Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
: (:oo,)
Bernard of Clairvaux and Ren Girard
on Desire and Envy
Jonah Wharff, ocso
. iiiiic oi incompleteness is part of the human condition. It is by
comparison with others that we become aware of this feeling. We com-
pare ourselves on the basis of comfort or feelings of well-being. We
compare our insides to others outsides and discover a dierence that is
experienced as an insumciency. Te exterior of the other appears more
substantial than the internal fragility of the self. Awareness of this dif-
ference leads to a sense of insecurity that is dimcult to articulate. Our
consumer culture capitalizes on this unease by ofering us products, ac-
tivities, and celebrities to distract us from anxiety over our inadequacies.
Yet we continue to feel (and resent) this lack.
Tis longing for completion is called desire. It is the seeking of a good
to increase ones own sense of value. Attraction to the other is the way
we know that there is such a value and that we lack it. When the will
gives consent to this attraction, it begins to search. Desire begins to ex-
ercise an ordering function over the elements of daily behavior, gradually
streamlining ordinary choices so that they contribute to the search rather
than retard it.
I
When we are attracted to something the other has but that
we cannot acquire because another already possesses it, we experience
an ofense called envy. Desire as articulated in this paper is distinct from
both need and from letting be.
2
:. Michael Casey, Desire and Desires in Western Tradition. Paper presented to the Humanita
Foundation, Sydney, Australia, :, p. :.
:. Letting be lacks acquisitiveness; need is short-term, capable of immediate gratifcation
and non-contributive to worth, e.g., thirst for water. We commonly confuse needs and desires. For
an excellent study of need vs. desire see Bernardo Olivera, Desire: Anthropological Notes at the
:8 ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
Envy, as a misdirection of desire, is of great import for the spiritual
life of both communities and individuals. As a reaction to ofense, it shifs
our life stance from one of receptiveness to one of acquisitiveness. It is of-
ten a chief hindrance to an enduring relationship with God and neighbor.
Envy recurs frequently in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and
plays decisive roles in both. In the beginning, Adam and Eve envied God
the knowledge of good and evil.
3
Cain envied Abel when God preferred
Abels sacrifce to his own.
4
Most signifcantly, Pontius Pilate was aware
that, it was out of envy that they handed Jesus over.
3
Jesus passion and
death starkly revealed to humanity the perceptual/relational distortion of
envy. His resurrection overcame that distortion.
Two men have given desire and envy a prominent place in their stud-
ies of human nature: Bernard of Clairvaux in the twelfh century and
Ren Girard in the present time. By giving an overview of the thinking
of these two men, this study will show: :) how desire, distorted into envy,
afects the image and likeness of God (i.e., simplicity, immortality, and
freedom) in the soul, and how the same dynamic that distorts desire (i.e.,
mimesis or imitation) can potentially recover the image, :) how this dy-
namic serves a purpose consistent with the monastic way of life, and ,)
how the interpersonal dimension of Bernards steps of humility directs
desire to its proper goal in the imitation of Christ.
Bernard of Clairvaux derived his theory of human nature from
Scripture. He developed the anthropological implications of his theology
of the Image and Likeness particularly in his treatise On Grace and Free
Choice
6
and in sermons 8o8: of his Sermons on the Song of Songs.
7
His
work is especially oriented to the development of the individual.
Ren Girard is Professor emeritus of French Language, Literature,
and Civilization at Stanford University. Trough the study of human na-
ture as revealed in great literature, religious mythology, and the Judaeo-
Christian Scriptures, he has arrived at an anthropology that is Biblical,
Service of Monastic Formation. Conference presented at the :oo, OCSO General Chapter, minutes,
pp. :::,.
,. Gen ,.
. Gen :::o. Others include Jacob and Esau (Gen :,:,o,), Leah and Rachel (Gen ,o),
Joseph and his brothers (Gen ,,:), and Herod and the newborn child (Mt ::::8), to name a few.
,. Mk :,::o; Mt :,::8.
o. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Grace and Free Choice, CF : (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, :,,).
,. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs, CF o (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, :8o).
viv.vu oi ci.ivv.Ux .u vii civ.vu :8,
Trinitarian, and emphatically more relational than Bernards. Girard does
not consider himself a theologian but an anthropologist of religion, cul-
ture, and the Scriptures. He terms his approach An Anthropology of the
Cross.
8
I will examine each mans understanding of human nature, focusing
alternately on how each understands a) the nature and course of desire,
and b) how desire becomes misdirected.
THE HUMAN CONDITION
The 7ature and (ourse of Tesire
iov civ.vu, uisivi is the spirit that directs . . . toward the goal on
which . . . intention is fxed.
9
Further, it is a potential that must become
activated for an infant to become human.
I0
Specifcally, he emphasizes
that desire is mimetic, that another causes it. Mimetic desire is the fun-
damental desire that shapes and gives meaning to the total behavioral
expression of the person.
II
It can even be said to constitute the person,
for If desire were not mimetic we would not be open to what is human
or what is divine.
I2
Te idea that we desire autonomously is a romantic myth. Girard
uses the term mimesis to indicate that this imitation of anothers desire
is neither a conscious process nor a mere behavioral copying. Te un-
conscious nature of mimesis is designed to relieve anxiety and promote
security through an infated sense of autonomy. It is, indeed, one of the
things hidden since the foundation of the world.
I3
Girard details how this desire is misdirected and how it causes us to
conform ourselves to an alien image, the image of another person. Mi-
metic desire works in the following way: An agent senses a lack and does
not know what will supply it. He directs the aimless desire to an admi-
8. Ren Girard and James G. Williams, ed., Te Girard Reader (New York: Crossroad, :o) :88.
. Ren Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, :oo:) :,.
:o. Girard, I See Satan x.
::. Raymund Schwager, Must Tere Be Scapegoats? (New York: Crossroads, :,8) :,,.
::. Girard, I See Satan :o; see also xxi and :,:o.
:,. Mt :,:,,.
:8o ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
rable other (model/mediator) to see what might remedy the lack without
compromising a sense of autonomy. Tis other desires a specifc object.
Te agent, too, begins to desire that object. Te element that triggers the
agents desire, however, is not the object itself, but the prestige or value
conferred on it by the model. He identifes with and is attracted to the
model. Te confguration of desiring person, model/mediator, and object
form the Girardian mimetic triangle (see Figure :).
I4
Te agents will is not
coerced; it is seduced.
Bernard, on the other hand, tells us that we have been given desire, a
yearning for completeness, a longing for our true identity vis--vis some-
one else. He describes the experience of desire: Every rational being nat-
urally desires always what satisfes more its mind and will. It is never sat-
isfed with something which lacks the qualities it thinks it should have.
I3
Tis yearning is the result of being made in the image and in the likeness
of God. At the heart of Bernards teaching is the notion that God made
us to desire him. Tis is how love returns to its source.
I6
In the Sermons
on the Song of Songs he seems to imply a mimetic efect with a vertical
or heavenly direction:
. . . this noble creature, made in the image and likeness of his Creator . .
. deems it unworthy to be conformed to a world that is wanting. Instead
. . . he strives to be re-formed by the renewal of his mind, aiming to
achieve the likeness in which he knows he was created. (SC ::.o)
]ow Tesire Tecomes ,isdirected
civ.vus s1Uuiis 1.Ucu1 him that the desire we observe in others and
the diference we perceive between others and ourselves would at certain
times be ofensive and lead us into a rivalry with them over obtaining
a common desired object (acquisitive mimesis). As fascination with the
other increases, the other gradually moves from being a model to being
an obstacle to the acquisition of the object and the prestige associated
:. Ren Girard, Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure, trans.
Yvonne Freccero (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, :o:) ::,.
:,. Dil :8; Bernard of Clairvaux, On Loving God, CF :,B (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, :,,).
:o. Michael Casey, Athirst for God: Spiritual Desire in Bernard of Clairvauxs Sermons on the
Song of Songs (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, :8,) o,,,.
viv.vu oi ci.ivv.Ux .u vii civ.vu :8,
with it (confictual mimesis). Eventually the object is forgotten and the
agent passionately desires to displace the model (metaphysical desire).
Te model becomes a rival.
Model
Agent Object
iicUvi :: mimi1ic uisivi
In a relationship of confict we are locked in a struggle for dominance,
or, as Girard characterizes it, we resort to violence. Girard and the gos-
pels refer to this experience as a stumbling block, scandal, or oense. As
the eforts to dominate escalate, and as the number of conficts within
a community increases, relief from the tension is sought. Tis is a key
moment in the drama. Te enemies make an accusatory gesture toward
another person who is outside of the confict and upon whom the hos-
tility is transferred. Tis person is usually someone innocent who has
a peculiarity like racial diference, minority position, disability, unusual
beauty, or high status. Any kind of diference (good or bad) is dangerous
when a mob is looking for a scapegoat. Tis process is called the genera-
tive mimetic scapegoating mechanism (GMSM). It is generative because
it generates usthem diferences; it is mimetic because mimetic desire
drives it; it is scapegoating because its purpose is achieved through a sur-
rogate victim; it is a mechanism because it operates like a machine with-
out conscious efort.
I7
Te victim is sacrifced, i.e., murdered or expelled. Te result of this
event is that a great peace comes over the feuding parties. Te feuding
parties, who are now molded into a community, unconsciously replace
their dangerous war of all against all (Hobbes) with a safer and less
violent war of all against one (Girard). Tis paradox of the scapegoat
:,. Robert Hamerton-Kelly, Te Gospel and the Sacred (Minneapolis: Fortress, :) o,.
:88 ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
as culprit and as peacemaker is the result of a double transference.
I8
Te
violently formed community transfers its hostilities onto the scapegoat
and then its reverence. Tis resulting peace of the GMSM is the peace
that the world gives.
I9
For Girard, the scapegoating mechanism is a thing
hidden since the foundation of the world (Mt :,:,,) that is only revealed
to humankind through the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Trough the ef-
fect of the Scriptures, the emcacy of this mechanism is slowly deteriorat-
ing.
Girard notes that the Hebrew Scriptures revealed God as being on
the side of the oppressed and the unjustly accused (e.g., in the Joseph
and the Exodus stories). He further notes that the Bospels revealed Jesus
as the innocent victim. Tese Gospels also heralded a new kingdom of
God in which the values and distinctions of the ordinary world regard-
ing power, prestige, and possessions, and their accompanying mimetic
rivalries would be overcome. Te absolute value of Western cultures un-
der the infuence of the Gospels will gradually become concern for the
victim.
20
Girard says that it is only when envy enters in and rivalry results that
ofense obstructs the love of God and neighbor. Such enmity is more likely
to occur if the model-turned-rival is someone near and of equal status
for instance, a neighbor (what Girard terms internal mediation)than if
the model is someone distant or of obviously higher statusfor instance
a celebrity (external mediation).
Bernard of Clairvaux in his Lenten Sermons on the Psalm He Who
Dwells makes a similar observation on the efects of misdirected mime-
sis when he writes:
For most [men] beset us because of temporal and transient goods which
they either begrudge our having out of malicious jealousy, [invidiosa]
2I
or, out of unjust greed, bewail not having themselves. Perhaps they will
:8. Kelly, Te Gospel ,.
:. Jn :::,. Note also from the Passion account: Herod and Pilate became friends that very
day, even though they had been enemies formerly (Lk :,:::).
:o. Girard, I See Satan xxxxii.
::. Although invidiosa is translated as jealousy, its proper meaning is envious, causing envy,
hateful, and the context fts the distinction to be made below between jealousy and envy. Te entire
section :, is a good summary of Bernards similar understanding of the destructive efects of acquisi-
tive mimesis.
viv.vu oi ci.ivv.Ux .u vii civ.vu :8
endeavor to make of with the worlds goods, or mans good opinion,
perhaps even physical life.
22
Te abbot of Clairvauxs doctrine of humanity made in the image
and likeness of God takes its place in this gradual revelation of the failure
of the scapegoating mechanism and consequent concern for the victim.
Te doctrines primary contributions are :) the feshing out of the truth of
our capacity for deifcation and :) the need to direct our natural mimetic
tendencies to the imitation of Christ, the peace-giver. Te frst empha-
sizes our dignity as a noble creature (SC ::.o), which cannot be violated
by victimization; the second moves us away from becoming victimizers
and gives us a whole new way of being in the world.
23
Both emphasize the
primacy of the spiritual for ordering desire.
According to Bernard, the will or faculty of free choice is the locus of
the problem. Te wills freedom makes us praiseworthy if we refrain from
sin and blameworthy if we indulge in sin. Sin corrupts the three powers
of the soul. Te intellect, made to remember the truth of our creatureli-
ness, is corrupted by pride; vainglory infects our concupiscible appetite,
and envy exploits our capacity for anger.
24
Pride, vainglory, and envy di-
minish our capacity to give free consent to the true, enduring good. Tey
leave us vulnerable to ofense.
In his Sermons on the Song of Songs (SC 8:.,) Bernard describes the
human condition as having three phases: formation, deformation, and
reformation. Gods image in us consists in our capacity for righteous-
ness and in our greatness as gif from God. With regard to the frst two,
formation and deformation, he teaches that our frst nature is likeness to
God consisting in three elements: simplicity (by virtue of which we love
one thing), immortality (by virtue of which the one thing, like the soul,
is eternal), and free will (by virtue of which we can choose the object of
our love). How we order these elements will constitute who we are. In our
::. QH ,.:,; Bernard of Clairvaux, Lenten Sermons on the Psalm He Who Dwells, Sermons
on Conversion, trans. Marie-Bernard Sad, CF :, (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, :8:).
:,. Girard notes, Only when the disciples know that the innocent victim is not simply like all
the other(s) . . . who have been tortured and expelled and killed since the foundation of the world,
only when they experience him as the Risen One . . . is a new religious vision and a new set of values
fully born in human history. What began like a mustard seed . . . now begins to move in human his-
tory . . . into the whole world (I See Satan xxi).
:. John R. Sommerfeldt, Te Spiritual Teaching of Bernard of Clairvaux, CS ::, (Kalamazoo:
Cistercian, ::) 8.
:o ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
fallen state a second nature overlays or deforms the frst. Our simplicity
is not destroyed but covered over by duplicity, immortality is not lost but
covered over by death through the love of perishable things, and freedom
persists but is given over to a compulsive serving of fnite ends. Bernard
says the most basic way by which the soul recovers its lost likeness is the
imitation of the ordering of love exemplifed by Christ (Gra :o.,).
Having examined the thinking of both men on how desire develops
and becomes misdirected, let us now examine the phenomenon of envy
more closely.
nvy: The yes ]ave 1t
ivv is 1ui feeling of ofense at the perceived superiority of another
person. It is to be distinguished from jealousy, which is distress at the
possibility of another person getting ones possession. It difers from
emulation, wherein one tries to imitate anothers achievement without
hostility and without usurping the others place.
23
Finally, it difers from
reciprocity, wherein one simply receives in proportion to ones eforts,
again without hostility or causing loss to another.
26
Girard does not consider all mimetic desire to be envy, but all envy is
mimetic desire. He notes that it begins with two eyes glancing in the same
direction. He says that, like mimetic desire, envy subordinates a desired
something to the someone who enjoys a privileged relationship with it.
27
Envy is directed toward the possessor, not toward the possessed object or
position. It is in this move that desire becomes metaphysical, rather than
merely social or material. It is love by anothers eye.
28
Girard explains:
Envy covets the superior being that neither that someone nor something
alone, but the conjunction of the two, seems to possess. Envy involun-
tarily testifes to the lack of being that puts the envious to shame. . . .Tat
is why envy is the hardest sin to acknowledge.
29
:,. Helmut Schoeck, Envy: A Teory of Social Behavior (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, :oo)
::::.
:o. Schoeck 8o.
:,. Ren Girard, A Teatre of Envy: William Shakespeare (New York: Oxford UP, ::) .
:8. Girard, Teatre ,.
:. Girard, Teatre (italics added).
viv.vu oi ci.ivv.Ux .u vii civ.vu ::
Both Biblical and secular psychology have shown us that our experi-
ences are important in proportion to the amount of resistance we mount
to having their truth revealed to us. No one wants to admit a sense of lack
or to acknowledge weak emotions like fear and self-pity. To do so would
involve the confusing admission that we hate someone to whom we are
attracted!
Te Abbot of Clairvaux defnes envy as worry about possible failure,
and the fear of being surpassed . . . fear of a rival. He identifes it with a
drive for power (SC ,.o8). He writes:
What is envy if not seeing evil. If the devil were not a basilisk, death
would never have entered our world through his envy. Woe to the
wretched man who has not forestalled envy. . . . Let no one look with
envious eyes upon the goods of another. For this is, as best one can, to
inject toxin into someone and somehow kill him. Anyone who hates a
man murders him.
30
He also describes envy as curiositas, the frst step of pride. He portrays
the wandering of the eyes and the constant monitoring of the conduct of
others rather than ones own. Envious wandering of the eyes relaxes the
guard of the heart.
3I
THE GIRARDIAN/MONASTIC SOLUTION
. . . a covenant with God opened up a clear deliverance . . . they believed
themselves rich with an irrevocable benediction which set them above
the stars; and immediately they discovered humility. It is always the
secure who are humble. G. K. Chesterton
32
civ.vui. 1uioioci. voviv1 Hamerton-Kelly gives a reading of
Genesis , that says the prohibition against eating the fruit of one particu-
lar tree was an early warning against the danger of alienation through
acquisitiveness. Adam and Eve imagined that God instituted the prohi-
,o. QH :,.; Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on Conversion, CF :, (Kalamazoo: Cistercian,
:8:) ::o.
,:. Hum :8; Bernard of Clairvaux, Te Steps of Humility and Pride, CF :,A (Kalamazoo: Cister-
cian, :8).
,:. G. K. Chesterton, Te Defendant (London: Johnson, :o,) .
:: ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
bition out of envy.
33
Te truth (from the Greek, aletheia or stop forget-
ting according to Bailie)
34
is that the prohibition :) represented the divine
desire to protect humans from acquisitive mimesis and its consequent
violence, :) reminded humans of their dependency as creatures upon the
creator, and ,) was intended to show humans that this dependence on
the creator made them complete and sumcient as beings.
33
Te feeling of
lackwhen not directed to Godis really nothing more than envy look-
ing for a victim.
Jesuit theologian Raymund Schwager uses Girards theory to show
the real efect of temptations like those in the Garden of Eden and those
of Jesus in the desert.
36
Jesus had a deep, inner experience of his calling,
which Satan attempted to unsettle in the desert. Schwager says, It is ex-
actly at this deep personal experience and the words that express it that
temptation attacks.
37
Temptation is aimed not at an object but at an inner
experience; it prompts us to respond to our God-given identity and call-
ing as though it were an ofense.
38
Another Girardian theologian, James Alison, develops Schwagers
emphasis on deep, inner experience and God-given identity. Alison tells
us that overcoming acquisitive and confictual mimesis and learning to
live in non-rivalrous pacifc mimesis requires our receiving the intelli-
gence of the victim. A victim is an arbitrarily chosen other whose expul-
sion brings peace and social order.
39
Te intelligence of the victim entails
:) showing empathy for the victim and :) imitating the totally self-giving
victim, Jesus Christ.
40
Tis intelligence is the way to the heart of the God,
who sides with the victim.
,,. For Bernards thought on this point, see QH :,..
,. Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads (New York: Crossroads, :,) ,,.
,,. Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly, Sacred Violence: Pauls Hermeneutic of the Cross (Minneapolis:
Fortress, ::) :,.
,o. Gen , and Mt ::::.
,,. Nikolaus Wandinger, R. Schwagers New Look at the Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of
Original Sin, http://theol.uibk.ac.at/leseraum/artikel/:::.html (website for Systematic Teology,
University of Innsbruck, Austria).
,8. And blessed is the one who takes no ofense at me (Mt ::::o; Lk ,::,).
,. James Alison, Te Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Trough Easter Eyes (New York: Cross-
roads, :8) :o.
o. Alison, Joy 8o.
viv.vu oi ci.ivv.Ux .u vii civ.vu :,
]umility
Learn from me for I am gentle and humble of heart (Mt ::::)
viv.vu .u civ.vu have shown us a fundamental feature of the hu-
man condition, namely, that the heart was made to admire. Depending
on the object of the hearts admiration, the hearts desire will be directed
either to that in which it can rest securely or to that which prompts con-
fict and rivalry. What is needed then is a way of life that is open to receiv-
ing grace and that will lead us to this place of rest. We need to become
receptive rather than acquisitive.
Te problem is that triangular desire and acquisitive mimesis are
natural mechanisms that direct desire and help people cope with confict.
Tese mechanisms are successful, and this very success hides them from
our awareness and moral evaluation, impairing our capacity for empathy.
Tus our free consent is circumvented and our likeness to God is com-
promised. When questioned by a group of Biblical scholars about how
to deal with this mechanism Girard responded, I think we should begin
with personal sanctity.
4I
We will continue to alternate between the two
thinkers as we examine their respective programs for personal sanctity.
Girard goes on to say that by truly facing our envy and hostility, we
undermine their efectiveness. However, facing up to them is one thing;
learning to live without these mechanisms is another.
Saint Bernard provides us with a program for learning to face this
truth and to live in pacifc mimesis. As a young monk, he wrote his frst
treatise, On the Steps of Humility and Pride, in which he describes the
steps of truth and the way they lead to compassion and mercy. He applies
these same insights in condensed form in Sermon De diversis oo, On
the Ascension of the Lord,
42
where he specifcally addresses the problem
of domination. In what follows, the three descending steps and the three
ascending steps of Div oo will be used as a framework for presenting
:. Gil Bailie, At Cross Purposes, audiotape series (Sonoma, CA: Florilegia Institute) tape
:b.
:. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon De diversis oo, On the Lords Ascension, trans. Elias Dietz,
Tjurunga ,o (:ooo): o:o,.
: ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
Bernards teaching on this point (See Table :), but I will draw freely on a
variety of Bernardine texts.
viv.vus s1ivs oi uisci1 .u .sci1 i uiv oo
(Parallel stages in Christs experience in italics)
uisciuic
:. Renounce will to dominate
(Incarnation)
:. Patient submission
(Cross)
,. Endure unjust treatment
(Death)
.sciuic
,. Devoted service
(Sitting at Fathers right hand)
:. Purity of heart
(Power of judgment)
:. Innocence in action
(Resurrection)
1.vii :: s1ivs oi uisci1 .u .sci1 i uiv oo
From a Girardian perspective, the best way to avoid violence/domi-
nance is by ofering to people the model that will protect them from mi-
metic rivalry. Girard says Jesus regards his relationship with the Father
as the best model because . . . neither [Father or Son] desires greedily,
egotistically.
43
Bernards steps of descent to humility integrate the three
truths of the prohibition at Eden mentioned above.
44
Te steps bring us
into conformity with Bernards understanding of the law of our creation,
i.e., that only through the body can we attain to that form of knowledge
by which alone we are elevated toward the contemplation of truth es-
sential to happiness (SC ,.:). Further, the virtue of humility is aimed at
preserving the deep inner experience that Schwager describes. In short,
humility makes us content to be receivers and directs desire to its proper
object.
Acquisitive mimesis is essentially an efort at domination, and domina-
tion is a reaction to ofense. Tere are two sources of ofense that spur dom-
inance: God and neighbor.
43
Schwager describes this two-fold ofense:
,. Girard, I See Satan :.
. See also Kelly, Sacred Violence :.
,. See Bernard, QH ::.; and Alison, Joy ::.
viv.vu oi ci.ivv.Ux .u vii civ.vu :,
Because people have fallen away from God, their relationships with
one another are skewed. Everyone becomes a victim of mimesis and
easily falls prey to rivalries. People are unhappy about their condition.
Since they are not capable of admitting their own guilt, they push it of
onto God in the depth of their heart and are secretly full of resentment
against him.
46
Beginning with the steps of descent, Bernard shows us how to con-
front ofense by imitating Christ as a receiver. Tey are meant to lay bare
and undermine the most critical and hidden aspects of these mecha-
nisms. Te steps redirect the anxiety that leads to grasping for certainty
and (self-imposed) order. Tey also reveal the arbitrariness of our victim
selection and the false sense of diference that victimizing gives us. When
we are thus purifed by the steps of descent, i.e., when we become content
to receive, the steps of ascent then lead us to intelligence of the victim.
It is because of this progress from acquisitiveness to receptivity that
the process is called the steps of humility. Bernard defnes humility as
the holding of our own superiority in contempt, and contempt is the
opposite of passionate desire.
47
He teaches that humility is best under-
stood by studying its opposite, pride: Pride is a passionate desire for our
own superiority.
48
Passionate essentially means to be passive before the
desire, unhesitantly obedient to it. In advising contempt for our own su-
periority, Bernard is saying that a course of action is needed to upset this
passivity. Perfect humility is attained through the knowledge of truth that
brings love (Hum ,).
Girard describes pride as a deceptive divinity and equates it with
metaphysical desire.
49
Bernard, like Girard, fnds intense, misdirected
desire to be detrimental to our spiritual journey. However, he fnds that
carnal love (mimetic desire)the love of the heartcannot be denied or
rejected, but must be accepted and redirected to the sensible and carnal
love of Christs humanity (SC :o.o, Dil :,). Mimetic desire, then, is the
starting point of the spiritual journey.
o. Schwager, Scapegoats :o,.
,. Mor :; Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Conduct and Omce of Bishops, On Baptism and
the Opce of Bishops, trans. Pauline Matarasso, CF o, (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, :oo) ,. Sixteen of
the thirty-seven chapters of this letter-treatise are devoted to humility as the antidote to prideful
domination.
8. Mor : (CF o,: 88); see also Hum : (CF :,::).
. Girard, Deceit ,o,.
:o ,o.u wu.vii, ocso
viv.vu civ.vu
:. Renounce will to dominate
(Incarnation)
:. Patient submission (Cross)
,. Endure unjust treatment (Death)