In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

278 Tyler Graham contributions to the advancement of Girard’s work have not come in the university setting. I have, for almost a decade, been a high school teacher at a small boarding school in Wisconsin (Wayland Academy). As an English and religion teacher I have faced key fundamental pedagogical issues related to the theory. These usually return me to the central problem that I faced when I “discovered” Girard—namely, how “true” (or how universally applicable) is this hermeneutic? Let us take one of my eleventh-grade honors English classes featuring Dante’s Inferno, Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream, Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, and Joyce’s Dubliners. No one argues with the idea that the fifth canto of the Inferno reflects mimetic seduction, Lysander and Demetrius fight no matter which woman is before them, Dmitry and his father are rivals for Gruschenka, and Gabriel Conroy competes with the dead Michael Furey. Nevertheless, the literary application of mimesis invites a number of questions: What about other works? Are there other interpretations? And worst of all: so what? Teaching mimetic desire to high school students has its moments of insight, but it is tough to work into a one-year curriculum. Furthermore, the nature of Girard’s literary discoveries is such that they require the study of multiple texts in comparison with one another. One really should study the whole corpus of Dostoevsky to see the dynamics of novelistic conversion at work—but how does one do so in a high school class? Or take my work with the weekly chapel talks. On the one hand, I try to present a reasonable anthropology from the biblical texts and show how it reveals mimesis and scapegoating with the prophetic tradition culminating in Jesus as the solution to this “sin.” But, again, can all of the information regarding the Bible’s relative clarity in relation to myth be demonstrated in such a forum? How does one preach this theory? In general, the major pedagogical challenge in teaching Girard is to dramatize the discovery and fuel interest in further research. However, often mimetic interpretations are so “obvious” that their nature—or importance—is hard to see. Or, if the insights are not obvious, it is difficult to show why they are believable. Sometimes comparisons with rival theories and interpretation can shed light on the strength of Girard’s position. For example, in our work with Hamlet, we view several interpretations of the play before encountering Girard’s essay, “Hamlet’s Dull Revenge.”11 Nevertheless, even this approach can lead to a kind of interpretive relativism: Girard’s appears as one theory among many, and the relevance of his position is, again, lost. René Girard’s Hermeneutic 279 And then there is applied mimesis. Should we use “marketing” to stimulate desire in the study of mimetic theory? To some extent, yes. However, in the academic universe—even in mimetic high school—it still seems better when people learn for the sake of the truth itself (independently sought) and not simply to fulfill a mimetic urge (i.e., because their rival desires it). Again, though, we might even ask if it is possible (in a “fallen world”) to differentiate between the natural desire for knowledge and the competitive desire to know more than a rival (or even as much as a positive model). Even though these questions and problems remain challenging, I continue to seek new methods of application and pedagogy in advancing the discoveries of Girard in the secondary school realm. RELIGION On a personal level, perhaps the most surprising result of my encounter with Girard’s work was that it paved the way for my conversion from atheism to Christianity. Although I cannot say that this religious transformation was caused solely by an intellectual shift, it is, nevertheless, important to note that mimetic theory provided then and now a helpful tool for seeing the anthropological relevance of the biblical text. In this sense, Girard (both in his work and in his personal witness to God’s love) has given reasons for the credibility of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Always careful to show when his theory cannot proceed any further without an assumption of faith and grace, Girard is, nevertheless, able to give so many reasonable arguments for the credibility of the biblical tradition that, in a world hostile to Christianity, this approach can, in and of itself, provide a strong apologetics. In any event, mimetic theory has been the...

Share