On Mimesis, Folkways, and the Impossibility of Christianity

Q4 Arts and Humanities Forum Philosophicum Pub Date : 2019-10-30 DOI:10.35765/forphil.2018.2302.14
Charles Mabee
{"title":"On Mimesis, Folkways, and the Impossibility of Christianity","authors":"Charles Mabee","doi":"10.35765/forphil.2018.2302.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neither rationally constructed nor intentionally imposed, humans live much of their lives guided by unspoken folkway traditions passed on from genera- tion to generation. As the American sociologist William Graham Sumner reminded us over a century ago, those norms that prescribe “acceptable” social behavior bubble up from everyday life experience, rather than imposed from the top by cultural authorities. Sumner’s insights throw further light on the mimetic theory developed by René Girard and offer a more nuanced understanding of how mimesis actually works. The benefit of the extraordinary grip that folkway traditions hold on us is their utilitarian value and resultant cost-effectiveness in terms of expenditure of mental energy. We follow folkway traditions to save time and mental energy. It is the thesis of this paper that Jesus recognized this power of customary thinking as a determinant of human behavior, and it was his strategy to attack specifically those folkway traditions that were exclusionary in nature in “shocking” ways that agitated many who followed generally accepted behavioral norms. As a result, it is wrong to take Jesus for a moral law-giver, even with such benign terms as a new “law of love,” or the like. In fact, he did not propose a new formal legal tradition, but challenged individuals to reflect consciously on their unthinking behavior and assume responsible ownership of it. To follow Jesus, therefore, does not so much imply a deeper understanding of love, but a deeper understanding of the unconscious decision-making processes that unwittingly guide our everyday lives.","PeriodicalId":34385,"journal":{"name":"Forum Philosophicum","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum Philosophicum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35765/forphil.2018.2302.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neither rationally constructed nor intentionally imposed, humans live much of their lives guided by unspoken folkway traditions passed on from genera- tion to generation. As the American sociologist William Graham Sumner reminded us over a century ago, those norms that prescribe “acceptable” social behavior bubble up from everyday life experience, rather than imposed from the top by cultural authorities. Sumner’s insights throw further light on the mimetic theory developed by René Girard and offer a more nuanced understanding of how mimesis actually works. The benefit of the extraordinary grip that folkway traditions hold on us is their utilitarian value and resultant cost-effectiveness in terms of expenditure of mental energy. We follow folkway traditions to save time and mental energy. It is the thesis of this paper that Jesus recognized this power of customary thinking as a determinant of human behavior, and it was his strategy to attack specifically those folkway traditions that were exclusionary in nature in “shocking” ways that agitated many who followed generally accepted behavioral norms. As a result, it is wrong to take Jesus for a moral law-giver, even with such benign terms as a new “law of love,” or the like. In fact, he did not propose a new formal legal tradition, but challenged individuals to reflect consciously on their unthinking behavior and assume responsible ownership of it. To follow Jesus, therefore, does not so much imply a deeper understanding of love, but a deeper understanding of the unconscious decision-making processes that unwittingly guide our everyday lives.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论模仿、民俗和基督教的不可能性
人类生活的大部分时间都是在代代相传的民间习俗传统的指引下度过的,这些传统既不是理性建构的,也不是有意强加的。正如美国社会学家威廉·格雷厄姆·萨姆纳(William Graham Sumner)在一个多世纪前提醒我们的那样,那些规定“可接受的”社会行为的规范是从日常生活经验中产生的,而不是由文化当局自上而下强加的。Sumner的见解进一步阐明了ren Girard提出的模仿理论,并对模仿的实际运作方式提供了更细致的理解。民间传统对我们的特殊控制的好处是它们的实用价值和由此产生的在精神能量消耗方面的成本效益。我们遵循民间习俗以节省时间和精力。这篇论文的主题是,耶稣认识到习惯思维的力量是人类行为的决定因素,他的策略是,以“令人震惊”的方式,特别攻击那些本质上排他性的民间传统,这激怒了许多遵循普遍接受的行为规范的人。因此,把耶稣当作道德律法的制定者是错误的,即使是用一些温和的术语,如新的“爱的律法”或类似的。事实上,他并没有提出一种新的正式的法律传统,而是要求个人自觉地反思自己的轻率行为,并承担责任。因此,跟随耶稣并不意味着对爱有更深的理解,而是对无意识的决策过程有更深的理解,这些决策过程不知不觉地引导着我们的日常生活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reviewers of Articles Submitted in 2023 Caputo in Europe (If There Is Such a Thing): How Does “Radical Theology” Look from Over Here? Elucidating the Role of Truth-Expressions What New Can We Learn from the Philosophical Journals of Jan Patočka? The Aesthetic Path to Hermeneutics in J.-L. Marion’s Phenomenology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1