Onomatopéique

Thanks to Dave I now know that I have re-invented Girard’s concept of Mimetic desire, three years and my life span after the fact.

“We borrow our desires from others. Far from being autonomous, our desire for a certain object is always provoked by the desire of another person — the model — for this same object. This means that the relationship between the subject and the object is not direct: there is always a triangular relationship of subject, model, and object. Through the object, one is drawn to the model, whom Girard calls the mediator: it is in fact the model who is sought. Girard calls desire ‘metaphysical’ in the measure that, as soon as a desire is something more than a simple need or appetite, ‘all desire is a desire to be’, it is an aspiration, the dream of a fullness attributed to the mediator.”

Which brings me to another query; does it matter who or when?

I may have mentioned this before, but to reiterate in the context of Girard, the adulation of the pioneer is in itself a measure of the Mimetic desire of the pioneer.

In the case of Girard, were it not so, we’d have never known.

I’m not implying this is a bad, bad thing but I do wonder why, generally speaking, we pioneers prefer not to be viewed as in the grip of Mimetic desire? 

Personally I blame religion which cultured the relationship between the self and the god as unique and most valuable. Cue to dissonance, entering stage left from the public vestibule.

Maybe it’s time for a completely new movement that embraces overt Mimetic desire.

Hang on, I think we have one of those. It’s the one behind reality TV and social media.

Which might explain the general slow down in innovation.