Unraveling Mimetic Theory: Are Our Desires Truly Ours?

BY AASHKA TANK

Human desires have long been a subject of philosophical and psychological exploration. From ancient thinkers like Plato and Aristotle to contemporary scholars, understanding the origins and nature of our desires has been an ongoing quest. One intriguing perspective that sheds light on this topic is René Girard's mimetictheory.Thistheorydelvesintothe ideathatourdesiresarenotinherentlyour own butareinstead shaped by thedesires of others around us. In this article, we will explore mimetic theory, the concept of Maya from Indian philosophy, and the implicationstheyholdfortheautonomyof ourdesires.

MimeticTheory:A BriefOverview

René Girard, a French historian, literary critic, and philosopher, introduced mimetic theory in the mid-20th century. At its core, mimetic theory proposes that human desires are imitative in nature. It suggests that individuals do not develop desires in isolation, but rather, their desires are influenced by the desires and actions of others in their social environment. Girard argues that imitation is fundamental to human behavior from infancy onwards. Babies learn by imitating the gestures and expressions of their caregivers. This mimetic tendency continues into adulthood, impacting our preferences, choices, and aspirations. According to Girard, this process of imitation leads to a cycle of "mimetic rivalry," where individuals desire the same objects due to their observation of others' desires. As mimetic rivalry intensifies, it can lead to competition and conflict. When multiple individuals desire the same object, tensions arise, potentially resulting in aggression and rivalry. Girard's theory suggests that much of human conflict, both on an individual and societal level, can be traced back to this imitative desire and the resulting competition.

Indian Philosophy and the Concept of Maya

Drawing upon Indian philosophy, particularly Advaita Vedanta, the concept of Maya offers another perspective on the shaping of desires. Maya refers to the illusion or appearance of the material world, which obscures the true nature of reality. According to Advaita Vedanta, individuals are often ensnared by Maya, leading them to develop desires for transientandmaterialisticpursuitsthatare ultimately illusory.

Maya underscores the idea that external factors, including societal norms and materialpossessions,playasignificantrole inshapingdesires.Thisalignswithmimetic theory's assertion that our desires are influenced by our environment and the desiresofothers.

Distinction Between Physical and Metaphysical Goods

Within the realm of desires, it is crucial to distinguish between physical and metaphysical goods. Physical goods encompass material possessions, sensory pleasures, and external status symbols. These desires are often shaped by societal influences and can be seen as products of mimetic tendencies and the illusion of Maya. We desire physical goods because they project an image of ourselves out onto the world and mould the manner in which people perceive us. For instance, several people are willing to pay an exorbitant premium on products with visible branding or flashy sports cars. One aspect of this could be the intrinsic quality of the good, but what is more salient fora consumer is what owning a product says abouthimorher.Weallhaveaperception of a person driving a Masserti - someone debonair, perhaps privileged and almost certainly wealthy. The allure of being considered such a person spurs one to splurge onluxurygoods.

On the other hand, metaphysical goods pertain to inner fulfillment, spiritual growth, and genuine self-discovery. They have very little to do with the external world, or being recognised in it. While mimetic influences can still impact these desires, they are often driven by an intrinsic yearning for deeper meaning. For instance, our imitative tendencies may sparkourdesiretohaveourownblogifour friend has one, or reading this may make you want to write your own piece on philosophy. However, this is fundamentally distinct from aping worldly aspirations, or mimetic rivalry as Girard views it. This is because the means and degreeoffulfilmentliessolelyinourselves. For example, whether painting or writing will lead to our internal satisfaction is not determined by what others are doing, or which is perceived as being superior by society. It instead depends on our own preferencesandproclivities.

The Free WillDebate

The free will debate revolves around the question of whether humans possess genuine, unbounded autonomy in making choices or if our decisions are predeterminedbyfactorssuchasgenetics, environment, and past experiences. Mimetic theory introduces an additional layer to this debate by suggesting that our desires themselvesmightbeinfluenced by externalsources.

For instance, existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre emphasize radical freedom, asserting that humans are condemned to be free. Sartre argues that we are responsible for our choices even in theabsence ofexternal guidance.Mimetic theory challenges this perspective by suggesting that our desires may not be entirelyself-generated,potentially curbingtheextentofourradical freedom.

On the other hand, some compatibilist philosophers argue that free will can coexist with determinism the idea that events are determined by prior causes. From a mimetic standpoint, one could argue that even if desires are influenced by external factors, our ability to choose from among these influenced desires still constitutes a form of free will within a deterministic framework. So, while we cannot choose the societal constraints that shape the general set of desires that we possess, we can, as from a menu, choose the specific aspirations that we subscribe to. From this perspective of recognising the boundaries of our freedom, but being cognisant of the ‘wiggle room,’ we exert more control over our desires, which do not necessarily have to be static. As I have tried to illustrate, this domain of personal choice is more profound when it comes to metaphysical desires. Thus, by focusing on those, we can move the impetus of our lives away from chasing sensory and societally dictated goals to pursuing meaningful,personalaims.

Mimetic theory provides a thoughtprovoking lens through which to view the complexities of human desires. The concept of Maya from Indian philosophy further accentuates the role of external factors in shaping our desires, particularly those influenced by the illusion of the materialworld.

As we navigate the intricate landscape of desires, recognizing the distinction between physical and metaphysical goods can guide us towards a more balanced understanding of autonomy. While external influences and mimetic tendencies play a significant role, our capacity for self-reflection and the pursuit of genuine, lasting fulfillment demonstrates that our desires are not solely products of external forces. Instead, they represent the intricate interplay between our social environment, personal aspirations, and the quest for deeper meaning.

References

Bhargava, R. (2017) ‘The mimetic, the mythic and the theoretic’, The Hindu, 22 Jul.

Imran, M.H. and Zhai, Z. (2021) ‘A critical review on the mimetic theory of René Girard: Politics, religion, and violence’, Journal forthe TheoryofSocial Behaviour, pp.362-376.

Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy (no date)Girard,Rene.

Larios, B. and Collins, B. (2016) ‘Hindu Mythology : Studies in Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 79(1), pp.195–197.

Burgis, L. (n.d.) What is Mimetic Desire?.