Carnivals and festivals today are still role reversals, where some Burners described it to me as for a week in the desert, artists and working people become administrators and facilitators where in regular life they may have little formal authority in their own roles, but here they are the volunteer leaders and make the whole thing go, and then white collar people who spend their lives projecting an edgeless affect can walk around naked, anonymous, and high. No doubt it's more than that, but as something that puts the carnal in carnival, it was a useful description.

Personally, I think Girardian warnings of scapegoating rituals are late arriving words for a greater dynamic that appears to have been set in motion, as though if we've heard of his ideas and work, it's because we already needed to know them. The author's admonition that storm clouds are gathering is a pervasive sentiment in conversations I've had lately, but to extend the metaphor, everyone thinks they need to prepare for a storm, without considering that what they should be worried about is a flood and its aftermath.

I wish festivals could help relieve some of the tectonic social pressures of the last few years, but as he points out, whether they are sanctioned events with artists, or just riots and worse, they're going to happen one way or another.

When watching livestreams of riots, it's really evident that the chaos they produce is rather like little bursts of action, and not so much a sustained pandemonium. These bursts are a thing that can actually take place anytime and don't gain special value because of the riot, they are just more common, more easily prompted. Everyone gets behind on their narrative of events in the process; though the observers'll say something is happening according to their beliefs, it's not literally the thing that is happening.

And that isn't so far removed from just an ordinary "wild party" that hurts people or gets stuff smashed. It's riotous specifically because of the context and political impact. There aren't "sides" in a party, unless there's a gang fight or something of that nature. But a riot always expresses some politics.

Reminds me of Catcher in the Rye, only older and more cynical.

The author should reconsider "connection to a reality that is non-conventional": the physical activity he lists is only non-conventional to a select few, especially in the past. His evidence feels like an argument for festivals as a ward against idleness, not as a relief valve of simulated violence, which is poorly-justified.

Perhaps Girard put too much faith in what "genuine artists" sense out of something like a harvest festival, which is the leisure of hard-working laborers. The author might consider that daily labor could be more violent than playful festivals, and what Girard sensed may have been relief from that, not from a crisis averted.

I found it really odd that the only mention of Burning Man is how the online version attempts last year didn't work so well. No mention of how Burning Man fits into this "death spiral" idea - or how Burning Man fails to fall into that spiral.

In particular, it makes this one comment stood out...

> A true festival is not a tame affair. It is a suspension of normal rules, mores, structures, and social distinctions. Girard explains:

OK yes, that sounds like Burning Man. But then it follows up with this part of Girard's explanation...

> As one might expect, this destruction of differences is often accompanied by violence and strife. Subordinates hurl insults at their superiors; various social factions exchange gibes and abuse. Disputes rage in the midst of disorder.

Violence and strife? Raging disputes? Hurled insults? (OK well there are those megaphone people.) Seriously, the author has never been to Burning Man. Or if they did go, it was a hugely different experience than what I and a lot of other people ever had.

Maybe Burning Man just isn't a festival. Or maybe burners just festival differently. Or maybe the author is talking about something else.

I can't really tell, but I think this article is arguing that the carbon crisis would be solved so long as the smelly privileged are allowed to have orgies in fields.

This seems wrong to me. Most society rules have a reason to exist. Maybe, in the past century a few of that rules have become obsolete. But humanity is excellent at creating rules that makes things good enough to keep going.

There is nothing that makes a society change its rules like a change on the environment.

> We should not be surprised that Western societies are showing signs of mass psychosis.

The "everything is going to hell" theory. And, as often happens, without any proof or care to explain.

> More generally, locked in, locked down, and locked out, the population’s confinement within the highly controlled environment of the internet is driving them crazy.

*Them. I guess that the author is immune to this effect.

I love festivals, and they make for a great opportunity to meet people and create community. Also, festivals are an opportunity for a community to present respect to folklore heroes and their moral values, and to laugh at villain and their lack thereof. Festivals are not to for "blow off steam".

Interesting concept of "natural order". What "natural" means in this context? What about "order"? Would lets say genocide be considered a part of natural order aswell?

>Societies have faced such circumstances repeatedly throughout history, just as we face them today.

Fake news. Doesn't understand History.

Given how that debate is not even agreed upon, it is hard to believe that one could come to much of an understanding of the Festival and its need with humans.

What? None? So "plagues, floods, droughts, political unrest, riots, and economic crises" (which follow a highly-technical century as they 'strike one upon the next') are technically easy to solve?

The rest of this wild-haired rhetorical festival grows more sad and less relevant.

As an aside, the article claims that online Burning Man failed because of it was too consumption based. It's not a good example since there were numerous issues including participants lacking VR headsets, userbase split up into different platforms (there was no singular "official" software), capacity constraints, etc. I tried it on burn night (Altspace VR) and the man was floating in mid-air as it was burning, so glitches too.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone

What kind of sanctimonious BS is this. I stopped reading because his thinking did not appear to be worth my time. And I came here to the comments to check if I was correct or not...

IMO it isn't just sporting events though but violent sporting events that let us exercise the scapegoat mechanism. At least in the US. If your team wins, it doesn't matter your background if you are both fans of the same team. I really can't think of anything that quite brings us together like team sports in the 21st century.

Obviously, if you are not a sports fan this is much harder to see.

Burning man is too obvious, literal and it just isn't that many people vs the whole of society.

I can remember as a little kid the mimetic desire to become my favorite sports stars complete with wearing a jersey with their name on my back as if I was them.

On a side note, it is an absolutely ridiculous situation that Audible has one audio book by Girard. I would love to pass the time driving in the car with a wide selection of Girard to chew on.

The festival culture is alive and well, it's just got a little bit private, as it tries to conceal itself from authorities and masses. Burning Man, as well as many other festivals that attracted crowds lost a lot of intimacy and implied freedom; I just don't believe that you could feel the same way in a commercial festival that has more than a thousand of attendees.

I don't buy it. Surely there are still burns and de-facto lawless (as long as safety of others is not violated, and by that I'm not talking about social distancing or masks) festivals happening worldwide still? It's just that most government/corporate-backed ordeals, and huge (1k+ participants) events are called off.

Here in JP (an otherwise famously very restrictive and normative society), meat-space outdoors raves/festivals and rainbow-like gatherings have been thriving during the pandemic, even moreso now during the summer, likely due to the nerfing of indoor club events.

May be the case for other scenes as well; this is just the one I'm personally familiar with presently.

From my limited perspective the festival scene is more active than ever: There are multiple 1-to-3-day raves/music festivals happening every week within 2h drive from where I'm at in the sleepy conforming boonies, states of emergency or not. There is certainly code, but I argue at least the events my friend groups have been frequenting are easily breaking social norms enough that they're still valid under their definition. They may be smaller, but they're more in numbers and frequency.

From what I hear, the fetish subscenes also alive, active, and well.

If it still happens here, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case most everywhere. I suspect the author hasn't been seriously surveying their locale.

(I certainly don't go rave every week; I know people who do, though. I gave up trying to preach to people that they should act COVID-safer. Party people gonna party people)

Quite some rules are affected by such reasons as "power begets power" - incumbent rulers/influencers tweaking the rulebook to reward incumbent powers and compliant populace and punish contenders.

> Maybe, in the past century a few of that rules have become obsolete. But humanity is excellent at creating rules that makes things good enough to keep going.

> There is nothing that makes a society change its rules like a change on the environment.

From evolutionary perspective, I'd say people make up all sorts of changes, to a large degree at random, according to their own appetite. Then environment does its things, especially but not necessarily with factors not well understood by the societies, and wipes out the societies which can't survive in the new environment.

For example, the USSR has played out the game of "more power to the center, more limitations for the public, more punishments for the dissenters" until it couldn't operate anymore. And increasingly lots of people have seen it coming, some of them decades in advance.

Of course you can say "well but most people have survived and now the society has re-made itself", sure, but the society as in the set of definitive, durable, observable social constructs has ceased to exist.

Well, it depends how broad your definition of 'rules' is.

I've known people who consider it a 'rule' that when wearing a suit you should not do up the jacket's bottom button.

I can imagine a person who used this expansive definition might see a great many rules as arbitrary; and enjoy a festival where rules could be broken.

How about an algorithmically-driven, heavily addicted, Brave-New-World-resembling globalized society?

Why has the concept of 'proof' been lifted so many thousand kilometers off its place as a useful tool in scientific conduct, and placed over common sense?

Author clearly has an underpowered pattern recognition module.

> This seems wrong to me. Most society rules have a reason to exist.

They do have a reason to exist but that doesn't mean the rules are not arbitrary.

Stop signs for example. They actually indicate that extra caution should be taken at the crossing. Actually stopping is rarely a necessity unless you want to obey the law to the letter. It's an arbitrary rule designed to decrease local accidents.

Flirting at the workplace is another. It's more complex, but it's still an arbitrary rule, one that we might do without, it's all about what specifically we're trying to achieve (less romantic/sexual complications - positive and negative - at the workplace) with this arbitrary rule.

There are less arbitrary rules of course, like not hurting other people, but most rules governing day-to-day life are highly arbitrary, to the point where you live an incredibly boring life unless you're a "criminal" - I don't stop at all stop signs for example, which by definition makes me a criminal. I also use drugs recreationally.

> Festivals are not to for "blow off steam".

Depends on the type of festival. I'd say all of them offer a fresh experience out of the regular day-to-day life (which could be defined as "blowing off steam"). Some might be more "transcendent" than others.

Pro: I used to live on the street so I don't think I would be too phased by anything like average Americans.

So, you think it's a good idea?

Also, I’d argue that niche or underground “festival” activity doesn’t really live up the archetypal ideal anyway—traditional festivals cut across the societal spectrum.

Regarding online, the emerging 'just chatting' Twitch rave scene is something to behold in it's anarchism.