Dealing with Violence: Fight Club's Assumptions

my good library buddy here at the seminary sent me this review of Fight Club. The author concludes that "The result of Tyler’s and the narrator’s use of violence is, unsurprisingly, violence without end." i wish the author would have written a longer article as to how he sees that this would be the result of Fight Club. I mean, i think i can see it, but i need it explained lest my own assumptions get in the way.

and i think that's where i'll start, my own thoughts on what Mimetic Theory and Fight Club assume about the nature of humanity and what not.

Mimetic theory's main assumption is that human beings are not inherently violent, that somewhere along the way violence was introduced and then others learned from there on and the cycle is continually renewed. When we turn to human history, with a citation found from this article by Alfie Kohn stating that some of the points made by critics of biological determinism are:

• Even if a given behavior is universal, we cannot automatically conclude that it is part of our biological nature. All known cultures may produce pottery, but that does not mean that there is a gene for pottery-making.
• Agression is no where near universal. Many hunter-gatherer societies in particular are entirely peaceful. And the cultures that are "closer to nature" would be expected to be the most warlike if the proclivity for war were really part of that nature. Just the reverse seems to be true.
• While it is indisputable that wars have been fought, the fact that they seem to dominate our history may say more about how history is presented than about what actually happened.
• Many people have claimed that human nature is aggressive after having lumped together a wide range of emotions and behavior under the label of aggression. While cannibalism, for example, is sometimes perceived as aggression, it might represent a religious ritual rather than an expression of hostility.

 But then there's another side of science that takes the opposite track. I think this is the side that Fight Club assumes, that humans are inherently violent and aggressive. This is the belief, popularized by Sigmund Freud and animal researcher Konrad Lorenz, that we have within us, naturally and spontaneously, a reservoir of aggressive energy. This force, which builds by itself, must be periodically drained off - by participating in competitive sports, for instance - or we'll explode in some awful violent action.  in some ways, Mimetic Theory assumes this as well with the scapegoat mechanism.

 

Richard Dawkins (yes, THAT Dawkins) argued in the Selfish Gene that "The general principle that behavior evolves to serve selfish ends has been widely accepted; and the idea that humans might have been favored by natural selection to hate and to kill their enemies has become entirely, if tragically, reasonable."

 

How about we mix the two? Let's mix that the idea that aggression is a natural tendency that must be drained periodically (Fight Club) and violence being a learned behavior (Mimetic Theory), then we see a larger, fuller picture emerge. Innate tendencies such as competition and pride mixed with the way in which a society functions can bring about the need for violent action due to the circumstances of a situation. After all, we are creatures of circumstance. We adapt and react to the world around us, and because of this there are times when we must engage in violent activity. However, we can use culture as a means to create a situation where competitive means for survival are unneeded, but until there is a united effort to reform the way we interact with the world, violence is just an unfortunate consequence. so therefore a united effort is needed to reform the way we interact! That is what Fight Club does. 

 

 Going back to Tyler's vision that Fight Club is after: 

"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."

This sounds rather peaceful, tribal. A return to simplicity.  Fight Club, as i interpret it, attacks the dehumanization that is taking place in soceity. In 8 simple rules, it provides structure, friendship, vulnerabilty, and an empowering outlet in a life that otherwise depowers and dehumanizes. when you punch another person, you see the immediate result and reaction of the other person, not so when you gossip about them or post blog entries about them ;-). in some ways, it is a more honest and open form of violence, one i feel more comfortable with as it doesn't beautify it or refine it. it's real, it hurts, and there is consquences like loosing teeth and explaining away blackeyes.

i think in the Fight Club model, empathy is the result. shared experiences of the fighters bind them together in a true community. like the priest hugging his opponent after a fight. or how every member mourns their martyr "Robert Paulson."

of course, to say that Fight Club is the answer and a means to end the cycle of violence or perpetuate it infinately is pure spectulation. the movie doesn't give us what happens after the buildings blow up. it does give us plenty of evidence to speculate ON, but never enough to go one way or another.

i stand on the side that Fight Club presents a "system shock" model that is counter-cultural and that leads to true community and a new means of ordering society. much like the system shock model we find in the gospels that lead to a new community that the rammifications are still being played out 2,000 years past.

it's hard to figure out, can Fight Club's violent means reach a nonviolent end? My deontologist leanings (right ends by way of right means) cringes at the thought... but my Christian leanings say otherwise (paradox of the Cross and blood of Christ). not to say that these are separate from each other, but it's the best way i can catagorize and try to explain how my thinking is torn.

how do you see it? can peace be reached through violence? or is it like Gandhi stated "There is no way to peace, peace is the way"? is humanity inherently violence and will we ever get over it? by what means can we escape violence?

Egypt for Beginners

I just got back from Egypt for my cross-cultural experience for seminary. 18 women and 4 men, now I understand the concept of fraternity! :-) It's not a mission trip, we go to get a better handle on our culture and Christianity in the larger context of the world. Food was great and I have PLENTY of stories to share.

here are my pix from the trip.. all of them, all at once.

I call Steve "Wadi" (which is a dry river bed that flash floods every now and then) cause it fits his personality. He's an all or nothing kinda guy!

the videos are here on my Youtube channel, but i will be post them on the blog with commentary that will hopefully provide even more insight to those who wanna learn about the Egyptian culture and history. here's the video from the first day:



it's interesting when one hits the ground what initial observations one makes. here i noted that it's interesting to be "different" and stared at by little kids. we were even followed! plus add in the shock of 25 million people in one city with jet lag and holy moly! but that priviledge was with me most of the trip. some people go through their whole lives like that, always in the 'other' category. i only have a vague understanding of this and am no where near understanding what people in this position go through on a regular basis, but the shock of it was interesting and eye opening.

as Peggie McIntosh stated in her article "White Priviledge: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"

I realized that, since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there was most likely a phenomenon of while privilege that was similarly denied and protected. As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.

it's one thing to see it, it's a whole other thing to experience it. granted this shock wore off after the first day and once we realized that we were 'safe' and that we were also visiting and would be going back to our culture in two weeks time.

Privilege for me is a double-edged sword. some use it to get others to be aware of it for educational purposes as well as part of a good practice of citizenship. others, however, seem to use it to guilt people and gain the upper-hand. there's a fine line between awareness of privilege and white guilt and being an ex-Catholic, i'm not a believer in guilt.

needless to say i'm aware of it, this trip sure helped that. i hope to make others aware and in this awareness, make the grounds for mutually enriching dialogues. i think this will be a main part of my future ministry, awareness and radical hospitality to all 'others' and hopefully in this dialogue and hospitality we see that there is no 'other' only us and our common humanity.

Victims

Interesting phenom with people finding and owning their own victimhood this year in seminary.

I think it's healthy to find and recognize how a system excludes and oppresses people, no matter what! Issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc should be examined to the Nth degree. What I weary of is the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed. What I mean in this context here at seminary is when people fall in love with their victimhood and wield their victimhood like a club.

as the saying goes, hurt people hurt people.

It's ironic that these people are now victimizing others with their victimization! they have become what they hate.



Bryce, my seminary library buddy, wrote in his review of James Alison's book Faith Beyond Resentment, "When we self-righteously occupy the position of the victim, demanding retribution and recompense for the abuses we have suffered at the hands of human authorities with their violent enforcement mechanisms, we are not able to move into the area of identifying with the oppressors as our brothers and sisters who are also trapped in the same systems that we occupy."

in other words, for full reconciliation to happen we must give up our victimhood. now this might look like a white male trying to keep his priviledge by dismissing people's experience due to racial, gender, or other issues... i assure you i am not. what I am saying is that if i'm to meet you where you are, i'd hope you'd respect me enough to do the same. no boxes or stereotypes... just two people with their experience looking for common ground.

using a personal example: i have been victimized and you didn't do it! the fact someone is Catholic will not color my opinion of them but i sure do have a slant on the Catholic church! i will share that experience and see if it matches/clashes with theirs. i've met some kindred spirits and i've met people who absolutely LOVE the Catholic church and i'm friends with both and we understand each other. shouldn't this understanding be what we're after in terms of race/gender/LGBT issues/cultural/geo-political/religious/etc. issues in general?!

how far off am i?

Thanks to Bryce for the link and being a sounding board... for a fuller, more thoughtful discussion, check out Bryce's post on Alison's book.

Wicked Tenants

Given at Trinity Reformed Mountville, October 5, 2008 based on Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matt 21:33-46

We gather today, this Sunday which is World Communion Sunday. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is the oldest and I’d say greatest symbol of the Christian church. It reflects our call to commune with the whole world, not just by breaking bread with our fellow Christian, but with the whole world. We are Christians in our neighborhood, our country, and our world. So it is ironic that the parable of the Wicked Tenants falls on this Sunday. I can’t think of a less-communal parable than this one.

I’m going to come right out and say it, I don’t like this parable. I don’t think Jesus said this, I think the early church did.


Now I think the bible is a collection of the most amazing, beautiful, deep, inspired, engaging, and DIFFICULT writings ever. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be wasting all this time in seminary studying it. The ancient rabbis said that the scriptures are like a 70-sided gem, and each time you turn the gem, the light refracts differently, giving you a reflection you haven’t seen before. And we keep turning the text again and again because we keep seeing things we missed the time before. What a beautiful metaphor.

However, when I hear people say “the bible says…” I am immediately suspicious. The bible doesn’t say ANYTHING! It sits there. It’s up to our interpretation of what it means. The great theologian Karl Barth said that "when we read the bible we aren’t reading the word of God, we’re reading FOR the word of God.”

We’re reading FOR the word of God. In that light, I can read this parable and be challenged by it and yet still recognize that God’s word is still somewhere in this story. And I really don’t have a problem with this story so much, as I do with the interpretation of this story.

So when I hear some people interpret the bible, I just want to throw up. Can I say that? Church is the place for confessing, so I guess I can. Some interpretations are dangerous to humanity.

This story is interpreted to be an allegory, which is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning. The parable of the wicked tenant farmers has long been interpreted as an allegory describing the murderous lengths to which Jews would go to resist God. Murdering the SON allegorized to be Jesus was the last straw. As a result, God abandoned Israel. For the crucifixion, the Jews were to endure extreme punishment: the calling of the gentiles and the casting out of the Jews.

This parable is found in Mark (12:1-12), Luke (20:9-19, and Gospel of Thomas (65-66). Difference between these is that Thomas has the shortest version and the vineyard is not given to “others” as in Matthew but “to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom.” I’ll repeat that as well, the vineyard is give to “people that produce fruits of the kingdom.”

The parable is set up like a typical share-cropper arrangement. The tenant or renter supplied all the labor in running that vineyard for the year, & then at harvest time the tenant or renter got two-thirds of the harvest, & the owner received one-third! That's the kind of deal that this parable is all about, a simple rental agreement between the tenants & the owner of the vineyard, on a share basis! But trouble began to develop when this group of tenants decided to take more than their fair share! They wanted all of the harvest for themselves, & were even willing to kill for it!
The idea that God has taken the blessing away from the Jews and put it on the Christians has lead to anti-Semitism. This is Christian triumphalism at its worst. Christian triumphalism is like bad sportsmanship. It means we’re rubbing the fact that we won the game, namely God loves US and NOT the Jews. The Jews on the other hand didn’t realize they were playing a game in the first place and have no idea what we’re talking about. How can this claim that WE WIN! GOD LOVES US MORE! NA-NA-NA-Boo-Boo, be advanced by the same people who will, in the same breath, say that God does not change? This is a pretty big change here!

Why do I not like this parable? Actually, I do like it, it does have some positive things in it, I just don’t like how some people interpret it. The idea of the vineyard was a traditional metaphor for Israel as we heard in Isaiah. God has high hopes for Israel, his vineyard, and then it utterly disappointed at Israel’s sins and the future destruction of the vineyard. Wicked Tenants is best read as a criticism about US! NOT a criticism of THE JEWS. It should be read in the light of God’s unfathomable grace and ongoing faithfulness and mercy to all people.

That’s what this parable does; it sets up an “US vs. THEM” mentality. What we need to realize is that there is no THEM! There is only US! We are the wicked tenants. We become that when we think we own something that isn’t ours… namely God’s truth as revealed through Jesus Christ. I’ll testify that I don’t have the market cornered on Jesus. Neither does the UCC, the MCC church down the street, the Methodist church, LCBC, no one. The moment we think we have THE TRUTH we become the wicked tenants. God is still speaking. We are in the process of figuring out the truth, we are living in it. We are looking for God’s revealed word and helping others to do the same.

When Christians announced the way of Jesus as “Good news” they announced it to everyone, Jew and Gentile. However, announcing this caused them to be kicked out of the Jewish community and uninvited to the synagogue. How traumatic that must have been. That is where this parable comes from. So in this parable we see the early Church’s struggle with God’s will. Where you and I can get into trouble is when we think that this excludes any particular person or group from God’s love.

The message of Jesus invites everyone into communion. The sinners and the prostitutes, even the scribes and priests! Here is the most important thing to remember, I can be in communion and still have questions and doubts and room for improvement. No one has it all figured out.

What we need to do is not become the wicked tenants who resist God’s urging. We can learn so much from our Jewish brothers and sisters and we are called to love them! God can speak through rabbis just as easily as through seminary interns and catholic priests and ordained UCC ministers and laypeople—you! So when we think that we have it down, when we think that OUR opinions are the right ones (and we all do, because if we didn’t we’d get new ones) God sends prophets to remind us that we don’t have it all figured out. God sends people to remind us that we must continue to turn the gem of scripture and see how the light refracts.

Jesus talks about this “in and out” in a lot of his teachings. He keeps insisting that the people who assume they are in may not be in and the ones who everyone thinks are out for whatever reason may in fact be in. So let’s not assume that we’re IN and THEY! (whoever THEY are) are out. There’s room in heaven enough for us all if we produce the fruits of the kingdom.

The worst thing we could possibly do is use this parable to hurt our Jewish brothers and sisters. When we do this, we become the wicked tenants. We Christians have been tending our corner of the vineyard for two millennia and our record is spotty at best; shameful and horrible at worst.

Today is world communion Sunday meaning that Christian churches all over the world are celebrating communion. What does communion mean? It’s more than just breaking bread, its breaking bread in remembrance of Jesus and a symbol to all Christians that we are connected through our faith. We are connected to each other and we are called to love our neighbor. If our neighbor is Jewish, we are called to be in communion with them. If our neighbor is Muslim, the same applies. If our neighbor is Black, Asian, homosexual, voting for Obama, McCain or other. This is what it means to be in communion with one another. We are Christians, communion is what we are called to do!

So in the end I say to you, Coexist! Love your neighbors as yourself. The rest is commentary. They’ll know we are Christians by our love. Amen.

Works Cited
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline. Harper Torchbooks 1970.
Origen was the first to talk about the literal and spiritual meanings in his On First Principles around 240 CE.
Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, Repainting the Christian Faith. Zondervan Publishing 2005.
Julie Galambush, The Reluctant Parting, How the New Testaments’ Jewish Writers Created a Christian Book. HarperCollins, 2005
The "rest is commentary" quote comes from Rabbi Hillel, found in the book Alfred J Kolatch The Second Jewish Book of Why. Jonathan David Publishers, Inc.; Middle Village, New York, 1985

We are in Love with WAR

We Americans have a tragic facination and love of war. Anytime someone learns that I'm against war people ask me about WWII. This has been a sticking point for many Americans as they feel we were justified completely in ending this war against a facist tyrannical and genocidal institution. It's our favorite war. Many have fallen in love with this war and try to make all other American war actions equal or somehow related to this war.

I know what war does to people who fought in it. I've seen what it did to my Grandfather's psyche and the effects it has caused on our family. It is tragic that such a young man had to suffer and spend the rest of his life the way he did. Yes, there are acts of heroism and yes it was good of us to stop a massacre. But that's not why we went into that war. We didn't fight in that war to protect other people or to restore peace. We fought that war (and all wars in my opinion) for economic purposes. A recent WIRED article, found by Rachael, states that most reasons for fighting are clouded by our the subconscious mechanism of self-preservation that causes us to grossly overestimate the danger of highly unlikely threats (West Nile virus, terrorist attacks, abduction, plane crashes, shark attacks) and underestimate far more serious, if mundane, threats (car accidents). The fact of the holocaust should have been enough to enter in and fight, but this fact didn't become known until way after the war. So then WWII isn't as neat and clean or valliant as we Americans would like to believe.

Here is my over-simplified way of thinking: Before I'm an American, I'm a Christian. Before I'm a Christian, I'm a human, like everyone else. War is the practice of prioritizing unneeded things over humanity. This practice is wrong every single time.War is never good. War can never be justified. Peace is not A way, it is the ONLY way.

This is not anti-military. You may notice that when i say hi, i salute (a proper one at that), and in this gesture i'm honoring my grandfather, my uncles, and many friends in the military. I am a patriot, not a nationalist. I love my country but fear my government.


thanks to Nick for the video find!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

check out a related post over at Sam's blog, Opossum's Creed:Our Final Undeclared War.

Life Lessons in a Flower Pot

thanks to all the pollsters who want to hear more personal experience... great suggestion! i'll have to start covering that more in my blog posts. now i shall begin my third post for this week, sorry if i'm overwhelming y'all out there...

i operate on the assumptions that there is no such thing as secular and there is no such thing as coincidence. i'm really into synchronisity. being attuned to the ever transmitting divine help you see the world as illuminated.

here's personal experience that highlights this: Last night someone stole a clay flower pot that i had decorated. i painted it and dremelled out a design in the clay and WOW was it awesome. i spent a lot of time on it and now it's gone. well such is life as well. you spend a lot of time in life only to have it be gone all too soon. i miss that pot. i storm off and pray and then start to feel strangely humbled that someone else saw the beauty in it! i'm sad that the person couldn't ask me to make them one but will be happy to offer that if i ever find out who took it.


a traditional route would be to declare that person a sinner and a thief and actively hunt them down for retributive violence.. directly ignoring the life and teachings of Jesus. this is mimetic theory in action, the retributive violence that only perpetuates and reciprocates, never solving anything.

now as i walk around i am looking for this pot. i'm noticing a lot of cool stuff too! the trees in bloom, the layout of garden'n, and other ppl's pots (OPP?). I'm out noticing God's good work, how people beautify their environment, and i'm considering the lilies. i also recognize that i had a pot to plant it in the first place (Just read Jessica's post about those who don't even have that!)

hope this rant is of some light and some coherence on how i see the world. i hope this helps you, dear reader, to recognize that the water in which we swim is divine.

;-) keep rawk'n out!

Mimetic Theory in Action

Hey y'all, remember that scary Mimetic Theory i talked about in this post and this other post?

Well since I will now point out daily applications of what i post about, i figured i'd start here. The best instance of Mimetic Theory can be found the best show on TV today... BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!

Remember when Lee gives an empassioned speech in defense of Baltar? That's Mimetic Theory!

Lee points out a string of incidents, some involving himself, where people were forgiven for serious crimes, and defends those decisions, arguing that humanity is not a real civilization anymore. Adama thinks that executing Baltar for actions that he couldn't really prevent is not justice, and that Baltar is just the Fleet's scapegoat for everyone's misdeeds and failures on New Caprica. The speech plays a major role in Baltar's subsequent acquittal.

I couldn't find a video of Lee's speech, but you can listen to it here!



GO WATCH BATTLESTAR! IT'S THE BEST, MOST RELEVANT SHOW ON TV!!!!

The Old Way Trodden by the Victim

As Hellion stated, this theory is pretty scary. It rips the thin veil of civility off humanity and exposes a violent mechanism at work. Here's my way of remembering Mimetic Theory: People are always desire'n things. They form groups so their desire gaining is multiplied. Sole purposes of groups are to deny resources to other groups. Get it? The church role in this would be to be a group that doesn't act like a group... that acts counter to what a group is supposed to do. Groups like The Jaycees, Habitat For Humanity, OxFam, etc etc. all fight that.

So the point of Mimetic Theory is to stop violence. this would essentially put ppl like Rush, Bill O'Reilley, and Ann Dumpface Coulter out of their jobs of hating the "others" that make 'Merica bad. Can't villify the LGBT community as marriage was failing without their help, and we'd fail to see the connection between "ruining the institution of marriage" and allowing same-sex marriages. Just like the recession and unemployment being blamed on the "mexicans" who are supposedly taking all the jobs. we'd see it being more of a mix of corporations SENDING jobs away as well as Americans not wanting to do certain jobs...The picking of any victim, or "other" to solve the problem is ultimately arbitrary and the peace is short-lived.

Let's take a look at Job and Jesus through the lens of Mimetic Theory.

In his book Job the Victim of His People, Girard postulates that the story is very simple. Job was ostracized and persecuted by the people around him. He was the scapegoat of the community.

Job was once the idol of his people, a man who was successful, wealthy and powerful. He was emulated and desired. But this provoked rivalry first among his friends and then the people at large. In the end this process was mystified and Job's friends believe that he was the cause of his own misfortunes and seek his salvation. Job maintains his innocence through the whole book. He thinks God is persecuting him and thus refused to acquiesce in the process of victimage. This obsures the story then for what it really is argues Girard. The text obscures the guilt of the people and places the blame on God.

Like Job, Jesus is also made a scapegoat; an innocent who is first the admired hero of his people and then is the abject victim who is sacrificed to resolve social tensions. Like in this previous post, Jesus was subversive. Jesus endangers his society's security to the point where the leaders fear divine wrath. But unlike Job, Jesus refuses the accusations of his persecutors. The Gospels lay bare the scapegoat mechanism directly.

Jesus refuses to place responsibility for violence anywhere except on those who are its perpetrators. Did the Jews kill Christ? No. Did the Romans? It was a Roman style execution specifically for enemies of the state (the Jews would have stoned him). Jesus however, practices what he preached. He forgives his murderers and ends any furthering scapegoating (however the Church later picked up this practice!). Jesus simply enacts the logic of a God who refuses violence.

God is the victim and so cannot act as the persecutors, reciprocating their violence. God's response is completely contrary to human society and history, utterly pacific: return of forgiveness for violence.

some good references to read more on Mimetic Theory can be found at PreachingPeace.org under introductory articles... check it out! also check out Girard's library! it's fantastic and i neeeed to dive into more of it.

moving on to some personal current events, today starts the first day of the spring semester. i'm taking Intro to Education Ministries, Jesus and the Gospels, Intro OT part II, Pastoral Care, and Jewish Commentary with Rabbi Jack! I'm really excited to start! I'm also excited for spring.. it's like -5 here and Sonny's leaving little pee-sickles all over Lancaster. Can't wait until it warms up.

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World

I've just started reading some essays by Rene Girard. I've been instructed to read this dude by a variety of sources including Bryce, whom i work with at the library. Girard is the creater of an idea, an idea so powerful that Girard finds it in the foundation of all others. But it's not really an idea, it's more a mechanism, a non-conscious working of the social body, operative everywhere in human history.

This is called Mimetic Theory. The structure of the theory goes something like this:
Desire is triangular as no one simply desires an object spontaneously, but learns the desire from another.
Conflict and rivalry then occurs over the desired object.
Death occurs. This fulfillment then is not the attaining of the object of desire but the denial of the rival.

Take for example the family. Girard basis this in the context of Freud's Oedipal desire. Freud thinks that the founding even of society was the collective murder of the father by the brothers in the primal horde. Guiltstricken by what they had done the brothers then divinized their father and denied themselves the very think for which they commited the patricide: the sexual use of the hordes females.

This is the fundamental truth hidden since the foundation of the world says Girard in his book Violence and the Sacred; the collective murder of an arbitrary victim. So the violence is then endless, obeying the simple law of mimetic reciprocation (vegeance). It was discovered somewhere down the line in this history that peace was re-established through finding and killing a single and common enemy to whom all attributed their misfortune. This simple event-killing of one by all- founds soceity, religion, and all other major social institutions. This is called the scapegoat mechanism.

Sometimes the scapegoat undergoes a transformation in death. Since the death brought peace, the murdered then becomes a saviour of the group. People then use ritual reenactments of the saving murder, which becomes the institution of sacrifice.

Such scapegoat murders can be applied to Jesus, MLK Jr., JFK, and more. Here we have the exact pattern Girard spoke of. Someone comes with a new revolutionary idea. These people are popular, fall from grace, and are then killed or assassinated. In death these people become the savior or to the least iconic.

But does this bring about a lasting peace? More on this later!