1. Innovation used to mean heresy. But now it’s a god we all worship.
A thread on René Girard’s prescient 1990 essay, Innovation and Repetition—from theology to tech, from Montaigne to Marx, from mimesis to modernity.
A thread on René Girard’s prescient 1990 essay, Innovation and Repetition—from theology to tech, from Montaigne to Marx, from mimesis to modernity.
2. “Innovation,” from the Latin innovare, meant renewal from within—not novelty.
For centuries, it was a dirty word. Dangerous. Heretical. Disruptive in the worst sense.
For centuries, it was a dirty word. Dangerous. Heretical. Disruptive in the worst sense.
3. Bossuet on church councils:
“Nothing was innovated at Constantinople; but nothing was innovated at Nicea either.”
To innovate was to betray divine continuity.
“Nothing was innovated at Constantinople; but nothing was innovated at Nicea either.”
To innovate was to betray divine continuity.
4. Montaigne:
“Nothing harries a state except innovation; change alone gives form to injustice and tyranny.”
Innovation once meant social collapse. Mimetic contagion. Tyranny.
“Nothing harries a state except innovation; change alone gives form to injustice and tyranny.”
Innovation once meant social collapse. Mimetic contagion. Tyranny.
5. Even revolutionaries hated the word.
Calvin, Cromwell, and the humanists all despised innovation.
Why? Because they saw themselves not as innovators—but as restorers of an original truth.
Calvin, Cromwell, and the humanists all despised innovation.
Why? Because they saw themselves not as innovators—but as restorers of an original truth.
6. Innovation didn’t become attractive until the 18th century.
Why?
Science.
Tech.
The end of transcendental models.
Suddenly, progress became possible. Imitation became boring.
Why?
Science.
Tech.
The end of transcendental models.
Suddenly, progress became possible. Imitation became boring.
7. By the 19th century, innovation was divine.
Innovation was no longer sacrilegious. It was heroic. Necessary. Revolutionary.
A new world could be created, not inherited.
This marked the birth of our modern worship of change.
To innovate was now to found, to create—like God
Innovation was no longer sacrilegious. It was heroic. Necessary. Revolutionary.
A new world could be created, not inherited.
This marked the birth of our modern worship of change.
To innovate was now to found, to create—like God
8. Nietzsche was the supreme thinker here. The “guru of guru-renunciation.”
Not only should the great thinker have no model—he should not be a model.
To innovate was to rupture with the past. To imitate became a sin.
Not only should the great thinker have no model—he should not be a model.
To innovate was to rupture with the past. To imitate became a sin.
9. Today, we worship innovation. “This innovation mania affects all aspects of human existence.”
But Girard says: it’s a false god.
Even in business, the most innovative firms often begin by imitating others.
Imitation isn’t the enemy of innovation—it’s its engine.
But Girard says: it’s a false god.
Even in business, the most innovative firms often begin by imitating others.
Imitation isn’t the enemy of innovation—it’s its engine.
10. “Many people imitate when they think they innovate,” writes Girard.
But also: “many people innovate when they think they imitate.”
But also: “many people innovate when they think they imitate.”
11. Girard’s point: true innovation arises from within tradition—not from rebellion against it.
“To expect novelty to cleanse itself of imitation is to expect a plant to grow with its roots in the air.”
“To expect novelty to cleanse itself of imitation is to expect a plant to grow with its roots in the air.”
12. The avant-garde’s obsession with rupture has made innovation meaningless.
Postmodernism tries to cancel the question: “Who is innovative and who is not?”
The result? “An orgy of casual imitation, an indiscriminate adoption of all models.”
Noise.
Postmodernism tries to cancel the question: “Who is innovative and who is not?”
The result? “An orgy of casual imitation, an indiscriminate adoption of all models.”
Noise.
13. True innovation is inseparable from imitation.
Like religious ritual.
Like apprenticeship.
A living tradition.
“In a truly innovative process,” writes Girard, “it is often so continuous with imitation that its presence can be discovered only after the fact, through a process of abstraction.”
Like religious ritual.
Like apprenticeship.
A living tradition.
“In a truly innovative process,” writes Girard, “it is often so continuous with imitation that its presence can be discovered only after the fact, through a process of abstraction.”
14. Girard’s final warning:
“The corruption of the best is the worst.”
When culture forgets the sacred link between mimesis and renewal, innovation becomes a parody of itself.
“The corruption of the best is the worst.”
When culture forgets the sacred link between mimesis and renewal, innovation becomes a parody of itself.
15. The question isn’t whether to innovate—but whom we’re imitating when we do.
Let’s stop worshipping innovation for its own sake.
We build the future by drawing more faithfully from the past.
In order to truly innovate, we must re-learn how to imitate.
Let’s stop worshipping innovation for its own sake.
We build the future by drawing more faithfully from the past.
In order to truly innovate, we must re-learn how to imitate.
Read the full essay here: clunyjournal.com/p/innovation-a…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
