So after a reasonably strong latte and a sluggish emptyish office, I'm in a bit of a philosophical mood this morning, and I randomly stumbled upon some interesting stuff. It is the notion of "mimetic desire", first coined by René Girard, a writer of anthropological philosophy.
The idea is the following: "We borrow our desires from others. Far from being autonomous, our desire for a certain object is always provoked by the desire of another person - the model - for this same object. This means that the relationship between the subject and the object is not direct: there is always a triangular relationship of subject, model, and object. Through the object, one is drawn to the model, whom Girard calls the mediator: it is in fact the model who is sought. René Girard calls desire "metaphysical" in the measure that, as soon as a desire is something more than a simple need or appetite, "all desire is a desire to be", it is an aspiration, the dream of a fullness attributed to the mediator...everyone holds firmly to the illusion of the authenticity of one's own desires...these are all but "tricks of desire", which prevent one from facing the truth: envy and jealousy."
Basically, Girard is saying that an object has some value only because it is desired by another, but it is actually that other person that is the focus, not the object itself. This is something I think people generally recognize and may even perceive as obvious but at least I never consciously explicitly spelled out for myself. I think it is actually a pretty bold statement, but as I give it some thought, has an air of truth to it.
Thoughts?
I was gonna crap on your post like I usually do, but this is actually really insightful. Happens a lot with women - a lot of guys like a woman because their friends think she's hot, not necessarily because they themselves do.
If you don't think a girl is hot, why would you put in all the effort? Is it just to make your friends jealous?
It elevates the status of the woman, making her more attractive.
South Park just did an episode on this. Kanye West as the gay fish makes a return. Worth watching.
@"Going Concern"
Help me out with this. Let's say I want to own a 1968 Omega Speedmaster watch. Is this guy saying I want the watch because other people want it (in which case I would want to know who was the original person who made it desirable) or do I want the watch because a specific person also wants it? Not sure I get it.
I think you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't need to be made to connect to his overall point - I think it can be either one. It can either refer to a specific person or a group of persons or a faceless collection of people. The point is that our desires are based on considerations outside of the object itself.
Let's use your Omega Speedmaster example. Girard is saying that people desire a particular luxury watch not because they objectively desire that particular watch but because they are drawn to emulate or mimic a person or group of people who also desire that watch (or have actually acquired it). Maybe those other people are perceived as satisfied or confident or possessing good taste or successful. It is the qualities of other people that one actually desires, not the actual objects that happen to be valued by these people. It is like objects symbolize deeper desires that are entirely based on one's relation to other people and those objects have no meaning in and of themselves. People don't want what no one else wants.
I think it is an interesting idea. As always, I don't really know the right answer, but if I'm honest with myself I would say there is a lot of truth to it. If you don't agree I'd love to hear some tangible counterexamples.
I chose this watch specifically because it could be viewed in a few different ways as to why so many people like it. That watch was approved for use by NASA because of the level of precision of how it kept time and was the first watch worn on the moon.
So, the question remains, do I like the watch because it was tested and approved by NASA (let's call it an uber Consumer Reports test)? Or because it was made famous by being the first watch in space so you can impress people with that tidbit (nobody will likely know this but the owner and watch aficionados)?
Maybe a little bit of both? Probably leaning towards the latter.
Omega? I knew things were bad, Dick, but Omega?
Time to become educated so you don't make this mistake again. You're welcome. http://www.askmen.com/fashion/mens-watches/omega-speedmaster.html
Omega Speedmaster... ewwww
but cool facts about the NASA thing, still doesn't make me want it though, theory is flawed.
Like most things in life, this is true sometimes, but not all the time. Depends on the person I guess. There are certain experiences/observations that I have interpreted within the above context.
Interesting notion. Applied to investing it explains a lot of the behavioural finance biases (herd mentality, momentum investing etc).
Sounds like what Girard is saying is this: - I like Girl - I like Girl because some other Boy likes Girl - But I actually like Boy
Please correct me if I am wrong.
...and the bottle...
This idea is logically inconsistent to certain extent. Someone had to like an object for its intrinsic value in the first place before the second person would be able to borrow the desire from the first person.
I think the idea is valid as an amplifier, but certainly some would still appreciate the quality in vacuum, and for some a particular desire might be means to an and.
Since I haven't actually read Girard's original writing I can't say exactly how he would respond to this. But, I could conceive of a framework whereby every society or social group has a set of "prime movers", men and women who desire certain objects for their own sake, and everyone else follows suit, in order to emulate the desirable qualities that the "prime movers" are perceived to possess.
this may be true with some things, especially when we're younger (conspicuous consumption obviously, women, vanity), but each of us, especially as we get older and mature, develop desires for things that we want without this "mediator"
Great post!
Voluptas ut et laboriosam velit. Eaque iure eum qui fugiat. Consequatur qui laborum quia voluptas ipsum nihil perferendis nisi. Quod voluptatem quia explicabo expedita possimus laudantium.
Architecto praesentium sunt omnis. Animi adipisci dolorum et culpa. Rerum est distinctio est iusto.
Placeat doloribus tenetur consequatur tempore sapiente corrupti. In asperiores a vel pariatur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...