While a Swiss linguist named Ferdinand de Saussure was trying to explain the underlying structures and systems that govern literature and human interaction, René Girard, a French historian and literary critic, was beginning to explore the human disposition of desire, imitation, and eventual conflict. In the mid-20th century, Saussure formulated that structuralism places a key emphasis on using underlying structures and patterns in human thought, languages, and culture to try to explain why humans perceive the world, communicate, and interact in the ways that they do. Binary opposition, one of the concepts Saussure uses to help explain human actions, states that meaning arises from the contrast between two items such as hot versus cold, or good versus evil. In mimetic theory, René Girard proposes that humans unconsciously mimic the desires and behaviors of those around them, leading to rivalry and conflict between individuals. He states that this intensification of violence allows for the creation of the scapegoat mechanism, a process that allows for a society to unite and place all the blame for the underlying problems and tensions within the community on a common victim, which temporarily restores social order and alleviates the conflicts within the group.1 Girard emphasizes that the mechanism is merely a temporary solution, arguing that it only eases tension briefly before society falls back into the constant cycle of mimetic desires and rivalry. Despite originating independently on different sides of the Atlantic, these two theories attempt to explain the underlying patterns and structures within human behavior in society. They can be further employed to help analyze one of history’s most read and influential pieces of literature: the Holy Bible. Analyzing Luke 8 reveals how these frameworks illuminate the interplay of good and evil, showing how God’s goodness and love are revealed through patterns of symbolism and mimetic dynamics within Biblical narratives.
This chapter of Luke’s gospel account narrates one of Jesus’s most famous healings, the healing of the Gerasene demoniac. At the beginning of this chapter, Jesus approaches a man possessed by several demons who call themselves Legion. Legion calls out to Jesus, asking him not to send them back into the abyss but to spare them and send them into a nearby herd of swine. Jesus permits this; the demons possess the herd, which runs off the cliff into the sea, and the possessed man is freed. However, instead of responding with reverence and gratitude, the people of Gerasene City, frightened by what had happened, ask Jesus to leave the city.2
The healing of the Gerasene demoniac by liberation and restoration mirrors the subsequent healing of the hemorrhaging woman that also takes place in Luke 8. The woman, suffering from chronic bleeding for twelve years, believes that touching Jesus’ cloak will heal her. Luke describes how the woman “came up behind [Jesus] and touched the fringe of his cloak, and immediately her flow of blood stopped.”3 When Jesus asks who touched him, she explains her faith, and he commends her before compassionately setting her free from her life of burden.4 Both narratives illustrate the transformative power of compassion in restoring individuals to wholeness rather than the isolation and degradation of marginalized individuals.
Both the healing narratives in Luke 8 and the structuralist view of meaning highlight the power of contrast—just as wholeness is understood in relation to brokenness, light in relation to darkness, and good in relation to evil, the transformative work of Jesus gains significance through the very suffering and isolation it overcomes. One key idea of structuralism is that words derive meaning from their relationship with other words. For example, if one takes ‘good’ and tries to explain it, one may be inclined to say it is the opposite of ‘evil’. Well, then what is ‘evil’? The opposite of ‘good’? The ideas of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are intertwined in such a way that the difference between the two is what gives both their significance. Without said difference, neither would have meaning. In the book How to Interpret Literature, Robert Dale Parker briefly considers many ways to analyze literature, one of which is structuralism. Parker gives his insight as to what this method of thinking establishes by explaining, “Structuralism is understanding concepts through their relation to other concepts, rather than understanding them…in isolation from each other.”5 Parker, summarizing Saussure, argues that the relationship between concepts is ultimately what gives them value and meaning in the broader world. Does God use sin’s shame to show the glory found in Christ? Did he use the pain of the cross to show his love for humanity? Does he use evil in the world to show his goodness? Applying Saussure’s theory to even just a sliver of Christianity and the Bible can help shine a light on a plethora of deeper meanings that might otherwise remain obscured.
Through the binary oppositions in the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, underlying tensions and contrasts that shape the narrative structure are revealed. Firstly, there is a stark contrast established between chaos and order. Initially, the possessed man is representative of chaos, disorder, and isolation while the local Gerasene city has calmness, order, and cohesion. Additionally, this binary opposition is present in the coexistence of the man’s possessed self and his free self. Before his encounter with Jesus, the man is subject to the demons’ reigns and abuse causing him to live in a continual state of chaos. After being healed, the man sits at Jesus’ feet, clothed and grateful for his help. Pitting these two contrasting themes against each other helps to provide meaning. Without seeing how much turmoil the man had endured from Legion, there would not be nearly as much value in seeing the man healed. Society defines him as lesser through comparison, echoing Girard’s mimetic theory, where scapegoats maintain order. Similarly, structuralism begins to show that meaning arises through contrast, reinforcing exclusion and hierarchy.
Just as Saussure argues that we cannot understand ‘hot’ without ‘cold,’ it is apparent that we cannot fully grasp the goodness God has for us without experiencing pain. We cannot fathom the depths that God is willing to go for us unless we experience those deep valleys and see God’s love reach for us and pull us out. We do not know the type of pain the hemorrhaging woman experienced for twelve years; we do not know the public humiliation she experienced for over a decade. But from scripture, we observe that Jesus used that suffering to show the woman that he was continuously working amidst the suffering. Jesus used this woman’s struggles not only to heal her but to show that God is present with us today, regardless of how the world sees us. These accounts of miracles in the Bible begin to shine a light on God’s love for us. Reverend John Piper summarizes God’s “use” of evil when he hypothesizes, “God ordains all of these [sufferings] so that his glory—his mercy, justice, grace, wisdom—would shine more brightly.”6 God’s goodness has always been (and always will be) present, but perhaps applying a structuralist lens suggests that seeing it at odds with evil allows us to recognize its presence. Saussure argues that focusing on an object’s relation to the world around it is what gives it meaning, just as ‘hot’ gives ‘cold’ meaning and ‘cold’ gives‘hot’ meaning. I believe that throughout history, God uses evil to show us the true meaning of his goodness and love. Although the structuralistic approach to analyzing this healing is relatively obvious through the binary opposition between struggle and deliverance, analyzing it through mimetic theory sheds light on the dynamics present in both the woman and the crowd.
While structuralism provides a unique lens through which to consider the Bible, there is great value in employing both Saussure’s structuralism in tandem with Girard’s mimetic theory. To better explore this idea, we need to have a deeper understanding of Girard’s theory. At the core, mimetic theory can be split up into three sections: firstly, the unconscious desire to mimic those around us, which then can turn into a rivalry with them; secondly, the formation of the scapegoat, which can be leveraged to reconcile rivals; and finally, the reconciliation and new-found peace after the scapegoat has been removed.7 The Biblical story, which is filled with Jesus’s teachings challenging the mimetic desires and rivalry of the self-righteous Pharisees, ends with the ultimate act of sacrificial love and the breaking of the mimetic cycle. Girard lays out the framework for his mimetic theory in several works including The Scapegoat and I See Satan Fall like Lightning, where he draws upon the resurrection story of the Bible. With its themes of sacrifice, forgiveness, and redemption, Girard’s mimetic theory provides a lens through which the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ offer billions of people hope every day. By revealing how his ultimate sacrifice disrupts cycles of violence and scapegoating and replaces them with grace and reconciliation, it shows us how abounding the love of Christ is when contrasted with the pain and suffering found with the devil.
Applying mimetic theory to the story of the Gerasene demoniac offers a compelling lens through which to explore the dynamics of desire, violence, and social exclusion that Jesus tries to combat. Girard proposes it as if the possessed man said to the citizens “ …there’s no need to stone me; I will carry out your sentence on myself. The punishment I will inflict on myself will be far more horrible than any you would dream of inflicting on me.” Girard invites us to see that both the Gerasene people and Legion mimic each other by inflicting violence on the possessed man. The Gerasene people seem to have an underlying desire to keep the possessed man nearby, so while they do not stone him anymore, Legion takes up that responsibility and continues the practice. Girard adds, “They must gain some entertainment from this drama and even feel the need of it since they beg Jesus to leave immediately and stop interfering in their affairs.”9 This is offered as an answer to why the Gerasene people want Jesus to leave right after they find the man no longer possessed. The Gerasenes isolated the victim, bound him in chains, and allowed the demons free reign. This mirroring between the possessed man and the surrounding crowd highlights the influence of mimetic desire, revealing how imitation can perpetuate cycles of violence and exclusion within society.
Aside from the mimicry between Legion and the people, Girard suggests that there is also mimicry between the demons that make up Legion. Girard indicates that it is an “irresistible tendency to mimeticism” which is the primary force driving the pigs into the sea.10 This is an interesting point since, in his mimetic theory, the one that perishes (the scapegoat) is the victim, but here, the victim in this healing story survives while the demons’ mimetic desires lead to their demise, rather than the victim’s. When giving context on the method of execution where a group of people forces a victim to fall off the edge of a cliff into the sea and die, Girard writes: “the crowd should remain on top of the cliff and the victim fall over; instead, in this case, the crowd plunges and the victim is saved.”11 This is intriguing since it inverts mimetic theory. While the mimetic desires of individuals usually lead to the demise of a single scapegoat, allowing the society as a whole to achieve temporary harmony, it is actually the victim who achieves the harmony while the society perishes. Although the people initially scapegoated and alienated the possessed man, Legion’s mimetic desire to possess someone or something ultimately led to their demise, while ensuring the safety of the victim. By following the demonic man’s story with that of the hemorrhaging woman, we see two instances where mimetic theory is at play. While the man is oppressed by society and demonic forces that drive his destructive desires, the woman’s own actions illustrate a desperate imitation of the healing power she believes Jesus holds.
It is the very dichotomy, highlighted through structuralism, between the pain found in her life of struggle and the goodness found in her newfound liberation that serves as the motivating force for the hemorrhaging woman’s desperate actions. Before the healing of the woman, Jesus is pressed on all sides by people trying to get close to him and perhaps be healed in their own lives. Girard states that human desires and behaviors are shaped by imitation of others, and there is an act of imitation found in the crowds’ desire for healing through Jesus’s presence. People in the crowd were aware of what Jesus was capable of doing and perhaps sought healing for themselves. Despite the social stigma attached to her condition and the potential consequences of her actions, the hemorrhaging woman defies societal norms and risks further exclusion by reaching out to touch Jesus. She has a similar desire for relief from her previous way of life just as those around her want relief from theirs. Girard states that rivalry proceeds the initial stages of imitation through the crowd’s dismissal of her, just as society as a whole treats her as an outcast – much like the Gerasene man possessed by Legion. Jesus’ recognition of her and restoration of her dignity and sense of belonging is a moment that would have challenged the mimetic rivalry and exclusionary dynamics present within society then. By emphasizing the importance of compassion and empathy in fostering genuine human connection and reconciliation as opposed to simply alienating those believed to be less, Jesus helps overcome societal barriers. Girard’s theory posits that mimetic desires become rivalries which then give way to scapegoating. In the case of the hemorrhaging woman, however, Jesus stops the mimetic progression through rivalry and does not allow anyone to be scapegoated.
The combination of mimetic theory and structuralism offers a possible explanation as to how the scapegoats are chosen in society. The Gerasene demoniac was pushed out of society into the graveyard because he did not fit into the serenity that the community wanted to embody; he was chaotic and erratic. The difference between what the community wanted to be and what the man was is the driving reason behind the act of forcing the possessed man to be an outsider. The hemorrhaging woman is no different. According to Levitical law, the woman was unclean, and this binary difference between those who were clean and this woman caused her to be pushed aside, looked down upon, and labeled as a second-class citizen. Society, by noticing their differences from these individuals, dehumanized them, leading them to be scapegoated and blamed. The differences between the “norm” and what these individuals were labeled as are the main reasons why they were chosen to be scapegoated; it is easier to get rid of another human if you do not view them as such.
Although mimetic theory and structuralism have different origins, together they foster a unique understanding of the Biblical characters’ struggles and broader societal implications. While mimetic theory helps shine a light on the formation of rivalries and exclusion from the subconscious human desire to share similar desires with those around them, structuralism takes this and proceeds to highlight how those exclusions are decided. In the case of the Gerasene demoniac, the possessed man was excluded and positioned as an outsider from society because he was labeled unclean and embodied chaos, the binary opposite of what that society tried to display: calmness. Similarly, the hemorrhaging woman is looked down upon and labeled unclean not because of anything she did out of her free will, but because she was forced to live with a disease for twelve years. Society, both in Biblical times and now, chooses who to scapegoat by finding those who are different from the norm and placing blame on them. This binary opposition between the “normal” and the “other” provides a convenient framework for scapegoating as it makes it easier to dehumanize those being scapegoated. The collective community seeks to maintain its sense of order and purity, effectively sacrificing these individuals to preserve its well-being through their exclusion. It is interesting to note that while Girard proposes that scapegoating is a mechanism communities use to ease tensions, in both instances in Luke 8, the victims are not successfully scapegoated to ease the tensions. Jesus, through love and compassion, is the one who heals the demoniac and the woman from their suffering and alienation from society. Through his compassionate actions, Jesus disrupts the cycle of scapegoating in both the Gerasene demoniac and the hemorrhaging woman, and his rejection of societal barriers offers a glimpse of hope toward inclusivity and redemption, mirroring his ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
Vamseekrishna Vemana
Vamsee Vemana ’26 is from Canton, Michigan. He is majoring in mechanical engineering.
Footnotes
1 Colloquium on Violence & Religion, “What Is Mimetic Theory?”, February 3, 2025, https://violenceandreligion.com/what-is-mimetic-theoryupdated-page/.
2 Luke 8:37
3 Luke 8:44
4 Luke 8:45-48
5 L Robert D. Parker, How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 43.
6 John Piper, “Why Does God Allow Satan to Live?” Desiring God, November 26, 2008, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-does-god-allow-satan-to-live.
7 Colloquium on Violence & Religion, “What Is Mimetic Theory?”
8 René Girard, The Scapegoat (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), 170.
9 Ibid. 169.
10 Ibid. 183.
11 Ibid. 179.