To me, the most repugnant part of Girard is how he tampers with the evidence. Take Oedipus, for example. Does it support Girard's position? No, Oedipus deserved his exile, he was not a scapegoat. "Oh, but that part is a lie; of course a myth doesn't tell the truth." So Girard rewrites Oedipus to make it fit his theory, and then claims Oedipus as evidence that he is right! That's not evidence; it's forgery. And Girard does it all the time - the linked article lists example after example.
So, no, I can't take Girard seriously. And, sorry, but I can't take a Girardian analysis of anything seriously either.
Now, you can claim that the end of WFH is bogus. That's fine. Just don't think of it in Girardian terms.
Interesting, you go around the internet bestowing an imaginary permission for people to have ideas when they align with yours (ending WFH is bogus) and imposing some kind of imaginary restrictions on thought that doesn't align with yours (Girard offers insight).
Are you aware of the bizarre egocentrism this kind of psychology implies?
To me, the most repugnant part of Girard is how he tampers with the evidence. Take Oedipus, for example. Does it support Girard's position? No, Oedipus deserved his exile, he was not a scapegoat. "Oh, but that part is a lie; of course a myth doesn't tell the truth." So Girard rewrites Oedipus to make it fit his theory, and then claims Oedipus as evidence that he is right! That's not evidence; it's forgery. And Girard does it all the time - the linked article lists example after example.
So, no, I can't take Girard seriously. And, sorry, but I can't take a Girardian analysis of anything seriously either.
Now, you can claim that the end of WFH is bogus. That's fine. Just don't think of it in Girardian terms.