Girardian Memetic Desire and Sin

Introduction

René Girard’s theory of mimetic desire identifies a profound truth about human behavior:
we do not desire in isolation. We desire what we see others desiring. Desire spreads socially, precedes conscious reasoning, and—when unchecked—leads to rivalry, resentment, and scapegoating.

Yet Girard leaves an important question underdeveloped:

Where, exactly, does sin occur?

Is it in the desire itself?
In imitation?
In social contagion?

This article argues that Girard’s insights become fully coherent only when placed within a triadic ontology of the human person, consisting of:

• the somatic axis (bodily / affective),
• the intellectual axis (narrative / justificatory),
• and the volitional axis (will / moral alignment).

Within this framework, mimetic desire is clarified, moral agency is preserved, and sin is precisely located—not in desire, but in the will.

1. What Memetic Desire Is (and Is Not)

Memetic desire is not mere impulse.

An impulse is pre-social and instinctual.
Memetic desire is a socially mediated induction of value—a desire that enters the person through observation of others before conscious reasoning occurs.

It operates prior to argument, ideology, or justification. This is why it spreads so efficiently and feels so compelling.

Crucially:

• Memetic desire explains how desire arises.
• It does not explain why it becomes sin.

That distinction requires a triadic analysis.

2. The Somatic Axis: Where Desire Is Felt

Role of the Somatic Axis

The somatic axis is where desire first arrives.

Here, desire manifests as:

• attraction,
• admiration,
• envy,
• restlessness,
• a felt sense of “importance.”

This occurs before reasons exist.

Example:

“I want what he has.”

This is experienced bodily: tension, arousal, heightened attention.
At this stage, desire is morally neutral. No choice has been made.

Language of the Somatic Axis

• “It feels right.”
• “I’m drawn to it.”
• “Something about that life/status/family calls to me.”
• “I don’t know why, but I want it.”

Memetic desire bypasses argument because it enters here.

3. The Intellectual Axis: Where Desire Is Justified

Role of the Intellectual Axis

The intellect does not originate mimetic desire.
It retrofits a story to justify it.

Once desire is felt, the intellect asks:

“Why do I want this?”

And then supplies an answer that makes the desire appear:

• reasonable,
• inevitable,
• virtuous,
• socially validated.

Example:

“I want this because it’s responsible.”
“Because it’s meaningful.”
“Because people like us choose this.”
“Because this is how the world works.”

This is not neutral reasoning.
It is post-hoc narrativization.

Language of the Intellectual Axis

• “It makes sense because…”
• “Historically / statistically / socially…”
• “Everyone successful eventually…”
• “This is just reality.”

This is where ideology forms and rivalry escalates—but still, sin has not yet occurred.

4. The Volitional Axis: Where Sin or Righteousness Occurs

Role of the Volitional Axis

The volitional axis is where the decisive question appears:

“Will I align my will with this desire?”

This decision is not compelled by:

• the body,
• the crowd,
• the intellect,
• or the narrative.

This is where moral agency resides.

The Volitional Fork

• Unexamined alignment
  → rivalry, resentment, scapegoating

• Refusal of alignment
  → freedom, differentiation, restraint

• Redirected alignment
  → vocation, sanctification, rightly ordered desire

Sin is not wanting.
Sin is not thinking.
Sin is consenting.

5. Memetic Desire and Schelling Points

Memetic desire creates false Schelling points—focal points of coordination that appear self-evident because “everyone like us chooses them.”

Examples:

• status,
• wealth,
• career prestige,
• sexual norms,
• lifestyle scripts,
• institutional success.

These are coordination equilibria, not truths.

They only bind when the will ratifies them.

Christ disrupts mimetic cycles not by denying desire, but by refusing the focal point of the crowd—and calling others to do the same.

6. Axis-by-Axis Summary

7. Why the Triadic Model Matters

Without this separation:

• Desire is blamed (repression, Gnosticism),
• Intellect is blamed (ideology critique),
• Or agency is denied (determinism).

With the triadic model:

• Desire is understood, not condemned,
• Intellect is humbled, not enthroned,
• Will is restored as the locus of responsibility.

This preserves:

• freedom without chaos,
• social explanation without absolution,
• and moral accountability without naïveté.

Conclusion

Girard revealed how desire spreads.
The triadic ontology reveals where responsibility remains.

Memetic desire:

• is deeper than impulse,
• has a somatic entry point,
• is intellectually justified,
• but is volitionally chosen.

Righteousness is not freedom from influence.
Righteousness is right alignment of the will in the presence of influence.

That is where sin begins.
And that is where it ends.