Modern Attempts at Scapegoating:

Lynching, Hate Crimes, and Sexual Harassment

Why the Mechanism of Scapegoats Fails

Written by Megan Quicke

March 13, 2002

Professor Weddle

RE 480 Senior Seminar

Honor Code Upheld

Sacrifice and scapegoat are two words whose definitions vary, depending on the context in which one finds them. Beginning with archaic sacrificial rites, one may examine the important functions that scapegoats served, and the effects that communities experienced because of the religious sacrifices that used them.  Sacrifice used to be understood as a religious act carried out in a religious atmosphere where the victim was not only central, but also highly respected.  The death of the scapegoat served several important social functions.  These included things such as solidarity within the community, re-fertilization of land, health of the sacrifier, and overall health of the community.  Sacrifices served as organized violent acts to resolve tensions within communities that would otherwise cause unorganized chaos.  However, as time passed and less people believed in the myths of religious sacrifice, the roles of sacrifice and scapegoats changed.  Although many of the social conditions that called for primitive religious sacrifice persist and the elements of human behavior that created the need for scapegoats still exist, the community purpose that sacrificial rituals once served is no longer achieved.  Because the innocence of the victim is now part of our collective human consciousness we cannot accept the myths that were once able to mask the true nature of the victim.  As myths continue to be deconstructed, the beneficial social effects once obtained by collective acts of violence towards scapegoats are now ineffective.  Although the mechanism of scapegoats still exists, the growing awareness of the victim’s innocence exposes the emptiness of the behavior that persecutes scapegoats.

ATMOSPHERES THAT CALL FOR SCAPEGOATS: TIMES OF CRISIS

Since scapegoating functions to revive social solidarity, collective persecutions occur when the persecutors feel normal institutions are weakened.  Rene Girard describes times of crisis: “The strongest impression is without question an extreme loss of social order evidenced by the disappearance of the rules and ‘differences’ that define cultural divisions.” [1]   In many cases there may be a very real threat to a society’s normalcy due to drought or famine, reminding all individuals of their common mortality as humans.  In other cases, the perceived loss of social order may be the conception of a single group.  “Ultimately, the persecutors always convince themselves that a small number of people, or even a single individual, despite his relative weakness, is extremely harmful to the whole of society.” [2]   In conditions where lines of differentiation are blurred or disappear, questions of how this occurred arise.  For persecutors the scapegoat provides the answer, and any uncomfortable unknown may be attributed to the victim. 

In most cases individuals who form the margins of society are selected as scapegoats because persecutors find they have obvious physical and social identities different from their own.  Girard explains that sickness, madness, genetic deformities, accidental injuries, and disabilities are all universal signs for the selection of victims.  A society’s minority groups are perhaps the most frequently targeted.  As will be discussed later, minorities such as African-Americans during the Reconstruction, gay male victims of hate crimes, and women victims of sexual harassment in the workplace are all minority groups that undergo forms of scapegoating.  In all three of these cases, the system that is threatened is the system of the persecutor.  What is normal for the persecutor is challenged by each of these groups.  Girard notes:

The signs that indicate a victim’s selection result not from the difference within the system but from the difference outside the system, the potential for the system to differ from its own difference, in other words not to be different at all, to cease to exist as a system…Difference that exists outside the system is terrifying because it reveals the truth of the system, its relativity, its fragility, and its mortality. [3]

The difference outside the system that Girard discusses is illustrated by activities that the majority is not accustomed to.  If African-Americans are considered the property of whites for a number of years, but after the Civil War are granted citizenship and are able to create businesses of their own, this shakes the very system of thought that whites are familiar with.  This event challenges the lines of differentiation that whites depend on and causes the traditional system to break down.  In attempt to re-establish the system they are familiar with, the white males threaten the African-Americans with violence to restore the social identities they held before the Civil War.

THE ROOT OF SCAPEGOAT VIOLENCE: MIMETIC DESIRE

During times of crisis when lines of differentiation are absent and the familiar system can not be detected, acts of violence tend to escalate.  These acts draw attention away from the social factors that cause them to the violence itself.  Bailie notes, “Violence is so inherently fascinating that it distracts us from the more fundamental mechanisms that underlie it.” [4]   One of the mechanisms that Bailie refers to is mimetic desire.  He refers to Girard’s concept of mimetic desire in order to illustrate its function.  “The passions that lead to violence are the product of mimetic desire…The desire that interests Girard is the desire that forms and destroys cultures, that shapes and shatters personal identities…the word ‘desire’ means the influence of others.” [5]   In short, mimetic desire is one’s own growing appetite of something that someone else wants as well.  Each individual’s desire is enhanced by the awareness of the other individual’s craving.  Mimetic desire leads toward social and psychological effects such as jealousy, envy, covetousness, resentment, rivalry, contempt, and hatred.  These qualities, in turn, contribute to the violence that scapegoats individuals.  After illustrating that the longing for a specific object occurs only after noticing someone else’s desire for the same object, and escalates as a result of each others’ desire, Bailie notes:

Mimetic desire is meta-physical, not physical; it tends to become obsessional faster and more fiercely than merely physical desires—for which it would be more appropriate to use the term ‘appetite,’ rather than desire.  The desires that churn out the melodramas that are the hallmark of human history have their roots in mimesis and not in physical appetite.  Mimetic desires have one exasperating quality: they can never be satisfied. [6]

This description of mimetic desire suggests that there is no method to expel this characteristic from society, no matter how many individuals are scapegoated.  Since there is no way to satisfy mimetic desire, one may see that the violent acts against individuals performed in hopes of releasing it are defective and serve no meaningful purpose.

MYTHS: MASKING THE INNOCENCE OF THE VICTIM

Myths have functioned throughout history to explain truths in alternate ways.  The motive of whoever creates the myth determines what shape the myth takes.  Gil Bailie describes the function of myth:

Human culture as we know it begins when an act of unanimous violence brings the violence that preceded it to an end in such a breathtaking way that it gives birth to primitive religion.  Myth remembers this strange event and its dramatic resolution from the point of view of those who derived social benefits from it, namely, those who discovered their first social solidarity when they joined in common cause of expelling or eliminating their scapegoat.  Myth camouflages the violence and recalls it in ways that make it seem valiant and divinely ordained…I use ‘myth’ to refer to a special combination of fact and fantasy. [7]

For the most part myths have been produced by the persecutors and not by the victims.  Because of this, archaic religious sacrifices presented the victim as an object who served the purpose of bringing the worlds of the sacred and profane together, instead of focusing on the fact that the victim was a living being who was killed.  To present sacrifice as a means of re-establishing community solidarity is a product of myth created by the sacrifiers.  To look at a sacrifice as the murder of a living creature is to remove the myth from the event. 

Myths continue to be created and deconstructed.  Societies tend to believe the myths of their time until someone takes the initiative to disprove them.  It is also easier to see the mythic aspect of accounts in other cultures and in past times than to see the ones that presently exist in our own society.  Throughout history certain fields, such as science, psychology, and sociology, have contributed to the deconstructing of many myths once held in high regard.  Girard describes what happens when myths lose their influence: 

If unanimous victimization reconciles and reorders societies in direct proportion to its concealment, then it must lose its effectiveness in direct proportion to its revelation.  When the mythical lie is publicly denounced, the polarization of scandals is no longer unanimous and the social catharsis weakens and disappears.  Instead of reconciling the community, the victimization must intensify divisions and dissensions. [8]

When acts of violence that scapegoat individuals no longer have a myth associated with them, they are exposed for what they truly are: violent acts initiated by a crowd onto an individual.  Without myth, these violent acts are exposed as violence for the sake of violence.  Instead of holding the claim of re-unifying community, these acts lose all justification.  This paper aims to illustrate the emptiness of myths in three situations of scapegoating and to show how awareness and public policy are important means of reducing scapegoat violence.

AFRICAN-AMERICANS: THE SOUTH’S POST CIVIL WAR SCAPEGOAT

Stewart Tolnay and E.M. Beck provide the social context that led to the numerous accounts of mob violence toward Blacks.  For Whites, the post Civil War changes in social relations created an atmosphere of crisis where the lines of differentiation that they once depended on disappeared.

During the nineteenth century, wealth in the South was founded on a plantation economy fueled by world demand for cotton and stoked by a captive African-American labor force.  By 1865 the traditional keystone of this plantation society was undermined by the abolition of slavery…The purpose of the terrorism [performed by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan] was to restore the antebellum structure of social relations, embracing democratic one-party male rule and a caste system in which every white stood above all blacks. [9]

 Federal troops were withdrawn from the “redeemed” southern statehouses by the end of 1877.  This allowed racial violence to persist in the South and lynchings by mobs became an ordinary practice.  Tolnay and Beck lay out the main functions that lynching served for whites.

Mob violence against African-Americans served four functions within southern society during the lynching era: (1) to eradicate specific persons accused of crimes against the white community; (2) as a mechanism of state-sanctioned terrorism designed to maintain a degree of leverage over the African-American population; (3) to eliminate or neutralize African-American competitors for social, economic, or political rewards; and (4) as a symbolic manifestation of the unity of white supremacy. [10]  

Each of the functions that Tolnay and Beck present support the notion that whites felt the need to re-establish previous lines of differentiation between themselves and the African-American population.  By charging Blacks with various crimes and creating an “us” vs. “them” situation, Whites attempted to maintain a state of white supremacy.     

            Elements of mimetic desire are present in the motives of the whites who instigated the lynchings.  African-Americans opened general stores in areas where whites historically had no competition.  The business these new stores received created tension with the white storeowners.  The business that black patrons used to bring to white storeowners was transferred to the new store.  Whereas the business of African-Americans was most likely taken for granted by white store owners before, once someone else was receiving their business it suddenly became more appealing.  Mimetic passions concerning white men’s sexual identity were also an issue that led to charges for the lynching of African-Americans.  When white men saw Black men engaging in sexual relations with white women, they felt threatened and took measures to stop this behavior.  Although white men had been involved in voluntary and involuntary relations with Black women for years, the interracial mixing between Black men and white women was labeled as taboo.  This has to do with the fact that as white males, they were the individuals who were used to establishing the rules for such issues.  White men’s sexual identity was challenged when the women they viewed as their own engaged in sexual relationships with Black men.       

Myths were created to justify the violent tortures and lynchings committed against African-Americans.  These myths explained the beast-like nature of Blacks, and the unnatural lust that Black men had for white women.  Stereotypes of Black men were created; some of these stereotypes have survived and are still part of our society’s collective conscious.  Trudier Harris remarks about myths that, “Some myths, once established, acquire the power to destroy.” [11]   The non-human beast-like label that was given to African-Americans during the times of lynching are no doubt the cause of many lingering conceptions today. The charge that Black men raped white women was one of the leading charges for lynchings.  With the growing rights of African-Americans, whites felt threatened by the new competition of an entire population of people.  White people’s economic, political, and sexual identities were threatened.  Lynching Blacks was their method to control the situation.  

            The scapegoat role that African-Americans served in nineteenth and early twentieth centuries contrasts greatly to the scapegoats found in archaic sacrificial rites.  This is explored by Harris, who reviews anthropologist Sir James George Frazer’s study of ritual and taboo in undeveloped societies:

Frazer maintains that human scapegoats, who took upon themselves the sins of the group and the disfavor of the gods, were sacrificed only when the survival of the society was in question, in cases of drought, famine, or pestilence…His or her death was deemed necessary for the health or re-fertilization of the world and for the lives of the people.  White mobs could make these claims, but only in perversion of the original rituals.  Their claims to executions for the sake of survival of their society were fixed in a mental perception of themselves as superior to other human beings, not in a belief in the physical annihilation of their culture from natural forces…Also, many of the victims of early scapegoat rituals were allowed as long as a year to prepare for their inevitable deaths; dying was not as immediate and certainly not as purposeless as lynchings and burnings; in fact there were implications that the victims shared their executioners’ purpose. [12]

     Although the mechanism of the scapegoat has persisted throughout history, Harris’s review of Frazer’s study illustrates the complete loss of respect given to the victim of sacrifice.  The scheme of sacrifice that once existed has faded away and has been replaced by a new process that is less understood by its participants.  Harris notes that the crowds who act out the rituals of violence against Blacks do not fully understand their actions; therefore, there is no catharsis at the end of the lynching.  No positive results occur—rain does not fall, no abundant harvest results, slavery is not re-instated.  Instead, the violence spurred by mimetic desire continues in a contagious manner and people feel the need to further rid the world of evil by killing even more African-Americans.  The lack of regularity of lynchings in the South further illustrates the arbitrary manner in which whites persecuted their victims.  Harris notes:

Peoples of cultures of classical antiquity and still earlier saw the scapegoat ritual, the expulsion of evil, as a periodic part of their lives.  They had holidays, and they had sacrifices.  For white Americans, there was no regular ritual cycle.  There might be one execution in a year, or two hundred.  Whenever the crowd was convinced a violation had occurred, a sin had been committed, the group could be encouraged to act in the expurgation of that sin. [13]

Exposing the emptiness of the claims made by whites is an important step in deconstructing the myths that contributed to the validation of the deaths of thousands of African-Americans.  In hindsight it is much easier to see the absurdity of the claims made by whites.  The critical eye that we are able to approach the issue of lynching with must be expanded to modern day acts of violence.  There are many situations where a certain group is targeted and persecuted for no substantiated reason.  The reasons we are given in these cases are reasons constructed by the persecutors themselves. 

HATE CRIMES: SCAPEGOATING GAY MEN

            The general nature of hate crimes consists of “crimes committed because of real or perceived differences in race, religion, ethnicity or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.” [14]   Although violent acts are committed against both gay men and lesbians, the number of physical acts of violence against gay men is much higher, and for this reason, hate crimes against lesbians will not be central in this discussion.  Hate crimes against gay men can not be understood without first understanding the society in which they occur.  Gregory Herek describes the context of hate crimes in the United States. 

Anti-gay violence is a logical, albeit extreme, extension of the heterosexism that pervades American society.  Heterosexism is defined here as an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community.  Like racism, sexism, and other ideologies of oppression, heterosexism is manifested both in societal customs and institutions, such as religion and the legal system, and in individual attitudes and behaviors. [15]

Homosexuality is condemned by many of the institutions of our country, creating an environment that is hostile toward anyone who is gay or who is perceived to be gay.  In our society homosexuality is often hidden, and when it is publicly recognized, it is condemned.  The most socially acceptable and possibly the most widespread form of hate crimes among teenagers and young adults is violence targeting sexual minorities.  The aggressors of hate crimes fall into four general categories: 

Ideology assailants report that their crimes stem from their negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality that they perceive other people in the community share.  They see themselves as enforcing social morals.  Thrill seekers are typically adolescents who commit assaults to alleviate boredom, to have fun and excitement, and to feel strong.  Peer-dynamics assailants also tend to be adolescents; they commit assaults in an effort to prove their toughness and heterosexuality to friends.  Self-defense assailants typically believe that homosexuals are sexual predators and say they were responding to aggressive sexual propositions. [16]

Several of the explanations that assailants give for their violent acts are the result of myths created about gay men.  In order for heterosexual men to feel they are enforcing social morals by sending a violent message to homosexuals, there must first be an established belief that homosexuality is not a natural behavior that fits into the system of sexuality.

Religion and law are two of the systems that stigmatize homosexuals and contribute to the myths that are created about gay men.  Many of the social morals that persecutors of hate crimes feel they are enforcing stem from their religious beliefs.  Because religion is an important aspect of many people’s lives, the beliefs that religious institutions promote are highly regarded.  In many cases the values that a religion preaches are interpreted as the actual word of God, giving them a status that exceeds any human argument against them. 

In prescribing guidelines for moral living, modern Christian and Jewish religious institutions stress the inherent virtue of committed marital relationships through which children are conceived and raised in faith.  Marriages are heterosexual by definition; homosexual behavior is widely condemned; same-sex relationships and families are not recognized. [17]

The condemnation of homosexuality by religious establishments is one of the main contributors to the atmosphere of violence toward gay men.  Many Christians openly attack homosexuals and declare that their sexuality does not fit into the system of  “natural law.” 

            In many instances, the U.S. law does not include gay men and lesbians within its protection.  Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited in employment, housing, or services in most states. 

In a clear illustration of the linkage between legal philosophies and religious teachings, Justice White and Chief Justice Burger refused to find a constitutional right for adults to engage privately in consenting homosexual behavior, based on the fact that legal proscriptions against sodomy have ancient origins and that condemnation of homosexuality is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986). [18]

The denial of legal rights and protections for lesbians and gay men are results of Americans’ pervasive cultural belief that there is something innately wrong with homosexuality.  This myth suggests that gay men and lesbians are somehow less human and should therefore not be granted rights that “normal” citizens hold.  The lack of legal protection that gay men have is connected to myths created about them, such as the idea that all gay men are pedophiles, and do not deserve the rights that others are granted.

            Unlike the lynchings of African-Americans in the South that no longer exist, hate crimes committed against gay men are still a very real part of our society. Criticizing the factors that instigate hate crimes means placing our own morals, ideas, and actions under scrutiny. For this reason, it is difficult to look at the situation of violence toward homosexuals through a clear lens.  Girard shares this opinion when he explains, “Those in our day who are the most proficient in discovering other people’s scapegoats, and God knows we are past masters at this, are never able to recognize their own.  Almost no one is aware of his own shortcoming.” [19]   Despite the challenge of examining one’s own culture, an attempt must be made in order to understand the violence committed against gay men.

            Gay men challenge the system of gender roles that the majority of our society adheres to.  The lines of differentiation between women and men are defined by these gender roles.  When men engage in relationships with each other instead of with women, the conventional means of understanding sexuality, relationships, and one’s own sexual identity are challenged.  Adolescent heterosexual white males are the most common perpetrators of hate crimes against gay men.  Several issues are raised by this information.

            As adolescents, the male assailants are already in a situation where their identity is at question; their character has not been fully established.  Gay men confuse adolescent male understandings of the system of sexuality that the young males are trying to enter.  In order to make things clear, the perpetrators feel the need to separate themselves from gay men.  This separation is realized through violent acts against individuals who are gay or whom the attackers perceive as being gay.  The individuals who commit hate crimes against gay men feel they are protecting masculinity overall by pushing gay men into a category other than male.  For gay men to be included with male identity threatens the entire system of what it means to be a man.

            Aspects of mimetic desire play into hate crimes against gay men, but in less obvious ways than they do in the case of lynching African-Americans.  Our culture does not openly discuss sexuality.  As a result, strict guidelines as to what is accepted and what is not accepted exist in a semi-explained state.  Individuals are expected to fit neatly into a gender category, and must adhere to all norms pertaining to that category.  Males are expected to be masculine, which implies that they are not allowed to show emotion and must subscribe to all things masculine.  Gay men reject this notion and acquire a sense of sexual freedom, despite the social pressure they encounter because of their rejection of convention.  It is possible that perpetrators of hate crimes commit acts of violence against gay men for all the reasons they state, but in addition to these reasons, may also resent gay men for being able to do what they themselves can not; break free from the pressure of masculinity. 

            The similarities of lynchings and hate crimes are important to note.  Both occur in environments that are perceived as unstable by the perpetrators, who tend to be the majority.  When the traditional system of the majority experiences changes, the individuals who once depended on the system as a device of stability feel threatened, and act in violence against a minority group whom they place the blame upon.  Lies are created about the chosen scapegoats in order to justify the violence performed against them.  The role of the scapegoat serves to explain how the perpetrators of violence place the blame of the unstable environment on the victim they have chosen.  It is also important to note that the objective of the perpetrators to return order to society through violent acts does not rid their community of any evils the scapegoats may possess.  Instead, the violence creates an atmosphere where violent acts are contagious and inevitably lead toward more violence. 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT: WOMEN AS SCAPEGOATS IN THE WORKPLACE

            The gender roles that gay men challenge are also challenged by women who enter the workforce.  Male attitudes about the role of a man in society are commonly noted as including the idea that a man must be a “good provider for his family.”  Susan Faludi offers one explanation for male hostility toward women in the workplace: “If establishing masculinity depends most of all on succeeding as the prime breadwinner, then it is hard to imagine a force more directly threatening to fragile American manhood than the feminist drive for economic equality.” [20]   The number of women who enter the workplace has continuously grown since the industrial age, and the fields that women enter have expanded as well. The assailants who scapegoat women in the workplace see them as threats to the system that allows men to provide for their families.

            Male workers who sexually harass a woman on the job seek to remind her of her vulnerability and create an atmosphere where it is difficult for her to perform her job.  In some cases, a group of men will target one woman at a time.  Verbal comments are made about the victim’s body to shame her, and sometimes physical actions are made to further degrade the woman.  This action is much less dramatic than the lynchings of African-Americans that occurred in the South, but the aim of the assailant is the same.  Both lynching and sexual harassment create a climate of intimidation and repression for the victim.  African-Americans and women who enter the workplace are economic threats to the white men who dominated the field previously.  The presence of created myths exists in both cases as well. 

There are myths supporting the idea that women don’t belong in the workplace to begin with, and also that they are the partly responsible for sexual harassment.  In a 1990 Catalyst survey called Women in Corporate Management, chief executive officers of the Fortune 500/Service 500 companies identified the following stereotypes and preconceptions about women’s abilities and suitability for careers in business: “Are not as committed to their careers as men, are not tough enough, do not want to work long or unusual hours, are too emotional, are not aggressive enough, or are too aggressive, lack quantitative skills, will not relocate, have difficulty making decisions.” [21]   Although several of these stereotypes may be linked to various social issues that expand beyond the workplace, such as women’s responsibility for children resulting in their confinement to a specific city or certain hours, many of these stereotypes are examples of myths created by men in order to justify the lack of women who are able to achieve upward mobility in their respective fields.  Myths created about sexual harassment include the ideas that some women ask to be sexually harassed; if women really wanted to discourage sexual harassment they could; most charges of sexual harassment are false; sexual harassment is inevitable when men and women are working together; and if one ignores sexual harassment, it will go away.  William Petrocelli and Barbara Kate Repa investigate actual causes of sexual harassment: 

Sexual harassment results from a misuse of power—not from sexual attraction.  Far too many cases of sexual harassment involve meanness, anger and abuse of power to blame it all on a dating ritual gone awry or an adult version of school boy pranks…It is one way that many men express their resentment and try to reassert control when they view women as their economic competitors. [22]

It is important that the motive of sexual harassers be exposed instead of allowing the myths created about the victims to dominate society’s understanding of the situation.  As economic competitors to men, women are scapegoated as an attempt to scare them out of the workplace and to re-establish the public sphere as male domain and the private sphere of the home as the female’s.  Of course this idea is not credible for a number of reasons, one being the reality of the economic situation of our society.  Women have not entered the workplace simply because they have the choice, but there is a real necessity for double family incomes.

            Sexual harassment has many effects on the woman who is the victim as well as the women who experience the incident secondhand.  The consequences to the individual employee are explained:

In some situations, a harassed woman risks losing her job or the chance for a promotion if she refuses to give in to the sexual demands of someone in authority.  In other situations, the unwelcome sexual conduct of co-workers makes the working conditions hostile and unpleasant—putting indirect pressure on her to leave the job.  In some cases, the employee is so traumatized by the harassment that she suffers serious emotional and physical consequences—and very often, becomes unable to perform her job properly. [23]

The men who are responsible for acts of sexual harassment use their positions of power to oppress individual women.  The effects on the overall environment of the workplace for working women are as serious as the ones the individual victim experiences. 

Sexual harassment has a cumulative, demoralizing effect that discourages women from asserting themselves within the workplace, while among men it reinforces stereotypes of women employees as sex objects.  Severe or pervasive sexual harassment in certain types of businesses creates a hostile or intimidating environment that causes women to leave their jobs and look elsewhere for work or discourages them from seeking those jobs in the first place. [24]

These effects of sexual harassment illustrate the success of the assailants’ goal to intimidate and eliminate women in the workplace.  As is the case with hate crimes, the current situation of sexual harassment depends on public policy. 

            The implementation of laws protecting the victims of hate crimes and sexual harassment is essential in improving the social situation overall.  After viewing the negative effects that harassment creates in these situations, one may understand that the only way a noticeable improvement may be made is to publicize the unacceptable nature of these behaviors and the damage that such behavior causes for the society as a whole.  The lack of respect for other human beings in these cases is not confined to individual acts of scapegoating violence.  This violence is contagious and carries over to many social contexts, creating a perpetual state of violence.  

SCAPEGOAT VIOLENCE: INEFFECTIVE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

            Whereas sacrifice and the role of the scapegoat used to serve a meaningful purpose for the communities that performed them, this is not the case anymore.  Due to certain advancements that humankind has achieved, the myths that once were used to justify sacrifice have been broken down and proven false.  Instead of creating stability within a community, the acts of violence against African-Americans, gay men, and women in the workplace discussed in this paper have created environments where such violent acts are contagious and lead to more acts of the same nature.  The energy that has fueled the violence must be re-directed and used in a more productive manner.  Walter White expresses the need for awareness and education in regards to lynching:

It cannot be denied, however, that a major share of the South’s backwardness is due to the amount of effort it has put forth to keep the Negro down, and of all these efforts lynching, both in itself and as a symbol, takes first rank.  Corrupt politics, a venal press, a bigoted clergy, impoverished minds, and a multitude of other evils could have been to great extent averted had the energy which the South has devoted to keeping the Negro ‘in his place’ had been devoted to efforts towards enlightenment. [25]  

            After one has accepted the ineffective nature of scapegoat violence, the next step is to understand the importance in educating the society as a whole.  With this, it is also essential that this education be administered through the institutions of society that have historically been contributors to the acceptance of scapegoat violence.  Public policy must discourage the violence against minorities that has been widely accepted.  A shift must take place where the stigma associated with the scapegoat that has been created by the perpetrators is dismantled.  Shame and revulsion must instead be associated with the proprietors of scapegoat violence.  Once the institutions of society have changed, the masses will slowly follow.

            In order for public policy changes to be effective, the mimetic desires that sacrifice and scapegoats were created to release must also be examined.  Gil Bailie explains that if the sacrificial system collapses while the mimetic passions it existed to tame continue their explosive growth, a pandemic crisis that sacrificial religion existed to prevent will occur.  With this, he refers to columnist Anna Quindlen’s perspective on a capital punishment case.  In her column she comments on a law suit by a San Francisco public television station contesting the refusal of California authorities to allow live television transmission of public executions.  Quindlen ends her column with the urge to analyze our society’s current situation:

The shocking thing has nothing to do with cameras or microphones.  The shocking thing is there whether we reporters are there or not…Having it on television makes it no worse.  It simply makes the reality inescapable, and our role undeniable.  If we want it, we should be able to look at it.  If we can’t bear to look at it, maybe it’s time to rethink our desires. [26]

The uncomfortable feeling that people experience when they hear about violent acts committed against innocent individuals provides some hope in the midst of all the cruelty.  This space that does not accept acts of scapegoat violence as justified or effective is the base from which laws may be implemented in order to control the acceptance of violence.  With myths exposed, awareness achieved, and education on the rise, any future accounts of scapegoat violence will face a more difficult task than the accounts before them.  Now that the pointless nature of acting violently towards scapegoats has been exposed and accepted, any attempts to continue such behavior will be looked down upon, not encouraged as they have been in the past.