Double Bind
When a model notices that someone is imitating him and takes the imitator as his own model in return. The more that each party is drawn into mimesis and doubles down on the rivalry, the stronger the mimetic bond between them becomes. Each side is bound to the other (the double bind) because each side takes the other as a model. You could think of a mimetic double bind like two atoms or molecules that are bound together because of the way their energies are oriented.[1] [1] The term double bind comes from the work of anthropologist Gregory Bateson, known for his theory that schizophrenia originates in dual and contradictory messages.
Mimesis
A sophisticated form of adult imitation in adults that is usually hidden. In mimetic theory, mimesis has a negative connotation because it usually leads to rivalry and conflict—that’s one of the main reasons why Girard referred to the phenomenon with the word mimesis (from the Greek, μίμησις mīmēsis, from μιμεῖσθαι mīmeisthai, “to imitate”) and not the more common word imitation. People are more conscious of imitation than they are of mimesis.
Meme (Memetic) Theory
The field of mimetics studies how information and cultures develop based on principles of Darwinian evolution. The term meme was coined by ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. It was meant to evoke the word gene (from biology) because a meme is the cultural equivalent—words, accents, ideas, tunes, and more that spread from brain to brain through some process of replication or imitation. Despite the importance of imitation in meme theory, it is a completely distinct field of study.
Mimetic Theory
An explanation of social and cultural phenomena based on the role of imitation in human behavior—particularly, the imitation of desire (mimetic desire) and its consequences. The foundations of mimetic theory were laid by the French polymath René Girard in 1961 in his book Deceit, Desire, and the Novel, which described mimetic desire (what he usually referred to as “triangular” desire at the time). Girard’s initial insight into the structure of desire developed over the next several decades to include a unified set of ideas that came to be known as mimetic theory. The theory is built around a core set of interrelated ideas: mimetic desire, the mimetic nature of rivalry, mimetic desire as the origin of violence, the scapegoat mechanism, and the religious and cultural rituals, taboos, and prohibitions (the development of law) designed to prevent mimetic crises and resulting violence.
Mimetic Desire
Mimetic desire is desire according to another, or desire according to a model. Imitation is the force that shapes human desire. People desire things because someone else—a model—did first. When he was in early twenties, René Girard got his first glimpse into the structure of desire. During his university studies in France, he fell in love. After a short and intense period of courtship, he settled down into a stable relationship with his girlfriend. Then things changed in an instant. His girlfriend asked him if he wanted to get married. Right away, he experienced a decrease in desire. He quickly backed off. It wasn’t long before he ended the relationship. She accepted it, went her own way, and began dating other men. Then, suddenly, he was drawn back to her again. He noticed something that he found curious—and troubling. The more she denied herself to him, the more he wanted her. It was as if her desire for him somehow affected his desire for her. “I suddenly realized that she was both object and mediator for me—some kind of model,” he said. He became reattracted to her not because he suddenly saw some new quality in her that he hadn’t seen in her before; he became reattracted to her because she denied herself to him. She was modeling to him what he should want. Girard wouldn’t fully grasp what was happening until many years later when he saw this same dynamic playing out through human history and in current events. But even then, in his short romance, he saw that there was more to desire than most people believe—especially the hidden role of a model. The advertising and fashion industries have known this for decades. The creative agencies behind Superbowl commercials don’t simply show us the things they want us to buy. They almost always show us other people wanting the things they want us to buy. Apple’s iconic “1984” commercial doesn’t tout the technical merits of the new Apple computer; it shows a beautiful blonde athlete throwing a sledgehammer through the face of a man representing conformity (“Big Brother”). The woman in the commercial is a model—she makes it more likely that viewers will now want to battle conformity, too. (Of course, buying an Apple computer is the best way to do that.) People choose computers, food, and fashion at least as much with their mimetic brains, or imitative brains, as with their rational brains. Consider craft beer: did millions of amateur beer drinkers decide, almost simultaneously, that I.P.A.’s are (obviously) better than good Belgian ales? Not only do I disagree, but I don’t buy their illusion of autonomy. But these are just things. Far more important are the deeper mimetic desires to be a certain way—the desire for moral positions, recognition, spouses, schools, job titles and dreams. We’re immersed in it. A young girl posts a selfie to Instagram. She’s beaming next to her new boyfriend at a sushi restaurant. Her ex, who she hasn’t heard from in months, starts texting her the next day. A college guy with a new girlfriend introduces her to every guy he knows, secretly hoping that they’ll want her, too. When he senses that they don’t, he begins to doubt that he made the right choice. Five-year old Caleb finds a shiny red toy dump truck in the corner of his classroom that none of the other kids seemed to care about. As soon he expresses an interest in it, there’s an all-out war. Everyone wants to play with the cool new toy. Tim, a university freshman chooses to major in accounting because his friend (who seems like he has it all together) wants to be an accounting major. When he realizes later in life that he is miserable doing other peoples’ taxes—long after his model is gone—the mimetic nature of his desire to be an accounting major is revealed. Imitating a model is not dangerous if the desire is for something that is abundant and sharable—drinking a mass-produced wine, watching Game of Thrones, or getting into a large state school with a 90% acceptance rate. But things get more complicated when we imitate the desire for objects that are scarce and can’t easily be shared. According to economists, that’s a lot of things. For more a detailed, illustrated guide visit the page on author Luke Burgis’s website on Mimetic Desire 101.
Imitation
Taking someone or something else as a model for action. Children are experts at imitation; adults usually mask it. Imitation is the positive force driving childhood development, adult learning, and the acquisition of virtue. Imitation is neutral—we can either imitate positively (what I refer to as “emulation”) or negatively. The value of imitation is a function of both the model being imitated (where the model stands in relation to you and the quality of that model’s example) and the quality of imitation (rivalrous or non-rivalrous). Imitation is different than mimesis, which is hidden, masked, disguised–the adult version of childhood imitation.
Mimesis Versus Imitation
Mimesis is a funny word. It would make Strunk & White (who taught us never to use unnecessary or overly complicated words) cringe. So why use it? It turns out there’s a good reason Quite simply, mimesis is not the same as imitation. It refers to something far more common, far more powerful, and far more hidden. The Etymology of Mimesis Mimesis comes from the Greek word mīmeisthai, which means “to imitate.” But the reason that we use the fancy, Greek-derived word “mimesis” rather than “imitation”—and why it’s mimetic theory, and the Mimetic Summit, not imitation theory or the Imitation Summit (who would want to go to that?)—is because the English word “imitation” doesn’t capture the essence of one very strange aspect of human behavior. An Example of Mimesis Imagine you let twenty kindergartners loose in a classroom full of toys and tell them to go have at it. You tell them to play until their hearts are content. There are not only enough toys for every kid—there are 10 times the amount of times as there are kids. 200 toys. Duplicates of many. Scattered all over the room. What happens? Ask any teacher (or parent, for that matter). One child takes a casual interest in a toy. This arouses the interest of a second child. The second child’s interest in the toy awakens a stronger desire for it in the first child, which awakens a stronger desire for it in the second child as she sees how tightly he’s clinging to it. Meanwhile, three versions of the same toy lying on the floor beyond her. It’s not long before other kids begin to be interested in the toy. Soon three of them have their paws on it, trying to yank it away from the others and possess it for themselves. But ask any of the kids who wanted it first, and they will always tell you that it was them. “I had it first!” says the first kid. Sure, he had it. But did he really want it? “But I wanted to play with it first!” protests the second child, unaware that she wouldn’t have given it a second thought had she not noticed it in the hands of the first girl, with the pretty red bow in her hair. (If only she had that toy, maybe she’d look as cute and happy as that girl!) None of the kids—and none the adults in the room—will be able to locate the first moment of desire for the toy—because there is none. Desire, it turns out, is social. The toy that the kids were fighting over didn’t stir up any desire at all; it was the other children who did. And none of them, individually, generated this desire. It was the result of a complex process of imitation. Actually, of mimesis. The Relevance of Mimesis It was Girard who, beginning in the 1960s, began to see the importance of imitation to explain a much larger proportion of human behavior than was ever imagined. While Plato and Aristotle and their heirs confined imitation to behaviors and words and external “things”, Girard realized that human powers of imitation extend into the very core of our beings—to what we desire and to how we form our identities. Mimesis, then, is a constituent part of human nature. In a world in which the role of imitation has been downplayed and relegated to something that should be avoided at all cost (Silicon Valley exemplifies this attitude), Girard’s theory was radical, provocative, and dangerous. That’s because the very people who despise imitation and flee from it at all costs are themselves engaged in the deepest and most hidden forms of imitation—a kind of imitation that has been driven into the “underground,” where it is better known as mimesis. It’s an underground hell from which many people are trying to escape.
Imitation, Mirror Neurons, and Mimetic Desire: Convergence Between the Mimetic Theory of René Girard and Empirical Research on Imitation – by Scott Garrels
Scott Garrels, of Fuller Theological Seminary in California, says this: “Psychological mimesis is the tendency of human beings to imitate the gestures, behaviors, and intentions of other persons; it is the very cornerstone upon which the entire work of René Girard is constructed. From this foundation, Girard has made a number of bold claims about human nature and the resulting origin and structure of human culture and religion. The scope of Girard’s work is immense and has far-reaching implications across such diverse disciplines as anthropology, primitive religion, psychology, literary analysis, theology, and philosophy. Check out Imitation, Mirror Neurons, and Mimetic Desire
Mimesis and Science: Empirical Research on Imitation and the Mimetic Theory of Culture and Religion
by Scott R. Garrels This exciting compendium brings together, for the first time, some of the foremost scholars of René Girard’s mimetic theory of culture, with leading imitation researchers from the cognitive, developmental, and neuro-sciences. These chapters explore some of the major discoveries and developments concerning the foundational, yet previously overlooked, role of imitation in human life, revealing the unique theoretical links that can now be made from the neural basis of social interaction to the structure and evolution of human culture and religion. Together, mimetic scholars and imitation researchers are on the cutting edge of some of the most important breakthroughs in understanding the distinctive human capacity for both incredible acts of empathy and compassion as well as mass antipathy and violence. As a result, this interdisciplinary volume promises to help shed light on some of the most pressing and complex questions of our contemporary world. Check out Mimesis and Science on Amazon.