I’ve wondered if the democratic process is really a civilized form of scape-goating. Elections are a pressure valve, meaning incumbent parties are ejected from office and fresh faces brought in, albeit often with little change in the policies that caused pressures to build.

Oh definitely. It allows violent conflict to be replaced by… well… culture wars, and murder with voting people out or maybe legal battles. That’s massively more civilized and avoids destroying all of society’s accumulated wealth in destructive conflicts.

Avoiding burning everything to the ground all the time might be the main reason democracies tend to be wealthier.

Switzerland was considered a poor country in the 19th century, but didn't get bombed to rubble in either 1914-1918 or in 1936-1945, and so now it's considered rich.

I wonder how solarpunk continental europe might've been now if it had somehow avoided the "short 20th century".

If one thinks of the democratic process as replacing physical conflict, then gerrymandering can't get too out of hand, because at some point the actual majority will call.

If it's just a civilised form of scapegoating, then gerrymandering could potentially reach insanely high levels, as long as it provides a good show (à la Russian Federation elections?) of ritual conflict.

I wish I could find some curated readings about the sociology of shared enemy and all the usual social reflexes that lead bad states.

Not exactly curated, but Durant & Durant The Story of Civilization (1935-1975) is 11 volumes containing several bright spots interspersed with an awful lot of people being awful to each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization

  People are people, so why should it be
  They often treat each other so awfully

thanks a lot, and fine choice of quote

you're welcome.

(if you'd like, have a 1927/1984 mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctqMIkrqCj8 )

The most profound thing I have read is a short mention in I See Satan Fall Like Lighting.

Something like the more we become the same , the more we become engulfed in mimetic rivalry.

I suspect it sheds quite a bit of light on the modern divide in the US. Not a divide because of differences but because of similarities.

Not a fan of Trump to say the least but it also seems rather obvious who is functioning as a the scapegoat mechanism for a large group of people.

But Trump cannot function as a Girardian scapegoat for society as a whole. He has too many backers. Too many people identify with him.

Paradoxes like this are actually defining characteristics of the scapegoat.

- he is a rich billionaire but also a broke failure

- he is the most hated, but also the most popular

- he has been a ny elite (insider) for decades, but his base is rural and blue collar (outsider).

- he is dumb and unsophisticated but also a cunning planner and schemer

Supporters are not immune from the scapegoat effect. They also believe one man can control the universe.

In Peter Thiels 2013 book he describes successful founders and extreme personalities as having similar characteristics. It’s hard not to make similar observations about Musk (super genius, who is an idiot).

The social dynamics are too powerful to perceive anything real about them.

But supporters are not going to unite with haters to kill Trump, either literally or figuratively. Sure, Trump has a lot of the characteristics, but the way Girard says the scapegoat plays out is not going to happen with Trump. Even if he loses the election - even if he winds up in jail - a significant chunk of the country is still going to support him. He's not going to be universally condemned and unite everyone by their rejection of him.

Girardian theory describes the kinds of people who have scapegoat potential. It doesn’t prophecy that every insider/outsider will get killed, but that they have or are a sign of mimetic energy.

We are experiencing capulets vs mortigues.

Girard is also describing ancient origins. He argues the effectiveness and violence of scapegoating is reduced in modern context.

> capulets vs mortigues

see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines

or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots#Background

My theory is that any hegemons (lacking significant exterior scapegoat possibilities) sooner or later divide into factions.

When I was growing up in the States, there was a significant overlap between the left R wing and the right D wing. Since I left the Old Country, it seems (from afar) like that overlap has disappeared, and maybe there's even unoccupied space where the middle used to be.

I agree that he could easily be functioning as a scapegoat mechanism, uniting people who believe "anyone but".

As to being an actual scapegoat, I doubt it: scapegoats are innocent.

He is accused of being a racist (Central Park 5) misogynist ("Grab em") bigot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA#t=16)

We are apparently a long time removed from 'quoniam meos tam suspicione quam crimine iudico carere oportere'.

Yeah, the central park 5 were innocent but everyone was racist in the 80s if that is the standard. All those poor kids were doing was beating random people, stealing from them, and knocking them out and leaving them for dead to whoever might come along. But they weren't rapists.

Yes, and Trump was happy to judge before any facts came out (also well before the city settled for $41M), based apparently on (a) what he thought had happened, and (b) how he thought the justice system ought to work; most people in the 80s would not have done that.

lighter: https://www.theonion.com/trump-takes-out-full-page-newspaper...

darker: http://apps.frontline.org/clinton-trump-keys-to-their-charac...

Note that even in Russia, the death penalty theoretically no longer exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country

Yes, Trump judged, and about 95% of society at that time did as well.

And the CP5 almost certainly were out there assaulting strangers in the park. What they (probably) didn't do was rape the lady. They just knocked her out so that someone else could come along and rape her.

> Not a fan of Trump to say the least but it also seems rather obvious who is functioning as a the scapegoat mechanism for a large group of people.

I'm not getting this, tbh. One wpuld think that the closest to a 'scapegoat' would be Brandon, not Trump.

That’s precisely the deep rooted divide.

> Something like the more we become the same , the more we become engulfed in mimetic rivalry.

What you're describing sounds like a variation of what Sigmund Freud called the narcissism of small differences.

This is great for everyone except the scapegoat.

> normal problems are no big deal compared to actual violence

Even democratic pro-human-rights societies tolerate quite a lot of violence towards their scapegoats.

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om...