Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > Blaise Pascal Instituut > Girard Studiekring > COV&R 2007
A Reflection on
the COV&R Conference, Amsterdam 2007
Per Bjørnar Grande
Bergen
University College,
Email Per.Grande@hib.no
The theme of the highly successful
Amsterdam conference was Vulnerability and Tolerance, but tended to be just
as much about whether there is a clash of civilisations. The overall great
success was that one managed to convey the local tragedies in Holland (the
killings of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn)
into a general and universal drama of scapegoating and
violence of our time.
Before the specific lectures
COV&R president, Sandor Goodhart
gave a splendid introduction to mimetic theory. This summary laid a foundation
for the rest of the conference. The presentation this year was anthropological;
on how mimetic theory deals with difference, calling violence difference gone
wrong. Mr. Goodharts yearly introduction really
shows how versatile mimetic theory can be presented. (Perhaps the most
important lecture of the entire conference?)
The introductory lecture at the VU
University of Amsterdam was given by Ian Buruma. Burumas lecture on Enlightenment wars questioned some of
the ideals of the enlightenment, seeing them as having developed into new kinds
of dogmas such as
Marxism, Maoism, Third World Liberationism,
multiculturalism, etcetera. Burumas eloquent talk
concluded with the possibility and challenge (in the West) to adhere to secular
western law, making it possible for different cultures to live side by side in
tolerance. The panel discussion afterwards developed into a highly rivalistic discussion about which culture, the Islamic or
the Christian, is the least violent, a tendency which Buruma,
in his previous talk, had branded as rather useless. The excitement and (in my
case) desire to convey my own religion as superior, did not, I think, evoke my
most noble desires. This kind of polarization is, perhaps, not the model for COV&Rs future inter-religious dialogue. Also the
Israel-Palestine session became highly polarized: each party accused the other
of causing the maladies. As one participant said to me afterwards, this was
really a live version of mimetic rivalry. Bob Dalys wise suggestion during the
Business meeting was that one should invite the Israeli and Palestine delegates
some days in advance and let them get to know each other (as was done at the Koblenz conference) and they will fall in love with
each other.
The Amsterdam murders (Van Gogh, Fortuyn) were also the starting point for Henri Beunders lecture (Fortuyn,
Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali. Driving out the Unholy Trinity
from The Netherlands). The rather crude use of mimetic theory, as in the
case of Professor Beunders, was a reminder that such
an approach can, in certain cases, be more illuminating than dogmatic uses of
the theory. Like Buruma, Beunders
saw the mess in The Netherlands as partly caused by leftist-elites proclaiming
a coffee-table culture based on fun, creating loneliness and estrangement for
those excluded. The elite bourgeois bohemians, being cosmopolitan, tolerant,
and adventurous, have, at the same time, created a world view based on
individualism and material success. Beunders,
however, criticized Buruma for blaming Fortuyn and van Gogh for provoking their own killings. The
problem really lies with the killers, he emphasized. Beunders
conclusion about the necessity of continual revolt, however, reminded me too
much of Hegels violent world spirit. In stead of revolts Girardians
tend to prefer non-violent conversions.
During the conference one was continually reminded that
everything important is vulnerable. The vulnerability theme was highlighted in
Joachim Duyndams lecture on Girard and Levinas. Levinas inner starting
point on man was initially contrasted to mans external vulnerability in
mimetic theory. A couple of excellent interpretations of central biblical
stories were presented (with the aid of Sandor Goodhart). However, I was greatly puzzled by claims that
mimetic theory neither is a religious nor an ethical theory. Even Levinas work was not regarded as an ethical theory, as it
does not give instructions on how to live. Really, is not this reductionism in
extremis? In my view, Girards theory is religious (not in a narrow sense)
from A to Z, and his later works indicate non-violence and undifferentiated
love on practically every other page. If the work of Girard and Levinas is not ethical and religious in nature, this goes
beyond my not too subtle understanding. And as Duyndam
concluded, the common motif that Girard and Levinas
share and the point where their views complement each other, is the internal
ethical perspective of unique responsibility preceding and supplementing the
comparative perspective of mimetic human nature.
A very interesting interview with
Girard was read out by Robert Doran and Sandy Goodhart.
The interview called Apocalypse after 9/11 indicated that Girard tends
to see the recent events as some kinds of clash of civilisations, although he
now seems more reluctant to the idea of mimetic envy as a cause to terrorism.
There were three prize winners of
the Raymund Schwager Award.
The talented young scholars are: John Roedel, USA (1st prize), Anita Grace, Canada (2nd prize)) and Daniel Cojocaru, Switzerland (2nd prize). Cojocarus
lecture on Ellis American Psycho gave a fine insight into how desires among
young New York yuppies can make a serial-killer. Cojocaru
highlighted the scene where the young and successful New York businessmen begin
rivalling about which of their business card is the most slick & subtle.
The protagonist, Patrick Bateman, gets sick with envy and reacts by committing
his first murder. This is actually one of the best examples on desire according to the others desire,
as there is absolutely nothing real at stake, only desire.
A lot of fine parallel sessions were
performed during the conference. It was a bit disappointing for us who gave
lectures on literary topics that so few attended. I want to remind COV&R
that mimetic theory was initially worked out by literary analysis; it is the
foundation for mimetic theory. Perhaps there were too many parallel sessions at
once?
The spirit of the Amsterdam
conference was, on the whole, fantastic. I am sure that many made new friends.
Also, there are not many academic conferences where the level of information on
what is going on in the academic world is so acute. This is due to the
enthusiasm of the participants, and also to the inter-disciplinary and
generative nature of mimetic theory.
I would like to thank the organizers
for doing such a marvellous job. The lectures, the conference rooms, the
bedrooms, the food, everything was of a very high quality. The organizers
really contributed to giving us a spiritual and intellectual boost. Thanks
especially to Thérèse Onderdenwinjgaard
whom I daily pestered with practical questions, and who even managed to locate
my lost mobile phone by ringing my number and thereby helped me to discover it
under a pair of clean underpants laid out so neatly for the next day.
|
|
|
|