The Power of Mimesis and the Mimesis of Power in the Production of Subjectivity

Abstract

The article compares and analyses two approaches to the production of subjectivity — Foucauldian and Girardian — within the context of contemporary political philosophy and philosophical anthropology. These two theories—which are arguably dominant in their respective fields—are compared due to their shared focus on the role of power and violence in the formation of the subject. Both approaches acknowledge the importance of power in shaping the self, but they differ in their emphasis on specific aspects of this process. In the Foucauldian approach, power is seen as a pervasive and complex force that permeates all aspects of society, while in Girardian theory it is understood as a more localized and intentional form of domination. Despite these differences, both approaches share a common understanding that the subject is shaped through the application of power techniques, including the use of violence. However, each approach places a different emphasis on the role of these techniques in the formation of identity and agency. Thus, in Foucauldian thought, violence internalized and instrumentalized by power through its localization in institutions is external to the individual — who appears to be a passive recipient of subjectifying practices; this also reflects the “political capture of the body” by biopower as the infection of the individual by power and self-control, and, consequently, becoming a mediator of power oneself. In contrast, the Girardian perspective—in which mimesis is the primary condition for the formation and operation of society—asserts the supremacy of violence around which institutions form, due to which violence is only partially removed from the individual. Thus the role of being violence’s operator is imposed upon them — though in a depoliticized form not directly linked to power structures. Both theories of the reproduction of subjectivity, in one way or another, diagnose and describe the crisis of the individual. They therefore propose their own solutions for overcoming this crisis. However, they share the common understanding that subjectivity is rooted in the individual. As a result, the strategies proposed by Foucault and Girard, such as self-care practices and radical Christianity, which are not formed by external power, do not transcend power or mimesis.