOrder PDF

Skidmore College
Generative Violence and The Extinction of Social Order

Author(s): REN GIRARD and Thomas Wieser
Source: Salmagundi, No. 63/64 (Spring-Summer 1984), pp. 204-237
Published by: Skidmore College
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40547648 .
Accessed: 27/03/2013 18:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Skidmore College is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Salmagundi.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Generative ViolenceandTheExtinction
of Social Order
BY REN GIRARD
(translatedfromthe Frenchby Thomas Wieser)
I. The Demonsof Gerasa

The Gospels portraya varietyof humanrelationships whichat first
appearincomprehensible and fundamentally irrationalbutwhichin the
last analysis can and must be traced to one and the same cause-
mimesis.Mimesisis the primarysource of what tearspersonsapart.
It is thesourceof theirdesires,theirrivalries,theirtragicand bizarre
misunderstandings and hencethesourceof all disorder.Butitis likewise
the source of an orderbroughtabout by scapegoats. Scapegoats act
as spontaneousmediatorsof a new order,forin the finalparoxysm
pointsforgroupsthatat an earlier
of a socialcrisistheyserveas rallying
and less extremestageof mimeticrivalryhave been pittedagainsteach
other.
The dynamicsof mimeticrivalryunderlieall the mythologicaland
religiousbeginningson our planet. Mythologicallyinspiredreligions
hide thesedynamicsfromthemselvesand fromus by suppressingor
disguising collective murders or by obliteratingstereotypesof
persecution in a thousanddifferent ways.The Gospels,however,expose
thesedynamicswitha forceand a rigorthathas no equal. The stories
of Peter'sdenialand of themurderof Johnand, above all, thepassion
story,the true heart and centerof this revelation,delineatethese
dynamicswithdidacticpersistence.They are aware of the need and
the urgencyto hammera few decisive truths- truthsthat should
liberatepeoplefromsacralizingtheirvictims- intotheheadsof people
imprisonedsince timeimmemorialby mythologicalrepresentations.

GenerativeViolenceand The Extinctionof Social Order 205
Each of the Gospel storieslays bare the religiousoriginthat must

remainhiddenifit is to producemythsand rituals.The essenceof this
originis theunanimousbeliefin theguiltof thevictim.It is thisbelief
thatthe Gospels have foreverdiscredited.Their storieshave nothing
in commonwithmyths,especiallyin advancedmythologies. These may
mitigate,minimize, soften or even eliminate sacred guilt,but theydo
not challengethe systemof representation by which the persecutors
dissimulate.WiththeGospels, however,thesystemstartsto crumble.
Here thereis no longerany questionof softeningor of sublimation.
In our lack of understandingwe consider the returnto the truth
primitive,but it is primitiveonly in the sense that it once more
reproducestheviolentorigin,thistime,however,in orderto revealit
and therebymake it inoperative.
The standardbiblicaltextsrepresentexamplesof thisprocess.They
all illustratethe way in which Jesus, and later Paul, defines the
disintegrating effectof thecrucifixion on thepowersof thisworld.The
passionmakesvisible that which must remain invisibleforthesepowers
to maintainthemselves: the mechanism of the scapegoat. By revealing
thismechanismand themimeticrivalrysurrounding ittheGospels are
settingin motiontheprocesscapable of liberatinghumanityfromthe
systemof mythologicalrepresentations. This systemrestson a false
transcendenceproduced by the sacralization of victimsthat had
previouslybeen unanimouslyheld guilty.
This transcendence is directlynamedin theGospels and throughout
theNew Testament.It has manynames,buttheprincipalone is Satan.
He couldnotbe called"murdererfromthebeginning,""fatherof lies,"
and "prince of thisworld" all at once, if he werenot identifiedwith
the false transcendenceof violence. Nor is it accidentalthat in the
Gospelsof all of Satan's faultsenvyand jealousyare mostin evidence.
Satan could be said to incarnatemimeticdesire,ifthisdesirewerenot
by definitiondisincarnate,emptyingall beings,all thingsand all texts
of theirsubstance.
WhenevertheGospels focuson the fundamentalunityof thisfalse
transcendencethey call it devil or Satan. When they envisage the
multiplicity of itsexpressions,theyspeak about demonsand demonic
forces.The word demon can be used as a synonymforSatan, but it
generallyrefersto inferiorformsof the "powers of this world," to
sinisterphenomenawhichwe would call psycho-pathological. When
transcendence appears in such a multiple and fragmented it
form, loses
some of its force and tends to reflectpure mimetic disorder. Unlike

206 REN GIRARD
Satan, seen simultaneously as a principleof orderand of disorder,the

demonicforcesare evoked at thepointwheredisorderpredominates.
The Gospelsgivenamesto thepowers,drawingon religioustradition
and magic belief, thus suggestingthat they, too, regard them as
autonomousspiritualentitiesendowedwithan individualpersonality.
On almosteverypage we heardemonsspeak,call out to Jesus,begging
himto leave themin peace. In thegreatsceneof thetemptationin the
desertSatan intervenesin person in orderto seduce the Son of God
and throughfalsepromisesto diverthimfromhis mission.Should we
not have to concludethatthe Gospels, farfromdestroying themagic
superstitionsand all vulgar religiousbelief, as I have maintained,
reinvigorate thistypeof beliefin a particularly
perniciousform?After
all, the witch huntersin the late Middle Ages relied on biblical
demonologyand satanismin orderto justifytheiractivities.
For many people, especially in our time, the demonic swarm
"obscurestheluminousaspectof theGospels" and Jesus'miraculous
healingscannotverywellbe distinguished fromthetraditional exorcism
of primitivesocieties.Thus far,I have not commentedon any of the
miraclestories,and some criticsof myworkhave naturallywondered
whetherI am not avoiding textsthat mightput my hypothesisat a
disadvantage.
In orderto makethetestas conclusiveas possibleI shallturnto Mark,
forof the fourEvangelistshe is most fond of miracles,devotesthe
mostspace to themand presentsthemin a fashionthatmostsharply
violatesour modernsensibilities.Of all themiraculoushealingsin Mark
themostspectacularis perhapstheepisode of thedemonsof Gerasa.
The textis fairlylongand richin detailsthatoffertheinterpreter clues
that are lackingin briefertexts.
The storyof the Gerasenedemoniacis one of those textsto which
scholarscan rarelyallude withoutqualifyingit as savage, primitive,
backward or superstitious.The text attractsall the attributesthat
scholarsonce applied to anythingreligiousbut thattheynow seemto
reserveexclusivelyfor Christianity,consideringthem as being too
pejorativefor non-Christianreligions.
My analysisis based on Mark's text,thoughI referto Luke and
Matthew whenevertheirversion offersinteresting variants. Jesus,
havingcrossedthe sea of Galilee, disembarkson the easternshorein
pagan territory, in the regioncalled Decapolis:
As he steppedashore,a man possessedbyan uncleanspiritcame

up to himfromamongthetombswherehe had his dwelling.He

could no longerbe controlled;even chains wereuseless; he had

oftenbeenfettered and chainedup, buthe had snappedhischains
and brokenthefetters.No one was strongenoughto masterhim.
And so, unceasingly,nightand day, he would cryaloud among
thetombsand on thehill-sidesand cuthimselfwithstones.When
he saw Jesusin thedistance,he ranand flunghimselfdownbefore
him,shoutingloudly,'What do you wantwithme, Jesus,son of
the Most High God? In God's name do not tormentme.' (For
Jesuswas alreadysayingto him, 'Out, uncleanspirit,come out
of thisman!') Jesusasked him,'What is yourname?' 'My name
is Legion,' he said, 'thereare so manyof us.' And he beggedhard
that Jesuswould not send themout of the country.
Now therehappenedto be a largeherdof pigs feedingon the
hill-side,and thespiritsbeggedhim,'Send us amongthepigsand
let us go intothem.' He gave themleave; and theuncleanspirits
came out and went into the pigs; and the herd, of about two
thousand,rushedovertheedge intothelake and weredrowned.
The menin chargeof themtook to theirheelsand carriedthe
newsto the townand country-side; and the people came out to
see whathad happened.Theycame to Jesusand saw themadman
who had been possessed by the legion of devils, sittingthere
clothedand in hisrightmind;and theywereafraid.The spectators
told them how the madman had been cured and what had
happenedto thepigs. Then theybeggedJesusto leave thedistrict
(Mk. 5:2-17).
The dwellingplace of the possessed is among the tombs. This fact

is very strikingfor the Evangelist, for he repeats it three times.
Unceasingly,nightand day, thewretchedman was amongthetombs.
He comes out fromthetombsto meetJesus.He is themostliberated
man around,breakingall thechains,despisingall therules,shedding
even his clothes, according to Luke. But he is the captive of his
possession,his folly.
This man is a livingcorpse. His stateis an indicationof themimetic
crisisleadingto undifferentiation
and persecution. Herethereis no more
a differencebetweenlifeand death,betweenlibertyand captivity.But
the man does not live permanently among the tombs. There has not
been a completerupturebetweenthe possessed and the community.
Mark's textsuggeststhatthe Gerasenesand theirdemoniachave for
sometimesettledintosome sortof cyclicalpathology.Luke underlines

208 REN GIRARD
thismoreclearlyby presenting thepossessedas a man fromthetown,

tellingus that "he made offto the solitaryplaces" withthe devil in
chargeonlywhenhe had an attack.The possessionabolishestherefore
also the differencebetweenlivinginside and outside of the town, a
difference notwithoutimportance, sincethetextmentionsitonce more
lateron. Luke's descriptionimpliesintermittent disorderswithperiods
of respiteduringwhichthemadmanreturns to thetown:"Many a time
it had seized him,and then,forsafety'ssake, theywould securehim
withchainsand fetters; buteach timehe brokeloose, and withthedevil
in chargemade off to the solitaryplaces" (Lk. 8:29).
The Gerasenesand theirdemoniacperiodicallylivethroughthesame
crisis in more or less the same way. When they suspect another
"takeoff," theyattemptto preventit by securingthe demoniacwith
chainsand fettersin orderto keep him "safe," accordingto thetext.
Why would theywant to do this?On the surfaceit is clear. To heal
is to getridof thesymptomsof theillness.Here theprincipalsymptom
is the roamingin the hills and among the tombs. This is what the
Geraseneswouldliketo preventwiththeirchains.The evilis sufficiently
atrocious for themto resortto violence. Obviously,however,their
methodis notefficient. Each timethevictimis victoriousoverwhatever
theytryto do to restrainhim. Recourseto violenceonlyincreaseshis
desireforsolitudeand itspower,so muchso thatthepoor manbecomes
literallyuntamable."He could no longerbe controlled,"says Mark.
The repetitivenatureof theseeventssuggestssomething likea ritual.
All theactorsin thedramaknowexactlywhatwillhappenat each point
and theybehave accordinglyso thatindeed everything happensas it
did before.It is difficult
to believethattheGerasenesshouldnot have
succeededin findingsufficiently strongchainsand fetters to immobilize
theirprisoner.Perhaps theyfeelinhibitedby theirown violenceand
do not use it energeticallyenoughto make it fullyefficient.Whatever
the reason, they behave like sick persons who perpetuatetheir
pathologicalschemeswhilepretending to abandon them.All ritestend
to transform themselvesinto a sortof play, and the actorsplay their
rolesall themorebrilliantly forhavingplayedthemonce before,"many
a time." This is not to say that the spectacledoes not involvereal
suffering fortheparticipants.These sufferings have to be realon both
sidesif thedrama is to retainitseffectiveness, whichit visiblyhas for
thewholetownand itssurroundings. Obviously,theGerasenesare upset
by the idea thattheyshould suddenlybe deprivedof the drama and
itseffects.In a certainfashiontheymusthaveenjoyedand evenneeded

thisdrama,sincetheybeg Jesusto leave rightaway and notto meddle

in theiraffairs.The requestis paradoxical in thatJesus,withoutthe
least violence,has just achieved in one singlesweep what theyonly
pretendedto aim at butin realityneverdesired- thecompletehealing
of the possessed.
Here, as everywhere, Jesus'presencerevealsthetruthabout hidden
desires.Simeon'sprophecyalwayscomestrue:"This childis set ... for
a signthatis spoken against ... in orderthatthe intimatethoughts
of a greatnumbermay be revealed" (Lk. 2:34f.).
But what does this drama signifyon the symboliclevel? The sick
personroamsamongthetombsand in thehills,saysMark,cryingaloud
and "cuttinghimselfwithstones". JeanStarobinski,in a remarkable
commentary on thistext,perfectly definesthisstrangebehavior;it is
autolapidarian.Whenhe breaksloose to getawayfromthecommunity,
the possessed mustbelievehimselfto be pursuedby those who tried
to put himin chains. Perhaps thisis actuallythe case. He runsaway
from the stones which the pursuerscould throw after him. The
inhabitantsof Job's villagepursuedhimwithstones.Nothingsimilar
is mentionedin thestoryof Gerasa. The demoniacis neverstoned,and
perhaps for this reason he hurthimselfwith stones. In a mythical
fashionhe keeps the dangeralive by whichhe feelsthreatened.
Were thereactual threats?Was the demoniac the survivorof an
abortedattemptat stoningliketheadulterouswomenin John'sGospel?
Or was he thevictimof purelyimaginaryfear,of purefantasy?If you
addressthesequestionsto our contemporaries,theywill answeryou
in no uncertaintermsthatsuch a man is fantasizing.A whole school
of thoughthas decided to explaineverything in termsof fantasy,no
doubt in order not to have to recognizeeitherthe terriblethings
happeningaround us or the protectionfromthemwhichwe, perhaps
temporarily, enjoy.
I grantthestoningas a fantasy.But thenI would liketo ask whether
the fantasyis the same in societieswhichpracticestoningas it is in
thosewhichdo not? Perhapsthepossessedsays to his fellowcitizens:
"You see, you don't need to do whatyou would liketo do to me, you
don'tneedto stoneme; I takecareof itmyself;I executeyoursentence.
The punishment on myselfsurpasseseveryhorrorthatyoumight
I inflict
dream of inflicting on me."
Note the mimeticaspect of thisbehavior.Since he soughtto avoid
beingdefinitely expelledand stoned,he expelledand stonedhimself.
He imitatesin a spectacularmannerall the stagesof punishment that

210 REN GIRARD
mid-easternsocieties inflicted on those whom they considered

irrevocablypolluted,irremediablecriminals.Firstcame the chasing,
nextthestoning,withdeathas thefinalresult.Thisis whythepossessed
lives among the tombs.
The Gerasenesmustsensesomehowthattheyare beingreproached
forthis,or else theywould not behaveas theydo towardtheone who
reproachesthem.Theirmitigated violenceis an ineffective
protest:"Oh
no," theyanswer, "we don't want to stoneyou, sincewe want to keep
you safe. We are not ostracizingyou." Unfortunately, like all those
who feelthattheyare falselyaccused by a chargethatis nevertheless
probable,theGerasenesprotestviolently.Theyprotesttheirgood faith
by way of violenceand therebyreinforcetheterrorof the possessed.
The proof that the Gerasenesare somewhatconscious of theirown
contradictionis seen in the chains that are neverstrongenough to
convincetheirvictimof theirgood intentions towardhim.The violence
of the Gerasenesis not of the kind to reassurethe possessed.
On the other hand, the violence of the possessed troubles the
Gerasenes.As always,each claimsto end violencebya supposedlyfinal
violencewhich,however,perpetuatesthecircularprocess.Thereis an
obvioussymmetry betweentheseextravagancies, theself-lacerationand
the runningamong thetombson the one side, and thegrandiloquent
chainson the other.It is a sortof complicitybetweenthevictimand
his hangmenthat perpetuatesthe ambiguityof a game obviously
necessaryforthe equilibriumof the situationin Gerasa.
The possessed does violence to himselfin order to reproachthe
Gerasenesfortheirown violence.The Gerasenesreturnthe favorso
violentlythattheirviolencereenforceshis violenceand confirmsboth
the accusation and the counter-accusationconstantlycirculating
throughout thesystem.The possessedimitatestheGeraseneswho stone
theirvictims,but the Gerasenesalso imitatetheirpossessed. It is a
relationshipof doubles and mirrorsthat exists betweenpersecuted
persecutors and thispersecutingpersecutedindividual.The relationship
is one of mimeticantagonism,similarto therelationbetweenone who
is stonedand thosewho stonehim,withtheviolentparodyof stoning
on the one side and the no less violentdenial on the other.In other
words,it is a variantof violentexpulsionthat ends up in stoning.
Am I so possessedby mytheoryas to finddoubles and mimesisin
a textthatspeaks merelyof demons?Am I twistingtheGospels to fit
mytheoryand to equate the theorywiththe thinkingof the Gospels
in order to be able to introducemy favoriteexplanation at the

appropriatepoint? I do not thinkso. But if I should be mistakenin

recallingmimeticdoubles in connectionwiththisstory,theerroris not
minealone. At least one of the otherEvangelists,Matthew,sharesin
it. He offersa significantvariantrightat the beginningof the story,
substitutingtwo perfectly identicaldemoniacsforthe one mentioned
in Mark and Luke, and he letsthesespeak ratherthanthedemon,or
demons,that are supposed to possess them.
Nothingin the textsuggeststhatMatthewused a different source.
Rather, Matthew attempts an explanation, one might call it a
dmystification, in
of the demonic general. In storiesthatcontain an
in a
exorcismhe oftendivergesfromMarkeither orderto suppress detail
or to insertan explanatorynote. He offersthe storyas well as his
explanation.We have had an examplein the storyof the murderof
JohnwhereMatthewhas substituted theexpression"promptedby her
mother"fora whole exchangeof questionand answerin Mark that
rendersexplicitthe mimetictransmissionof desire frommotherto
daughter.
Matthew'sintentionis similarhere,only more bold. He wantsto
indicatethatpossessiondoes not happen to an individualin isolation
but is theresultof exacerbatedmimeticdesire.It requiresat least two
personswhomutuallypossesseach other,each beinga scandal,a model-
obstaclefortheother.In Matthew'sversionthedemonsare therefore
not clearlydistinguishedfromthose whom theypossess:
When Jesus reached the other side, in the countryof the

Gadarenes,he mettwodemoniacswho came out fromthetombs;
theywereso violentthat no one dared to pass thatway. 'You,
son of God,' theyshouted,'What do you want withus? Have
you come here to tormentus beforeour time?' (Mt. 8:28f)
The proofthatMatthewthinksin termsof mimesisand of scandal

is hisadditionof a sentencewhichis not foundeitherin Mark or Luke.
The demoniacswhomJesusmeetsare so fiercethat"no one daredpass
thatway." In otherwords,theybar thewayto Jesusas Peterdid when
he triedto dissuade him fromenduringthe passion. The demoniacs
cause offenseto each otherand to those around them.Such offense
is alwayscontagious,fortheoffendedare likelyto transmittheirdesire
to others,wantingto becometheirmodel-obstacleand to offendthem
in turn. In the Gospels every allusion to a barred passage, an

212 REN GIRARD
insurmountable obstacleor a stonetoo heavyto be lifted,is an allusion

to offenseand all that it entails.
In orderto presentpossessionas a processof mimesiscausingoffense
Matthewmakesuse of themostsimplemimeticrelation,twoidentical
individuals.This mightbe called thebase unitof mimesis.In so doing
Matthewseeks to returnto the source of the evil, but his attemptis
usuallymisunderstoodbecause it runscounterto the "mythological"
practice in psychologyand psychoanalysiswhere the double is
interiorized. The modernpracticealwayspresupposesa littleimaginary
demon somewherein the conscienceor the unconscious. Matthew,
however,exteriorizesthedemonby splittingit into an actual mimetic
relationof two real persons.
I thinkthatMatthewhas improvedthetextat an essentialpointby
facilitating its understanding. He teachesus thatdualitymustbe part
of the mimeticprocessfromthe beginning.But by usinga dualityof
personsat thebeginningof his accountMatthewlaterfindsit difficult
to introducethenotionof multiplicity thatis equallyindispensablefor
the story.Thus he is forcedto eliminatethe key phrase in Mark's
version,"My name is legion,forwe are many," the phraseto which
Mark's text owes much of its fame because of the curious switch
fromthe singularto the plural. Incidentally,the same switchoccurs
once more in the nextsentencewhen "Ae (the demon) beggedJesus
not to expel themfromthe country."
Thus an essentialnotionhas disappearedin Matthew'sversionand
also in Luke who is otherwisecloserto Mark. It is thenotionthatthe
demon is actually a mob, although it speaks like one person and
althoughin some ways it is one. By eliminatingthe mob of demons
Matthewloses thejustificationforthe drowningof the huge herdof
pigs,althoughhe has maintainedthatpartof thestory.It meansthat
in thefinalanalysishe losesmorethanhe gains.Perhapshe is conscious
of his failure,for he shortensthe end of the story.
Like all the strokesof geniusin Mark, such as Salome's question
to hermother,"What shall I desire?", thisjuxtapositionof singular
and plural in the same phrasecould be taken as clumsiness.Indeed,
it is eliminatedby Luke who generallyis more skillfuland correctin
the handlingof language: "'Legion,' he said, formanydemonshad
enteredhim. And theybeggedhim not to commandthemto depart
into the abyss" (Lk. 8:30-31).
In his commentaryof Mark, Starobinskirightlypoints out the
negativeconnotationsof the word Legion, It refersto "the war-like

multitude, thehostiletroops,theoccupationarmy,theRomaninvader,
and perhapsalso to thosewho crucified theChrist."He notesthatmobs
play an important role not only in the storyof the demoniacbut also
in thetextsimmediately precedingand followingthestory.The healing
in itselfis, to be sure,presentedas a singlecombatbetweenJesusand
thedemon,but beforeand afterthereis alwaysa mob around Jesus.
First,thereis the Galilean mob the discipleshave sentaway in order
to getintotheboat withJesus.On hisreturnJesusmeetsthismob again.
In Gerasa thereis not onlythemob of demonsand of thepigsbut also
thatof theGerasenesrushingfromthecityand thecountryside. Citing
theaphorismby Kierkegaard,"the mob is thelie," Starobinskinotes
thatin the Gospels evil is always located in a plurality,a mob.
Thereis, nevertheless, a remarkabledifference betweenthebehavior
of the Gerasenesand that of the Galileans. The latter,like the mob
in Jerusalem,is not afraidof miracles.It can turnagainstthemiracle
workerfromone momentto thenext,but forthemomentit clingsto
him like a saviour. The sick flock to him fromeverywhere.In the
territory of Judaheveryoneis avid formiraclesand signs.Some want
to benefitpersonally,some wantothersto benefit,stillotherssimply
wantto attendas spectatorsa special eventlike a play,whichis more
oftenextraordinary than edifying.
The Gerasenesreactdifferently. Whentheysee thedemoniac"who
had beenpossessedbytheLegion,sittingthere,clothedand in hisright
mind," theyare seized by fear. They want to know fromthe men in
charge of the herd "what had happened to the demoniac and the
swine." Far fromcalmingtheirfearor generating enthusiasmor at least
curiosity theansweronlyservesto increasetheiranxiety.The inhabitants
of theplace demandJesus'departure.And Jesusobligesthemwithout
a word. The man whomhe has healed wantsto followhimbut Jesus
tellshimto remainamong his own. Silentlyhe stepsinto the boat to
returnto the territory of Judah.
Therewas no preaching,no real exchangewiththesepeople, much
less any hostility.It seems thatthe entirelocal populationasked for
Jesus'departure.The Gerasenesgivetheimpressionof comingout to
Jesusin an orderlyway, not like a crowd withouta shepherd.This
appearsto be whatcauses Jesusto havepity.Theyforma differentiated
community,forthe countrydwellersare distinguishedfromthe city
dwellers.Theyinformthemselves calmlyand theypresentto Jesustheir
considereddecision when theyask himto leave. Theirresponseto the
miracleis expressedneitherby hysteria,adulationnorhatredas during

214 REN GIRARD
thePassion, but by firmrejection.Theydo notwantto have anything

to do withJesusand what he represents.
The Gerasenesare not worriedabout the commercialloss incurred
bythedisappearanceof theherd.Obviously,thedrowningof theirpigs
troublesthemlessthantheloss of theirdemons.In orderto understand
thereason forthisbehaviorwe have to realizethattheattachmentof
theGerasenesto the demonshas its counterpartin the attachmentof
the demonsto the Gerasenes.Legion is not afraidto move provided
he is allowed to remainin the country."He beggedhard that Jesus
would not send themout of the country. " Since the demonscannot
exist withouta living abode, they desire to possess someone else,
preferably a humanbeing,but failingthat,an animal,herea herdof
pigs. The modestyof the request shows that the demons have no
illusions.The rightto go intothepigs is solicitedby themas a favor.
Theyare in a tightcorner,knowingfullwellthattheyare confronted
by a powerfulopponent. They reason that theymighthave a better
chanceto be toleratediftheyweresatisfiedwithlittle.The mainthing
forthemis not to be completelyand definitelyexpelled.
I believe that the reciprocal link between the demons and the
Gerasenesmerelyreflectson anotherlevel what our analysisshowed
withregardto therelationsbetweenthepossessedand theGerasenes.
I describedthose relationsin termsof ritualand cyclicalpathology.
I do not think that this connection is merelya product of my
imagination.The ritual loses its claritywhen it degenerates.The
expulsionis nottotaland thescapegoat - thepossessed- returnsto
thetownin betweenthe crises.Everything is confusedand nothingis
everterminated. The ritualtendsto regressintotherelationsof mimetic
doubles,theundifferentiated crisisfromwhichit emergedin the first
place. Physical violence tends to makeroomfortheviolenceof psycho-
pathological relations that are not fatal but indecisiveand hence
interminable.
This tendencydoes not,however,reachtotallack of differentiation.
Enough of thedifference remainsbetweentheone to be expelledand
the Gerasenes who refuseto expel him; each act of the drama is
sufficientlyexcitingfortheplay to preserveits effectiveness. The full
disintegration is on its way but has not yettaken place. This is why
the Gerasene societyis still somewhatstructured,more so than the
crowdsof Judahand Jerusalem.Thereis stillsome difference within
the system,forinstancebetweentown and country,and it expresses
itselfin the negativebut calm reactionto Jesus' therapeuticsuccess.

The Gerasene society is quite dilapidated, but it is not totally

desperate,and theGerasenesintendto preservetheirfragilestatusquo.
They are stilla communityin the traditionalsense, a systemthat is
perpetuated bymoreand moredegenerate processes;butthese
sacrificial
are precious and even irreplaceablestages on thewaytowardsthefinal
disintegration.
The commentariesall tell us that Jesushealed demoniacswiththe
classicalmeansof the Shamanistictype.Here, forinstance,he forces
the unclean spiritto identifyitselfand therebyacquires the kind of
poweroftenassociatedin primitivesocietieswiththemanipulationof
the name. This practiceis not exceptional,but it is not whatthe text
intendsto conveyeither.If Jesushad done nothingextraordinary, the
Geraseneswould have had no reason for fear.Theycertainly had their
own healerswho workedwiththe methodsthatare ascribedto Jesus
by the modernexegetes.If Jesushad been nothingmorethan a very
effective medicineman,theGeraseneswouldhavebeenglad ratherthan
terrorized.They would have begged Jesusto stay,not to leave.
Or is thefearof theGerasenesonlya narrativeembellishment? Does
it have no meaning except to make the messianic prowess more
impressive?I do not believeso. The drowningof the possessed herd
is presentedin identicaltermsby all threeSynopticwriters."And the
herdrushedover the edge into the lake." In orderforan edge to be
there,thepigsmusthavebeenon a sortof promontory. Markand Luke
are consciousof thisand place the animals "on a hill". Matthewhas
no hill but he has keptthe edge. This musttherefore the focus of
be
attentionforall the Evangelists.The edge increasesthe heightof the
fall. The higherthe point fromwhichthe pigs fall,the more striking
the scene. But the Gospels are not concernedwithvisual effect.One
could also argue thatthereis a functionalreason forthe importance
of theedge. The greatdistancefromtheedge to thesurfaceof thesea
guaranteesthe completedisappearanceof the herd; it has no chance
to escape, forinstanceby swimmingto theshore.All thisis true.The
edge is needed for the realismof the scene, but concernfor realism
is not uniquelyscriptural.Somethingmore essentialis involved.
Readersversedin mythological and religioustextsshouldimmediately
recognizethethemeof theedge. Like stoning,thefallfromtheheight
of the cliffhas collective,ritualand penal connotations.It is a very
wide-spreadsocial practice in the ancient world and in so-called
primitivesocieties.It is a mode of sacrificialimmolationwhichlater
evolvesinto capital punishment. In the Roman era it is the principle

216 REN GIRARD
of theTarpian rock. In Greekculturetheperiodicputtingto deathof

theritualPharmakossometimestook place in thisfashion,especially
in Marseille.The victimwas forcedto jump intothesea froma height
whichinevitablyentaileddeath.
Two major waysof ritualkillingare almostexplicitlymentionedin
our text:stoningand the fall fromthe highcliff.They resembleeach
other.All membersof the communitycan and mustthrowstonesat
thevictim.All membersof thecommunity can and mustsimultaneously
advance towardthecondemnedand drivehimto theedge of thecliff
wherethereis no wayout exceptdeath.The similarities are notlimited
to the collectiveaspect of execution.Everybodyparticipatesin the
destruction of thecursedbut no one entersintodirectphysicalcontact
withhim. No one takes risksof beingpolluted.Only the group as a
whole is responsible.All the individualsshare in the same degreeof
innocenceand responsibility.
It is easy to see thatthisis equallytrueforall the othertraditional
ways of execution,especiallyall formsof exhibition,of whichthe
crucifixion is a variant.The superstitious
fearof enteringintophysical
contactwiththevictimmustnotblindus to thefactthatthesetechniques
resolvea crucialproblemforsocietieswhose judicial systemis weak
or nonexistent,societiesstill impregnatedwiththe spiritof private
vengeance, and thereforeoften confrontedwith the threat of
interminable violencein thecommunity.These meansof executiondo
not feed people's appetitefor vengeance,because theyeliminateall
distinctions betweenindividualroles.The persecutors all act in thesame
way. Whoeverdreams of vengeanceis forcedto take on the entire
group. It is as if the forceof thestate,stillnonexistent in thistypeof
society,had momentarily come intoexistencein theseformsof violent
unanimity.
These collectivemodes of capital punishment correspondso wellto
the needs describedabove thatit is at firsthard to thinkof themas
havingemergedspontaneouslyin humancommunities.It would seem
thattheyare too well adapted to theirpurposeto have been enacted
beforetheywerethoughtthrough.The illusionof modernfunctionalism
is itsbeliefthattheneedcreatesthemeaning;butthereis an evenolder
illusionin religioustraditions,thesearchfortheprimordiallegislator,
a beingof super-human wisdomand authority who is supposedto have
endowedthecommunity withall themajorinstitutions. In realitythings
musthave happened quite differently. It is absurd to believethat a
problemsuchas theone we are dealingwithcould havearisenin theory

beforeit had been resolvedin practice.But it is impossibleto avoid

thisabsurdityas long as we puttheproblemahead of thesolutionand
do not see whichtypeof solutionprecededthe problem.Naturallyit
can onlybe a spontaneouseffectof the scapegoatmechanism.At the
heightof themimeticconflictthepolarizationagainstone singlevictim
can become so powerfulthat all membersof the group seek to
participatein the murder.This type of collectiveviolence naturally
moves towards such forms of unanimous execution in which all
participatefroma distance,similarto those I have describedabove.
Does thismean thatthe greatprimordiallegislatorsattestedto by
manyreligioustraditions haveneverexisted?Absolutelynot.We always
musttake seriouslyprimitivetraditionsespeciallywhentheyresemble
each other. The great legislatorsactually existed, but they never
promulgatedany legislationduringtheirlifetime.They are obviously
identicalwithscapegoatswhose immolationis scrupulouslyimitated,
copied and perfectedin the ritesbecause of theirreconcilingeffects.
The effectsare real, because the murderalreadyresemblesthetypical
capitalexecutionwhichis derivedfromitand producesthesameeffect:
itcutsshortvengeance.This seemsto pointto a super-humanwisdom
and can only be attributedto the sacralized scapegoat, as are all
institutionsderivingfromthevictimmechanism.The supremelegislator
is the essence of a sacralized scapegoat.
The figureof Moses is an example of such a legislator-scapegoat.
His stutteris the sign of a victim.There are tracesof mythicalguilt
in his story:theassassinationof the Egyptian,the sin preventinghim
fromenteringthepromisedland, his responsibility forthetenplagues
in Egypt,plagues that wipe out distinctions.All the stereotypesof
persecutionsare presentwiththe exceptionof the collectivemurder,
whichnevertheless appearsat themarginof theofficialtradition.Freud
was rightto take this rumorof collectivemurderseriously.
But let us returnto thedemonsof Gerasa. Are we rightin allowing
stoningand executionfromthe heightof the cliffto intrudeinto our
explanationof the text?Are we rightin relatingthesetwo modes of
killingso closelyto one another?I thinkthe contextcalls forsuch a
connection.Thereare theadulterouswomensaved by Jesus.Stephen,
the firstmartyr,is stoned to death. Several attemptsto stone Jesus
precedehis passion, and thereis also a verysignificantunsuccessful
attemptto throwJesusover a cliff.It happens in Nazareth. Jesusis
notwellreceivedin thetownof hischildhood.He is notable to perform

218 REN GIRARD
a singlemiracle.His sermonin thesynagogueshockstheaudience.He

leaves withoutan incident,exceptin Luke, who relatesthefollowing:
At thesewordsthewholecongregation wereinfuriated.
Theyleapt
up, threwhimout of thetown,and took himto thebrowof the
hillon whichitwas built,meaningto hurlhimovertheedge. But
he walkedstraight
throughthemall, and wentaway(Lk. 4:28-30).
This episodemustbe seenas an outlineand hencean announcement

of thepassion. Its occurrencein Luke showsthathe, and certainlythe
other Evangelistsas well, understandthe fall from the cliff and
lapidationas being equivalentto the crucifixion.They see the point
of thisequivalence.All formsof collectivemurdersignify thesamething
and their meaning is revealed in Jesus and his passion. It is this
revelationthatmattersand nottheactual locationof thisor thatedge.
Accordingto thosewho know,Nazareththetownand itssurroundings
do not lend themselvesto the role whichLuke assignsto them.There
is no edge.
This geographicalmistake has not escaped the vigilanceof the
historical Theircriticism
positivists. is notlackingin sardoniccomments.
Unfortunately, theyneverhavehad sufficient curiosityto ask themselves
whyLuke endowsthetownof Nazarethwitha nonexistent cliff.The
Gospels are too muchinterestedin thedifferent variantsof collective
deathto botherwiththe topographyof Nazareth.Theirreal concern
is theautolapidationof thedemoniacand therushingof thepigs"over
theedge." But in thiscase it is not thescapegoatwho jumps fromthe
cliff,it is not a lone victimor a smallnumberbut a crowdof demons,
two thousanddemonicpigs. The usual roles have been inverted.The
crowd should staybehindand push the victimover. Here the crowd
plungesand the victimis saved.
The healing in Gerasa invertsthe universalschemeof generative
violencein all the societiesof theworld.This inversionno doubt also
happensin certainmyths,butitdoes nothavethesame characteristics.
The systemthatis destroyedis eitherrestoredor replacedby another
system.Thingshappen differently here;thedrowningof thedemonic
pigsis final.It is an eventwithouta futureexceptfortheone on whom
the miracletook place.
Our textwants to suggesta differencein essence and not only in
degreebetweenJesus'miracleand usual healings.And thisdifference
actuallycorrespondsto a wholeset of interrelated data overlookedby

moderncommentators.The fantasticaspects of the miracleseem to

be too gratuitousto retaintheirattentionforlong. They only see an
old recrudescenceof magic in the demons' request to Jesus, their
disorderedretreatintotheherdand thedownfallof thelatter.In fact,
the treatment of thisthemeis exceptionaland it correspondsexactly
to the need to revealthe mimeticprocessrequiringvictimsand to do
so withina demonologicalframework.In thepinchthedemonsallow
themselvesto be expelledprovidedtheyare not expelled"outside the
country."This probablymeansthatordinaryexorcismneverinvolves
morethan a local displacementand exchangeor a changewithinthe
systemwithoutappreciablechange or threatto the continuityof the
whole system.
TraditionalHealers are engaged in real action, but it is limitedto
the attemptto improvethe state of an individualat the expenseof
anotherindividualor vice versa. In demonologicaltermsthis means
thatthe demonsof X have leftand settledin Y. The healersmodify
certainmimeticrelationships,buttheirmanipulations nevercompromise
theequilibriumof the systemwhichthereforeremainsunchanged.It
is somewhatcomparableto a ministerial reshufflingwhentheexisting
team is tired.The systemstaysin place not only in termsof people
but in termsof people and theirdemons. Here the systemas a whole
is threatenedby the healing of the possessed and the drowningof
Legion. The Gerasenesguess as muchand thisis whattroublesthem.
The demons understandit even better. On this point they show
themselveseven morelucid thanthepeople, whichhowever,does not
preventthemfrombeingblindand easilydeceivedon otherpoints.Far
from being purely imaginaryand fantastic,as the modern mind
imagines,thesethemesare richin meaning.The qualitiesattributed
by the Gospels to the demons correspond exactly to the true
characteristicsof that strangerealityof mimeticdisincarnation.The
morefrenziedmimeticdesirebecomes,themoreit is caughtwithinits
own laws, and itslucidityin no way diminishesitsenslavement.Many
of the greatwritershave appreciatedand developedthisparadoxical
insight.Dostoevskyhas borrowedfromthedemonsof Gerasa notonly
thetitleforhisnovelTheDemons,butthewholesystemof relationships
and the dynamicsof the abyss tearingthe systemapart.
The demonstryto ' 'negotiate" withJesusas theydo withthelocal
healers. They treatas equals those whose power and powerlessness
hardlydifferfromtheirs.WithJesusthenegotiations are moreapparent
than real. This traveleris not an initiateof a local cult; he has no

220 REN GIRARD
mandatefromanybodyin thecommunity.He does not need to make

concessionsin orderto securethe departureof the demonsfromthe
possessed.His permissionto invadethepigsis of no importancesince
it has no durableeffect.WhereverJesusshowsup theplace is cleared
of demons and the intrinsically demonic natureof everysocietyis
threatened.The demonscannotstandup to hispresence.Theybecome
extremely agitated,enterbriefconvulsionsof agonyand thentendto
completelydisintegrate.This is the inevitablecourse of eventsfound
at the climacticmomentof our story.
Whenevera major defeatlooms on thehorizon,all theattemptsto
avoid it turnintotheveryinstruments to bringit about. This paradox
is successfullyillustratedby thebargainingprocessbetweenJesusand
the demons. The notion is obviouslyborrowedfromthe practiceof
Shamansand otherhealersbuthereitis merelythevehicleforconveying
a meaningthat goes far beyond it.
Faced withJesus,thedemonshope to findat least a marginalplace
withinthe universein whichformerly theywereenthroned.They are
readyto be contentwithits most nauseatingrecess. In otherwords,
theyseekshelterfromtheabyssthreatening them,and in so doingthey
runstraight intoit. Caughtin panictheyquicklydecideto becomepigs
forwantof somethingbetter.This is strangely similarto whathappens
to some extenteverywhere. But evenaftertheyhave becomepigs,the
demons,likeUlysses'companions,are notable to hold theirown. The
drowningsignifiestotal perdition.It confirmsthe worstfearsof the
supernaturalhorde,the fearof being"expelled outsidethecountry,"
a veryspecialexpressionof Mark'sthatmakesus consciousof thesocial
dimensionof exorcism,of therole whichthe demoniacplaysin what
some call the "symbolic."
The textof Luke showsthedemonsbeggingJesusnot to sendthem
forever"into the abyss." This expressesbetterthe finalextinctionof
thedemonic,the main pointof the story,and it explainsthereaction
of theGerasenes.These unfortunate people sensethattheirprecarious
equilibriumrestson the demoniac,thatis on the typeof activitythat
periodicallytakesplace aroundthesortof local celebrity
theirdemoniac
has become.
Thereis nothingin demonicpossessionnot due to mimeticfrenzy.
As I haveshown,thisis whatMatthewsuggestswhenhe substitutes two
undifferentiated and hencemimetically possessedpersonsfortheone
demoniac.

Mark basically expresses the same truth less visibly but more
profoundly.He showstheone personbeingpossessedbya demonwho
is simultaneously one and many,singularand plural. In otherwords,
he is possessednot by one beingonly,as Matthewsuggests,but by all
theotherswho are simultaneously one and multiple,thatis, thosewho
constitute a societyin thehumansenseor, ifyou prefer,in thedemonic
sense,a societyfoundedon collectiveexpulsion.This is preciselywhat
the possessedimitates.The demonsare cast in the image of a human
group.Theyare theimago of thatgroupbecause theyare itsimitatio.
Justas the Gerasene societyhas a certainstructureso the societyof
demonsinitiallyhas one also. Thereis a sortof organization,a unity
of the multiple."My name is Legion, forthereare manyof us." As
thereis one voice that at the end speaks forthe Gerasenes,so there
is one voice at the beginningspeakingforall the demons. And these
two voices actuallysay thesame thing.Since any coexistencebetween
Jesusand demonsis impossible,thereis no difference betweenasking
Jesusnot to cast out the demons,whenyou are a demon,and asking
him to leave the country,when you are a Gerasene.
The basic proof forwhat I call the identityof the demonsand the
Gerasenesis the behaviorof the possessed as long as he is possessed
by thesedemons. The Gerasenesstonetheirvictims,and the demons
forcetheirvictimsto stonethemselves,bothwiththesame result.This
archetypal possessionmimesthemostfundamental social behaviorthat
literallyengenderseverysocietyby transforming mimetic and totally
atomized multiplicity into the strongestsocial unity, the unanimity
createdbygenerativemurder.Legion, definedas unityin multiplicity,
symbolizestheveryprincipleof thesocial,thetypeof organizationthat
does not seek a final expulsion of the demons but depends on an
equivocal and mitigatedexpulsion of the type illustratedby the
possessed,an expulsionthat eventuallyresultsin the coexistenceof
people and demons.
I have said the Legion symbolizesthe multipleunityof the social,
and thisis true. But in the famousphrase, "My name is Legion, for
we are many," the symbolized unity is already in a state of
disintegration, sincesocial developmentappears herein inverseorder.
The singularpropernoun irresistibly transforms itselfinto the plural
inside the same phrase. This is the relapse of unityinto mimetic
multiplicity, caused by Jesus'presence.The solid outlineof theperson
is dissolvedintoitsmultipleparts."I am someoneelse," Matthewseems
to say. "I am all the others," is the implicationin Mark.

222 REN GIRARD
Am I rightin puttingtheherdof pigstogetherwiththelynchmob,

or am I twisting theGospels to fitin withmyobsession?I hardlythink
so, for at least in Matthewthis veryidentification is explicitin an
aphorismcitedby himnot too farfromthestoryof Gerasa: "Do not
throwyourpearlsto thepigs: theywillonlytrampleon them,and turn
and tear you to pieces" (Mt. 7:6).
Butas I've said,in thestoryof Gerasaitis thelyncherswhoencounter
the fate "normally" reservedforthe victim.They are not stoned,as
is the possessed, but theyrushover the edge, whichamountsto the
same. The revolutionarynature of this inversionof victim and
persecutoris moreeasilyrecognizedas soon as thissceneis transposed
into the classical Greek or Roman contextwhichmodernhumanism
takes more seriously.ImaginethePharmakos pushingthe leadersof
a wholeGreekcity,philosophersand mathematicians and all, overthe
or
cliff; imaginelookingup to theheightsof theTarpianrockin Rome
and no longerseeingthereprobatefallingintothevoid butthemajestic
consuls, the virtuous Cato, the solemn judicial counselors, the
procuratorsof Judahand thewholesenatuspopolusque romanus,all
of themvanishingin the abyss, withthe victim,"clothed and in his
rightmind," calmlyobservingthis astonishingprocession.
The conclusionof themiraclesatisfiesa certainappetiteforrevenge,
butis revengejustifiedwithinthecontextof thethinkingwhichI have
outlined?Would not a dimensionof vengeancecontradictmythesis
about the absence of the spiritof vengeancein the Gospels? What is
theforcecatapultingthepigsintotheSea of Galilee, once we discount
our desireto see themdo so, or the notionthatJesus' action implies
violence?What could motivatea whole herdto destroyitselfwithout
beingforcedby somethingor someone? The answeris obvious. The
herdspirit,in otherwords,theirresistible tendencyof mimesisis what
turnsa flockinto a herd. Only one pig has to fall intothe sea, either
byaccidentor undertheinfluenceof a stupidpanic or of convulsions
provokedbythedemonicinvasion,in orderfortherestto do thesame.
This frenziedcoat-tailing fitstheproverbialintractability
of thespecies.
Beyond a certainmimetic threshold, such as thatdefinedbypossession
in this episode, the entire herd instantaneouslyreproducesevery
behaviorthat appears to be out of the ordinary.This is comparable
to thephenomenonof fashionin our so-calledadvanced societies(in
the sense in whichthe Gerasene societyis already quite advanced).
One of theanimalsunintentionally takesa wrongstep,and behold,
a new fashionis launched,"the plungeintotheabyss." It will fillthe

lastlittlepig withenthusiasm.The smallestmimeticincitement shakes

up a compactcrowd.The weaker,themorefutileand fatalthepurpose,
themoremysteriousit will appear and the moredesireit will inspire.
The pigs are all scandalized and hence alreadyat the point of losing
theirequilibrium.Theyare bound to be interested, evenelectrified by
a moreradicalloss of equilibrium.It is thatbeautifulgesturetheyare
all vaguelygropingfor,the gesturethatwill make all thedifference.
And so they all throw themselvesinto the race after the "bold
innovator."
Jesusspeaks almost always of the mimeticfrenzyof scandalized
mindsinsteadof theworksof devils.We onlyhave to applythesame
substitution to dissipatethe mysteryin our story.The pigs are truly
possessed in thatthey are immersedin mimesisup to theirears. If one
should absolutelyinsiston a non-scriptural parallel, one should not
look forit in manuals of demonologyor in the falsemoderntheories
of instinctsadly discoveringour futurein the somber stories of
lemmings.I preferto turnto moreenjoyableand profoundliterature.
The demonsof Gerasa are thesuper-sheepof Panurgeand do noteven
need a Dindonneau to throwthemselvesinto the sea. There is never
a lack of a mimeticanswerto any questionsposed by our text,and
such an answeris always the best.

IL Satan DividedAgainstHimself
cannotexplainthenatureof healingmiracles.
Biblicalinterpretation
It can onlydeal withthelanguageused to describethem.The Gospels
speakthelanguageof theirtime.Thereforetheyseemto speakof Jesus
as one healeramong otherswhiletheyclaim at the same timethathe
The storyof theGerasenedemoniacsupportsthisclaim
is verydifferent.
insofaras it describesthe destructionof all the demons and their
demonicworld.Thisworldhas furnished thelanguageto theEvangelists
fortheirdescriptionof the demonsand theirexpulsion.For the issue
of expulsion,of theexpulsion,as a matterof fact,getsat thecore of
the demonic. And the point is always to get rid of the demons and
everything demoniconce and for all.
Thereare a fewpassagesin theGospels whereJesushimselfuses the
languageof expulsionand of demonology.The most importantone
is thedebateabout Beelzebub.The textis crucialand occursin all three
synopticGospels. I am citingMatthewwho presentstherichestversion.
And all thepeople wereamazed, and said, "Can thisbe theson

of David?" But whenthePhariseesheardittheysaid, "It is only
by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out
demons."
Knowingtheirthoughts,he said to them, "Every kingdom
dividedagainstitselfis laid waste,and no cityor house divided
againstitselfwillstand;and ifSatan castsout Satan, he is divided
againsthimself;How thenwillhis kingdomstand?And if I cast
out demonsbyBeelzebub,bywhomdo yoursons cast themout?
Thereforetheyshall be yourjudges. But if it is by the spiritof
God thatI cast out demons,thenthekingdomof God has come
upon you." (Mt. 12:23-28)

It is impossibleto understandthispassage at firstreading.During

a firstreadingwe will discoveran obvious meaningforthe text,but
thisinturnwilldirectus to a lessobvious,moreprofoundinterpretation.
We shall begin with the obvious. Jesus enunciatesa verycommon
generalprinciple,wellknownamongpeoplesand nations.The English
translationgivesita proverbialslant. "Every kingdomdividedagainst
itself. . .shallnotstand." The followingsentenceseemsat firstglance
to be theapplicationof a generalprinciple."Therefore,if Satan casts
out Satan, he is divided against himself;how thenwill his kingdom
stand?" Jesusdoes notanswerthequestion,buttheansweris obvious.
If Satan is dividedagainsthimself,his kingdomwill not stand. If the
Pharisees are reallyopposed to Satan, theyshould not mind Jesus
castingout Satan by Satan. Jesus' exorcismwould contributeto the
finaldestructionof Satan.
But Jesusthenraises anotherissue, followedby anotherquestion.
"And if I cast out demonsby Beelzebub,by whomdo yoursons cast
themout?" If myaction is inspiredby Satan, who inspirestheaction
of yoursons, yourspiritualheirs?The questionis turnedagainstthe
critics.Theyare theones who cast out by Satan, whereasJesusclaims
to castout demonsin a radicallydifferentway. "But ifitis bythespirit
of God that I cast out demons, thenthe kingdomof God has come
upon you."
Jesusappearsto engageherein futileand sterilepolemics.Each side
claimsits "good expulsion" to be mosteffective, mostorthodoxand
thereforecomingfromGod, and assertsthatthe otherside operates
in leaguewiththedevil.This rivalryis partof thewell-knownmimetic
game witheach castingout theother,like therivalrybetweenTiresias
and Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. Violence is everywhere and
theonlyquestionis who is thestronger.This is preciselywhattherest
of thepassage, not yetcited,suggests.Theretherelationbetweenthe
two typesof exorcismis dramaticallypicturedas violent.
Or how can one entera strongman's house and plunderhis

goods, unlesshe firstbindsthestrongman? Then indeedhe may
plunderhis house. (Mt. 12:29)
The strongman in this passage is the devil who is depictedas the

legitimateor at least actual ownerof the house. The one who enters
thehouse to overpowertheowneris God. However,thisparable does
notrepresent Jesus'view.For himGod is notan ordinaryrobber.Jesus

226 REN GIRARD
has adoptedthelanguageof his interlocutors in orderto pointout the

issue.Thisis thelanguageof rivalexpulsions,of violenceand thesacred.
Of course, God is also strongerfor Jesusthan Satan but not in the
sense of the parable. Otherwise,God would be just anotherSatan.
This view of the parable is reflectedin the Gerasenes' reactionto
Jesus'spectacularhealing.Theyhave had a strongman amongthem,
the demonic"Legion." This ownerhas made lifedifficultforthem,
butat leasthe has enforceda certainorder.When Jesusdemonstrates
that he is strongerby reducingtheir strongman to nothing,the
Gerasenesbecomeafraidthathe willtake overthehouse. So theyask
himto go away. Havingjust gottenridof a tyrant,theyare not eager
to submitto another.
The languageof the people around Jesusis oftenalso thelanguage
of theGospels themselves.The evangelistsare not alwaysclear about
themeaningof thethingstheyreport.Theirreportsare veryelliptical
and perhapsmutilated.Nevertheless,Matthewunderstandsperfectly
wellthatnot everything has to be takenliterally.In thispassage there
is an ironyunderlyingJesus' words,a whole layerof meaningwhich
is lostto thosewho, likeJesus'opponentsor mostreaderstoday,focus
on the immediatepolemics. MatthewprefacesJesus' words with a
significantcomment. "Knowing their thoughts (Jesus) said to
them "
Mark's versiondoes not containsuch a comment,but in another,
morerevealingway it tellsus thatJesusspoke to them"in parables."
This noteis important becauseithelpsto definethenatureof parabolic
discourse.This is an indirectway of speakingthat may or may not
use narrativeelements.Basically,when Jesusis speakingin parables
he is voluntarilyenteringthe confinesof the persecutionmentality in
orderto be heardby people who cannothearanythingelse, sincethey
are imprisonedbythismentality.He uses thevariouselementsof their
systemto pointout to them,in theirlanguage,whatthe outcomeof
theirbehaviorwill be. In so doing he revealstheimminentend of the
systemas well as the contradictionsand the incoherenceof their
discourse.At the same timehe hopes that his words will undermine
the persecutors'representation in the mindsof the hearersand lead
them to discern in his words another meaning,one that is more
profoundbut also more difficultto uncoverbecause it is foreignto
theviolenceof persecution.Thisalternative meaningrevealstheviolence
and its imprisoningeffecton everyone.

Lookingagain at our textwe can easilysee thattheidea of a second

meaningis not farfetched.The textactuallysays morethan what we
have thus far extractedfromit. It in fact summarizeswhat we have
been sayingabout violenceas it manifestsitselfin the mechanismof
mutualexpulsionat the beginningof everynew social order.
At a firstglance,however,theidea thata dividedcommunitymust
perishis universaland quitecommonplace.Thus Jesusopenshisdebate
withthePhariseeswithan observationto whicheverybodycan assent.
The nextsentenceseemsto be theapplicationof thegeneralobservation
to a particularcase. What is trueforeverykingdom,cityand house,
mustalso be true for the kingdomof Satan.
Butthekingdomof Satan is notone amongothers.The Gospelsstate
explicitlythatSatan standsfortheprincipleof everykingdom.In what
way? By employingviolentexpulsionand the deceitthatissues from
it. The kingdomof Satan is nothingotherthanviolenceexpellingitself
by meansof all theritesand exorcismsto whichthe Phariseesallude.
But evenmorefundamentally, it is theviolenceinvolvedin thehidden
foundationthatservesas the model forthe rites,the unanimousand
spontaneousmurderof thescapegoat.This is thecomplexbutcomplete
definition of Satan's kingdomthatthesecondsentenceoffers.It speaks
not only of that whichmaintainsSatan in power, that is to say, his
constitutive principle.It says, strangelyenough,thatthe constitutive
and the destructiveprinciplego hand in hand. This is certainly
disconcerting for people who are not in the know, but it should not
longer disconcert us as we readthetext,becausewe knowaboutmimetic
desirewithits ensuingrivalriesand divisionsas well as the resultant
socialunifications, all of thema functionof thescapegoatmechanism.*
The second sentencein our textis clearlynot theapplicationof the
principlestatedin thefirst.On thecontrary,itis theprincipleof which
the firstsentenceis the application. We mustinvertthe orderof the
sentencesand read the textbackwards. In so doing we should come
to understandwhythefirstsentencehas remainedalivein thecollective
memoryof peoples. There is somethingunusual about it thatpoints
to a meaningbeyondthepopularwisdomsuggestedby a firstreading.
The Englishtranslationsdo noteasilylendthemselvesto thediscovery
of this second sense because theydo not repeatthe initialadjective
*It is thisverymechanismwe observein examiningotherbiblicalpassages.It is thereason
whythestoryof thebeheadingof JohntheBaptistbeginslikethebeginningof many
mythswiththe quarrel betweenenemybrothers.Normallyone ends up killingthe
other,and his action will be accepted as the norm.

228 REN GIRARD
"every" whichoccurstwicein theGreektext."Everykingdomdivided

againstitselfis laid waste, and everycityand house dividedagainst
itself. . . ." The repetitionof the word "every" underscoresthe
symmetry among all formsof communitymentionedhere. The text
seeks to encompass all types,fromthe largestto the smallest,the
kingdom,thecity,thehouse. At firstwe do notunderstandthereason
forthe need to be comprehensive,and the repetitiondoes not seem
significant. Buttherepetition is notfortuitous.
Nor is itmerelya matter
of stylewithoutparticularmeaning.Thereis in facta deepermeaning.
The pointthetextinsistson is thatall kingdoms,all citiesand all houses
are dividedagainstthemselves.In otherwords,all humancommunities
withoutexceptionare governedby the one and the same principleof
orderand disorderas it is statedin the second sentenceconcerning
Satan. Each is an exampleof the kingdomof Satan. The kingdomof
Satan or of violence is, thereforenot merelyone among several
possibilitiesfor foundinga community.
The two sentencesare muchricherin meaningthan a firstreading
mightsuggest.They containa whole sociologyand anthropologyin
a nutshell.But thisis not all. They also throwlighton the following
sentences,especiallythelast and mostenigmaticof all. "And if I cast
out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?
Thereforetheywill be yourjudges."
Whyshouldspiritualsons,thatis to saydisciplesor imitators, become
thejudges of theirmastersand models?The Greekword forjudge is
kritai.It suggeststhe notionof crisisand division.Mimeticstruggle
sharpensthe internaldivisionsin every"satanic" community.The
difference betweenlegitimateand illegitimate violencegetssmallerand
expulsionsbecomereciprocal.Sons reproduceand reinforce theviolence
of theirfatherswith the resultthat all are worse off than before.
Eventuallythe sons will come to understandthe evil natureof the
paternal example and curse their own fathers.They will criticize
everything that has gone beforethemjust as we all do today. Such
criticismis impliedin the word kritai.
The textseemsinitiallyto suggestthatthereis divineviolenceand
that its forceis superiorto all others.But as we read the textvery
carefullywe come to realizethatthereis no divineexpulsion,or rather
that divine expulsion is real only for persecutorsdominated by
accusations. In otherwords, it is only real for Satan. The power of
expulsionis entirely Satan's, and God has nothingto do withit. Satan's
poweris indeedmorethanenoughto put an end to the "kingdomof

Satan." People divided by theirmimeticbehavior, "possessed" by

Satan, mutuallyexpel one anotheruntilno one is left.
But if internaldivision (mimetic rivalry)and the expulsion of
expulsion (the scapegoat mechanism)are supposed not only to be
principlesof decompositionforhuman societybut also principlesof
composition,whydoes Jesusmake no mentionof thislatteraspect?
Whydoes he onlyannounceapocalypticdestruction? Could I havebeen
mistakenin myattemptto identifytheparadoxicalnatureof mimetic
violenceas a source of both orderand disorder?Perhaps the textis
as grosslypolemical and unconsciouslymimeticand dualistic as a
superficialreadingmightsuggest.
ApparentlySatan has neverbeenable completely to expelSatan, and
thereis no reason to believethat he willdo so in theforeseeablefuture.
if
Jesusspeaks as the satanic principle had exhaustedits capacityfor
order,as ifeverysocial orderfromnow on was goingto be thevictim
of its own internalprincipleof destruction.The principleof orderis
indeedpresentin the firsttwo sentencesof our textbut onlyby way
of allusion. The textmentionskingdoms,cities,houses - all forms
of orderedsociety- , butittreatsthemas iftheywerealreadymatters
of thepast, condemnedto destruction.Destructionalone is explicitly
mentioned,and most readerswill be contentwith that part of the
message.
There is a veryimportantreason whythe meaningof social order
acknowledgedin thetext.The reasonis thattheviolent
can be fleetingly
orderof cultureis revealedthroughouttheGospels, principallyin the
passion storybut also in others,and now also in thispassage, and this
ordercannotsurviveits own exposure.Once thebasic mechanism,or
scapegoat mechanism,is revealed,this orderis made inoperativeby
virtueof itsexposure.It is no longerof interest.WhattheGospelsfocus
upon is the futureopened up forhumanityby thisrevelationand by
thedemiseof thesatanicmechanism.If scapegoatscan no longersave
people, ifthepersecutors'worldviewcollapses and thetruthshinesin
thedungeons,thisis not bad but good news. Thereis no violentGod.
The trueGod has nothingto do withviolenceand he does not deal
withus throughdistantintermediaries. He speaks to us directly.The
son whom he has sentis one withhim. The hour of the kingdomof
God has come.
"If itis bytheSpiritof God thatI castout demons,thenthekingdom
of God has come upon you." The kingdomof God has nothingin
commonwiththe kingdomof Satan and the kingdomsof thisworld,

230 RENGJRARP
all of whichare based on thesatanicprincipleof fratricidal strifeand

expulsion.God does not practiceexpulsion.Jesusconsentsto speak
about his workin termsof expulsionand violencebecause thesewere
theonlytermshis interlocutors werecapable of understanding. But he
only did so in orderto point to an eventhaving nothing in common
withthistypeof language. "If it is by the Spiritof God that I cast
out demons,thentherewill soon be no longerany questioneitherof
demons or of expulsion, for the whole kingdomof violence and
expulsionwillcrumblewithoutdelay. The kingdomof God has come
upon you." This is a directchallengeto Jesus'hearers.The kingdom
arriveslike lightning,like the bridegroomin the parable of the wise
and foolishmaidens. It has taken a long timecoming,but now it is
here all of a sudden.
"The kingdomof God has comeupon youwho hearmethismoment.
It has notyetfullyarrivedforthoseGerasenesI just left,because they
havenotyetbeenable fullyto acceptitsarrival."Jesusintervenes when
thetimeisfulfilled,thatis to say whenviolencecan no longercast out
violenceand wheninternaldivisionshave reacheda criticaljuncture.
This is theirrevocablemomentwhenthescapegoatmustbe chosenand
sacrificed.Even if the eliminationof this victim,Jesus' crucifixion,
restores theappearanceof orderfora while,Jesushas,in fact,destroyed
this order forever.He has done so, not by castingout anythingor
anybody,but by allowinghimselfto be cast out and therebyrevealing
to the worldwhat the secretof thisexpulsionis. Satan should never
have allowed thissecretto come out because it is the mainstayof his
power,the power of creatingorderbased on violence.
Matthew,who is always sensitiveto the historicaldimensionof
revelation,has included a statementin the storyof the Gerasene
demoniacthat suggestsa temporarygap betweenan orderbased on
thelaw and one whichis not. "What have you to do withus, O Son
of God? Have you come hereto tormentus beforethe time?" (Mt.
8:29) This complaintis significant withinthecontextof our analysis.
As I have said earlier,the Gerasenecommunityis less mob-likethan
the multitudewithouta shepherdto whichJesususuallypreaches.It
is stillmore "structured,"and thisis due to its paganism.This does
not mean thatwe should rate paganismhigherthan Judaism;it only
means thatpaganismhas not yetarrivedat the same criticalstage in
its evolution.
The ultimatecrisisthatcalls fortheultimaterevelationis notspecific.
In principle itis nothingotherthanthedisintegrationof all thesacrificial

'
systemsbased on the 'satanic" expulsion of violence by violence.
Biblicalrevelation and in particularthecomingof Jesusmakesthiscrisis
irremediable,whetherforgood or forill. It divulgesthe secretof the
persecutors' representationand thereby prevents the scapegoat
mechanismforfunctioning forever.At theheightof mimeticdisorder
thismechanismof ritualexpulsionis no longerstrongenoughto create
a new orderthat could replace the previousone.
Sooner or laterbiblical revelationmustprovokethe crumblingof
all societiesit penetrates.This is thecase even forthecivilizationthat
claimsit is based on thisrevelation,so-called"Christiancivilization."
This civilizationis, of course, based on biblical revelation,but its
relationto thisbasis is ambiguousbecause a partialmisunderstanding
of theGospelshas led to confusingthemwithchartersfora newreligion
in the mythologicalsense. "House falls upon house", says Luke,
(11:17), but he refersnot to a demonicexpulsioncomingfromGod
or Jesus;he meanstheend of all expulsion.This is thereasonwhythe
comingof thekingdomof God signalsdestruction forthosewho always
seekto destroyand reconciliationforthosewho wantto be reconciled.
The idea thata kingdomcould not standwhencontinuallydivided
against itselfhad always been true in principlebut neverin reality
becausethehiddenscapegoatmechanismhad alwaysrevivedsacrificial
differentiation and caused violenceto be expelledbyviolence.But then
thetruesourceof socialdissolutionbecamea historicalrealityas a result
of Jesus' crucifixion,firstfor the Jews and then for the pagans,
includingthose Gerasenesof the modernworldwho behave towards
Jesusa littleliketheGerasenesof theGospels whilepubliclyappealing
to hisauthority.ModernGerasenesliketo believethatnothingof such
a drasticnaturecan ever happen to theirown societyand that the
Gospels are fullof imaginarycatastrophes.
An initialreadingof the storyof the demonsof Gerasa createsthe
impressionthatthestoryis builtaround a double expulsion.The first
did notyielddecisiveresults.It was theresultof pettyinfightingbetween
thedemonsand theirGerasenes,both of whomactuallyweregetting
along quite well withone another.The second expulsionwas caused
by Jesus. It made a clean sweep of the place and its inhabitants.
The same double expulsionoccurs in the textunderconsideration,
one internalto the systemand hence havinga stabilizingeffect,the
other externalwith destructiveeffects."If I cast out demons by
Beelzebub... ifitis bytheSpiritof God thatI castout demons. . .."
On a moreprofoundlevel,however,itbecomesevidentthatthepower

232 REN GIRARD
of theSpirithas not been destructive.It has not cast out anybody.It

offersthe truthto people, and thisunleashesthe satanic forces,the
destructivemimesis,by robbingit of its autoregulatory power. The
fundamentalambiguityof Satan has put the divine action in a
superficially ambiguouslight.Jesuscauses war in theworldof Satan
because,fundamentally, he bringspeace. People do notunderstand this,
or theypretend to understand.Our textis admirablyconstructed
not
so as to adapt itselfto thereader'slevelof understanding. The sentences
about humangroupingsand about Satan castingout Satan referboth
to theautoregulatory powerof satanicmimesisand to theloss of this
power. The textdoes not explicitlytalk about a principlethatcauses
bothorderand disorder,butitdemonstrates thisprinciplebyinvesting
the sentenceswith a double meaning. This makes them endlessly
fascinatingbecause theyclearlypresenta truththatnevertheless must
not be highlighted too muchif it is to functionin thetextin thesame
way it functionsin reality.If you do not understandit, you remain
in the worldof Satan and a prisonerof the persecutionmentality.If
you understandit, you realize thatthe kingdomof Satan is heading
towardsitsdestructionbecause of therevelationof thetruthabout it,
and you are liberatedfromthe persecutionmentality.
We can now understandwhy the kingdom of God is not an
unmitigated blessing.It has nothingto do witha flockof sheepgrazing
in an eternallygreenpasture.It confrontsmenand womenwiththeir
hardesthistoricaltask. Compared to us the Gerasenesled relatively
honestand pleasantlives.Theydid notyetbehavelikeimperioususers
of theconsumersociety.Theyhonestlyadmittedthattheywould find
it difficultto live withoutscapegoats and demons.
In thetextswe haveanalyzedthedemonologicalperspective is present
but it is subverted.In orderto get rid of it entirely,all one has to do
is to broaden a littlethe jurisdictionof the skandalon as definedby
Jesus,and whoseprodigiouspowermaybe observedeverywhere. The
textsI use are, I believe,representativeof thesynopticGospels.In order
to completethe demiseof the demonswe only have to focus on the
notion of skandalon and on all that this notion involves.Then the
problemof mimesisand itsexpulsionsas Jesushimselfpointsto it by
word and deed will become clear.
Obviously,Mark and Matthewhave theirreasonswhentheywarn
us notto takethecentraldemonologicalstatementfromJesus'mouth
literally.All we have to do is to go to a dictionaryto realizethatthe
parabolic distortionof a text involves a certainconcession to the

mythologicaland violent mentalityemanatingfrom the collective

murderof a scapegoat. The original meaning of the Greek word
paraballo leads us straightto collectivemurder.Paraballo means to
throwsome food to a crowd,preferably in theformof a victim,some
one condemnedto death,in orderto appease itsappetiteforviolence.
Obviously,thereference is to a wayof gettingoutof a difficult
situation.
A speakercan use parablesand metaphorsin orderto keepthecrowd
from becoming hostile. Ultimatelythere is no speech that is not
parabolic. Human language,togetherwithotherculturalinstitutions,
originateswithcollectivemurder.In theGospels thecrowdsometimes
makesa movein thedirectionof violenceafterhearingone of themore
sharplywordedparablesby Jesus.But Jesusescapes because his hour
has not yetcome.
By sayingthatJesuswas speakingin parablesthe Evangelistsalert
thereaderto the distortionof the persecutors'representation. In our
textit meansthatthe readershould be on guardagainstthelanguage
of expulsion.This is theonlypossiblealternative.Unlesswe recognize
theparabolicdimensionof expulsionwe are dupedbyviolenceand will
engagein thetypeof interpretation againstwhichJesushimselfwarns
us by sayingthat it is both to be avoided and yetalmost inevitable.
'The disciplescame and said to him, 'Why do you speak to themin
parables?' And he answeredthem,'To you it has been givento know
the secretsof the kingdomof heaven, but to themit has not been
given... .1 speak to themin parablesbecause seeingtheydo not see,
and hearingtheydo nothear,nordo theyunderstand.'" (Mk. 13: lOf.
13.) Mark links the parable even more closely to the persecution
mentality.To thosewho are caughtin it, he says,everything "turns"
intoparables. Far fromleadingthemoutsidethesystem,theparable,
iftakenliterally,willonlyserveto strengthen thewallsof theirprison.
This is the meaningof the followingversesfromwhich,however,it
would be wrongto concludethatthe parable does not intendto lead
thehearerto conversion.Once moreJesusaddressesthedisciples."To
you has been giventhe secretof the kingdomof God, but forthose
outsideeverything is in parables,so thattheymay indeedsee but not
perceive,and mayindeedhearbutnotunderstand;lesttheyshouldturn
and be forgiven."(Mk. 4:10-12; cf. Is. 6:9)
***
Exorcismstoriesin the Gospels seem to lend credenceto the belief

in demons. Actually,theytend towardsthe opposite direction.This

234 REN GIRARD
is true even for the passages usually considered to be the most

"archaic," suchas theBeelzebubcontroversy or themiraclein Gerasa.
The tendencyescapes us because it is expressedin the contradictory
languageof expelledexpulsionand of the demon beingcast out. The
demonis thrownintonothingness, thatis in someway"consubstantial"
withit. Nothingnessis whatthedemonconsistsof. This is whatJesus
meanswhenhe saysthathe saw "Satan falllikelightning fromheaven."
(Lk. 10:18)The Gospelsacknowledgeonlyone realtranscendence, that
of divinelove triumphing over all the manifestations of violenceand
the sacred by revealingtheirnothingness.
A close analysisof theGospels showsthatJesushimselfprefersthe
languageof theskandalonto thatof thedemonic,whileforthedisciples
and the Gospel writersthe opposite is true. We should thereforenot
be surprisedto find a certain contrastbetween the sharp words
attributedto Jesus, not always presentedverycoherently,and the
narrativepassages, especiallythemiraclestories.The latterare better
organizedfroma literary viewpointbutlag slightly behindthethinking
expressedby Jesus' words. This differencecould verywellbe explained,
ifthedisciplesactuallyweresuch as theyare describedin theGospels,
thatis to say,veryattentive and fullof good will,butnotalwayscapable
of fullyunderstanding whattheirmastersaysand does. We werealready
led to thisconclusionwhileexaminingthe storyof Peter's denial. It
is reasonableto thinkthatthe narrativepassages are moredependent
on thedisciplesas theirsourcethanis thetranscription of Jesus'words.
Only Jesus masters the language of the skandalon. The most
significant passages show clearly thatthe two of
types languagerefer
to thesamesubjectmatter.Theyshowhow Jesustranslates thedemonic
language into thatof themimetic scandal. This for
happens, instance,
in the passage alreadycited whereJesusrebukesPeter. "Get behind
me, Satan! You are a scandal (hindrance)to me. You thinkas men
thinkand not as God thinks." Does Jesussee in Peterat thismoment
someonewho ispossessed by Satan in thesensein whichwitchhunters
would understandit? Absolutelynot,and theproofis in thefollowing
sentencewhere Peter's attitudeis portrayedas somethingtypically
human. "You thinkas men think,and not as God thinks."
The language of the skandalon replaces the initiallysalutarybut
ultimately blindfearof demonicpowerswithan analysisof thereasons
thatpush people intothetrapof mimeticcircularity. Peter's reaction
to Jesus'announcementbetrayeda mundanedesire,to whichJesusis
nowexposedas to a tempting contagion.Peterhas thereby transformed

Jesus'divinemissionintoa mundaneenterprise boundto be tornapart

by rival ambitions that had inevitablybeen stirredup. Peterplayshere
the role of the substituteof Satan, suppositus,the model-obstacleof
mimeticdesire.
It is thuspossibleto affirma veryclose correspondence betweenthe
description of the demons in the Gospels and the truth about mimetic
relations as formulatedby Jesus or portrayedin certain literary
masterpieces. Butthereis no suchcorrespondence in mostotherancient
textsthatreflectbeliefin demons. Most commentatorstoday fail to
recognizethisdistinctionand tendto regardall textscitingdemonsas
taintedby the same superstition.
Actually,theGospels are superiornot onlyto any textstillmarked
by magicalthought;theyare also superiorto moderninterpretations
of human relationshipsbecause of theirunderstandingof mimetic
desire,and especiallybecause of theirabilityto combinemimesiswith
demonology.We have observedthisabilityin thestoryof Gerasa. As
we haveseen,thedemonologicalviewpowerfully encompassestheunity
and diversity of certainindividualand social attitudes in a uniqueway.
This is whygreatwriterssuch as Shakespeareor Dostoevsky,and, in
our day, Bernanos,had to resortto languageabout demonsin order
to avoid the platitudesof contemporarypseudo-science.
To speak of demonsis to recognizetheworkingof an interpersonal
force of desire and hate, envy and jealousy, which is much more
insidiousand twistedthan anythingthat mightbe conceivedof in a
description of this phenomenon without using the notion of
supernaturalintervention.In demonologicalterminologythis force
appears to be muchmoreparadoxicaland suddenin its reversalsand
metamorphoses,more complexin its consequencesand more simple
or evensimplisticas a principle.For thedemonis bothveryintelligent
and verystupid.Its mimeticnatureis explicitbecauseitis, amongother
things,theape of God. When we speak uniformly of the "demonic"
natureof trance,ritualpossession,hysteriaand hypnosis,we affirm
theunityof all thesephenomena,a unitythatis realand whosecommon
basis needs to be discoveredfor progressin psychiatry.
The greatestadvantageof thedemonologicalterminology lies in its
unequalledcapacityto unitewithin one concept the power division
of
(diabolos), or the generativepower of all disorder on everylevel of
humanrelationson theone side, and thepower generatesocial order
to
on the other. It accomplishes without any effortwhat sociology,
anthropology,psychoanalysis and every theory of culture have

236 REN GIRARD
attemptedto duplicatewithouteversucceeding.The Gospels provide

us withthe principlethat allows us to distinguishas well as to unite
social transcendenceand individual relations, and to master the
relationshipof what today is called in French psychoanalysisthe
symbolicand the imaginary.
The notionof the demonicaccountsforall the tendenciestowards
conflict in human relations, for the centrifugalforce within a
community, but also forthatmysterious centripetalforcethatgathers
people into a community. In order to transform this demonological
terminology into actual knowledge we should follow the direction
indicatedby the Gospels and completethe task of translationwhich
theybegan. And herewe notethatthepowerdividingpeople through
mimeticrivalry and unitingthemthroughmimeticunanimity is focussed
on the scapegoat.
It is clear thatJohnhas thisin mindwhenhe presentsSatan as "a
liar and the fatherof lies" because he is "a murdererfrom the
beginning"(8:44). This lie is discredited by Jesus'passionduringwhich
he demonstrates theinnocenceof thevictim.The reasonwhythedefeat
of Satan is so closelylinkedto the momentof the passion is thatthe
truthful transmission of theeventwill furnishfuturegenerationswith
themeansto escape thisimmemoriallie and to recognizethefactthat
victimsare unjustlyslandered.It is thanksto his well-knownmimetic
shrewdness thatSatan succeedsin makingtheguiltof a victimcredible.
Satan meansin Hebrewtheaccuser.He weavesmeaningsand symbols
togetherinto a fabric of flawless rationality.Could this be pure
coincidence?
With the deepeningof the mimeticcrisis,desire and its conflicts
becomemoreand moreimmaterialbecause theyhave losttheirobject.
The situationtakes a turntowardsthe *'perverse,"and this,in turn,
encouragesbeliefin a highermimesisin termsof whichtherelationships
become more and more obsessiveand take on a relativeautonomy.
Demonology,however,is not completelyduped by this autonomy,
because it consistently speaks of the absolute need forthe demonsto
possess a livingbeingin orderto perpetuatethemselves.The demon's
beingis notcapable of existingapartfromthispossession.But itexists
all themorevigorouslytheless people are capable of resisting mimetic
incentives.Three major incentivesare presentedin the greatscene of
Jesus' temptationin the desert.
The most significantof the threetemptationsis the last, showing
Satan desiringto substitutehimselfforGod as an object of adoration,

thatis to say, as a model forimitationof theopposite.The proofthat

thismakes Satan the mimeticskandalon is Jesus' response,whichis
almostidenticalwiththeone he addressedto Peterwhenhe namedhim
Satan. In bothpassagestheGreekverbhypage(getbehind)is used and
itsuggeststheremovalof a scandalousobstacle.To adore Satan means
to aspire to world domination.It means to relateto othersin terms
of an idolatryand mutualhatredthatcan onlyreenforce thefalsegods
of violenceand the sacred as as
long people maintain the illusionthat
thesegods are all-powerful. Once thatillusiondisintegrates,therewill
be total destruction.
Once again, thedeviltook [Jesus]to a veryhighmountain,and

showed him all the kingdomsof the world in theirglory."AH
these," he said, "I willgiveyou, if you will only fall down and
adoreme." ButJesussaid, "Get behindme,Satan! Scripture says:
You shall adore the Lord your God
and worshiphim alone."


GirardViolenceSocialOrder PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GirardViolenceSocialOrder PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Skidmore College

Generative Violence and The Extinction of Social Order

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

I. The Demonsof Gerasa

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

Each of the Gospel storieslays bare the religiousoriginthat must

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

Satan, seen simultaneously as a principleof orderand of disorder,the

As he steppedashore,a man possessedbyan uncleanspiritcame

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

could no longerbe controlled;even chains wereuseless; he had

The dwellingplace of the possessed is among the tombs. This fact

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

thismoreclearlyby presenting thepossessedas a man fromthetown,

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

thisdrama,sincetheybeg Jesusto leave rightaway and notto meddle

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

mid-easternsocieties inflicted on those whom they considered

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

appropriatepoint? I do not thinkso. But if I should be mistakenin

When Jesus reached the other side, in the countryof the

The proofthatMatthewthinksin termsof mimesisand of scandal

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

insurmountable obstacleor a stonetoo heavyto be lifted,is an allusion

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

thePassion, but by firmrejection.Theydo notwantto have anything

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

The Gerasene society is quite dilapidated, but it is not totally

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

of theTarpian rock. In Greekculturetheperiodicputtingto deathof

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

beforeit had been resolvedin practice.But it is impossibleto avoid

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

a singlemiracle.His sermonin thesynagogueshockstheaudience.He

This episodemustbe seenas an outlineand hencean announcement

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

moderncommentators.The fantasticaspects of the miracleseem to

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

mandatefromanybodyin thecommunity.He does not need to make

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

Am I rightin puttingtheherdof pigstogetherwiththelynchmob,

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

lastlittlepig withenthusiasm.The smallestmimeticincitement shakes

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

And all thepeople wereamazed, and said, "Can thisbe theson

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

It is impossibleto understandthispassage at firstreading.During

Or how can one entera strongman's house and plunderhis

The strongman in this passage is the devil who is depictedas the

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

has adoptedthelanguageof his interlocutors in orderto pointout the

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

Lookingagain at our textwe can easilysee thattheidea of a second

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

"every" whichoccurstwicein theGreektext."Everykingdomdivided

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

Satan." People divided by theirmimeticbehavior, "possessed" by

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

all of whichare based on thesatanicprincipleof fratricidal strifeand

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM

This content downloaded from 143.239.102.1 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:42:35 PM