Beyond Rivalry

I'm reading Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present (2000). It's very readable for an 800-page book, though a bit heavy on the lap when sitting on the deck in the sun, and because Barzun's style is so conversational, it's highly quotable.

Here, very early on, is what Barzun says about revolutions, of which he posits there were four from 1500-2000: the 16th-century religious revolution; the 17th-century monarchical revolution; the "liberal, individualist 'French'" revolution straddling the 18th and 19th centuries; and the 20th-century 'Russian' revolution, "social and collectivist." He defines a revolution as "the violent transfer of power and property in the name of an idea."

Barzun takes two pages to describe the movement of a revolution from "ripple" to "tidal wave" -- something is done or said that "fits a half-conscious mood or caps a sitatuation," it's given airplay, news spreads, there's rumour, there are exaggerations and lies and misunderstandings, some other event related to the issue occurs and arouses emotions and passions, people feels their lives are upset, "manners are flouted" and insults become commonplace, buildings are defaced and looted, people read and talk about the issues with "delight or outrage," people takes sides and identify turncoats, people with a grudge take one side or the other, youths with high spirits catch the wave, leaders try to determine how they can benefit from the unrest, "voices grow shrill, parties form and adopt names or are tagged with them in derision and contempt," authorities try threats and concessions and hope the "surge of subversion will collapse."  

"Such," Barzun concludes, "is roughly, how revolutions 'feel.' The gains and the deeds of blood vary in detail from one time to the next, but the motives are the usual mix: hope, ambition, greed, fear, lust, envy, hatred of order and of art, fanatic fervor, heroic devotion, and love of destruction."

I find this a useful encapsulation of some of Rene Girard's primary ideas, as well as an interesting analysis and extrapolation of those ideas in the field of psychology.

He expresses well, I think, how desire works:

"The relationship of imitation (often mutual) between the desiring person and the mediator of their desire is deeply important. Objects of desire are largely interchangeable, but the bond between the individual and the mediator of his or her desire is far stronger than this. This relationship of imitation can be manifested in a deep attraction between the top mimetic partners, an attraction that can transform into antagonism with incredible ease. Both the attraction and the antagonism find a common source in the imitative relationship that exists between the two partners. In such a mimetic relationship the one who desires wants to be like the model of his or her desire in all things, to occupy their position." ...

"For instance, two friends desire the same woman and become each other’s rival. For Girard, the most important relationship in this classic love triangle is the relationship between the two friends. In such a relationship the woman may well be interchangeable with almost any other woman. What makes her significant is not what she is in herself, but what she is as surrounded by the aura of the other’s desire. She is desirable because she is desired by the other."  ...

"Mimetic desire can explain why we often chose as models of desire people who are indifferent to us or despise us (unsmiling models create the aura of desirability that goes with top brand products). Their indifference is seen to be indicative of a self-sufficiency that we lack. We desire to be self-sufficient like them and so we desire the objects that they desire." 

Notes from Alain de Botton's Status Anxiety (2004). The book generally aligns with mimetic theory and Girardian ideas; I've added a G near comments that seem to do so particularly.

This is the second post on this topic; the first is here.

CHAPTER 1 - LOVELESSNESS

Each adult is defined by two great love stories, (1) the quest for sexual love, and (2) the quest for love from the world. The first is acceptable and celebrated; the second is secret and shameful.

Love is a kind of respect, a sensitivity on the part of one person to another person's existence. It's attention, the feeling that one is the object of concern, that one's presence is noted, ones views are listened to, ones needs are ministered to. The loved one feels the "benevolent gaze of appreciation."

The impact of low status is not primarily material for most people. It's in the challenge that it poses to one's sense of self-respect. We will sustain many material hardships if we have an awareness of being held in esteem by others.

Being ignored drives us to "rage and impotent despair," said William James, in The Principles of Psychology, 1890. James also argued that "The attention of others matters to us because we are afflicted by a congenital uncertainty as to our own value." G  Others' judgments and responses to us hold us captive.

The place we occupy in the world determines how much love we are offered and in turn whether we can like ourselves or lose confidence in ourselves.