generative

English translation: a social class or ethnic group on which to pin the blame

15:14 Sep 15, 2004
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Social Sciences - Anthropology
English term or phrase: generative
In the context: "As described by the social philosopher Rene Girard, ritual sacrifice demands a collectively agreed upon surrogate victim, the generative scapegoat, if you will, whose suffering or death is used to resolve unbearable social tensions, conflicts, dilemmas and difficulties of all kinds."
Jowita (X)
Local time: 15:08
Selected answer:a social class or ethnic group on which to pin the blame
Explanation:
"Generative" in this sense means "of a class or group". Scapegoat is usually an individual. In your context, a class is being made the surrogate victim.

"Ritual sacrifice and the search for a generative scapegoat --a social class or ethnic group on which to pin the blame for social and economic problems -- is also a common pre-condition for genocide.
http://www.gtu.edu/lect_singh.php?singhid=13

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 44 mins (2004-09-15 15:58:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The above example uses \"generative\" in the sense of \"PERTAINING TO GENERUS\" (class/group), and fits your meaning.

However, Rene Girard was a GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGIST and your author may be lifting or misusing some of his language. Generative anthropology attempts to understand man and times in terms of what is PRIMAL/PRIMEVAL/COMMON TO ALL BEINGS:

\"In contrast to fashionable methodologies that dissolve the human in the fractal complexity of cultural differences, generative anthropology (GA) attempts to understand cultural phenomena in the simplest terms possible: all things human are traced back to their source in the hypothetical scene of origin in which human beings as sign-using creatures first emerged.\" http://www.iastate.edu/~anthr_info/anthropology/Linguistics....

\"The essential innovation of generative anthropology is nothing other than the radical application of the principle of minimality. Instead of looking at the human empirically as a fuzzy collection of various traits, GA takes seriously attempts at definition like Aristotle\'s zoon logon exon. Why, after all, even think of defining the human? Would anyone try to define a dog or an elephant? The human is subject to definition because it is not a mere empirical biological entity. For philosophy, unproblematically up to Kant, problematically thereafter, what I call the human was defined as Reason (Vernunft) or Spirit (Geist). Unlike philosophy, GA does not renounce the specificity of the human for the simplicity of the concept because it recognizes that the generation of entities like Reason or Spirit is anything but simple. The originary hypothesis conceives of the human in minimal terms as emerging from a single event in a prehuman world.\" http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/view22.htm

In this link Rene Girard talks about the \"generative scapegoat principle\" (the primal/at-the-seat-of-being need to find a scapegoat): http://www.clarion-journal.ca/article.php?story=200407250215... . He refers to the \"generative scapegoat principle\" which is a primeval principle of scapegoating. Other works describe the mechanisms of victimage associated with this principle. http://home.earthlink.net/~paulnue/girard-a_bib.htm

Your sentence suggests the meaning as offered by Singh, but your context suggests that GENERATIVE in this case ought to be PRIMEVAL.

I can\'t change the heading of my proposed answer, but hopefully you\'ll read along to see this alternative, too.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 hrs 55 mins (2004-09-16 13:09:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I take Richard\'s point about my GENUS mistake and appreciate Tegan\'s discussion of GENERATIVE anthropology, which is more succinct than mine. They both seem to be right BUT it appears that even within the scholarly community there is some confusion about how to use the words \"GENERATIVE\" and \"SCAPEGOAT\" together. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="generative sc... . The meanings are not always the same: the first reference I cited here focuses on the \"collective\" aspect as having to do with the scapegoat itself; Tegan\'s discussion focuses on the \"collective\" aspect as having to do with the ones doing the scapegoating. Girard\'s own examples support both interpretations -- from Jesus being the scapegoat for many, to a person\'s family being the scapegoat for a bad day at work. In the tiny bit I read of Girard\'s writings (and I admit, I did it skimming, not studying), it appeared to me that the one thing that could be said in any event was that the type of scapegoating he was describing is INSTINCTUAL, and this is why it applies sometimes to individuals and sometimes to groups, but is always done by humankind. Tegan\'s text suggests only that there is a CONSCIOUS decision. The word \"agreed\" in your text above could be \"counscious\" but there is room also for the action being \"subconscious\".

Since the scholarly community does not seem to be in full agreement, it appears that you can write around it broadly and retain the ambiguity by saying something like \"primordially accepted/sought-after scapegoat (sacrificial victim)\".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs 8 mins (2004-09-16 13:23:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I\'ll repeat here, that the words that appear at the top of my answer here are the first instance I found of \"generative scapegoat\". The author\'s meaning seems to be \"generalized\" rather than primordial/primeval. As my notes and Tegan\'s show, \"GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY\" is clearly a discipline. \"GENERATIVE SCAPEGOAT\" is a term of his, and the scholarly community is not in agreement about what it means, which is why we cannot determine exactly what it means other than to look at what all of the interpretations have in common, so MY ANSWER IS ACTUALLY TO USE A WORKAROUND LIKE THE ONE I PROPOSE IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.
Selected response from:

Deborah Workman
United States
Local time: 11:08
Grading comment
thank you
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
5 +6Generative anthropology
Tegan Raleigh
5 +5a social class or ethnic group on which to pin the blame
Deborah Workman
3 +5generic
danya
4creative etc.*
swisstell
2generalized
Richard Benham


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


3 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +5
generic


Explanation:
i think it is either a rare use or a misuse, and the meaning is that of "generic", "universal", "archetypal" (not sure of the adjective from "archetype" :-))

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 mins (2004-09-15 15:18:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

\"of which [victim] a scapegoat is a perfect/typical specimen\"

danya
Local time: 18:08
Native speaker of: Native in RussianRussian

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  James Calder: I agree. Given the context I can't see how it can be anything else.
4 mins
  -> thank you.

agree  Richard Benham: Re your (first) note: if it is generic, then I think it's more likely in generic in the sense of being a scapegoat for all sorts of problems, rather than some sort of archetype.
8 mins
  -> thank you.

agree  Armorel Young: I agree that it's a most unusual use of the word
1 hr
  -> thank you.

agree  Alfa Trans (X)
1 hr
  -> thank you.

agree  Nizamettin Yigit
4 hrs
  -> thannk you.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

5 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
creative etc.*


Explanation:
Definition: [adj] producing new life or offspring; "the reproductive potential of a species is its relative capacity to reproduce itself under optimal conditions"; "the reproductive or generative organs"
[adj] having the ability to produce or originate; "generative power"; "generative forces"

*take your pick from these synonyms:
Synonyms: creative, fruitful, originative, procreative, productive, reproductive

Antonyms: consumptive


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 mins (2004-09-15 15:20:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

PS: above ref. www.hyperdictionary.com

swisstell
Italy
Local time: 16:08
Native speaker of: German
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

5 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +6
Generative anthropology


Explanation:
generative anthropology is concerned with how communities' ideas of the sacred are articulated in isolated acts. this is a branch of anthropology/ sociology whose existence is largely indebted to the work of Durkheim. So "generative" in this sense is used to refer to the symbolic relationship between the one who is sacrificed and the collective psychology of the group that is making that sacrifice. For more information on generative anthropology, visit the site below:


    Reference: http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0601/durkheim.htm
Tegan Raleigh
United States
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Kim Metzger: Nice background info, Tegan.
25 mins

agree  Jörgen Slet
1 hr

agree  humbird: Very interesting!
1 hr

agree  Refugio
3 hrs

agree  Ramesh Madhavan: So different from Generated Electricity!
5 hrs

agree  Saleh Chowdhury, Ph.D.
5 hrs

neutral  Deborah Workman: As I read it and other sources, Girard is considered the founder of GA and Durkheim has given focus to areas that Girard left ambiguous. The term "generative scapegoat" is Girard's, and his meaning (to me) does not seem to be as unambiguous as this.
16 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

17 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5
generalized


Explanation:
Actually, I have little idea what this guy is on about. However, there is no suggestion in the contesxt provided that there is a social class or group, rather than an individual, involved.

If it is a mistake, as danya has suggested, then it could be that "generalized" is intended. We know that a scapegoat (in the Old Testament) was literally a goat which was supposedly laden with the sins of the community and sent out into the wilderness to be destroyed. Here, the concept is more general, in that the scapegoat's "suffering or death is used to resolve unbearable social tensions, conflicts, dilemmas and difficulties of all kinds", rather than just guilt over sins. So it is a generalized scapegoat.

In closing, I would suggest the following: if reading the rest of the text suggests the "scapegoat" is a social class or group, accept the reading "generative" and the corresponding interpretation; if it is an individual, then the possibility of a blunder for "generalize" has to be considered (especially if the author was one of those people who right things by hand and get an assistant or secretary to type them).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs 5 mins (2004-09-16 09:19:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, \"right\" should be \"write\". I\'ve been making a lot of mitakes like that lately. Yesterday I put \"singular\" for \"similar\". So is \"generative\" for \"generalize\" so far-fetched?

Of course the possibility that this is not a typo, but rather an abuse of technical terminology, as suggested in Deborah\'s workmanlike analysis, cannot be excluded.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs 40 mins (2004-09-16 09:54:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Me spelins geten wurs n wurser. Thet shudder bin \"mistakes\" abuv. Tha kwak rekkunz eye shud spen 24 owerz embed--mebbe eye shudder lissnd.

Richard Benham
France
Local time: 16:08
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Deborah Workman: I agree w/your points, but I don't get the part where you say, "There is no suggestion in the context provided that there is a social class or group, rather than an individual, involved." "Collectively"=group. Did you mean whether scapegoat=ind/gp?
2 hrs
  -> Hello Deborah. I'm not sure of your point here--the scapegoat is agreed upon collectively, but may still be an individual.//...involved as the scapegoat, yes.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

10 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +5
generative scapegoat
a social class or ethnic group on which to pin the blame


Explanation:
"Generative" in this sense means "of a class or group". Scapegoat is usually an individual. In your context, a class is being made the surrogate victim.

"Ritual sacrifice and the search for a generative scapegoat --a social class or ethnic group on which to pin the blame for social and economic problems -- is also a common pre-condition for genocide.
http://www.gtu.edu/lect_singh.php?singhid=13

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 44 mins (2004-09-15 15:58:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The above example uses \"generative\" in the sense of \"PERTAINING TO GENERUS\" (class/group), and fits your meaning.

However, Rene Girard was a GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGIST and your author may be lifting or misusing some of his language. Generative anthropology attempts to understand man and times in terms of what is PRIMAL/PRIMEVAL/COMMON TO ALL BEINGS:

\"In contrast to fashionable methodologies that dissolve the human in the fractal complexity of cultural differences, generative anthropology (GA) attempts to understand cultural phenomena in the simplest terms possible: all things human are traced back to their source in the hypothetical scene of origin in which human beings as sign-using creatures first emerged.\" http://www.iastate.edu/~anthr_info/anthropology/Linguistics....

\"The essential innovation of generative anthropology is nothing other than the radical application of the principle of minimality. Instead of looking at the human empirically as a fuzzy collection of various traits, GA takes seriously attempts at definition like Aristotle\'s zoon logon exon. Why, after all, even think of defining the human? Would anyone try to define a dog or an elephant? The human is subject to definition because it is not a mere empirical biological entity. For philosophy, unproblematically up to Kant, problematically thereafter, what I call the human was defined as Reason (Vernunft) or Spirit (Geist). Unlike philosophy, GA does not renounce the specificity of the human for the simplicity of the concept because it recognizes that the generation of entities like Reason or Spirit is anything but simple. The originary hypothesis conceives of the human in minimal terms as emerging from a single event in a prehuman world.\" http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/view22.htm

In this link Rene Girard talks about the \"generative scapegoat principle\" (the primal/at-the-seat-of-being need to find a scapegoat): http://www.clarion-journal.ca/article.php?story=200407250215... . He refers to the \"generative scapegoat principle\" which is a primeval principle of scapegoating. Other works describe the mechanisms of victimage associated with this principle. http://home.earthlink.net/~paulnue/girard-a_bib.htm

Your sentence suggests the meaning as offered by Singh, but your context suggests that GENERATIVE in this case ought to be PRIMEVAL.

I can\'t change the heading of my proposed answer, but hopefully you\'ll read along to see this alternative, too.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 hrs 55 mins (2004-09-16 13:09:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I take Richard\'s point about my GENUS mistake and appreciate Tegan\'s discussion of GENERATIVE anthropology, which is more succinct than mine. They both seem to be right BUT it appears that even within the scholarly community there is some confusion about how to use the words \"GENERATIVE\" and \"SCAPEGOAT\" together. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="generative sc... . The meanings are not always the same: the first reference I cited here focuses on the \"collective\" aspect as having to do with the scapegoat itself; Tegan\'s discussion focuses on the \"collective\" aspect as having to do with the ones doing the scapegoating. Girard\'s own examples support both interpretations -- from Jesus being the scapegoat for many, to a person\'s family being the scapegoat for a bad day at work. In the tiny bit I read of Girard\'s writings (and I admit, I did it skimming, not studying), it appeared to me that the one thing that could be said in any event was that the type of scapegoating he was describing is INSTINCTUAL, and this is why it applies sometimes to individuals and sometimes to groups, but is always done by humankind. Tegan\'s text suggests only that there is a CONSCIOUS decision. The word \"agreed\" in your text above could be \"counscious\" but there is room also for the action being \"subconscious\".

Since the scholarly community does not seem to be in full agreement, it appears that you can write around it broadly and retain the ambiguity by saying something like \"primordially accepted/sought-after scapegoat (sacrificial victim)\".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs 8 mins (2004-09-16 13:23:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I\'ll repeat here, that the words that appear at the top of my answer here are the first instance I found of \"generative scapegoat\". The author\'s meaning seems to be \"generalized\" rather than primordial/primeval. As my notes and Tegan\'s show, \"GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY\" is clearly a discipline. \"GENERATIVE SCAPEGOAT\" is a term of his, and the scholarly community is not in agreement about what it means, which is why we cannot determine exactly what it means other than to look at what all of the interpretations have in common, so MY ANSWER IS ACTUALLY TO USE A WORKAROUND LIKE THE ONE I PROPOSE IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.

Deborah Workman
United States
Local time: 11:08
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
thank you

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  nothing
19 mins

agree  Kim Metzger: Yes, this makes good sense. Somehow I doubt it was a typo.
3 hrs

agree  Michał Janowski
4 hrs

agree  Jörgen Slet
6 hrs

agree  Lisa Russell
8 hrs

neutral  Richard Benham: Possible. But watch your Latin: it's a genus, not a generus.
17 hrs
  -> Oops. I wondered why it looked funny as I was writing it! Thanks for keeping me straight.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search