- René Girard’s mimetic theory explains scapegoating as a deep evolutionary mechanism in human societies, not a pathology limited to “evil” groups. When communities face turmoil—whether from natural disaster, social conflict, or technological upheaval—they seek a simple, singular source of blame rather than a rational, systematic explanation. The scapegoat mechanism channels collective violence onto one relatively innocent victim, producing a catharsis that resolves otherwise endless reciprocal conflict. This is why scapegoating is likely to become more common as societies face increasing disruption from geopolitical tensions, AI, and biotech.
How scapegoating happens
- Girard argues humans are fundamentally social, not rational, creatures. When people feel bad, they want a causal explanation for their suffering and project it onto a simple target—one person or group—rather than accepting complex systemic causes.
- Reciprocal violence (e.g., left vs. right, group vs. group) does not resolve conflict; it amplifies it through mimetic rivalry with no catharsis. Scapegoating is the only form of violence that actually resolves communal tension because it converges the entire community’s blame onto a single victim.
- The mechanism works through a mimetic reinforcement loop: individuals adopt each other’s opinions about the victim, and these beliefs snowball rapidly regardless of evidence. The conviction of the crowd rests on nothing but the unanimity of its own illogic.
- After the victim is expelled or killed, the community immediately deifies them—the scapegoat becomes a god or sacred figure. This is because the victim must be perceived as powerful enough to have caused all the turmoil; otherwise the blame would not be plausible.
- The scapegoat typically has a dual character: they are both loved and hated, powerful and vulnerable. Celebrities, for example, are frequent modern scapegoats because they are visible, powerful, and subject to rapid swings in public opinion driven by mimetic reinforcement.
- If you find yourself being scapegoated—whether violently or through social media pile-ons—the only practical advice is to survive it, because the crowd’s opinion is extremely fickle and not grounded in anything real.
Who gets chosen as a scapegoat
Girard identifies four criteria that increase the likelihood of being selected as a scapegoat. None of these are guarantees; the process is ultimately a random mimetic cascade.
- Genuine guilt (but disproportionate blame): The scapegoat is rarely completely innocent. They usually have some real fault, but the community vastly inflates its significance. Oedipus genuinely killed his father and married his mother, but the claim that this caused the entire plague is the scapegoating lie. Jews may have been 1% guilty of what Nazis accused them of, but the attribution of all evil to them is the mechanism at work.
- A special mark or difference: Physical differences like a limp or speech disorder, or any quality that makes someone stand out, increase vulnerability. This is observable even in children on playgrounds.
- Insider-outsider status: The scapegoat must be plausible as a source of blame (hence an insider) but psychologically distant enough that the community can project all evil onto them without implicating themselves (hence an outsider). Marie Antoinette’s Austrian origin made her a perfect insider-outsider. Blaming someone too similar to oneself does not provide satisfying catharsis.
- Visibility: Simply being visible in society increases risk. The slightest hint or groundless accusation can circulate with vertiginous speed and become irrefutable proof through mimetic snowballing. Each member of the group takes confidence from their neighbor’s conviction.
How to avoid being scapegoated
- Based on the four criteria, one can reduce risk by: not giving the community genuine grounds for blame; being either a complete insider (blending in entirely) or a complete outsider (withdrawing from society); avoiding excessive visibility; and being sensitive to what qualities one’s society treats as “special marks”—including positive ones like wealth, which signal power and therefore scapegoat potential.
- However, the speaker notes a deep irony: every criterion for avoiding scapegoating is also a criterion for being ineffective at changing the world. Socrates, Jesus, and Caesar all scored terribly on these measures—they were visible, insider-outsidermarked, and carried genuine or perceived guilt—and all were scapegoated. But they are also the figures who most profoundly shaped history.
- The concluding reflection is that the desire to avoid scapegoating entirely may be a form of cowardice, and that being scapegoated may be the price of admission for making a real difference in the world.