An antimeme is an idea with self-censoring properties; an idea which, by its intrinsic nature, discourages or prevents people from spreading it.
Antimemes are real. Think of any piece of information which you wouldn't share with anybody, like passwords, taboos and dirty secrets. Or any piece of information which would be difficult to share even if you tried: complex equations, very boring passages of text, large blocks of random numbers, and dreams…
But anomalous antimemes are another matter entirely. How do you contain something you can't record or remember? How do you fight a war against an enemy with effortless, perfect camouflage, when you can never even know that you're at war?
Welcome to the Antimemetics Division.
No, this is not your first day.
from Wikipedia:
The mimetic theory of desire, an explanation of human behavior in relation to culture, originated with the French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science René Girard (1923–2015). The name of the theory derives from the philosophical concept mimesis, which carries a wide range of meanings. In mimetic theory, mimesis refers to human desire, which Girard thought was not linear but the product of a mimetic process in which people imitate models who endow objects with value.[1] Girard called this phenomenon "mimetic desire", and described mimetic desire as the foundation of his theory:
"Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and he turns to others in order to make up his mind. We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires."[2]Mimetic theory has two main parts – the desire itself, and the resulting scapegoating. Girard's idea proposes that all desire is merely an imitation of another's desire, and the desire only occurs because others have deemed said object as worthwhile. This means that a desirable object is only desired because of societal ideas, and is not based on personal preference like most believe.[3] The mimetic desire is triangular, based on the subject, model, and object. The subject mimics the model, and both desire the object. Subject and model thus form a rivalry which eventually leads to the scapegoat mechanism.
The scapegoat mechanism has one requirement for it to be effective in restoring the peace; all participants in the removal of the scapegoat must genuinely believe that he is guilty. It is also essential that the scapegoat cannot strike back afterwards, so it is common for him to be killed. Once he is gone, peace will quickly be restored, further confirming his "guilt". However, the scapegoat is chosen arbitrarily. The resulting peace is borne from violence, and this form of violence controlling violence has existed since the beginning of civilizations.[4]
Girard believed that we cannot truly escape this mimetic desire, and that any attempts to do so would simply land you playing the game of mimesis on a different level. A new desire for peace must develop in order for the violence of scapegoating to end. However, the model for this desire must somehow rise above the tendency to scapegoat.[5]
In more recent years, mimetic theory was expanded by colleagues and critics of Girard, including Jean-Pierre Dupuy from the angle of economics, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe from the perspective of philosophy, and Nidesh Lawtoo from the angle of mimetic studies. Mimetic studies argues that not only desires, but all affects are mimetic.[6]
No comments:
Post a Comment