The Master who encourages his student to acquire his knowledge, the Occidental capitalism which looked with benevolence (even with condescension) the efforts of the Nipponese economy to copy its products are in the same situation as our be in love seen previously. The veneration of the subject is initially used to confirm this difference, this superiority.

The adoration of the subject feeds itself with this pride which makes the model so desirable : the student intends at least equalling the Master, the Nipponese economy to make as well as the Occidental economy. The more the subject imitates the model and the less what separates them becomes perceptible, difference(s) being properly absorbed by the first.

Let us look at how Jean-Marc Reiser had illustrated, in 1971, the relationship between rich and poor (We live in a formidable age - Editions Albin Michel) :

etc.

I cannot reproduce the totality of the page here, but it is rather interesting to linger on the representation which Reiser gives of the model, in this case the "rich". As you can notice, at a certain moment, this one is so irritated by the imitative behaviour of the subject (the "poor") that the go on holiday will become completely secondary. If he is incited to travel around the world initially once, then two, then four, it is not for visit it any more but only he wants to have the last word on the "poor", who persists in doing like him.

The glance of the last character, who is the one that "loops" the circle of this rivalry, is now turned towards his imitator. In the following image, this one will be presented in a way nearly identical to the model and looking at, him also, in the direction where his rival is supposed to be. The two fundamental elements of the mimetic hypothesis are indeed there : the differences between model and subject were abolished, the object of the circularity of the behaviors totally faded to leave place to the only rivalry between them.

To reintroduce difference in the relation model-subject is not sufficient. Any "attempt to escape " could last only a time, because what would make the model would be immediatly imitated by the subject.

When the student has same knowledge as the Master, there is naturally either no more student or master, but two people having the same knowledge : the initial hierarchy which allowed to place both in the world, one compared to the other in their relation, is abolished. The model feels the danger that this confusion can present for him, this indifferentiation which would become the worst of the situations. Especially since always exists the risk that the student overtakes the Master and that the original is regarded soon as the copy. But the more the mimetic rivals are close and try to be different and the more they end up resembling each other.

The question of the loss of the differences is central in the Girard's hypothesis. All the aspects of the human cultures are founded on the permanent creation of differences which allow to place each one and all things. The archetypal sentence "The man is the only animal who knows that he will die " is a very good illustration, which marks out instantaneously the mankind. Our need for comprehension and for organization of the world is realized thanks to this permanent creation of differences, in which we see the incomparable wealth/variety of the humanity.

In fact, we live and think in a system essentially differentialist. A certain positive thought moreover considers that the sense could arise only from a situation of imbalance between two terms and this urges us always to look what separates to understand. In front of the identical one, we immediately try to distinguish. For proof our attitude in front of twins: most of the time, we try to find at least a characteristic in one or the other one, which would allow us to know who is who.

The mimetic desire leads to abolish these differences, therefore to make confused all the preexistent reference marks. If nothing of what distinguished me from my neighbor exists any more, who am I really ?

Next >