On Sacrifice: The Reconciliation of Girard's “Scapegoat Mechanism”

The act of sacrifice is essential to human existence. An even more radical statement is that all worlds (or societies) and organisms are formed through sacrifice. According to Roman myth, Romulus slew his brother, Remus, to found the city of Rome. Robin Wall Kimmerer in chapter 1 of her national bestseller, Braiding Sweetgrass, lays out an Anishinaabe cosmogonic myth in which Muskrat volunteers to swim to the bottom of the ocean to retrieve mud on which to build a new home for humans. Muskrat is successful in his task but perishes in the process, thereby giving up his life so that the other creatures may live. Gruesome sacrifice of both animals and humans was common in Aztec culture inspired by the belief that the gods first sacrificed themselves so that humans might live (the legend of Five Suns). Ancient peoples intuitively grasped this profound (and sometimes terrifying) truth, yet our modern world seems to have forgotten the significance of sacrifice, even though the behavior of organizations and communities are still bound by this principle.

Ok, this seems like a pretty extreme statement. How can such a wild claim be justified? And how could it be helpful or even reasonable to consign a being to death with the expectation that such an event would benefit the larger group?

Well, let me back up a little bit and provide some context and definition to the term “sacrifice”. In its most basic sense, I think of the act of sacrifice as denying something to attain something of higher value or to allow something greater to flourish. Ultimately, it’s an act of values prioritization. Psychologist and clinician, Dr. Jordan Peterson, suggests that all work is sacrifice. Delayed gratification is a good example in which giving up immediate pleasure, comfort, or happiness leads ultimately to a greater reward. A large portion of neuroscientist Dr. Andrew Huberman’s research and literature focuses on the human dopamine system. His work highlights how primal human biological systems actually reward proper sacrifice and reveals to us how deeply the purpose and function of sacrifice is encoded into our being.

In my understanding, the concept of sacrifice can be divided into the two basic categories:

1. Cutting off

2. Offering up or Pouring out

The first type of sacrifice involves the identification and elimination of aspects of the organism (see my previous essay The Collective “Self”: The Team as an Organism) that are not contributing to its fullest health or highest growth potential. These parts are typically burned after they are severed. The pruning of a tree, the culling of a herd, wound cauterization, and tourniquet application can all be viewed as examples of this type of sacrifice. If an organism or community is to thrive, every organ or component of it must have a function within its higher purpose and must be dedicated to its health and prosperity. If an element of the organism is demanding its energy (or resources) but is not using that energy to further the larger good purpose of the organism, it must be removed in order for the organism to grow properly. Most things in nature exist by this principle. The weak and sick among wild herds become prime targets for predators and are often the first to be taken because they require the least amount of energy from the hunters. Old dead branches break off and fall from trees when the wind blows and burn first in underbrush fires. In individual human terms, we invite dissolution and death if we don't cut off patterns that do not serve our health. A chain-smoker is prompted to quit smoking after being diagnosed with lung cancer. Likewise, in an organization, if an employee is taking more than he is giving and is no longer directing his energy toward the health and prosperity of the group, his supervisor invites the demise of his organization if he allows the individual to continue to fill that role.

If the first type of sacrifice is cutting off that which is not aligned with the long-term health of the organism, the second form of necessary sacrifice involves the organism voluntarily emptying itself of its best energy. The quality of the energy that is poured out or given up is directly related to the probability that a goal or a desirable outcome will be achieved. This is why we might offer up the majority of our waking hours to provide for our families. This is why we devote the times of sharpest mental clarity in our day to study for exams. This is why a team exhausts their energy in training for a championship competition. It's insane to assume that the highest results, or even success, can be achieved by pouring out a sacrifice that is less than the absolute best we have to offer.

Now, many Americans may think of sacrifice as a dated activity undertaken in the ancient world by naive and under-evolved peoples and that it can be dismissed, or even condemned, in modern society. However, there are observable patterns in our world that indicate that this mechanism is still active in current communities and people groups. French-American historian, literary critic, and social science philosopher, Rene Girard, has written a large volume of literature on sacrifice generally and the “scapegoat mechanism” (part of his “Mimetic Theory”) specifically. He asserts that the scapegoat mechanism is necessary for a community's survival because it unites all of its citizens in a common ritual. Here's how it works: an individual is selected by the group, sometimes subconsciously, to represent all that which is undesirable within the population. All the “bad” in the community is then pinned on that individual (or group) as if they were fully responsible for it, regardless of whether or not they are truly guilty. The individual is then sent away or killed, and the “evil” in the community is either carried away into the wilderness or dies with the scapegoat. A strong binding effect is the natural result of this scapegoat sacrifice: for a while after the sacrifice, the subject is often held prominently in the group’s conscience and the community becomes more closely connected than before, bound around the memory and significance of the event. This pattern is clearly laid out in the ancient Hebrew tradition of Yom Kippur. The Hebrews used animals to fulfill the role of the scapegoat while, in sober irony, all the undesirable aspects of German society in the early-mid 20th century were pinned on the Jews as a people under Nazi control in Germany. Over the last fifteen years, I've observed this mechanism take shape in the corporate setting, in military units, and in non-profit structures. I've seen multiple people set up for failure by their larger organization and then pinned with the accountability for the larger organization's shortcomings. These people are typically either terminated from the group or permanently ostracized. While it’s not socially acceptable in our society for people to be physically killed by their corporation or organization, they can certainly still be blamed, condemned, and/or, cancelled.

The Problem: The problem with the scapegoat as a mechanism for sustaining community lies in its cyclical and iterative nature. It does not (and cannot) provide a permanent one-time solution for binding a group toward a single purpose. It also requires gruesome behaviors and even perpetuates an unsustainable cycle of killing and death, a repetitive requirement for blood. With the passage of time, new “evils” arise in society and, to ensure the group's survival, they must be repeatedly fixed to another scapegoat and sent away to the demons of the desert. In ancient Hebrew religious practice, the Yom Kippur sacrifice was a yearly requirement.

The Solution: The permanent solution that resolves the tension within the scapegoat model and binds a group even more effectively is for the members of the community to embody voluntary self-sacrifice: to willingly eradicate those aspects of themselves that are detrimental to the group’s health and to fervently pour out their highest quality energy in the service of the community. This self-emptying activity is known as ἀγἁπη (agape) in Greek and is considered the highest form of love in Classical thought. During a discussion in Plato’s Symposium, Socrates even guides the group to the conclusion that agape is the “unmoved mover” of the universe (that Being or Energy which cannot be moved, yet gives motion to all things). Our continual willingness to make the appropriate individual sacrifices eliminates the need to select and banish a scapegoat. It sustains and even strengthens the group’s cohesion, and is the action that establishes a strong community and perpetuates its flourishing. This pattern that is so deeply embedded in our human traditions, customs, and leisure is immediately accessible and observable in a deck of playing cards. The Ace’s appropriate participation in the King’s realm (suit) consists of nesting its identity under the hierarchy of the King; submitting itself below even the lowest number in the suit (the 2 card). The solution for sustaining long-term organizational health is self-emptying sacrificial love, embodied foremost by an organism’s leader and also by its members. Agape, then, properly modeled across a community renders the scapegoat mechanism obsolete and allows organizations to retain a bit more of their margin and better appreciate those characters at their fringes.