著者

松谷 邦英 マツタニ クニヒデ Kunihide Matsutani

雑誌

国際基督教大学学報. II-B, 社会科学ジャーナル = The Journal of Social Science

巻号頁・発行日

no.60, pp.267-286, 2007-03-31

---

This essay attempts to explore Rene Girard's theory of violence while paying particular attention to the theme of "violence and political philosophy." Although Girard's works have had a wide influence on various academic fields, they have received little response from political theory or political philosophy. The basic purpose of the present paper is twofold: 1) to shed some light on Girard's theoretical insight which is based on his mimetic theory, and 2) to show that his theory of violence, particularly seen from a political standpoint, has some serious drawbacks in consequence of the mimetic theory. First, I will skeletonize Girard's theory of violence and point out some of its characteristics. The analysis of mimetic desire, on which Girard constructs an "anthropological" theory of sacrificial violence, enables us to gain multitiered and comprehensive understanding of human violence. Second, I will go on to examine how Girard's theory is connected to his diagnosis on modernity. It will be argued that Girard has an ambiguous comprehension of the nature of modern democratic society, since modernity both increases and decreases the potential energy of mimetic violence. I will show that Girard's perspective, especially his critical understanding of the modern jurisprudence, has something in common with W. Benjamin's critique of violence, yet does not lead us to a political critique of violence. Third, I will critically examine why Girard's theoretical construct is lacking in viewpoint that is required for any political critique of violence. This lack, I contend, can be explained by the basic nature of his mimetic theory. 1) Mimetic theory is potent enough to explain "interdividual"as well as intracommunal violence, but not intercommunal violence. 2) The logic of "the political" is absent from the Girardian perspective on human relations. This is why Girard tends toward "overcoming" of antagonism itself, but not to "politics" as in the sense of "taming" antagonism. 3) Mimetic theory, which mainly focuses on the symmetrical aspect of human desire, is unable to address properly the question of domination and subordination implicit in asymmetrical relations.