-
Posts
-
-
1.2 The social other
This session introduces two very important ideas that will be used throughout the course. The first is that the “social other” is everything in the world other than you and which brought you into being. The second is about desire: we desire according to the desire of the other.
Please share your thoughts, comments, discoveries and responses to these questions.
Receiving a new story
Share ways in which you have noticed the content, questions or insights from the previous session showing up in your lives.
Patterns of desire
Let’s fill out the details of how you acquired the habit or beneficial practice you described in Module 1. Share your answers to the following questions:
In addition to the teacher, mentor or role model you identified as the one who inducted you into your habit, add the following details:
- When did you first notice the desire for your “beneficial practice”?
- How old where you?
- Where were you living?
- Name as many of the people who influenced your desire as you can.
- How long did the process take before you were confident in your new practice?
- How did you sustain your desire over that time? What people or circumstances helped sustain you?
- What other elements were involved that made your desire possible to sustain over time?
- Fill in the blanks of this sentence, “If it weren’t for ______________ and ______________ and ________________ I would not have acquired this practice.”
Food for thought
- What do you think about the concept of the social other? Does it makes sense to you or do you have questions about it?
- Why does James place so much emphasis on the social other being prior to us?
- Can you describe “peer pressure” in terms of the social other? Are there times when peer pressure is good for us? When is peer pressure something to be resisted?
Wrap-up question
Consider this quote from the first essay:
““There is a real ‘me’ but it is real as a project over time that is being brought into being through this particular body, born in this particular time and place to these particular parents. It is how this body has learned to negotiate over time with the ‘we’ which precedes it and is around it. It is this body over time that is different from anybody else’s.”
Share your thoughts on how recognizing our dependence on the social other changes how we understand ourselves.
- When did you first notice the desire for your “beneficial practice”?
-
Patterns of desire and acquiring habits in my own life – a tough question to answer though it seems simple because my life has been lacking in teachers, role models and mentors at least of significance. Of course it is obvious that the skills I learned in childhood were not learned in a vacuum. I learned to drive a car quickly because my teacher was someone who worked for our family and he exuded confidence and spoke encouragingly. I was 16 and living in Connecticut and I don’t remember much else. I learned to drive a stick shift rather than an automatic transmission and I remain grateful for this because it makes me unafraid to drive any car.I certainly was sustained my desire to drive by the awareness that all my peers were doing it also and by the desire for independence so much a part of our culture.If it weren’t for Waverly’s good teaching skills and persistence and instruction at my school, I would not have acquired this practice.
-
Maginel, since James defines the social other as everything in or about your environment that isn’t you (God not part of that environment) perhaps you are not any less the creation of that other, rather, your other was unpeopled, or better, peopled by models from a distance, not in intimate, face to face contact. Your models were not often in the same room (or car seat) but you speak/write well – and, interestingly, taught you about the difference between face to face and more distant models. You have desires, including to be more intimately taught (or to teach?) – who are you then imitating?
-
Peter, welcome to the Forum. Yes, indeed, James’ thinking on the ‘social other’ is life changing: “The social other is everything in the world that is other than ‘me’. It is prior to us and includes other people, the climate, the weather, the country, the geography, the atmosphere, the agriculture that enables food to be grown and so on. God is not part of the social other, God is the Other other. …..We desire according to the desire of the other, and who we are is given by the regard of another. It is the social other which reproduces itself in and as the body of each of us, thus bringing into being that subsection of ‘we’ which is a ‘me’. “
Or, as the French psychiatrist Jean-Michel Oughourlian expresses it, ‘we are not individual, we are interdividual’.
I look forward to further discussions with you.
-
-
I enjoyed this presentation by James. Coming from a social science background I had got used to taking that reflexive stance and listening to James made me revisit it again – how much of my ways of thinking feeling and acting have been influenced by ‘the social other’ I asked myself again, the answer being – a lot!. I had forgotten how important this idea is. As I listened to James a saying from the late Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann came back to my mind – it’s from their famous book ‘The Social Construction of Reality’ – and it is this – “we become who we are addressed as by other people”. Thinking of James comments on the role of the social other in my life has made me start to reflect deeply on these influences – a start I need to continue with for the rest of the course.
-
-
I have questions about this concept and 22 min. is not enough information for me to grasp the concept fully. I do think it makes sense to some degree but it is hard to reflect on it with so many examples drawn from advertising and infancy. I just need to hear more to see how it plays out in the formation of a human being and their desires.
-
My reflection continues … I don’t disagree with saying who I am is produced by the social other using my neurons but it is deeply disturbing simply because my relationship from birth with my parents was full of limitations and suffering and the imitation which takes place is NOT mechanical. The only concrete hint I heard was that if our parents gaze at us with fright then that is transmitted and if instead their gaze is relaxed then it is communicated. It is quite a packed and oversimplified statement to say that we receive who we are through the eyes of others by mirroring and where does God come in if all this takes place between bodies? What are the parameters of the negotiating when we are so radically dependent? Why the verb negotiating?
-
Maginel, you raise vitally important questions about the impact of the social other on our formation. I think James’ point is exactly the point you make, that the social other is not the most reliably accurate source for knowing ourselves. As a parent, I know that despite my best intentions I was not always there for my children in the way they needed me to be. Which is why James focuses on the reality of there being an Other other on whom we can rely, who loves us and even likes us more than we can know. As we learn to relax into the self we are receiving from the Other other, we are born again, re-created in God’s loving gaze.
-
The concept of the social other seems sound and the fact that we learn to desire through others is often, but surely not always, the case. Peer pressure seems to operate a bit differently though as I may do something not because I desire to do it but because by doing it I hope I will find belonging in a group.
It seems to me that what James is saying is profound in terms of informing what the notion of being a ‘free’ human being can mean.
-
So, anonymous, why did the Other Other let things get so out of control? You’re a human parent and expected to make mistakes; what’s God’s excuse?
Mario, according to James you don’t independently have a desire to belong to a group which then caused you to ‘operate a bit differently’, rather, your desire to belong to a group was itself given to you by the group, by the other. It began with the anterior, prior existent group, not some autonomous ‘you’ desiring the group on your own.
-
-
Marko, you point about belonging is what James is referring to when he talks about the social other. Our desires may appear on the surface to be about acquiring some object or other, but the essence of desire is always about acquiring a sense of self and belonging to a group. So your example of peer pressure is a good one.
-
I Have been reading your posts with great interest Maginel, and although it is perhaps late to respond to your thoughts of October, I though I would add a little to the very pertinent comments Suzanne has made regarding the topic of patterns of desire. You have experience the difficulty that most people have when first confronted with the idea of being inducted into patterns of desire by the social other, as James so wonderfully explains it. We are all so conditioned to seeing ourselves as autonomous beings whose desires originate within ourselves, that the concept of desiring according to the desire of another or others, is counter-intuitative. I think that the realisation that this is not so, is a long, evolutionary process and something we absorb in a sort of osmosis.
Is all desire mimetic? Yes it is, but not necessarily in a bad, conflictual sense. The French psychiatrist Jean-Michel Oughourlian, who has worked extensively on the topic of mimetic desire maintains that it is “desire that humanises us, that impels us to unite with each other, to associate with each other and to assemble in groups. It forms us in proportion as it animates us and arouses our thoughts and feelings. Desire leads us to seek out the company of others, their approval, their friendship, their support and their recognition. But this can also be accompanied by rivalry and hatred; it can arouse both love and violence”.
Sheelah Treflé Hidden
-
Sheela, am I right that if mimetic theory is applied to the teaching of mimetic theory this long, evolutionary ‘osmosis’ can be described with a little more definition and sharpness: You and James must succeed as attractive, imitatable models, right? You and James cannot with consistency merely lay out some propositions for us to grasp snd act out. I think the relaxed intimacy of the video and James’ friendly demeanor work well. It’s begun to become clear that it’s those who I admire and am attracted to with whom I have ALWAYS gotten into rivalry and verbal fights. It helps me to realize that if I feel the need to correct and disagree it’s good evidence that I’m feeling in competition with someone who has become a model! (“You always hurt the one you love”). That realization makes it less ‘counter-intuitive, perhaps a ‘long process’.
-
(couldn’t make EDIT work, so I just copy and paste and made my correction)
Sheelah, am I right that if mimetic theory is applied to the teaching of mimetic theory this long, evolutionary ‘osmosis’ can be described with a little more definition and sharpness: You and James must succeed as attractive, imitatable models, right? You and James cannot with consistency merely lay out some propositions for us to grasp snd act out. I think the relaxed intimacy of the video and James’ friendly demeanor work well. It’s begun to become clear that it’s those who I admire and am attracted to with whom I have ALWAYS gotten into rivalry and verbal fights. It helps me to realize that if I feel the need to correct and disagree it’s good evidence that I’m feeling in competition with someone who has become a model! (“You always hurt the one you love”). That realization makes it less ‘counter-intuitive, perhaps less of a ‘long process’.-
Leigh, I think the important thing here is the recognition of the other, in the sense that we are interdividual beings with the same desires both good and bad; resentments, rivalries, conflicts effect us all, as do the positive aspects of mimesis. But I think that it is in recognising this as you do in saying ‘it’s those who I admire with whom I have always gotten into rivalry and verbal fights’, we have the beginnings of the process of overcoming it. This is what Freud called the ‘narcissism of small differences’, a subject on which Girard has written extensively. We do not come into conflict because we are different, but because we are similar. Reading Girard on undifferentiated society could be useful. However, once we become aware of that we are resentful, or in rivalry with others etc, this is where our spiritual traditions come into their own. In the Decalogue we learn ‘thou shalt not covert thy neighbours, wife, land, goods, animals etc.etc all written for a far less sophisticated society than our own. We could add metaphysical aspects, ‘thou shalt not covert’ thy neighbours fame, talent, knowledge etc.etc or even holiness. The ancient contemplative traditions teach us that we acknowledge this rivalry, or anger or whatever it should be, then let it go, and in constantly repeating this process we will over time become detached from the desire. This is what modern cognitive therapy is teaching us. With this detachment comes the realisation that ‘the other’ or the person with whom we are in rivalry or conflict is also struggling daily with these desires. Perhaps this is the beginning of compassion?
-
-
-
A beneficial practice I have discovered that I have is the practice of maintaining a somewhat complex multiperson discussion about a topic in my head. This has lead to a certain degree of being able to “unpack” another person’s communication even in the middle of a conversation.
I think I first noticed this desire during discussions during literature classes in high school when I was influenced by some of the teachers there and then on into university philosophy classes.
This began the freshman year of high school and I remember feeling confident the following year and have gained even further confidence since. My desire has been sustained through reading and by being exposed to those that use language in a logical way in real time, for example trial lawyers, police interrogators amd therapists.
So, if it weren’t for my parents and my teachers and exposure to talented communicators, I would not have acquired this practice.
-
I have now watched the video. A question I have is, does the self that is developed in relation to the social other correspond with the term “the false self” as taught by Thomas Merton and then the other Catholic contemplative practice teachers that followed him?
I suspect it does and also suspect this point will be clarified in further videos, but I’d love to hear others’ thoughts.
-
This sounds similar to a question I have as I listen. I’m also reading Sam Harris who shows the self – as normally conceived – as illusion. James says that there is no knowledge outside of the revived narrative, and he illustrates with the example of total amnesia. But isn’t there a consciousness that is prior to knowledge? Isn’t knowledge the content of consciousness rather than consciousness itself. Wouldn’t a total amnesic still be fully conscious? I watching to see it James stress with Sam and modern neurophysiology that the “I” is an illusion, a content of consciousness, but not constitutive of consciousness itself which is prior and non- personal.
-
-
Well, Charles and Leigh, I would think that Thomas Merton describing the ‘ego’ or the’I’ as an illusion or the ‘false self’ is exactly that. The Hindu and Buddhist also have a great deal to say about the concept of ego as illusion. James does not tend to express himself on these topics in the language of psychology or neurophysiology, but what he has to say very much mirrors contemporary thought on this topic. If your interest lies in this area the French Girardian Jean-Michel Oughourlain, who is the Professor of clinical psychopathology at the American Hospital in Paris will no doubt address your queries in just such language. ‘The Genesis of Desire’ and ‘The Puppet of Desire’ are both extraordinary books. In the Christian contemplative tradition is ‘true self’ is to be found in union with God, while the ‘false self’ is the ‘ego’ or the ‘I’ desiring the world, the ‘social other’ of James or the ‘Great Beast’ of Simone Weil. Does that make sense?
-
Yes, I like the links. Sometimes James sounds like he is trying to establish the ‘I’ though imitating not the other but the other other. He wants through the reception of forgiveness to find ourself inducted into a new, non-rivalistic (same as ‘impersonal’?) narrative, whereas Sam seems to be pointing to a consciousness that has no ‘narrative’ at all. I’ll be listening with these questions in mind.
-
-
-
Peer pressure. I have been “induced” to think of the word to mean the pressure of the mob upon one to do something he/she would not do normally, that is, to do something “wrong”. Holding that definition and thinking in the context of what Father James is saying, then I believe that it cannot be good for me.
There is an aboriginal skills/wilderness survival teacher, Larry Dean Olson, who takes troubled kids out into the desert for a month long program. There they learn self-sufficiency skills, working as a group, as well as spending a certain amount of time totally alone. Larry says that when he checks in on them six months after the program, a common report is that the kids do not have specific friends anymore, that they are now comfortable being with whoever they are with. I think there is a clue here on how to free myself from mimetic rivalry.
-
Yes, Charles you are absolutely right. The self in relation with the social other is the “false self” in the language of the contemplative tradition. The “true self” is the self in union with God, which is not at all limiting, but rather the key to the “fullness of life” that Jesus speaks of. This “true self” is detached from the rivalries, the desire for approval and the desiring according to the desires of the social other. Thomas Merton among other contemporary contemplative writers explains this wonderfully well. I highly recommend Simone Weil, in her chapter on idolatry in “Gravity and Grace”. Her referral to the “Great Beast” is of course, the world, or the social other. She is very Platonic! But detachment from the “false self” is counter intuitive in our culture of radical individualism. However, in Girardian language we are interdividual rather than individual.
-
This is a very interesting post, Charles. Aboriginal cultures certainly have a great deal to teach us about sharing and community. Even the idea of belonging to the land rather than owning the land is very confronting to those of us from Western cultures. However I don’t think these people are necessarily entirely free from mimetic desire as their myths and legends tell us, although they do seem to be light years ahead of us!
-
We are influenced by many social others: religious leaders, peers, family, civic and legal leaders, institutions etc. These social others are also influenced by time and place, as we. If one behavior of we expect to imitate conflicts or is in tension with another behavior by another social other, we make judgments about higher and lower human values or desires. We tend to prioritize. Most people of faith place a higher and lower value on desires in terms of what they believe to be pleasing to God, what behaviors are judged by others to be right and wrong, and necessary for salvation, happiness, etc.
I get it. It raises many complex questions that I would rather raise as the course becomes more specific and I can tie my questions or comments to more practical things…for lack of a better term.
-
Michael, I apologise to being so long in responding to your post. I somehow seem to have missed it in June. Yes, indeed we are constantly involved and influenced by what we see and hear around us by people in all walks of life, but I think that if we focus on desiring the good, on the imitation of Christ, we ultimately develop a certain detachment which allows us to be dispassionate about the rivalries and conflicts that we experience around us. By this I do not mean indifference to others, to the contrary it means genuine concern for the well being of others without being judgemental or influenced by certain behaviour.
-
-
-
Today Francis taught against a magical reading of the creation accounts in Genesis. This section fleshes out just how much magic must be read into the creation of Adam and Eve for them to suddenly appear complete selves without the benefit of any prior ‘other’ whatsoever. Along with the rest of the cosmos humans magically appear with ‘apparent age’ (or we might now say with an apparent other). I suppose it can be fun to be deceived!
-
It seems as though there may be at least one desire that we don’t get from the other. At about 17 he says we have a need to be which drives us to imitate. If for the moment I call that ‘need to be’ a desire then we might say we have inherently and built into our nature – prior to any external environment – a desire to desire? We desire to desire after the other.
-
Yes, it is true there is no magic. However this is how a far more simple people explained how evil came into the world, among other things. We children of the Enlightenment have a great deal of difficulty with wisdom expressed in anything but Cartesian logic. Perhaps we should look at it as poetry and ask ourselves what it means?
-
-
-
-
In the Discussion Forum, share ways in which you have noticed the content, questions or insights from the previous session showing up in your lives.
After reading through so many thoughtful, intelligent posts I am afraid I don’t have much to add.
Receiving myself through a social other (people, climate, weather, country, atmosphere, etc) certainly reminds me of the false self as depicted in Merton’s and others writings.
And I thought this was what James was alluding to. But then in the next section (4. Desire according to the desire of another) he says “…I really want us free from the pop-psychology picture most of us tend to fall back on. This pop-psychology picture presupposes that somewhere, relatively independent of the accidents of the birth, background and upbringing, there is a real me. This real me is authentic and has its own desires…Well, this is nonsense. There is a real “me” but it is real as a project over time that is being brought into being through this particular body, born in this particular time and place to these particular parents. It is how this body has learned to negotiate over time with the “we” which precedes it and is around it. It is this body over time that is different from anybody else’s. The patterns of desires are what make us similar, not what makes us different.”
Sorry to quote so long of a piece. This is not what Merton would call the true self. The way I understand it Merton’s true self is before or without any influence by the social other. The self that was made for union ONLY with God. After a quick read through James’ four volumes I would say James’ idea of a real “me” is what we slowly grow into after acknowledging that we are forgiven and loved by Another other and slowly start detaching ourselves from the rivalistic social other.
Or maybe I have it completely misunderstood 🙂
-
Well, Lee, I don’t think you have misunderstood at all! Merton is telling us that the true self is ” made only in union with God” and James is saying the same thing, except that he is telling us also how we attain this state and why we need to do so. We are not born ‘only in union with God’; we attain it. Girard refers to the ‘autonomous self’, that is the belief that our thoughts and desires originate within ourselves, and as James explains, we are really inducted into our desires and sense of self by our milieu and the social other. In other words we learn to desire what the other desires. Girard also describes the conversion process as ‘the redirection of desire towards God’ that is,the finding of the true self. The false self is concerned with the desires of the social other or the world and this is an idolatrous position. Have you read Simone Weil on ‘Idolatry’ in ‘Gravity and Grace’ She explains this wonderfully well, as does James, who expresses himself in a different language which brings it all to us in a very human way. As we mentioned in a previous post, theology is also anthropology.
This is something we come to gradually, it is an evolutionary process, and, contemplation is so important in our progress towards the true self. If you would like to discuss this further, we can certainly continue the discussion.
-
-
Thank you for the reply Sheelah. Please, do start a discussion on contemplation. I would like to hear your take on; what is it? what is it not? is it something we do in a particular way/method? There are numerous methods espoused by many but it seems that so many of the great thinkers/writers on contemplation never specify a method, i.e., Merton, Haggerty, Cloud of Unknowing, etc…
-
-
Well, Lee let’s begin the conversation on contemplation with a little background. Contemplation or meditation if you wish, is silent prayer in which we empty the mind of all thoughts, even the most spiritual ones. Jesus tell us in Matthew that “God knows our needs before we ask him”. This is not to say that it is an alternative to intercessory prayer where we ask things of God, but rather it complements it. It is a very ancient practice which we find in many spiritual traditions, and contrary to some popular thought it is not something that Christianity learnt from Buddhism. It originates from the prayer of the Desert Fathers and Mothers who settled in the Egyptian desert in the 4th century of our era. A constantly repeated mantra is used which helps to control the flow of thoughts which inevitably flood the mind. This can be a single word or a short phrase; traditions vary. It has been a constant practice in the monastic tradition since the early church, but after World War II, the writings of Thomas Merton, John Main and Thomas Keating have taken this monastic tradition into the spiritual lives of the laity. If you google “The World Community for Christian Meditation” or the “Centre for Furthering Prayer” you will find groups all over the US of A, where I assume you live. The literature on contemplation is vast, and includes the great mystics of the Church and many modern day practitioners who will instruct you on how to proceed. Joining a group is an excellent thing to do. Perhaps for the moment we should stop here and continue at another time.
-
-
“… Share ways in which you have noticed the content, questions or insights from the previous session showing up in your [life].?”
I spent this past weekend participating in Trinity Episcopal Church’s (New York) annual January Institute, which focused on economic inequality. Over one-hundred remote parochial sites shared in the three-day conference via streaming video. Our remote site was in the parish hall at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Mason City, Iowa.
Trinity Church in New York City sits on a city block at the corner of Wall Street and Broadway just down the street from the New York Stock Exchange in lower Manhattan. I’ve never been there, but Google Maps shows what looks like a block-long nave on the southern half of the block. The northern half is a green-space inviting contemplative walks shadowed by trees, and the church’s financial district neighbors.
While I valued the weekend presentations, I realized afterward that I responded primarily in a mentalist frame of mind. James introduced the mentalist concept in the first Forgiving Victim video. Mentalist describes realities that are ‘out there,’ separated from the realities of day-to-day personal habits and experiences. I gave economic inequality an opening into my realm of important experiences, while retaining mentalist safeguards to hold the uncomfortable, existential realities of economic inequality at arms length.
My list of responses to discussion questions was quite short, just one item: walking. I felt I should have more items, but my strong urge to limit the list to this one item won out. When it came time to share our lists, I explained how I find walking physically beneficial, but also a time for reflection and renewal. I needed walking time, I said, for my Institute participation to integrate into my daily awareness, habits and experience.
I walked Mason City hometown political precincts during the November 2014 election campaign. I probably wasn’t much of a campaigner, since I felt privileged when doors opened to my knock, leaving me surprised and tongue-tied at times, feeling a kind of immediate connection with the person behind the door that momentarily made me forget my prepared script. But, I learned quickly to discern a person’s meaning and intent for opening their door, and so responded accordingly. I wrote about one of those days here.
Lee asked about contemplation in a prior post in this discussion forum. His question spurred me to consider the meaning of the word. The dictionary says the verb to contemplate can take an object or not. Contemplate is derived from the Latin ‘con’ or cum, meaning: with; and tempula: vulgar Latin meaning ‘temples’. I can contemplate an object like economic inequality; or, I can contemplate more generally through deliberate and careful thinking. In both cases my ego generates the contemplation.
Rather than thinking of contemplation through the lens of personal ego however, which makes contemplation something ‘I should do;’ this verse from Saint Paul comes to mind: “… do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Cor 6:19)
Ideally, walking within the precincts of the city – now just for exercise, is a form of contemplation for me; where, leaving my ego at home, my body-temple finds it easier to quiet my mind’s chatter, allowing old views to come together in new ways. Sometimes while I’m walking, a whispering presence makes itself known, reminding me of the verse from the prophet Micah that I learned as a child ~ “… and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
-
When I saw how long what I just posted was, I got the feeling it was a ‘wee bit’ too long. I’ll shorten-up future posts … Rich
-
-
Thank you Sheelah. When I wrote above about last weekend, I tried to respond to the study question: “… Share ways in which you have noticed the content, questions or insights from the previous session showing up in your [life].?”
James discussed how we are inducted into life practices. This was in my mind and heart both during the conference and as I wrote. One doesn’t respond skillfully to economic inequality all at once. Nor, does one relax immediately into the silence and stillness of contemplative prayer; but I feel these two practices complement each other. I think of my walks as a means of induction, beginning steps into the a practice of contemplation led by the Spirit.
I’m familiar with Fr. Keating’s work. I haven’t read much by Thomas Merton. I’d appreciate your opinion about a good beginning point for reading Merton or JOhn Main, who you referenced above, and who is new to me. Thank you.
-
I understand completely Rich, that sounds like an excellent induction. There is a great deal of literature as you no doubt know, but John Main’s “Word into Silence” is certainly one of the best. He was one of the leading figures in the contemplative revival and an extraordinarily profound man who realised that this practice is essential in the daily spiritual life of the laity, not just as a monastic tradition. The World Community for Christian Meditation follows this tradition. James has addressed them on several occasions and will again in France this coming March. Let me know how you get on.
-
-
The study guide asks: “What beneficial practices have you been inducted into?”
Ron Rice was the principal of the Alternative School where I taught for two years in my twenties. Ron was a school psychologist before coming to the Alternative School, which was populated with students ousted from their regular schools for behavior and truancy issues.
Ron preached reflective, or active listening whenever he had the chance. He continuously counseled us teachers to listen for the emotion behind a student’s words. Ron urged us to reflect their emotions back to the students, but always in a non-judgmental manner. Active listening was an essential, time-laden process aimed at helping students tear down the roadblocks to their educational progress.
I taught at the Alternative School for only two years, but I’ve continued to value active listening and to practice it whenever and wherever I can. Active listening is based on respect for the other person. It creates the conditions necessary for clear communication.
-
-
…(John Main)…realised that this practice is essential in the daily spiritual life of the laity, not just as a monastic tradition. The World Community for Christian Meditation follows this tradition. James has addressed them on several occasions and will again in France this coming March.
Thank you for the reply Sheelah. Is there any material on-line from James’ previous correspondence with WCCM? I will keep my eyes open for info related to the event in March. Thank you.
-
-
Thanks Sheelah for the very apt description of love – “giving the other your complete and undivided attention!” I once heard love described as “reciprocity of empathy;” which dovetails, I think, with practices leading to “complete and undivided attention.”
I watched “The Social Other” video yesterday. The notion that ‘the social other’ is the condition precedent for the very existence of individual awareness has captured my attention. Accepting this idea as true kind-of turns everything upside down for me. The individual, perceiving, conceptualizing, egocentric agent in charge of mediating ‘reality’ disappears, and in its place comes … what? Something, but I wouldn’t even venture a guess right now. I feel the need to get my ‘complete and undivided attention’ back to the text.
I bought John Main’s ‘Word Into Silence.’ Although I’m finding his writing compelling, I have yet to open up again into contemplative prayer.
-
Yes Rich, it certainly does turn everything upside down. As does James’s thinking on original sin as being the non-recognitions of the other, in other words the autonomous self as you describe the “individual, perceiving, conceptualising, egocentric agent in charge of mediating ‘reality’.
Opening up to contemplative prayer can be a long, slow process, a sort of osmosis, but it goes hand in hand with what James is telling us,that is, that we find God in the other.
-
I really enjoyed James talk. The idea of the social other brought to mind some of the ideas of Bakhtin. It also made me think about how neuroscience is showing us how dependent we are on others for our identity. For example research on Romanian orphans who were left in their cot all day with little human contact has showed virtually a black whole where their orbitofrontal cortex should be.
The idea that our desires are also given to us or that we acquire them through others is for me quite sobering. It certainly makes me question where my desires and values come from. I reflected on the helpful practices that I was inducted into (contemplative prayer for example) and it was interesting the extent to which it was through others that I acquired these practices. This was also the case about some very unhealthy habits as well!
-
How tragic is your example of the Romanian orphans Matthew, and how awful is the sort of the very young left in isolation like that. But the fact of a black hole where their orbitofrontal cortex should be, speaks volumes! We are communal beings, not individuals but interdividuals who are inculturated into desiring beings by those around us, both in the positive and the negative sense. We are all a mixture of the good and the bad! This is where our contemplative, spiritual traditions come into play, in the redirecting of all desire towards the good. René Girard describes the conversion process as ‘the redirection of desire towards God’, or otherwise expressed, the ancient tradition of the ‘imitation of Christ’.
-
-
While I’ve ‘moved on’ from the introductory ‘Social Other’ section of our course, questions about the nature of the social-other’s relationship to individual persons keeps percolating through my thoughts. Both are real, individual person and social-other, but what does their relationship ‘look like’? That is, how can the relationship between social-other and individual person best be pictured, or symbolized?
The image that comes to mind is one of Russian nesting dolls. If you’re not familiar with them, then paste the URL below into a new tab in your browser to see an image of these dolls:
http://www.freepik.com/free-photo/russian-nesting-doll_574762.htm
Each doll is a ‘whole’ that nests into progressively larger dolls. Nested together, the dolls form a holonic relationship; which the British dictionary defines as a relationship made up of autonomous, self-reliant units. I discovered the idea of holonic units years ago in Ken Wilber’s book: “The Marriage of Sense and Soul,” where Wilber attributed his use of ‘holonic relationship’ to Arthur Koestler.
I think that holonic relationship symbolizes well the relationship between individual person and social-other. Individual implies autonomy, and yet individual human existence is utterly dependent upon the ‘massively prior’ social-other. I think we discover the existence and nature of this relationship, if at all, only partially and very gradually through wrestling with excellent source material like that which we have here in this course.
Finally, I wonder if in 1st Corinthians 13:12 St. Paul used the image “through a glass darkly” to express the nature of another possibly nested relationship; not one with the ‘social-other’, but a relationship with One whom James refers to as the ‘Other-Other’ …
-
The Russian doll is a good symbol Rich, but a relationship with the ‘social other’ is a difficult concept as there are individual persons who we find obnoxious, unpleasant, jealous etc.etc. It is coming to terms with this, that can be difficult. Especially when we realise that Jesus’s words to ‘love your neighbour’ have no caveats. There is also the paucity of the English language which only gives us one word for love, which seems to imply that one has to feel feelings of affection and warmth for people who disturb or upset us. This is not at all the case of course.
James speaks of the ‘other other’ who comes towards us with unconditional love, no conditions and endless forgiveness, despite our grave defects and brokenness. I think that when we become aware of our own woundedness and the fact that we are far from perfect, we are able to see that the ‘social other’ or the ‘individual person’ is in the same boat. This can be the beginning of compassion for the individual other, and this is perhaps also our own way to God. James constantly reminds us that the Gospels are an anthropology, about the recognition (or love or compassion) of and for the other.
-
Thank you Sheelah for your response. We do all have people in our lives who are, or become problematic. The nesting doll symbol helps me remember that I and the one I find problematic are part of the same whole. Each of us has our own unique “woundedness.” Individuality within unity, which is the dolls’ symbol for me, facilitates awareness of the need to understand the other person. And I find that when I least like that other person, then the search for understanding is the most effective. If reconciliation is not possible, then the struggle itself goads me to grow in understanding and empathy.
-
-
1.2 The social other: Patterns of desire
In addition to the teacher, mentor or role model you identified as the one who inducted you into your habit, add the following details:Teacher, mentor, leader, parent wise I can see four or five specific times within my development where either influenced of formed:
Maternial in such things as feeding, talking, walking
Paternal in such things as possessing, protecting and owning
Sibling in such things as modeling, judging and loving
Formal Instruction in such things as reading, questioning, etc
Friendships etcI suspect four or five is way short maybe it is more light hundreds and hundreds of representations that we learn to mimic and reflect.
When did you first notice the desire for your “beneficial practice”? Notice the desire, non-intellectually had most likely to do the first time you as an infant grasp the bottle in your own hand to control the flow of food. I saw yesterday while in the market a young girl (2-3) reach up and pull down her mothers dress top and place the breast in her mouth. The mother scolded the girl and the girls said, “MINE!”
How old were you? Intellectually I was most likely around 5-6 before I knew that mimic was part of being healthy and slowly that way of existing becomes apart of the essence of who I am. I still struggle at 50 to learn that.
Where were you living? Early on with my parent and siblings, later with fellow students, allow in Haiti, with a community in Nicaragua, in Seminary at Duke with Professors and with Philosophy and Religion students where I currently teach. It is an evolutionary process.
Name as many of the people who influenced your desire as you can.
Mom, Dad, Francis, Michelle, Melinda, Grandma, Grandpa, Uncle Bill, Mark, Eric, Ms. Kerr, Mr Terry, Roger Hahn, Stanley Hauerwas, Daniel Berrigan, Gustavo Guiterrez, Rene Gerard, James Williams, D. Stephen Long, Grayson Lucky, Mark Heim, Peter Enns, Dwight Peterson, Patrick McPherson, Ronda Bartley, Alethia Garrett, Michaela Bartley, Abriana Bartley, Lex Smith, endless homeless children, Ched Myers, Gordon Crosby, Patti Wudel, Terry Flood, John Dear, Michael Baxter, Christopher and Philenna Huertz, Mother Teresa, Rowan Williams, Stanley Fish, Father Tomas Halik, Stillwater Gravel Grinders Biking Groups, The Atheist Collective with which I am an honorary forgiven believer because they like me, my Scotch Collective
How long did the process take before you were confident in your new practice? Still an evolutionary process
How did you sustain your desire over that time?
My student here me talk about my friends along the way. As a theologian teaching in a state university I am not surrounded by other theologically interested people. In fact, I am an oddity. Therefore, I have kept and keep contact with a wide variety of people from all over the world.What people or circumstances helped sustain you?
My closest friends are “the atheist collective” they don’t let me off the hook easy. They want me to believe something worthy of belief– very much unlike my fellow Christians.What other elements were involved that made your desire possible to sustain over time?
I am stubbornFill in the blanks of this sentence, “If it weren’t for __faith____________ and __hope____________ and __love______________ I would not have acquired this practice.”
-
Absolutely Michael, we can have many people who influence us and you certainly have an impressive list of people who have been role models for you. Having a very varied group of friends and acquaintances from all backgrounds as you obviously do, can be such a stimulus and source of growth in our spiritual lives. And as you say, true growth is an evolutionary process.
-
-
What do you think about the concept of the social other? Does it makes sense to you or do you have questions about it?
For me the concept of the social other is a given! That is, I have never thought of myself as existing outside the bounds of a body or a community. That is, until the last few years when divorce became a reality and I found myself existing in the emptiness of my current home. However, even in the midst of this emptiness I find myself shaped via the various interactions.
Why does James place so much emphasis on the social other being prior to us?
Because it defines our existence. We are not self made!
Can you describe “peer pressure” in terms of the social other? Are there times when peer pressure is good for us? When is peer pressure something to be resisted?
I am not sure I would use the term peer pressure that assumes something other than mimic or repetition. However, it is clear that our desires, our wants, our feelings are impulses that can be used. His example of the shoes– one could also use an example of the fadish church, or pop religious image etc that becomes the in thing.
I suspect resistance is needed when the pressure is related not toward the mimic of that which is healthy but toward the mimic of that which is destructive.
-
Michael, you have a very strong sense of community, which is wonderful. By the “social other” James is talking about everything that is not “ourselves”; other people, the climate, the weather, the country, and everything that brings us into being through our parents and intimates into adulthood. The social other existed before us and will continue after us. God is not part of the social other, God is the “Other other” over and above all this. Of course mimetic desire influenced by the “social other” can be good or bad, it is only when desire leads us into conflict with others can it be described as misconstrued. Have you read the French thinker Simone Weil on Idolatry? She is very clear about desire for God or desire for the world or the “great beast” as she calls it. You are absolutely right in saying that we must imitate what is healthy or good and not what is destructive.
-
-
“There is a real ‘me’ but it is real as a project over time that is being brought into being through this particular body, born in this particular time and place to these particular parents. It is how this body has learned to negotiate over time with the ‘we’ which precedes it and is around it. It is this body over time that is different from anybody else’s.”
I think personally one of the struggles, particularly for those of us like myself, who live and work the religious life is the expectation that our “real me” is a formed “real me” and one that is more easily shared. However, if I take Alison serious, the formed me is a constantly forming me– the social other does simply cease to exist. For example, I am 50, watching my father who is 80 enter into his process of death. The imagines, the learning, the social other of his situation, not unlike the 365 days from 8-9 and the 365 days from 50-51 are different, my fathers days are marked with a type of other, sharing, questioning, learning that I glimpse– remember and feel and also expect. I am dependent in so far as I am constantly moving. The real me is not a real me positioned in a time but in time– that is moving constantly incapsulated, constantly evolving, constantly changing, constantly mimicking.
-
As you say Michael, the journey of the spiritual life is to find the “real self”, that is the self that is in union with God. The false self is the person seeking the world or the “great beast” of Plato as referred to by Simone Weil. Our spiritual journey seems to have us striving for the real self or theosis, while constantly slipping back to the false self. As you so rightly say, our spiritual journey is a gradual evolutionary process.
-
-
-
-
What do you think about the concept of the social other? Does it makes sense to you or do you have questions about it?
Why does James place so much emphasis on the social other being prior to us?When we are children we hardly feel any sense of separation between us and the world. The acknowledged reality that children then have a greater innate spiritual “sensibility” about them, indeed as Jesus talks about when he says so directly that “the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these” is not then as surprising when we start to approach things from the theological angle James seems to be coming from. That is the freedom to approach things from a philosophical place of open-minded and trusting subjectivity and to affirm experience rather then as Christianity has become accustomed to, appealing straightaway to Dogma and Tradition which ends up becoming a closed circle. Instead to appreciate how we come to know about the world through learning, or the practical intellect, (which I think might be a phrase Aquinas uses or Jacques Maritain borrows when talking about aesthetics in the context of theology) the innate capacity to pick things up and develop as James mentions is so plastic and remarkable. That we “discern intention” in other humans as infants, that the world is responsive to being interpreted at all and that we are capable of such multi-layered perception are such amazing things; to use an artistic analogy, that we see a collection of marks in a cave and we identify them as a drawing or painting from the past not just an array of marks- that we perceive meaning at all is a metaphysical wonder. But I don’t think its any accident that all artists try to recapture a child-like way of seeing in their spirit or style, youre trying to find the current which seems to run between you and the world which feels the most natural way of being and without there being any sense of obstacle. But what is this obstacle?
In terms of the social other being prior to us I suppose I wonder if there could exist any hypothetical universe with beings in it that didn’t experience a “givenness” or a receiving of qualities which formed them? How could you have any functioning universe where information isn’t received. I know that’s another kind of anthropic principle type approach- were here because were here. So maybe we have to examine the quality of the values we experience in relation to the world with various open-minded hypotheses, relying on subjectivity to get at a reasonable objectivity (as Kierkegaard says “subjectivity is truth, truth is subjectivity”)- If there was a God what might we expect things to be like etc. Things like the teleology in creation that James talks about with regard to physiology. Is the correlation too good to be true or the opposite?
If God was real then you might expect there to be a foundational sense of potential divine relation and belief incorporated within us. For us to be of God in some way. I think Alvin Plantinga talks about this as properly basic belief- but people like Daniel Dennett say you might as well be referring to a giant flying saucer in the sky when using the word God. I guess its about trusting what is good to take you somewhere even better with the help of any notion of faith because God should be so total that He is “the whole show” of existence and more, and present unconsciously or not in everything that is good.
This is the weird bit maybe, granted there are many layers to reality, the world and human beings, but why is God not more obvious but so “hidden” or passive if He is so amazing? Why does Jesus say “that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.” In other words why are there so many obstacles in life that in order to become children of God we have to let go of so much, to recover ourselves. Maybe its to do with being embodied because in the West we have such issues with the body yet in the video of this module and for Christ the body is such a focus- Jesus’ body was broken yet his resurrected body was even more real, more alive: its like we are constantly trying to retrieve something prior to our bodies because our bodies are where a lot of the impact of the world happens and a lot of it is obviously not good. I think that’s why we need the prior bit.-
Ben, thank you very much for such interesting responses to the two queries posed in this chapter, and many apologies for my tardiness in replying. I have been travelling a great deal these past weeks and regrettably came down a violent and persistent virus.
Your comment about ‘the freedom to approach things from a philosophical place of open-minded and trusting subjectivity and to affirm experience, rather than as Christianity has become accustomed to, appealing straightaway to Dogma and Tradition which ends up becoming a closed circle’ is an excellent summary of James anthropological approach to Christianity. The ‘social other’ as James explains it, is “everything in the world that is other than “me”. It is prior to us and includes other people, the climate, the weather, the country, the geography, the atmosphere, the agriculture that enables food to be grown and so on. The social other brought us into being through our parents or guardians who sustained us till adulthood.” In other words, we are, in essence, relational, imitative beings, not individuals, but interdividuals. None of us is “self made”. You pose the question what is “the most natural way of being without there being any sense of obstacle. But what is this obstacle?” Is it not our natural instinct to desire what the other desires, which is most cases is completely harmless, but in some instances leads to conflict and violence, wonderfully illustrated in James’s work on Original Sin seen through Easter Eyes.
It seems to me in reading your comments that you already have a good grasp of James’s thought. Your use of ‘givenness’ is truly pertinent in this context. “God as the whole show” ? Absolutely! This brings me to the contemplative tradition of Christianity, where the mystery is perhaps best demonstrated in the balance between revelation and the unknowability of God. Why is it necessary to be subjected to the dark night of the soul to arrive the wholeness of spirit, body and mind, that I think you are alluding to? I wish I could attempt an answer to this. Perhaps it is part of the spiritual path that leads us to union with God?
-
-
Let’s fill out the details of how you acquired the habit or beneficial practice you described in Module 1. Share your answers to the following questions:
– When did you first notice the desire for your “beneficial practice”?
I don’t think I realized I had a desire to read until I completed undergrad, chose not to pursue graduate studies, and realized that no one was expecting me to read anything. I’m beginning to wonder if I selected the type of “beneficial practice” these prompts had in mind, because I had already thoroughly acquired many of the skills related to this practice before I was ever consciously aware that it was something I “wanted” to do.– How old where you?
I was 22.– Where were you living?
Johnson City, Tennessee– Name as many of the people who influenced your desire as you can.
In addition to those I mentioned in the 1.1 Discussion Forum on Feb 1, I should add my older sister. As a child, she may have had an adverse effect on my desire. She had the reputation of being a voracious reader and (while I never neglected the reading that was expected of me from school) I believe I distanced myself from reading for personal pleasure because I didn’t want to be too much like my sister.– How long did the process take before you were confident in your new practice?
I am still not very confident. Three or four years ago I realize that my “I’d like to read that someday” list is so long that, even if I spent every waking moment of the rest of my life reading, I wouldn’t be able to get it done. Add to that that I often feel I must reread books the very moment I finish them. Sometimes even BEFORE I’ve finished reading a book I am distract by plans of what other books I must read so that I can return to the current one and read it for all its worth! It would appear that I’m a rather unfocused reader.– How did you sustain your desire over that time? What people or circumstances helped sustain you?
I read best when I’m reading for someone else. Back in school, I was always reading so as to complete a teacher’s assignment. Today, I read a Biblical texts most carefully when I’m preparing to guide a church group to read that text.– What other elements were involved that made your desire possible to sustain over time?
It seems to have less to do with my desire persisting over time than the (accidental) fact that I was repeatedly placed in circumstances in which I was expected to read.– “If it weren’t for school and church and family I would not have acquired this practice.”
-
-
– What do you think about the concept of the social other? Does it makes sense to you or do you have questions about it?
I found Fr Alison’s lesson to be an eloquent and a remarkably accessible presentation of a confounding idea. If I ask a nitpicky question or two, it is only because I’m enthralled by his manner of explication and want to learn a bit more.
“Who you are is something which the social other produces in you—making use of your body.” (8:43)
Wouldn’t the following a hair more precise?
Who you are is something which the social other produces—making use of a body.There are two changes. The first change (deleting “in you”) avoids the implication that “who you are” is produced inside a pre-existent “you.” I believe, if I’m tracking the overall direction of the lesson, Fr. Alison would deny that there are any “you”s floating around the cosmic drink for the social other to grab hold of and fashion into a human. Rather, he would affirm that even the very selfhood of selves is also the production of the social other, wouldn’t he? It’s a small point, but it helps to prevent the pesky delusion of the self-starting “I” from gaining a foothold. The second change (replacing “your” with “a”) stands in line for precisely the same quibble. We can’t properly speak of “YOUR body” before there is a “you” to claim ownership of the body.
Toward the end, Fr Alison says the manner in which a parent looks at an infant will determine how the child will come to hold herself. After contrasting two hypothetical examples (looks from anxious parents vs. looks from serene parents), he concludes: “we receive who we are through the eyes of others.” (21:39) Or, he concludes “we receive who we are through the “I”s of others.” (ibid.) Perhaps this is an ambiguity afforded by English homophony that Alison would be happy to exploit; but I’m curious which word he uses when he teaches this lesson in Spanish or Portuguese.
– Why does James place so much emphasis on the social other being prior to us?
I suppose he suspects his audience has been raised in a society that regularly (if not exclusively) glorifies things which imply the autonomy and boundless vigor of individuated selves. It’s important for teachers to emphasize those features of their lessons that conflict with values their students haven’t had much occasion to question.
-
Andrew, I am delighted that you are ‘enthralled by James’ manner of explication and want to learn a bit more’. As you progress with the course, I am sure that you will find it truely life changing.
James’ use of the phrase ‘who you are is something which the social other produces in you’ means I think, just that. He is referring to the process of inculturation, that is, our instinctual practice of ‘desiring according to the desire of another.’ which begins in infancy with the influence of the parents and siblings, and continues with our schooling, and later social contacts and workplace etc.etc. In fact, for the rest of our lives. Let’s take for example, the very obvious question of language. As James tells us: “It’s not merely that we learn words from imitating the sounds of people who are other than us, we find ourselves being inserted into a language. The language was here before us and will continue after us.” In your case I assume the language was English. You were inculturated into this language by all those around you, that is, the social other. A child born in Beijing will not being to speak German, but will imitate the sounds he/she hears from those close. This is the case of every aspect of our lives, the social other is a model for us.
As to the question of the social other being prior to us. Consider just the one example of language, we learn this as if we were stepping onto a moving train. The train existed before us and will go on after us, the language existed before us and will continue after us. -
– Can you describe “peer pressure” in terms of the social other?
Yes, “peer pressure” is one manner among many of how someone can induct the desires of others. What sets peer pressure apart from other inducted behaviors, it would seem to me, is that “peer pressure” implies that those who possess the desire originally are consciously attempting to elicit an imitation of this desire from the person who will induct it. And they do it for a very self serving reason. As Fr. Alison stated, people’s very being comes from others. There is a perverse (partial) understanding of this truth, which leads imperious selves to seek to implant their desires into others so that they can validate their own being by seeing their desires adopted by others. Peer pressure comes from those models who simply must to be modeled in order to be at all; and that it is ALWAYS bad.
– Are there times when peer pressure is good for us?
No. There are indeed times when it is good for people to consciously attempt to elicit desires in someone else, but this never occurs among peers. The goodness of those times when one party deliberately endeavors to induct someone into a new desire requires that the desire being transmitted come from someone other than the party applying pressure. In order to find fulfillment, the peer who applies pressure needs not just the object of her desire but she needs also to see her desire take root in someone else; what this pressing peer needs most is for the one being pressed upon to follow her suit. This is domineering and bad. Conversely, good pressure does not come from peers; good pressure does not come from someone who simply must have others follow her lead in order to find fulfillment. Good pressure is applied by the person who can be satisfied even if no one else picks up her desire. This is possible because she knows the desire she is trying to implant didn’t originate in her–it originated from beyond her.
Peer pressurers recognize (to some extent) the mimetic nature of others and attempt to exploit it for self-aggrandizing ends. On the other hand, the one who pressures others for good recognizes her own mimetic nature as well as that of others and doesn’t delude herself into believing that she is in any way “built up” when other people imitate her. If I apply good pressure, then I know that the desire I model for others did not originate in me. As such, I am no PEER among those who pick up their good desire from me; I am the one who connects them to the good desire, and therefore I am advantaged in that I am already a step closer to the source of goodness than they are. When I pick up a good desire from someone else; I don’t pick it up from a peer, but I pick it up from an advantaged someone who is already a step closer to the source than I am. [If my use of the word “advantage” above causes some discomfort, please know that I affirm the beatitudes, which teach that the one who is truly advantaged with regard to being in proximity to goodness is often regarded by others as the most “disadvantaged.”]
– When is peer pressure something to be resisted?
Never. I’m extremely wary of RESISTING peer pressure. While it is certainly inadvisable for us to adopt a desire just so some imperious persons can find phony fulfillment in feeling influential over us, the opposite (i.e. directly resisting bossy folks) can invite conflict. When our pressuring peers say (in effect) “do this and become just like us so that we can become influential people” and we respond (in effect) “we won’t do that and we won’t be just like you—and you know why?—it is precisely because we don’t want you to become influential people (and certainly not influential over us)!” then we are picking fight … and, ironically, we undermine our own desire and allow the imperious persons to become influential over us after all. Rejecting a desire out of spite is no more beneficial than adopting a desire out of obsequiousness. I hope to be forged by desires which can ABSORB or WITHSTAND peer pressures. I don’t want to be a coiled spring that is triggered by such pressure, any more than I want to be a brittle scaffold that is crushed by such pressure.
-
Now the ‘social other’ is all those people and things which over time shape us as a person, and as you say Andrew, “peer pressure is one manner among many of how someone can induct the desires of others”. Peer pressure can be a group or an individual, or something from the corporate world, such as the advertising industry, which tells us that if we drive this car we will be admired by others, or if we wear this perfume will will be as alluring as Beyoncé. In this latter instance, it is contrived, manipulative and has a self serving motive. But this is not always or necessarily the case, peer pressure just exists, and can have a good or bad influence.
For example, peer pressure can be good when a person or a group influences us to do something good, or desist from committing a bad action.
Western movies are full of examples of one just man resisting and enraged mob that wants to take revenge by hanging a man without trial. This just man is an excellent example of resisting peer pressure.
Does all this make sense?
-
-
The content of all you are saying makes good sense, Sheelah. I only want to clarify our terms. I’ll grant that mimesis is an aspect of human nature that “just exists, and can have a good or bad influence.” I don’t, however, feel it is accurate to say the same for peer pressure. Peer pressure is mimetic; but not all mimesis is peer pressure. You provide helpful examples of everyday mimesis, but they fall short of pressure among peers. I agree that Beyonce is an effective spokesperson/model, but it would seem that this is precisely because she is so easily taken to be living an existence far elevated above the livestyle typical of the audience targeted by the advertisements in which she features—not because she is representative of everywoman and just like us. And _Citizens United_ be damned: corporations are not equal to people. So when big business marketers succeed in convincing me to by something, it is not an example ‘like’ exerting pressure on ‘like’. Those are instantiations of mimesis—but not peer pressure.
Perhaps it’s cynical of me to take this stance, but I still maintain that peer pressure—i.e. the pressures exerted back and forth among parties who are equal in all relevant respects—will inevitably be bad. Excessive similarity leads to violence.
Reconsider your familiar scene from the Westerns: the solitary figure successfully quelling the angry lynch mob. It is certainly an example of good mimesis when others begin to take on the level-headed desire for a fair trial to precede any steps toward a hanging. This, however, is not peer pressure. If there is one and only one advocate for justice, he is anything BUT a man among equals. Quite the opposite, in this context, the voice calling for circumspection in the administration justice is a peerless and unique voice. Our white-hat hero is taking an advantaged position over those he influences, and yet—let’s not fail to notice—he does so by looking out for the “little guy.” He is not trying to spite the mob—as if to say “Nope! I know y’all really want a lynching right now but I’m not going to let you have what you want!” He’s not spiting a mob to exert power; he’s joining ranks with the downtrodden. I tried to get at this point before when I referenced the beatitudes. The most “disadvantaged” position is actually the most advantaged position for seeing the truth of the matter—and it is as far from a position of equality as you can get. [I have never seen this more viscerally communicated than in Raoul Peck’s adaptation of James Baldwin’s voice in the conclusion of _I Am Not Your Negro_.]
But back to your point: isn’t the Western hero resisting peer pressure? Isn’t it good that he resists peer pressure? Of course he does a good thing, but the courageous hero is not resisting peers. He is transcending those he accompanies! He is not pushing back against what is already there; he is bringing something altogether new into view. If he were merely resisting the mob as one person pushing back against equals, then he could do nothing more than yell “No, no, no, don’t kill him … y’all got the wrong man! You need to string up that guy over yonder. There is the REAL bad guy. Get HIM” This is the only sort of resistance available to a peer who wants to disagree with peers. A peer can’t actually say anything his peers aren’t already saying, because they are the same in all relevant respects. The movie hero isn’t responding to his peers; he’s leaving their game behind and starting a new game by voicing the pleas of the victim.
If my peers all want blood, then I’ll want blood too … because we are the same in all relevant respects.
If, while I call for forbearance, everyone around me calls for blood, then I am not situated among peers … because we are fundamentally different.
It just so happens that the most iconic scene-type of all Western cinema gives us a glimpse of how equality gives way to violence. I’m referring to the showdown … so often at high noon. Everybody knows how it goes: two men with guns and gruff looking each other dead in the eye—and then one of them ends up dead. I said it gives us a “glimpse” because we can only see the truth with a critical eye. The uncritical eye guided by Hollywood sees in a showdown one who is good and another who is bad. The movie’s narrative either shows us how the good guy always draws quicker and shoots straighter than the bad guy, or the movie reinforces this position by subverting our expectation. All of this Hollywood shtick, of course, is a lie. Better guys aren’t always the better gun slingers, and we shouldn’t at all be surprised when bad guys manage to win a decisive gun fight. The fearsome truth under the trite storyline is that absolute equality is attained ONLY by those who regard one another and think nothing but murder.
-
Andrew, you write that “peer pressure is mimetic; but not all mimesis is peer pressure”. This is absolutely correct, mimesis is like gravity, we live in a sort of web of mimetic desire, and this is what makes us human. Peer pressure is just one of its frequent and diverse manifestations.
“The pressures exerted back and forth among parties who are equal in all relevant respects—will inevitably be bad. Excessive similarity leads to violence”. What you are describing here, Andrew, is what Girard called internal mediation, or what Freud referred to as “the narcissism of small differences’ and has to do with the proximity of the rival parties, i.e. social, or physical closeness etc, this could be a parent, or peer or someone in our immediate life setting. It is also called ‘undifferentiated’ society, and violence will result easily from mimetic rivalry in these circumstances. External mediation, on the other hand, is when there is distance from our life setting, albeit physical, social etc, which eliminates the possibility of violence. The classic example of this, is Cervantes’ ‘Don Quixote’, whose life is modelled on Amadis of Gaul. The violence of mimetic rivalry is impossible in these circumstances, as Amadis was a mythical character.
Your refer also to peer pressure as ‘inevitably bad’, but René Girard did not hold that mimetic desire is inherently bad or destructive. In his book ‘Deceit, Desire and the Novel’, Girard referred to situations when the majority unites in telling the truth to an individual. In a reflection on Stendhal’s book ‘The Red and the Black’, Girard writes about the character M. de Renal, who believes a lie and refuses to come to the truth. Girard writes, “The situation is now inextricable. Even if the whole world were to band together in order to convince M. de Renal of the truth he would refuse to accept it”. Girard knew that there were times when the larger group told the truth in a way that did not scapegoat.
Girard speaks of the possibility of “good contagion” or “nonviolent imitation”, which can come about through a fundamental change of personality through the imitation of God or Christ. Imitatio Christi; imitate the good.
-
I think Girard is probably right to affirm the possibility that a larger group can tell the truth in a way that does not scapegoat. My point is that, when this happens, the larger group is not speaking to a peer. Rather, they are speaking to a companion who is misinformed or deceived. This companion, however, should not be viewed as an equal precisely because he is confused and the larger group is not.
I too want to affirm the possibility of “good contagion,” I just want to point out that the structure implicit in contagion is incompatible with absolute equality. When something (be it good OR bad) spreads from one to another, there is necessarily a demarcation between the one who carries it into the encounter and the one who contracts it. This is what leads me to say not only that violence is the result of imitation among peers, but that that “nonviolent imitation” is never available to peers. Nonviolence is contagious, and contagion is incompatible with the notion of peers; therefore, peers cannot imitate each other nonviolently.
I suppose that what I’m asking after (because I doubt it exists) is a case of external mediation between peers. It seems to me that, if peers are imitating one another, then they won’t be able to avoid internal mediation. My position coheres with Cervantes: Amadis is indeed an external mediator for Don Quixote, and they certainly aren’t peers—and, by virtue of one being mythical, they never could become peers. I am inclined to say that, if M. de Renal can’t come to grips with the truth the group would tell him, it is because he insists on taking everyone else as a peer (rival)—and adamantly refuses to meet any other as a source of a truth he does not himself already possess. Although, here, I must quickly add that I have never read Stendhal, nor have I read _Deciet, Desire, and the Novel_.
On the one hand, I feel I should go read _The Red and the Black_ (along with Girard’s commentary) and investigate if there is indeed a clear example of externally mediated peers. Both of these books were in fact already on the “I’d like to read that someday” list that I mentioned on this board Feb 12.
On the other hand, I feel like that would be a vain exercise. Not that those two books aren’t well worth reading for other reasons—I only mean to say that I think I know a priori that there cannot be externally mediated peers. Looking for them would be like looking for round triangles; the definitions don’t allow for the possibility. There could be externally mediated companions (where ‘companions’ are people whose close proximity does NOT erase the hierarchical distinction between them). Think, here, of a compassionate teacher with good relationships with her students, or a savvy politician with good relationships with her staffers. But how could peers (where ‘peers’ are equals whose proximity DOES entail an absence of hierarchical distinction) ever enter into anything other than internal mediation? Here, I suppose, I am understanding the essential difference between external and internal mediation to be that the former can only exist with the aid of hierarchical distinction and the latter necessarily entails the collapse of hierarchy.
I suspect I have misunderstood one of the JFG terms. Either I’m taking ‘peer’ to have a narrower definition than what was intended in the writing prompts on ‘peer pressure,’ or I have not used the terms ‘internal/external mediation’ correctly in this post. Which do you suppose it is?
Or are there clear examples of externally mediated peers to which I’m currently blind?
-
Andrew, how about we look at it like this. We put aside for the moment the words “peer’ and “equal” and think of it like this. When mimesis occurs between persons in the same immediate life setting, violence is most likely to erupt, as the model, being very similar to the subject, is always potentially a rival. (Internal mediation) When mimesis occurs between persons of different life settings, e.g. different social class, physical distance, a mythical person etc. etc, rivalry is not possible, so there is no violent outcome. (External mediation)
Does this help? -
Yes, I can and will put aside the words “peer” and “equal” when I talk about internal mediation. However, please know that I am confused as to why I should. The phrase you use to define internal mediation (“same immediate life setting”) seems to be equivalent in substance to what people regularly mean by “peer.” In fact, I can’t think of a more clear and concise way to define “peer” than “same immediate life setting.” Nevertheless, I’ll proceed as if there is a reason for us to distinguish “peer” from “internal mediator,” even though I don’t yet understand why.
I fear that I ran into more or less the same confusion in our Module 1.1 discussion, when you invited me to undertake the great challenge of seeing God as an equal. That time (discussing divine nature), I didn’t think you were justified in using the word “equal”; this time (discussing internal mediation), you don’t seem to think I am justified in using the word “equal.” Clearly, you and I aren’t yet in the habit of using this word in the same contexts. I’ll do my best to adopt JFG vocabulary and usages, but I write you this note (2 weeks on) to inform you that—with respect to this one particular term—I am still struggling mightily to do so.
-
–Share your thoughts on how recognizing our dependence on the social other changes how we understand ourselves.
If I can be a self apart from others, then presumably I can understand myself through a solitary self-sustained contemplation of selves (with “me” being one example).
If, by contrast, I cannot be a self apart from the social other, then my capacity to understand requires others. Therefore, I can only come to understand myself—if I ever can—by responding to others.
To the extent that solitary contemplation is fruitful, it cannot be construed as self-sustained.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.