Storyletter Thoughts: Mimetic Growth
Theories by people much smarter than me
I noticed a phenomenon on social media where the representation of likes becomes the catalyst for growth - where recognition breeds validation in a sort of ever-growing snowball effect.
This has something to do with what is called the “mimetic theory of desire”, and though it isn’t bound to social media, it is far more discernable due to the algorithms set in place. Apparent success breeds more success. Substack is not immune to the mimetic theory, which disproportionately affects emerging writers, hence the perceived backlash that occurred when Substack announced they were adding “badges”.
Mimetic growth refers to the process by which desires, behaviors, and values spread through social imitation and validation. This concept is central to the work of French anthropologist and philosopher René Girard, who developed the “mimetic theory”.
The job of validation used to be in the hands of Big Publishing, as they sifted through the “slush pile” to find the gems that would be shared with a trusting consumer base. But, in my opinion, once an institution grows too large, the disconnect between what the consumer wants and what the company validates begins to widen. Instead, we have moved away from institutional validation and onto something entirely creator-focused, which is what makes newsletter services like Substack all the more compelling.
According to Girard, human beings are inherently mimetic creatures, meaning we imitate each other in various aspects of life, including desires. His theory suggests that people don't have innate desires for specific objects or goals; instead, we learn what to desire by observing and imitating others.
The theory can be broken down into three main components:
Mimetic desire: Girard posited that humans do not desire objects or goals independently; they desire them because they see others desiring them. This desire is imitative, stemming from our innate tendency to mimic the desires and behaviors of those around us.
Mimetic rivalry: When multiple people imitate each other's desires, they may end up competing for the same objects or goals, leading to rivalry and conflict. This rivalry can escalate, potentially resulting in violence or social disruption.
Scapegoating mechanism: To mitigate the tension and conflict resulting from mimetic rivalry, Girard proposed that societies often find a scapegoat—an individual or group blamed for the problems and tensions in the community.
I’m not equipped to discuss the latter parts, however, I find the first one very intriguing. It reminds me of when I started writing on Substack. I gained a huge boost in personal momentum after reading a book called “Atomic Habits” by James Clear. I briefly summarized the book in an XPress post called “To Build a Habit”.
In that post, I reference another theory called “The Pareto Principle”, also known as the 80/20 rule, which is an observation that stipulates roughly 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. This principle was named after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in the early 1900s that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.
The reason I was so motivated by this was the realization that most writers don’t make it. That sounds awful. What I mean is that it perfectly encapsulates the Pareto Principle wherein 20% of authors are monopolizing 80% of the readers. Why? I’m convinced it has to do with the mimetic theory of desire. Readers want to read what everyone else is reading, thus perpetuating the effect that happens.
There’s nothing nefarious at play here. It’s human nature. But knowing that human nature exists, is there a way to improve our own chances at tapping into mimetic growth? Well, there’s no cheat code we can implement to give us unlimited resources like in the early video games. But what if there were some steps to focus our energies more effectively?
Here are some ideas to help with becoming a full-fledged twenty-percenter:
Write, write, write! - Finishing a project puts you into that coveted 20% category of writers who have something to post or publish.
Time management - Utilize smaller increments of your free time writing something, anything. Even if it’s short, 15-minute sprints. This helps me tremendously, while increasing overall output in the grand scheme of things.
Editing and revision - Focus on the most critical issues with your work, whether that be grammar or dialogue. This will put you a step above the rest.
Project prioritization - Try something new and exciting. When I started posting poetry, I saw that people tended to gravitate to it even though I spent the least amount of time writing poems.
Promotion - Find cheaper, more effective ways of promoting yourself. Cross-promotion, interviews, or in-person events really help. If I hadn’t met some of the amazing people from in-person events, I wouldn’t have had the same word-of-mouth promotion in my local community.
What do you think about mimetic growth theory and the Pareto Principle? Are there ways that help you stay motivated in your writing journey? I can’t wait to hear your thoughts? ~ WM
The more you write, the bigger the pool of things to read is, the bigger the 20% slice becomes. If you want to help yourself AND help other writers, write a lot and read a lot. If what you write ends up in the 80% that's not as widely read, that means writers you like might be pushed into that 20% category.
I think I'm abusing the exact nature of pareto parity but it makes some kind of sense to me.
Ooh, great post. This is right up may alley! I first encountered Girard years ago during my anthropology studies, but he seems to be having a bit of a renaissance at the moment. You’re right to link mimetic desire to the whole checkmark debacle—that was exactly its intended effect (and why I made such a fuss over it.) But people are responsible for their own behavior, including resisting the lure of mimetic desires. Then again, if some want to blindly follow the herd… ;-)
It’s interesting that you connect this with books and the literary world. I never thought of it in those terms, but it makes perfect sense on so many levels.
Girard said: “Passion is the opposite of vanity. Distinguished by emotional autonomy, spontaneity of desires, indifference to the opinion of others. The passionate person draws strength of his desire from within himself not from others.”
“Where spontaneous desire is invigorating and pure, borrowed envious desire is corrosive and toxic.”
I think that’s probably true, whether we’re talking about books or anything else. Passion may not necessarily lead to success (and vanity often does, unfortunately.) But whether speaking about writing or life generally, I think there’s some consolation in pursuing a passion--something you know to be your own. Some readers may want to read what everyone else is reading, but there are also always those of us looking for something more.