Mimetic Theory as Explained by The Talented Mr. Ripley
A primer on Mimetic Theory and Mr. Ripley
I started 2024 by re-reading “The Talented Mr. Ripley” then contined with the next two books of the series, “Ripley Under Ground” and “Ripley’s Game”. Collectively totaling nearly 1,000 pages, they detail Thomas Ripley’s journey from a low status social climber to being at least externally viewed as sophisticated and cultured. While following this journey, I could not help but notice how Ripley’s behavior and actions closely resemble the progression that Rene Girard said that human’s go through, as explained by Mimetic theory. You may have heard of Mimetic theory because it has received a lot of attention in recent years, especially in the Venture Capital and Startup communities. This is how I became aware of it and from 2020 to 2022, starting off with some primers from people such as Alex Danco and books such as Wanting by Luke Burgis, I feel though I got at least a basic understanding of Mimetic Theory and Girard’s writings. In today’s blog post, I wanted to explain the high-level concepts behind Mimetic Theory, using The Talented Mr. Ripley and other pop culture figures to illustrate these concepts.
Simply put, Mimetic Theory seeks to explain that human desires do not originate from within; they are formed by imitating other people. We only desire something because we see somebody else wanting it, which leads us to want this same thing. This will create a cycle of imitation that will lead to conflicts and rivalry as many people start competing for objects, status, relationships etc. This competition will continue to escalate, potentially as far as violence. This cycle will only end when a scapegoat can be identified and blamed for society's problems, to restore harmony for everybody else, at the expense of the scapegoat. Mimetic Theory posits that if you know who somebody is trying to imitate, you can predict their actions. In the case of Thomas Ripley; when we are first introduced to him, he aspires to be perceived by others as a person with high class and status. He did not have a specific idol in mind until he met somebody who perfectly encapsulates this, his Mimetic model, Dickie Greenleaf.
If you have not read the books, the 1999 film starring Matt Damon, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow will provide you with sufficient context to follow along with the concepts (even if Thomas Ripley from the books is different from the way Matt Damon portrayed him1). As far as I can tell, Girard never linked Mimetic Theory to Thomas Ripley but if Highsmith didn’t publish The Talented Mr. Ripley before Girard started his writings on the subject, I would have presumed that she based her novels off the writings of Girard. If you are planning on reading the series or watching the movie and want to avoid spoilers, I would suggest stopping now as the spoilers are about to begin.
From the very introduction of the Tom Ripley character, we are presented with somebody who is unsatisfied with his wealth, social standing and external perception. He does not like any of the people he spends time in New York, using them for his own benefit and hardly pays them a second thought the moment his boat departs for Europe. From Ripley’s early internal monologue, we know that status and the way that he is perceived by strangers occupies a fair share of his thoughts. He rejects social invitations aboard the boat, simply to help cultivate a mysterious, “old money aesthetic”, despite having nothing else going on. Tom does a good job believing his own façade, up until the moment he arrives in Mongibello, Italy and encounters Dickie Greenleaf.
In the context of Mimetic Theory, Dickie Greenleaf represented Tom’s perfect Mimetic Idol. Dickie was handsome, charming, wealthy and undoubtedly high status, perfectly embodying everything that Tom wished he had. From their very first encounter, Tom is completely engulfed in Dicky; his object of desire shifts from becoming high status, to ensuring that Dickie likes him. As such, each day, in his attempt for Dickie to like him, Tom becomes less of himself and more like Dickie. This is consistent with Mimetic Theory, as Tom sees Dicky’s lifestyle as desirable, therefore he tries to imitate it. For the early part of the story, this works out well enough for both actors: Dickie gets an American male companion to share experiences with, while Tom gets the feeling of being accepted into the high status class and the close proximity to his object of Mimetic Desire2. The arrangement works nicely until Dickie catches Tom in his room wearing his clothing and imitating him. This is the glass shattering moment of the story, where Tom’s desire to be Dicky is quite literally on display, and Dickie realizes Tom’s motives.
This scene is the start of the chasm that forms between the two men. Despite Tom’s desperate attempts, Dickie becomes increasingly less interested in Tom. This rejection, decimates Tom, as Dickie’s friendship represented, the fulfillment of his initial desire, of being high status because if somebody like Dickie liked spending time with him, surely he must have been high status himself. In the few weeks between Dickie catching Tom in his clothes and their trip to San Remo, Tom sees his desire slipping from fingers. This conflict between Tom and Dickie, would be described by Girard as rivalry, which is common as the imitator and the model become competitors for the same object of desire. Tom's actions escalate to murder as he attempts to eliminate the barrier (Dickie himself) to achieving what he desires. In the film, Dickie (Jude Law) tells Tom that he’s boring and a leech, which is what sets Tom off. Somebody familiar with Mimetic Theory, would have predicted that this would have happened. When Tom selected Dickie as his model of desire, there was an incredible status gap between the two of them. The longer they spent together, Dickie transitioned from a distant, mythic entity that he could never hope to rival, to something resembling a peer. Once Tom felt that he and Dickie were peers, they were unwittingly on a course that would inevitably lead to rivalry, and eventually violence and death.
To summarize, Mimetic Theory believes that human desires are manifestations of many people vying for similar objectives. When people’s desires differ, they have no reason to compete. However, over time, through imitation, these desires will eventually converge. When Tom first meets Dickie, Tom’s desire is to become high status, whereas Dickie simply wants to postpone his responsibilities in America and enjoy “La Dolce Vita”, for as long as possible. As Tom believes he is becoming high status, his desires increasingly imitate Dickie’s, creating the rivalry, which ends with Tom murdering Dickie, then impersonating him.
1 Jude Law’s portrayal of Dickey Greenleaf, was much closer to the book on the other hand. Am I the only one that finds it funny that Jude Law played characters in consecutive movies where the premise of the film was that the film’s protagonist intended to impersonate him for his good looks and wealth (Gattaca & Talented Mr. Ripley)?
2 This desire does not need to be explicitly sexual in nature. The same could be said about the relationship between Oliver Quick and Felix Catton, in the film Saltburn, even without the sexual fascination, Oliver desired to be Felix.
Additional thoughts:
While I selected The Talented Mr. Ripley for this blog post, I easily could have written this about Saltburn or Mean Girls. In all of these films, we are introduced with a character striving for something greater, whether it’s status or acceptance. Once they meet their Mimetic Idol, Dickie Greenleaf, Felix Catton or Regina George, their initial goals gradually shift to becoming their Mimetic Idol. In all cases, the characters have to abandon their own personalities to become their desired personalities. Of the three stories, Mean Girls might actually fit Mimetic Theory the best since it also exemplifies the Scapegoating Mechanism and the love triangle competition between Lindsey Lohan and Rachel McAdams for Aaron Samuels.
Ideally your rival is some distant figure, you can never compete with, so that rivalry and violence can never occur. Girard, a devout Christian believed that God is the antithesis to the negative aspects of Mimetic desire. According to Girard’s perspective, God’s desire is for the well being and salvation of humanity. Therefore, Girard would encourage human’s to try to embody the ultimate model of desire that is free from rivalry and violence. Given that there are many perspectives on God, it is not necessary to have God as your mimetic model to want to aspire to become the best version of yourself that positively contributes to society. Matthew McConaughey in his Academy Award speech at the 86th Oscars, said his hero was himself, 10 years from now. While it’s a funny thing to say while accepting a Golden Statue, he does acknowledge that he knows that he will never become this person, therefore he cannot compete with them directly, but it still permits him to aspire to become the best version of himself. "So you see every day, every week, every month, and every year of my life, my hero's always 10 years away. I'm never gonna be my hero. I'm not gonna attain that. I know I'm not, and that's just fine with me because that keeps me with somebody to keep on chasing.
The Ripley example is fairly straightforward since Tom does not deny that he wants to be more like Dicky. In some cases, two parties can begin as rivals, and they would never admit that they wanted to be more like the other person/group. If you take the reverse of Mimetic Theory, let's call this (“Mimetic Inversion”), one group can define themselves by wanting to be the complete opposite of another group, but will eventually inevitably become exactly like them. This has played out in several notable historical revolutions but from pop culture, this is well exemplified in the Hunger Game Series. At least in the films, the rebels define themselves in opposition of the Capitol for use of Propaganda, willingness to sacrifice innocents and authoritarian rule. By the conclusion of Mockingjay, the Rebellion will have performed all of these, justifying that it was all necessary and for the greater good. No member of the Rebellion would have admitted to others or themselves that what they truly desired was power, but by defining themselves in opposition to The Capitol, they unwittingly eventually succumbed and imitated them.