From a Girardian perspective and from the standpoint of human anthropology, human sacrifice is problematic because it represents a violent, often self-deceiving, and ultimately unstable mechanism for maintaining social order. While it served a function in past societies, it’s fundamentally incompatible with modern ethical and legal frameworks centered on the value of individual human life.
The Girardian Perspective: The Scapegoat Mechanism
René Girard’s mimetic theory offers a powerful lens through which to understand the problem of human sacrifice. Girard argued that human desire is mimetic, meaning we desire what others desire. This leads to rivalry, which can escalate into a social crisis where all distinctions and norms break down. To prevent the complete destruction of the community, a group will unconsciously select a scapegoat—an arbitrary victim onto whom the community’s collective violence is projected. The killing or expulsion of this victim restores peace, as the community’s pent-up aggression is discharged.
From this perspective, human sacrifice is not a genuine religious act of appeasing a god, but a deeply social and even psychological one. It’s a primal form of social control where a community collectively deceives itself into believing that one person’s death is the solution to their internal conflicts. The problem, for Girard, is that this mechanism is built on a lie. The victim is innocent, and the peace it creates is temporary, as the underlying mimetic rivalries will inevitably re-emerge.
The Anthropological Perspective: Rituals of Power and Order
Anthropology provides a broader historical and cultural context for understanding human sacrifice. While a modern perspective would view it as a horrific act, anthropologists study it as a complex social phenomenon that served specific functions in certain cultures. It was often a ritual of control and legitimation.
- Reinforcing Power: Rulers or priests used human sacrifice to demonstrate their authority and connection to the divine. By controlling who lived and died, they solidified their political and religious power.
- Maintaining Cosmic Order: In many ancient societies, sacrifice was a way to communicate with the gods and ensure the continuation of the world. It was believed to guarantee a good harvest, a victory in battle, or the return of the seasons.
- Creating Social Cohesion: The shared act of a ritual, especially one as intense as human sacrifice, could forge a strong sense of group identity and belonging.
Modern anthropology, however, notes that as societies became more complex and developed more sophisticated legal and political systems, the need for human sacrifice diminished. It was often replaced by symbolic acts, animal sacrifice, or was phased out entirely in favor of justice systems that value individual rights over collective, ritual violence.
Why Both Views Find Human Sacrifice Problematic
When we combine these two perspectives, the fundamental problems with human sacrifice become clear. From a Girardian standpoint, it’s a violent act of self-deception that fails to address the root cause of social conflict. It’s a primitive and unstable way of creating social order. From a modern anthropological and ethical standpoint, it is a profound and unacceptable violation of human rights. While it may have served a purpose in the past for social cohesion and political control, it is now seen as a brutal and inhumane practice that is antithetical to the principles of justice, human dignity, and the rule of law that define modern civilization.
Ultimately, studying human sacrifice helps us to understand the often brutal ways societies have historically dealt with conflict and disorder, and appreciate how far we have come in developing more humane and just systems for creating peace.
