Contemporary Understanding of the Sacred and René Girard's Theory

Introduction

The understanding of the sacred has always been central to the study of religion, but in the modern world its boundaries and manifestations have significantly expanded beyond traditional religious institutions. While classical sociologists of religion, such as Émile Durkheim, viewed the sacred as a reflection of collective consciousness and social solidarity, today we face a phenomenon that René De la Torre describes as an "in-between space" between institutional religion and individualized spirituality [Torre, 2013]. This shift in emphasis requires new analytical tools capable of comprehending how the sacred manifests in secular contexts, consumer culture, or even political movements.

In this context, René Girard's theory offers a powerful, though controversial, philosophical framework for understanding the origins of the sacred, violence, and human culture. Starting with the analysis of mimetic desire in literature [Moi, 1982], Girard then transferred his ideas to anthropology and religious studies, arguing that triangular desire underlies all sacrificial rituals and religious beliefs related to victims and scapegoats [Moi, 1982]. His works, such as "Violence and the Sacred," challenge traditional conceptions of human nature and society, offering a radical view of how violence and its suppression shape the sacred and ultimately culture itself. We will examine how contemporary interpretations of the sacred intersect with Girard's profound analysis, offering new perspectives for understanding religious and quasi-religious phenomena in the 21st century.

Detailed Exposition

The Role of Mimetic Desire in the Formation of Human Society and Violence

How does human society arise? What underlies its structure, and why is violence so often an integral part of it? René Girard offers a radical answer to these questions, asserting that at the heart of human interaction lies mimetic, or imitative, desire. This is not merely the desire to possess something, but the desire to possess what another desires, turning the other into a mediator and inevitably a rival [Moi, 1982].

According to Girard, mimetic desire is not just a psychological phenomenon but a fundamental mechanism shaping both individual behavior and collective social structures. We do not desire objects directly; we desire them because we see someone else desiring them. This "triangle of desire"—subject, object, mediator—leads to competition and rivalry, as the mediator's desire makes the object more valuable to the subject [Moi, 1982]. In this sense, human desire is initially not autonomous but intersubjective, or, as Alessandra Diazzi would put it, "intersubjective" [Diazzi, 2019].

When mimetic desire spreads throughout society, it generates indistinguishability. If everyone desires the same thing, differences between people erase, and everyone becomes a potential rival to everyone else. This leads to the so-called mimetic crisis, a state in which social order collapses and society descends into chaos of universal hostility. In such a situation, violence becomes pervasive, as everyone sees others as obstacles to the desired object [Barber, 2013].

Paradoxically, it is precisely this violence, according to Girard, that becomes the foundation for society's formation. To avoid total self-destruction, collective violence must be channeled and directed at a single, arbitrarily chosen victim—the scapegoat. This mechanism, known as the sacrificial mechanism, allows society to temporarily restore order by redirecting everyone's aggression against one [Imran et al., 2021]. The unanimous violence against the scapegoat creates an illusion of unity and reconciliation, as all members of society unite against a common enemy.

The victim simultaneously becomes the source of chaos and salvation. It is the cause of the crisis (in the eyes of the crowd) and the means of its resolution. After the victim is sacrificed, a period of peace and calm ensues, mistakenly attributed to the act of sacrifice. This act is sacralized, and the victim is deified or demonized, becoming a sacred figure who either protects or threatens society [Arppe, 2009]. Thus, myth and ritual arise as ways of comprehending and reproducing this original act of collective violence, concealing its true nature.

René De la Torre, studying popular religiosity, notes that similar mechanisms can manifest even in modern, seemingly secular contexts. She speaks of the "popular use of popular religion," where traditional rituals and beliefs are reinterpreted and adapted to new social conditions. This "in-between space" [Torre, 2013] is where institutional religion meets individualized spirituality, and ancient practices merge with modern forms of expression. Here we see how the emerging is traditionalized and the relevance of the ancient is constructed [Torre, 2013], reminiscent of Girard's idea that society constantly reinterprets its origins to maintain stability.

In this context, religious and cultural practices play a key role in transforming mimetic violence into viable and sustainable communities [Imran et al., 2021]. They provide frameworks for symbolic conflict resolution, offering rituals that imitate and sublimate the original violence, preventing its repetition in real life. These practices, as De la Torre notes, can be both "the salvation of pre-Hispanic rituals" [Torre, 2013] and "the invention of ancient cults" [Torre, 2013], highlighting the dynamic nature of social cohesion formation and maintenance.

However, as Torri Moi points out, Girard often ignores other aspects of human desire, such as the role of the mother and early childhood relationships, focusing exclusively on rivalry [Moi, 1982]. Nevertheless, his emphasis on the intersubjectivity of desire resonates with the works of other thinkers, such as Judith Butler, whose theory of gender performativity, although different in subject, also emphasizes how identity is formed through imitation and social interaction [Janicka, 2015]. Mimetic desire, being a source of competition and violence, is simultaneously a driving force that, through the sacrificial mechanism, leads to the formation of social structures and cultural norms. This paradoxical interaction of violence and order, chaos and the sacred, lies at the core of Girard's understanding of human society. However, if the sacrificial mechanism is a way to resolve the mimetic crisis, what happens when this mechanism ceases to function?

The Interrelation of Affective Violence and the Sacred

If in the previous section we discussed mimetic desire as the driving force shaping society and generating violence, now it is necessary to understand how this violence transforms into something we call the sacred. René Girard offers a radical view of this interrelation, asserting that the sacred is not merely connected to violence but is born from it, acting as a mechanism for its suppression and channeling. This is not just a functionalist approach where religion serves social purposes but a profound reflection on the origins of human culture.

Girard argues that at the foundation of the sacred lies collective violence arising from the mimetic crisis. When individuals' desires converge on one object, competition intensifies to such an extent that society stands on the brink of self-destruction. At this moment, to avoid total chaos, unanimous violence is directed against one arbitrarily chosen victim—the scapegoat. This act of collective killing or expulsion paradoxically restores peace and order, as universal violence is channeled and projected onto a single individual.

The victim becomes not only the object of violence but also its source and resolution. Society, having undergone catharsis through the expulsion or killing of the scapegoat, begins to perceive this victim as something simultaneously terrible and salvific. This dual attitude—the fear of chaos it prevented and the gratitude for restored order—gives rise to the sacred. The victim is deified or demonized, becoming the center of myths and rituals designed to reproduce and control this original act of violence.

However, as Arppe notes, there are other interpretations of the victim's role in the context of the sacred [Arppe, 2009]. While for Girard the victim is a mechanism of projection and suppression of violence, for Georges Bataille, for example, sacrifice is a means of sharing the experience of death, which constitutes the repulsive core of human community [Arppe, 2009]. This difference points to fundamental divergences in understanding the nature of the sacred: is it primarily a social construct aimed at survival, or does it root in the existential experience of confronting death and the transcendent?

In the modern world, where traditional religious institutions lose their monopoly on the sacred, we see how this mechanism of projection and channeling of violence can manifest in secular forms. The phenomenon of "cancel culture," for example, can be viewed as a contemporary manifestation of collective condemnation and expulsion, where an individual or group becomes a scapegoat for alleged or real violations of social norms. Here, too, unanimous violence is directed at restoring some "order" or "justice," albeit without explicit religious undertones.

Interestingly, even amid secularization, often discussed by sociologists, the need for the sacred does not disappear but transforms. René De la Torre notes that contemporary religiosity, especially in Latin America, is characterized by eclecticism and hybridization, where elements of Catholic devotion mix with indigenous rituals, magical beliefs, and New Age ideas [Torre, 2013]. This creates a "menu of beliefs" where individuals select and combine various spiritual practices, from yoga and kundalini meditation to the use of psychoactive substances such as ayahuasca and peyote [Torre, 2013].

Such "consumer religiosity" [Torre, 2013] shows that the search for meaning, identity, and transcendence continues but outside the rigid frameworks of institutional religion. People seek harmony with nature, reactivation of cosmic energies, turning to "masters" and "keepers" of indigenous cultures [Torre, 2013]. This can be interpreted as an attempt to find new forms of the sacred that could channel affective energies and desires not expressed within traditional structures.

In this context, Girard's mimetic theory helps to understand why even in secular society there remains a need for rituals and symbols that are essentially remnants or transformations of the sacrificial mechanism. Whether national holidays, sports competitions, or corporate events, all contain elements of collective unity and symbolic violence aimed at strengthening social cohesion. Scott Garrels, exploring the connection between mimetic theory and empirical research on imitation, emphasizes that the role of imitation in generating competition, rivalry, and violence, as well as the role of religious/cultural beliefs in transforming these effects, remains insufficiently studied [Garrels, 2005].

According to Girard, the sacred is not something inherently good or divine but rather an ambivalent phenomenon born from violence and serving to control it. It arises as a response to the threat of a mimetic crisis, when society, to survive, unanimously directs its violence against one. This act, though terrible, becomes the foundation for myths, rituals, and ultimately all human culture. However, as we will see further, Girard does not stop there but offers a unique interpretation of Christianity, which, in his view, reveals the innocence of the victim and thereby undermines the effectiveness of the sacrificial mechanism, leading us to the next question about the compatibility of his theory with Catholic doctrine.

Compatibility of Girard's Mimetic Theory with Catholic Doctrine

In the previous section, we discussed how affective violence and the sacred intertwine in archaic societies, where the sacrificial mechanism acts as a way to channel collective aggression. However, when we turn to Christianity, Girard offers a radically different perspective. He argues that Christianity is not just another religion using the sacrificial mechanism but rather its exposure. Here arises one of the most acute questions in the study of mimetic theory: how compatible is it with Catholic doctrine?

On one hand, many theologians see Girard's theory as a powerful tool for understanding the Christian message. They argue that his analysis of mimetic desire, violence, and the scapegoat mechanism deeply resonates with the Gospel narrative of the innocent victim Christ. According to Girard, Christ becomes the ultimate scapegoat whose death not only reveals the injustice of all previous sacrificial systems but also offers a way to overcome cycles of violence. This interpretation highlights Christianity's uniqueness, which, unlike archaic religions, does not conceal violence but brings it to light, thereby undermining its sacralizing power.

However, there are serious objections. Some theologians, such as Sarah Coakley, argue that Girard's mimetic theory is incompatible with fundamental Catholic doctrines [Hodge, 2021]. What is the nature of this contradiction? The main criticism often targets how Girard interprets Christ's redemptive sacrifice. If Christ is merely another scapegoat, albeit one revealing the mechanism, this may seem to diminish his divine nature and the uniqueness of his sacrifice as an act of atonement for sins, not merely a social mechanism. Catholic doctrine traditionally views Christ's sacrifice as a voluntary offering necessary for reconciling humanity with God, not as a result of collective mimetic violence.

Indeed, Girard does not deny the voluntariness of Christ's sacrifice but places it in the context of human violence that Christ accepts upon himself. He shows how the crowd, driven by mimetic desire and envy, unanimously turns against Christ, making him the scapegoat. In this sense, Christ's sacrifice becomes not only an act of redemption but also a revelation about the nature of human violence and its connection to the sacred. Hodge [Hodge, 2021] argues that Catholic theology can provide an adequate theological framework for Girard's ideas, including his early works, demonstrating the compatibility of his understanding of desire and culture with key Catholic doctrines.

Nevertheless, the question of how to reconcile Girard's understanding of the victim as an exposure of violence with traditional Catholic teaching on atonement remains open. If Christ's sacrifice is primarily a demonstration of the victim's innocence and an exposure of the scapegoat mechanism, where then is the place for the concepts of original sin, divine wrath, and the necessity of atonement through blood? Girard seems to shift the emphasis from the vertical dimension (man's relationship with God) to the horizontal (relationships among people and their propensity for violence).

At the same time, it is worth noting that the Catholic tradition has always been capable of inculturation and adaptation, absorbing various philosophical and cultural currents. René De la Torre [Torre, 2013] notes that Catholicism has the ability to "phagocytize rather than exclude" new ideas, reinterpreting them within its own matrix. Perhaps this flexibility allows integrating Girard's ideas without abandoning core dogmas. For example, understanding mimetic desire can deepen the awareness of sin as imitation, envy, and rivalry, and the scapegoat mechanism can shed light on social aspects of injustice and collective guilt.

Moreover, Girard was neither an atheist nor an opponent of religion; on the contrary, he was a deeply believing Catholic who saw Christianity as the highest revelation. His theory does not seek to desacralize Christianity but rather to resacralize it by cleansing false notions of a violent deity. He shows that the God of the Bible, unlike the gods of archaic myths, does not demand human sacrifices but opposes them. This aligns with the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament, condemning violence and injustice.

However, if we look at contemporary religiosity as described by De la Torre [Torre, 2013], we see it increasingly moving away from rigid dogmas and institutional forms. People seek "spirituality à la carte," combining elements of various traditions, including esotericism, neo-paganism, and even pre-Christian beliefs. In this context, Girard's ideas about exposing violence and the innocence of the victim can be perceived as a universal ethical principle that transcends specific doctrine. This may lead to his theory being used to critique the institutional church, which, according to some, sometimes becomes a source of violence or injustice itself.

The compatibility of Girard's mimetic theory with Catholic doctrine is not a simple "yes" or "no" question. It is rather a dialogue in which Girard's theory offers new lenses for reading the Gospel, and Catholic theology, in turn, can enrich and deepen the understanding of mimetic processes. Perhaps Girard does not provide an exhaustive theological explanation of all aspects of atonement, but he certainly offers a powerful tool for understanding human nature, the origins of violence, and the uniqueness of the Christian message of love and forgiveness.

Ultimately, Girard calls us to see the Gospel not merely as a set of dogmas but as a radical revelation about the human condition, our propensity for violence, and the possibility of overcoming this violence through imitation of Christ. This imitation, however, is not mimetic desire in its negative sense leading to rivalry but rather imitation of love and self-sacrifice. It is in this aspect that his theory may find deep resonance with Catholic spirituality, which has always emphasized the importance of imitating Christ in the believer's life.

However, as De la Torre notes [Torre, 2013], contemporary religiosity is characterized by "deinstitutionalization," where believers increasingly form their beliefs "à la carte," moving away from dogmas and hierarchical structures. In this context, Girard's ideas may be perceived as part of a broader search for meaning and ethical guidelines that need not be tied to a specific religious institution. This raises the question of how mimetic theory, originally developed to explain the origins of religion, can be applied to analyze contemporary, often secular or syncretic, forms of spirituality, which will be the subject of our next discussion.

Application of Mimetic Theory to Contemporary Social Phenomena

If in the previous section we considered how Girard's mimetic theory relates to Catholic doctrine, now it is worth shifting attention to its applicability to a broader range of contemporary social phenomena. After all, Girard did not limit his theory solely to the religious context; on the contrary, he sought to demonstrate its universality by explaining mechanisms of violence and culture formation in various spheres. How can this theory, rooted in the analysis of archaic myths and biblical texts, help us understand the dynamics of modern society?

One key direction of applying mimetic theory is explaining cultural and religious violence. Girard argued that violence is not a random or irrational outburst but rooted in mimetic desire, which, when intensified, leads to a crisis of indistinguishability and the search for a scapegoat. Research shows that mimetic theory challenges traditional interpretations of religious violence, offering a critical analysis of the causes of both hidden and overt violence, as well as the scapegoat mechanism operating within internal cultures and international relations, supporting political and cultural stability [Imran et al., 2021]. This means that conflicts often perceived as ideological or religious may have deeper mimetic roots, where groups imitate each other in their desires and consequently in their hostility.

However, the application of Girard's theory is not limited to macrosocial conflicts. It also resonates in psychoanalysis and gender performativity. Diazzi [Diazzi, 2019] and Janicka [Janicka, 2015] note that the shift from psychoanalysis of subjectivity to psychoanalysis of intersubjectivity reveals a striking similarity with Girard's mimetic theory. While traditional psychoanalysis focuses on internal conflicts of the individual, the intersubjective approach recognizes that our desire and identity are formed through interaction with others. This echoes Girard's idea that desire is always mediated by another; we desire not because the object is inherently valuable but because someone else desires it. In the context of gender performativity, for example, one can see how social norms and expectations that we imitate shape our self-perception and behavior, sometimes leading to internal conflicts when these norms clash with individual experience.

Modern society, despite its secularization, is not devoid of manifestations of the sacred, although it often takes new, non-institutional forms. René De la Torre [Torre, 2013] notes that religiosity today extends beyond traditional institutions, manifesting in individualized forms and "religiosity à la carte," where each individual forms their own set of beliefs by borrowing elements from various traditional systems. This phenomenon, which she calls "popular religiosity," represents an "in-between space" between institutional religion and individualized spirituality. Here we see how mimetic desire can manifest in the search for meaning and transcendence, where people imitate each other in their spiritual quests, creating new forms of collective worship or identity that can be both harmless and potentially conflictual.

De la Torre [Torre, 2013] also emphasizes that popular religiosity, especially in Latin America, has historically been a "ferment of culture," expressing syncretism between Catholicism and local cosmologies. This resistance to dogmatic order and constant reinterpretation of the practical meaning of religion creates a space where mimetic processes can be particularly active. People imitate each other in their practices, rituals, and beliefs, creating a dynamic and constantly changing religious environment that is not always controllable by institutional structures.

The phenomenon of "cancel culture" is a vivid example of a contemporary manifestation of the scapegoat mechanism Girard described in archaic societies. When a figure or group is subjected to mass condemnation and expulsion from the public sphere for alleged offenses, we see collective unanimity directed against the chosen victim. This is not mere criticism but a ritual exclusion that, according to Girard, serves to restore social order and relieve tension caused by mimetic rivalry. In this case, the "victim" becomes a symbol of all problems and contradictions, and their "expulsion" temporarily calms the collective.

Mimetic theory also allows a new perspective on the role of media and mass culture. In the digital age, mimetic desire is amplified manifold. Social networks, advertising, celebrity culture—all create endless chains of imitation where people desire what others desire, be it a certain lifestyle, product, or ideology. This process can lead to a "mimetic crisis" on a societal scale, where everyone strives for the same limited resources or statuses, inevitably generating rivalry and potential violence.

However, as De la Torre [Torre, 2013] notes, it would be a mistake to focus exclusively on the deinstitutionalization of religion or, conversely, on its institutional forms. It is important to consider "in-between spaces" where the traditional and the new, the local and the transnational, the social and the individual interact. It is at these intersections that mimetic processes manifest most vividly, forming new forms of the sacred and new mechanisms for conflict resolution.

Girard's mimetic theory offers a powerful analytical tool for understanding not only archaic societies but also the complex dynamics of the modern world. From cultural violence to gender performativity, from popular religiosity to the phenomenon of "cancel culture," echoes of mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism can be found everywhere. However, despite its explanatory power, Girard's theory is not without critical remarks, which we will consider next.

Criticism and Limitations

Girard's universalist claims, while lending power to his theory, are simultaneously a source of significant criticism. His attempt to explain all forms of violence and culture through mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism is often seen as reductionist. For example, Torri Moi points out that Girard ignores other aspects of human desire, such as the role of the mother and early childhood relationships, focusing exclusively on rivalry [Moi, 1982]. Had Girard included a broader spectrum of psychological and social factors in his analysis, his theory might have been less universal but more nuanced, considering that not all forms of violence or social interaction can be reduced to imitative rivalry.

Another significant limitation concerns the interpretation of Christianity. Although Girard sees Christianity as exposing the sacrificial mechanism, some theologians, as mentioned, consider his approach incompatible with fundamental Catholic doctrines [Hodge, 2021]. If Christ's sacrifice is viewed primarily as a social mechanism exposing violence, this may diminish its theological significance as an act of atonement for sins and reconciliation with God. Without this theological depth, Christianity risks being reduced to an ethical system, contradicting its traditional understanding as a religion of salvation.

Finally, Girard, like many theorists, tends toward Eurocentrism, predominantly using Western myths and texts to illustrate his theory. Although he refers to non-European cultures, his analysis may not account for the specificity and diversity of forms of violence and the sacred in non-Western contexts. For example, René De la Torre [Torre, 2013] shows how complex and multifaceted popular religiosity in Latin America is, where syncretism and hybridization create unique forms of the sacred that do not always fit Girard's scheme. Had Girard more deeply integrated these diverse cultural contexts, his theory might have been more applicable to a global understanding of the sacred, but this would have required revising some of his universalist claims.

Conclusions

• The sacred in the modern world manifests both in traditional religious forms and in secular contexts, often outside institutional frameworks, indicating its dynamic nature.
• René Girard's theory postulates mimetic desire as a fundamental mechanism generating competition, violence, and ultimately shaping human culture through the sacrificial mechanism.
• According to Girard, the sacred arises from collective violence and the scapegoat mechanism, which temporarily stabilizes society by redirecting aggression onto a chosen victim.
• Christianity, according to Girard, is unique in revealing the innocence of the victim, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the archaic sacrificial mechanism and offering a path to overcoming cycles of violence.
• Contemporary manifestations of the sacred, such as celebrity cults, sports rituals, or the phenomenon of "cancel culture," can be interpreted through the lens of mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism, demonstrating the persistence of these patterns in secular society.
• Criticism of Girard often focuses on his universalist claims and specific interpretation of Christianity, provoking debates about the compatibility of his theory with traditional theological doctrines.
• Girard's mimetic theory can be applied to analyze new forms of "spirituality à la carte" emerging amid the deinstitutionalization of religion and globalization.