Mimetic vs Marxist Theory

 

Mimetic Theory versus Marxist Theory in Sociological Curricula: Education, Indoctrination, and Practical Implications for Social Reform

Abstract

This paper examines the disparity in sociological curricula between the prominent inclusion of Marxist theory and the relative marginalization of René Girard’s mimetic theory. It argues that while Marxism is entrenched as a classical conflict paradigm due to historical and institutional factors, Girard’s framework offers a complementary psychological and anthropological lens on human rivalry, desire, and violence. The paper addresses claims of ideological bias in education, compares the practical utility of each theory for assessing social agendas and reforms, and explores feminist critiques of Girard alongside counterclaims of his insights into gender dynamics. Ultimately, both theories illuminate mechanisms of social conflict, but Girard’s emphasis on universal mimetic processes may provide deeper tools for understanding contemporary identity-based divisions and scapegoating phenomena.

Introduction

Sociology syllabi frequently feature Karl Marx’s theories of class conflict, exploitation, and historical materialism as core components of conflict theory. Dedicated sections, courses, and even American Sociological Association divisions exist for Marxist sociology. In contrast, René Girard’s mimetic theory—positing that human desire is imitative, leading to rivalry, scapegoating, and cultural formation—is rarely included in standard curricula, appearing more in interdisciplinary fields like literary criticism, anthropology, or religious studies.

This asymmetry raises questions about the nature of sociological education: Is the prioritization of Marxism reflective of objective scholarly merit, or does it verge on ideological selectivity? If education aims to equip students with diverse tools for analyzing society, why is one framework privileged over another that addresses fundamental psychological drivers of conflict?

The Place of Marxism in Sociological Education

Marxism occupies a foundational role in sociology alongside Émile Durkheim’s functionalism and Max Weber’s interpretive approach. Marx, Durkheim, and Weber form the “classical trinity” of sociological theory, with Marxism providing the primary lens for conflict perspectives. Surveys and analyses indicate that Marxist texts, such as The Communist Manifesto, are among the most assigned readings in university courses, particularly in sociology, where self-identified Marxists comprise a notable minority of faculty (around 18-25% in social sciences).

This prominence stems from Marxism’s direct engagement with economic inequality, power structures, and social change—themes central to sociology’s origins in understanding industrialization and modernity. Neo-Marxist extensions, including critical theory and intersections with feminism and race, further embed it in contemporary curricula.

The Marginalization of Girard’s Mimetic Theory

René Girard’s mimetic theory, developed across works spanning literary criticism to anthropology, asserts that human desire is not autonomous but mimetic: individuals desire objects because others (models) desire them. This leads to rivalry when desires converge on scarce objects, escalating into conflict resolved through scapegoating—a collective victimization that restores order and founds culture and religion.

Despite its interdisciplinary influence (e.g., in psychology, economics, and peace studies), mimetic theory remains peripheral in sociology departments. Girard is not classified among classical theorists, and his ideas appear sporadically in specialized contexts rather than core syllabi. This reflects sociology’s historical focus on macro-structural analyses (class, institutions) over psychological-anthropological universals.

Education or Indoctrination? Ideological Bias in Curricula

This papers query implies that heavy emphasis on Marxism risks indoctrination by promoting a singular worldview of class struggle as the primary driver of history and reform. Evidence supports disproportionate representation: Marxist-informed courses span sociological theory, inequality, and political sociology, often framing capitalism critically.

Girard’s absence may stem not from inferiority but from institutional inertia and ideological alignment. Marxism aligns with progressive critiques of power, appealing in academic environments leaning leftward. Girard’s theory, with its roots in biblical revelation and critique of undifferentiated violence, challenges secular narratives and identity politics by universalizing human rivalry—potentially discomforting frameworks that emphasize group-specific oppression.

Balanced education would expose students to multiple paradigms, allowing critical comparison rather than defaulting to one.

Comparative Practical Impact: Assessing Social Agendas and Reforms

Marxism offers a structural toolkit: class analysis reveals exploitation in labor, policy, and institutions, informing reforms like welfare states or revolutionary agendas. Its practical legacy includes labor rights, anti-colonial movements, and critical analyses of inequality.

However, Marxism’s focus on economic base can overlook non-class conflicts (e.g., cultural, ethnic, or status-based rivalries). Historical applications sometimes led to authoritarian outcomes, questioning its reform efficacy.

Girard’s mimetic theory provides a psychological complement: social crises arise from escalating imitation and rivalry, resolved via scapegoating (blaming outliers). This illuminates phenomena like identity politics, cancel culture, or populist scapegoating of minorities—where groups unify against perceived “obstacles.”

Practically, mimetic insights could enhance reforms by addressing desire-driven polarization: fostering positive mimesis (imitating constructive models) or exposing scapegoat mechanisms to prevent violence. While less prescriptive than Marxism, it offers diagnostic depth for agendas involving victimhood narratives or intergroup tension, potentially more adaptable to post-industrial, identity-focused societies.

Neither is inherently ‘more practical’—Marxism excels in economic reform; Girard in de-escalating mimetic escalation—but integrating both yields richer analysis.

Girard and Gender: Critiques and Counterclaims

Feminist scholars have critiqued Girard for androcentrism: his early literary examples often feature male-mediated female objects, sidelining women’s agency or preoedipal desire. Toril Moi and Sarah Kofman argue this devalues maternal roles and prioritizes homosocial rivalry.

Conversely, defenders note Girard’s gender neutrality: mimetic desire and scapegoating apply universally, with victims often marginal (including women). Some praise his exposure of sacrificial violence against the vulnerable, aligning with feminist concerns over patriarchy as scapegoating mechanism. Proponents claim Girard understands gendered dynamics profoundly, revealing how rivalry masquerades as difference.

These debates highlight denial dynamics: critics rejecting mimetic universals may mirror the scapegoating Girard describes.

Conclusion

The curricular dominance of Marxism over Girard’s mimetic theory reflects historical canonization rather than exhaustive merit. Both illuminate social conflict—Marxism structurally, Girard psychologically—but Girard’s framework may prove increasingly practical for navigating contemporary mimetic crises. True education demands pluralism: teaching both to foster critical assessment of reforms, avoiding indoctrination into any single lens.

Index of Sources by Title and Author

•  Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure by René Girard

•  Violence and the Sacred by René Girard

•  Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World by René Girard

•  The Scapegoat by René Girard

•  René Girard’s Mimetic Theory by Wolfgang Palaver

•  The Girard Reader by René Girard (edited by James G. Williams)

•  Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman (critique of Marxist economic applications)

•  Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler (intersection with performativity and mimesis critiques)

•  Sacrificed Lives: Kristeva on Women and Violence by Martha Reineke (feminist engagement with Girard)

•  Queering Girard—De-Freuding Butler by Iwona Janicka (theoretical encounter on gender and mimesis)

•  Marxism in Contemporary Sociology by Matt Vidal (encyclopedia entry)

•  The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx by Matt Vidal, Tony Smith, Paul Prew, and Tomás Rotta (editors)

•  Envisioning Real Utopias by Erik Olin Wright (neo-Marxist reform)

•  Evolution of Desire: A Life of René Girard by Cynthia L. Haven (biographical context)

Integration Nexus vs Shadow Veil

To differentiate the two hypothetical worlds based on their approach to the Jungian Shadow—the unconscious, often repressed aspects of the psyche including instincts, flaws, and hidden desires—I'll name them as follows:

• Integration Nexus: The world where confronting, accepting, and assimilating the Shadow is mainstream culture, fostering psychological wholeness.
• Suppression Veil: The world where social norms encourage rejecting and avoiding the Shadow, leading to disconnection from the self.

These names evoke the core dynamics: "Nexus" implies connection and unity through integration, while "Veil" suggests concealment and illusion through suppression.

Description of Integration Nexus

In Integration Nexus, society views the Shadow not as a threat but as an essential part of human depth, much like Jung described it as a gateway to self-realization. Mainstream culture—through education, media, art, and public discourse—promotes tools for Shadow work, such as therapy, journaling, dream analysis, and communal rituals for exploring personal darkness. Schools teach emotional literacy from a young age, emphasizing that flaws like anger, envy, or taboo desires are universal and integrable rather than shameful. Popular media features stories of heroes who triumph by befriending their inner demons, and workplaces encourage vulnerability sessions where employees share insecurities to build trust.

As a result, individuals are more authentic and self-aware. Projection—where one attributes their own unacknowledged traits to others—is minimized, leading to reduced interpersonal conflicts and prejudices. Society is innovative and resilient: artists draw from raw, unfiltered psyche for groundbreaking creations; leaders make decisions with humility, acknowledging their biases; and communities handle crises with empathy, viewing collective shadows (e.g., historical traumas) as opportunities for healing. Mental health thrives, with lower rates of neurosis, addiction, or burnout, as people channel Shadow energies constructively—turning aggression into assertiveness or forbidden impulses into creative outlets.

However, this world isn't utopian. Over-emphasis on confrontation could occasionally lead to exhaustion from constant introspection or misuse by those who confuse integration with unchecked indulgence. Overall, it's a dynamic, evolving society where personal growth is a cultural norm, fostering deeper connections and a sense of wholeness.

Description of Suppression Veil

In Suppression Veil, the Shadow is treated as a taboo enemy to be exiled from conscious life. Social encouragement—via laws, religions, education, and media—reinforces ideals of purity, perfection, and control, urging people to deny or hide their darker impulses. Phrases like "stay positive" or "don't dwell on the negative" dominate, with therapy stigmatized as weakness and self-reflection seen as self-indulgent. Families and institutions prioritize appearances, punishing expressions of vulnerability or "unacceptable" traits, leading to a culture of conformity where everyone strives for an idealized self-image.

This results in widespread psychological fragmentation. Unintegrated Shadows manifest through projection: individuals and groups displace their repressed flaws onto "others," fueling divisions like racism, political extremism, or scapegoating. Mental health suffers, with high incidences of anxiety, depression, and psychosomatic illnesses, as suppressed energies erupt in destructive ways—think hidden addictions, passive-aggression, or sudden breakdowns. Society appears orderly on the surface, with rigid hierarchies and moral codes providing stability, but it's brittle: innovation stagnates due to fear of risk or "deviant" ideas, and conflicts escalate because underlying tensions are ignored. Art and media are sanitized, promoting escapism over depth, while leaders often embody hypocrisy, preaching virtue while privately succumbing to their Shadows.

The upside, if any, is a superficial harmony in everyday life, where predictability and shared illusions create a sense of security. But this comes at the cost of authenticity, leaving people feeling alienated from themselves and each other.

Comparison

Integration Nexus and Suppression Veil represent polar opposites in psychological evolution, with profound ripple effects on individual well-being, social dynamics, and cultural progress.

• Individual Level: In Integration Nexus, people achieve Jungian individuation—a balanced, mature psyche—leading to fulfillment and resilience. They live with vitality, transforming Shadow elements into strengths (e.g., repressed creativity becomes innovation). In Suppression Veil, individuals remain divided, with the ego in constant battle against the unconscious, resulting in inner turmoil, projection-driven neuroses, and a shallow sense of self. Nexus dwellers feel "whole," while Veil inhabitants often experience emptiness or chronic dissatisfaction.
• Social Level: Nexus fosters empathy and unity, as shared Shadow acknowledgment reduces "us vs. them" mentalities; conflicts are resolved through dialogue, and diversity is celebrated as part of the human mosaic. Veil, conversely, breeds division and hypocrisy—repressed Shadows are externalized, leading to wars, injustices, and echo chambers where groups demonize each other. Nexus society is collaborative and adaptive, while Veil is hierarchical and prone to authoritarianism to maintain the illusion of control.
• Cultural and Long-Term Outcomes: Nexus evolves rapidly, with art, science, and ethics advancing through honest exploration of the human condition; it's a world of progress toward collective enlightenment. Veil stagnates or regresses, as unaddressed Shadows fuel cycles of repression and rebellion—think historical patterns of puritanical eras followed by chaotic upheavals. Nexus might risk over-introspection leading to paralysis, but Veil's greater danger is explosive instability when suppressed energies inevitably surface.

In essence, Integration Nexus embodies Jung's ideal of psychological maturity, creating a vibrant, connected world at the price of discomfort during confrontation. Suppression Veil mirrors many real-world societies' pitfalls, offering short-term comfort but long-term dysfunction through denial. The key difference lies in energy flow: Nexus channels the Shadow productively, while Veil bottles it up, inviting eruptions. If we draw from Jung's warnings, Nexus aligns with health and growth, suggesting that true harmony arises not from avoidance but from brave assimilation.