Modern Understanding of the Sacred and René Girard's Theory

Introduction

Contemporary religious studies face the challenging task of defining the "sacred" amid secularization and pluralism. While classical approaches, such as those by Rudolf Otto, focused on the numinous experience that evokes awe and reverence [Otto, 1917], today the emphasis shifts toward functional and contextual aspects. The sacred ceases to be exclusively the prerogative of traditional religions, manifesting in the most unexpected forms, from national symbols to sports rituals [Woods, 2013]. This broadening of understanding requires new analytical tools capable of capturing the dynamics of the sacred in a post-secular world.

In this context, René Girard's theory offers a radically different perspective, linking the origin of the sacred to fundamental mechanisms of human violence and desire. Girard, developing his ideas since the early 1960s, challenged traditional conceptions of culture and religion by asserting that mimetic desire underlies all social conflicts, and the sacred arises as a way to resolve them through collective sacrifice [Moi, 1982]. His works, such as "Violence and the Sacred," have become a powerful impetus for rethinking the role of violence in the formation of human societies and religion, proposing a universal model that, despite criticism, continues to provoke discussions and find applications across various fields of the humanities.

Detailed Exposition

The Role of Mimesis and Violence in the Formation of Culture and the Sacred

How can we explain that human societies, despite their inherent tendency toward conflict, have nevertheless managed to form complex cultural and religious systems? René Girard offers a radical answer: culture and the sacred arise from violence, or more precisely, from its suppression and channeling through the scapegoat mechanism. At the core of this process lies mimesis—imitation, which, according to Girard, is not merely copying but a fundamental driving force of human desire and, consequently, conflict [Bertonneau, 1987].

Mimetic desire, unlike simple appetite, is always mediated. We do not desire the object itself but the object desired by someone else, our "mediator." This leads to competition and rivalry, as two or more subjects begin to desire the same object, not because they need it, but because another desires it. Such dynamics, as Girard notes in his early works, including "Deceit, Desire and the Novel" (1961), inevitably lead to conflict [Bertonneau, 1987]. Initially, the mediator may be external, but over time becomes internalized, and desire turns into direct rivalry, where the mediator itself becomes an obstacle and an object of hatred.

When mimetic rivalry engulfs the entire society, a so-called mimetic crisis arises—a state in which all differences are erased, and society plunges into chaos of a general war of all against all. At this moment, according to Girard, there occurs a spontaneous and unconscious redirection of aggression onto a random victim—the scapegoat. This victim, often innocent, becomes the object of collective violence, uniting everyone against one. The killing of the scapegoat temporarily restores peace and order, creating the illusion that the victim was the cause of all troubles [Steele, 2001].

Paradoxically, this act of collective violence becomes the foundation for the emergence of the sacred. The victim who brought peace is sacralized. They become both the source of evil and the savior, whose death prevented the complete disintegration of society. Around this sacralized victim, myths, rituals, and taboos form, designed to prevent the recurrence of the mimetic crisis and preserve the achieved peace. As John Steele asserts, violence becomes sacred when it restores lost meaning, binds the community, and ensures temporary peace [Steele, 2001]. Archaic religion, with its taboos, rituals, and myths, acts as a social mechanism for the pragmatic management of violence.

However, not all researchers agree with the exclusively conflictual nature of mimesis. Ivona Janicka, for example, proposes considering non-conflictual, peaceful mimesis in the formation of identity, especially regarding gender [Janicka, 2015]. She argues that gender can be viewed as a particular case of mimesis, where we "perform" gender just as we perform mimesis. In this context, mimesis does not necessarily lead to rivalry but can be a way of mastering social roles and forming self-awareness. Janicka even suggests that the "failure" in mimesis—the constant approximation to ideal imitation—guarantees unlimited differentiation in gender, as advocated by Judith Butler [Janicka, 2015].

Nevertheless, for Girard, the sacred is inextricably linked to violence. Often, the sacred acts as a mechanism of projection and suppression of violence, as noted by Arppe [Arppe, 2009]. Religious sacrifice, according to Girard, is precisely such a mechanism through which society channels its unmotivated violence onto a single arbitrarily chosen individual. This is a classic functionalist approach, where the sacred serves to maintain social order.

In this context, Girard distinguishes between "good" and "bad" violence. "Bad" violence is undifferentiated, chaotic violence of the mimetic crisis that threatens the existence of society. "Good" violence, on the contrary, is ritualized sacrificial violence, which, being directed at the scapegoat, prevents chaos and restores social order. This violence paradoxically saves society from itself.

Slavoj Žižek, although not a direct follower of Girard, also explores the logic of sacrificial violence but from a somewhat different perspective. Benjamin Barber notes that Žižek, like Girard, analyzes the violence underlying culture and its appeal in modern society [Barber, 2013]. However, while Girard focuses on the collective unconscious mechanism, Žižek often turns to ideological aspects that conceal or justify this violence.

Mimesis, according to Girard, is a Janus-faced figure: it generates both desire and cultural development as well as conflict and violence. It is precisely society's ability to manage this violence by channeling it through the scapegoat mechanism that leads to the formation of the sacred and, consequently, to the emergence of culture. Without this mechanism, Girard argues, human societies would be doomed to self-destruction in an endless cycle of mimetic rivalry. However, as we will see further, this theory raises questions about its universality and compatibility with other fields of knowledge, such as theology and feminism.

Compatibility of Girard's Mimetic Theory with Theology and Feminism

René Girard's mimetic theory, as we have seen, offers a powerful explanatory model for understanding the origin of violence and the sacred in human societies. However, like any comprehensive theory, it raises questions about its applicability and compatibility with other fields of knowledge, particularly theology and feminism. Can Girard's ideas be reconciled with established doctrines and critical approaches?

At first glance, the theological compatibility of Girard's theory seems obvious, especially in the Christian context. Girard himself actively engaged with biblical texts, seeing in them the revelation of the scapegoat mechanism and the desacralization of violence. He argued that the Gospels do not merely describe Christ's sacrifice but expose it as an innocent victim, thereby undermining the mimetic cycles that for centuries underpinned sacred violence. This interpretation resonates with many theologians who see in it a profound understanding of the redemptive sacrifice and ethical dimension of Christianity. For example, Hodge [Hodge, 2021] explicitly states the compatibility of Girard's work with key Catholic doctrines, emphasizing that Catholic theology provides an adequate framework for Girard's ideas from the earliest stages of his work.

However, when it comes to feminist critique, the situation becomes much more complex. Girard's theory, despite its universal claims, faces serious objections regarding its ability to adequately account for female experience and gender aspects of desire. Toril Moi [Moi, 1982] was among the first to point out this gap, arguing that Girard's theory, especially in its application to the pre-Oedipal stage of development, proves inadequate. Applying mimetic theory to this period, Moi contends, requires postulating female desire as primary, [and then as a result] the mother's desire becomes paradigmatic for all desire [Moi, 1982]. This, in turn, would lead to the absurd conclusion of universal male homosexuality, contradicting Girard's fundamental claims about the non-autonomy of desire.

Moi also criticizes Girard for his inability to explain female desire, and therefore all claims to universal applicability must be rejected [Moi, 1982]. She calls his theory "proud, patriarchal, and monolithic." Such accusations are not limited to Moi alone. Kaufman, for example, challenges Girard's approach to narcissism, especially his view of female self-sufficiency as an illusion. Girard believed that the coquette woman only pretends to desire herself to attract male desire. Kaufman argues that this denies the possibility of genuine female self-sufficiency and indifference, reducing the woman to a mere strategist or liar [Janicka, 2015]. In her view, this reveals more about Girard's own psychology than about human desire in general.

Nevertheless, Ivona Janicka [Janicka, 2015] offers a path to "rehabilitate" Girard for feminism by employing Judith Butler's concept of gender performativity. Janicka acknowledges that feminist critique certainly questions Girard's universal claims but believes that it is precisely in this "productive space" that Butler's ideas can be applied. She argues that Moi's and Kaufman's analyses have shortcomings because they continue to operate within the Freudian paradigm, which Girard explicitly rejects. Girard does not ignore the "pre-Oedipal stage" due to the weakness of his theory but because he completely abandons the Freudian framework [Janicka, 2015].

Janicka emphasizes that Girard does not ignore female desire, nor male desire, since his theory focuses on the category of the "human" and universal human desire. Moreover, she points out that the lack of self-sufficiency attributed by Kaufman to Girard's coquette is not limited to women only. Girard, for example, discusses the "snob" in Proust's works as a figure demonstrating male lack of self-sufficiency [Janicka, 2015]. Girard rejects human self-sufficiency in general, not denying it to only one sex.

A key point in Janicka's argument is that Butler's concept of performativity has extensive similarities with Girardian mimesis. Both concepts describe mechanisms of continuous, unconscious repetition of available models. The difference, in her view, lies in their scale and theoretical foundations. Butler's performativity roots in the ideas of Foucault, Bourdieu, Derrida, Austin's speech act theory, and psychoanalysis. Girard's mimesis, by contrast, is an anthropological idea avoiding associations with poststructuralist premises [Janicka, 2015].

The combination of Butler's performativity and Girard's mimesis allows expanding the concept of gender performativity into various sociopolitical domains of Girardian mimesis. Butler's specific approach to gender performativity, in turn, provides valuable insights into the concrete mechanisms of mimesis. Butler offers a complex picture of the psychological aspects of mimesis in her description of performativity—the formation of identity and psychic structure. This description resonates convincingly with Girard's ideas if freed from psychoanalytic elements [Janicka, 2015]. Feminist critique, initially directed at Girard, can become a starting point for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of mimetic desire through the lens of gender performativity.

In the theological context, especially within the Christian tradition, Girard offers a radical view of the sacred that is not always easy to accept. If the sacred arises from collective violence and sacrifice, as he claims, this calls into question traditional notions of the divine as something inherently pure and good. However, as Woods notes [Woods, 2013], even in contemporary evangelical communities, where the emphasis is on personal faith and "sacred networks" of believers rather than fixed places of worship, echoes of Girard's idea of the mobility and non-fixedness of the sacred can be seen. Houses turned into churches and networks of believers who can gather anywhere demonstrate that the sacred is not tied to a specific building or place but can be transferred and recreated in any context where believers assemble [Woods, 2013]. This resonates with Girard's idea that the sacred is not an immanent property of an object but rather the result of a collective process.

Although Girard's theory provokes debate, especially regarding its universality and ability to account for gender aspects, it offers fertile ground for dialogue with theology and feminism. Its capacity to explain how violence and its suppression shape social order and the sacred remains relevant. The question of how exactly this sacred manifests in various cultural and religious contexts will be the subject of our further consideration.

The Nature of the Sacred and Its Manifestations in Culture

Discussing the compatibility of Girard's mimetic theory with theology and feminism inevitably leads us to the question of the very nature of the sacred. What is the sacred, and how does it manifest in human culture? Girard, as we recall, proposes not an essentialist but a functional approach, seeing the sacred as the result of collective violence and the mechanism of its management. However, there are other equally important perspectives.

Dwight Hopkins, for instance, suggests viewing culture as an integrated way of life that rejects false dichotomies between the sacred and the so-called secular [Hopkins, 2005]. In this paradigm, the sacred is not something separate, transcendent, opposed to the everyday but rather permeates all aspects of human existence. It is woven into the fabric of being, into labor, aesthetics, and spirit, forming a holistic worldview. This is especially evident in the context of African American liberation theology, where the culture of the people becomes "a human vessel for liberating divinity" [Hopkins, 2005]. Here, the sacred manifests not as something external but as an inner force driving toward liberation and self-determination.

At the same time, Steele offers a more pragmatic view of the sacred, arguing that violence becomes sacred when it restores lost meaning, binds the community, and ensures temporary peace [Steele, 2001]. In this perspective, archaic religion with its prohibitions, rituals, and myths acts as a social mechanism for managing violence. The sacred here is not so much divine revelation as a socially constructed tool for maintaining order. This echoes Girard's idea that sacrifice, being an act of violence, paradoxically prevents even greater violence by channeling it and restoring social harmony.

Ivona Janicka, analyzing Girard's theory, emphasizes that he criticizes object-oriented interpretations of culture, such as Freudian theories based on sexual objects or Marxist ones focused on economic objects [Janicka, 2015]. Girard considers such approaches "a mistaken schematization of culture" because they overlook the fundamental role of mimesis. For him, the advantage of mimetic theory lies in eliminating "false specifics of human existence," such as the incest taboo or economic motive, often regarded as primary driving forces.

Mimesis, according to Girard, operates within immanence while creating the impression of essence [Janicka, 2015]. Being is an effect of mimesis, acquired through continuous bodily repetition and fixed through sedimentation. This view resonates with Judith Butler's concept of performativity, where gender, for example, is understood as repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated actions within a strict regulatory framework that over time condense to create the appearance of substance, a natural kind of being [Janicka, 2015]. Here, the sacred, if considered as a stable, "natural" category, can also be a product of repeated mimetic practices and norms that over time acquire the status of inviolable.

Manifestations of the sacred are not limited to abstract concepts or rituals; they are deeply rooted in physical space and architecture. Nasser, for example, explores the metaphysical and ontological roots of universal design principles, aiming to go beyond mimetic processes and typological constraints in creating spaces [Nasser, 2022]. This suggests that the sacred can be embodied in the wisdom embedded in architectural forms that seemingly have no direct relation to religion but nevertheless evoke a sense of reverence or belonging.

Orlando Woods, in his study of evangelical house churches in Sri Lanka, demonstrates how the sacred can manifest in the most ordinary places, such as residential homes [Woods, 2013]. He notes that the boundary of the home—the door—is not only open but also a source of enchantment. In this context, church space is not confined to the walls of the house but extends outward through sound and social interaction. House churches, unlike traditional temples, offer more informal forms of interaction, allowing people, especially non-Christians, to enter this space more easily and experience Christianity. Here, the sacred becomes accessible, unburdened by strict rituals and symbolism, making it less "threatening" to those outside the denomination.

Indeed, "entering a church is like a taboo" for many, and the house church circumvents this obstacle by offering "a reduction of symbolism" [Woods, 2013]. This allows non-Christians to experiment with Christianity without suffering adverse consequences and social ostracism associated with attending "official" church services. The sacred can manifest not only in grand cathedrals but also in modest, everyday places where it becomes more inclusive and less alienating.

Sebola-Samanyanga emphasizes that the sacred is also closely linked to identity and places [Sebola-Samanyanga, 2025]. In her study of sacred sites in the Venda region, she identifies intangible values embedded in these spaces that are "key elements of identity." This means that the sacred does not merely exist in an abstract sphere but actively shapes people's self-awareness and their connection to specific territories. Places become sacred not only because of their presumed connection to the divine but also because they are repositories of collective memory, traditions, and identity.

Thus, the nature of the sacred proves to be multifaceted and dynamic. It can be an integrated way of life, as Hopkins suggests, or a pragmatic mechanism for managing violence, as Steele argues. It can be the result of mimetic processes shaping our identity, as Girard and Butler propose, or manifest in architecture and everyday spaces, as shown by Nasser and Woods. Importantly, the sacred is not a static category; it is constantly redefined and reinterpreted depending on cultural, social, and historical context. Understanding these various manifestations of the sacred becomes critically important for analyzing how society copes with violence and how mechanisms for its channeling are formed, which leads us to consider the evolutionary role of the scapegoat mechanism.

The Evolutionary Role of the Scapegoat Mechanism

If in the previous section we discussed the nature of the sacred as something that evokes reverential awe and terror, now it is worth considering how exactly this sacred is formed and maintained in society, especially through the lens of violence. René Girard offers a radical view of this process, asserting that the sacred does not merely exist but is actively constructed through collective violence, which finds expression in the scapegoat mechanism. This mechanism, according to Girard, is not a random act of cruelty but a fundamental social adaptation stabilizing society.

The scapegoat mechanism, as described by Girard, represents a kind of social valve that allows society to avoid complete collapse amid a mimetic crisis. When mimetic desire—that is, the desire to possess what another has—reaches a critical point, competition and envy can lead to a universal war of all against all. At this moment, to prevent self-destruction, collective violence is redirected onto one, often random, victim. This victim becomes the "scapegoat," onto whom all the community's sins and conflicts are projected. Riordan notes that Girard suggested that a new mechanism for suppressing intragroup conflict must have arisen simultaneously with our social traits and posited that this was a tendency to spontaneously unite around the victimization of individuals.

This very act of collective sacrifice, according to Girard, underlies the formation of religion, mythology, and cultural institutions. After the victim is sacrificed, tension subsides, and temporary reconciliation occurs in society. This reconciliation is perceived as a miracle, and the victim who brought this miracle becomes sacred. They are simultaneously the source of evil and the savior, explaining the ambivalence of the sacred. Riordan argues that this emotionally cathartic scapegoat mechanism, in his words, enhanced social cohesion and was the source of religion, mythology, sacrifices, rituals, cultural institutions, and social norms.

The sacred arises not from divine revelation but from collective violence that is then forgotten or mythologized.

James George Frazer, in his monumental work "The Golden Bough," describes numerous rituals and myths that, although not always directly linked to mimetic violence, nevertheless demonstrate the universality of the idea of sacrifice and expulsion of evil through symbolic or real victims. Frazer extensively studies beliefs and rites associated with "dying gods" and sacrificial kings, which, in his view, were intended to ensure the fertility and prosperity of the community. Although Frazer does not use Girardian terminology, his vast empirical material indirectly confirms that the idea of a substitute victim is deeply rooted in human culture.

However, unlike Frazer, who focused on describing rituals, Girard offers an explanation of their origin and function. He argues that myths and rituals are not merely naive beliefs but encrypted stories about the original act of collective violence. Myths conceal the true nature of the victim, portraying them as guilty to justify the crowd's violence. This allows society to forget its collective guilt and preserve social order.

The scapegoat mechanism is not merely a historical artifact but a constantly operating principle manifested even in modern societies. Imran emphasizes that mimetic theory "challenges and reconstructs the traditional interpretation of the problem of religious violence and critically analyzes the causes of hidden and overt violence, as well as the scapegoat mechanism, which functions both within cultures and in international relations, maintaining political and cultural order." This means that even in a secular world, we can observe processes where collective aggression is directed at certain groups or individuals who become symbolic "scapegoats" for resolving social problems.

Psychoanalytic studies also address the theme of sacrifice, albeit from a different perspective. W. W. Meissner, reviewing Martin S. Bergmann's book "In the Shadow of Moloch: Child Sacrifice and Its Impact on Western Religions," touches on the deep psychological roots of sacrifice, especially child sacrifice. Although psychoanalysis focuses on individual and collective unconscious processes, it also recognizes the powerful influence of archaic behavioral and thought patterns on the formation of cultural practices. The idea of sacrifice as a way to appease or eliminate threats permeates many ancient cultures, confirming its fundamental role in human psyche and social organization.

It is important to note that Girard does not merely describe the scapegoat mechanism as a historical fact but also points to its evolutionary role. He argues that this mechanism allowed human societies to survive and develop by preventing endless cycles of mimetic violence. Without it, humanity might not have transitioned from chaos to ordered existence. It is a kind of "cultural adaptation" that enabled the formation of the first forms of social order and legal systems.

However, despite its stabilizing function, the scapegoat mechanism always carries an element of injustice. The victim is usually innocent, but their guilt is postulated by the collective to achieve peace. Here Girard sees the uniqueness of Christianity, which, in his view, reveals the innocence of the victim and thereby desacralizes violence. Gospel texts, unlike archaic myths, do not conceal but rather expose the scapegoat mechanism, showing that Jesus was an innocent victim onto whom collective violence was projected.

Contemporary studies of the sacred, as noted by Robert J. Wallis and Jenny Blain, often include analyses of how various groups, including modern pagans, interact with sacred sites and stories. This shows that the sacred is not a static category but is constantly reinterpreted and recreated depending on cultural and social context. The scapegoat mechanism, although possibly hidden beneath layers of modern social practices, continues to influence the formation of collective identities and relations.

The evolutionary role of the scapegoat mechanism lies in its ability to transform destructive mimetic violence into constructive, though ambivalent, forms of social order and the sacred. It is the cornerstone upon which the first civilizations were built and remains a powerful, though often unconscious, force in the modern world. Understanding this mechanism allows us to critically examine the origins of many social phenomena, from religious rituals to political repression, and to question how we might overcome its destructive aspects without destroying the social fabric.

Criticism and Limitations

René Girard's theory, despite its explanatory power and broad application across various humanities disciplines, is not without critical remarks and limitations. One of the most significant limitations lies in its universalist claims. Girard strives to create a single model explaining the origin of violence and the sacred in all human cultures, which inevitably leads to ignoring or underestimating cultural differences and specificities. For example, his emphasis on mimetic desire as a universal driver of conflict may not fully account for the diversity of social structures and value systems that shape human behavior in different societies.

Another issue is that Girard, according to some critics, pays insufficient attention to non-conflictual forms of mimesis. Ivona Janicka [Janicka, 2015] points out that mimesis does not always lead to rivalry and violence; it also plays a key role in identity formation, learning, and socialization. If Girard's theory were more open to considering "peaceful" mimesis, it could offer a more complete picture of human interaction, not just its conflictual aspects. This might alter conclusions about the origin of the sacred, showing that it can arise not only from violence but also from collective imitation of positive models or striving for harmony.

Finally, Girard is often criticized for insufficiently accounting for gender aspects of desire and violence, especially in his early formulations. Toril Moi [Moi, 1982] notes that Girard cannot explain female desire, and his universal claims in this regard prove untenable. If Girard's theory were more sensitive to gender differences, it could offer a more nuanced analysis of how mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism manifest concerning women and how this affects their role in forming the sacred. Without such analysis, the question remains whether his model is truly universal or primarily reflects male experience and patriarchal structures.

Conclusions

• Contemporary religious studies move away from essentialist definitions of the sacred, focusing on its functions and contexts, allowing the inclusion of both traditional religious and secular manifestations in the analysis.
• René Girard's theory asserts that mimetic desire is the fundamental driving force of conflicts, and the sacred arises as a result of collective violence channeled through the scapegoat mechanism.
• The scapegoat mechanism, according to Girard, is an evolutionary adaptation that allows societies to avoid complete collapse by redirecting internal aggression onto a single victim, leading to temporary restoration of order and the formation of myths and rituals.
• Christianity, according to Girard, desacralizes violence by revealing the innocence of the victim and thereby undermining mimetic cycles, distinguishing it from archaic religions that conceal the true nature of sacrifice.
• Critics of Girard point to the potential universalization of his theory and insufficient attention to cultural differences, as well as difficulties in applying his concepts to gender aspects of desire, although attempts exist to reconcile his ideas with feminist approaches.
• The sacred manifests not only in grand religious rituals but also in everyday practices, architecture, and even mobile forms of worship, highlighting its dynamic and context-dependent character.
• Girard's mimetic theory can be applied to analyze contemporary social conflicts where mechanisms of collective violence and the search for "scapegoats" continue to operate, albeit without explicit religious veneer.