coda 261THE NOTION OF THE INTERMEDIARYAcross the chapters of this book, we see a wide range of mimesis in
terms of the similarity between template and copy. We witness almost
faithful replicas but also adaptations which are far less similar to their
models. Within the perspective developed in this study, similarity is only a
means to an end, not an end in itself. In Mimetische Weltzugänge (M i met i-
cal approaches to the world), a follow-up study to Mimesis, their seminal
history of the mimesis concept, Gebauer and Wulf (2003: 9) state: “Fre-
quently, the results of mimetic acts can only be insufficiently explained by
a reference to similarity. More important than the existence of similarity
is the fact that contact is established; for example, by an artist to the works
of other artists,... by one human being to other human beings, by ritually
acting individuals to other ritual actions and performances” (my transla-
t ion). It is t h is i nter med ia r y nat u re of m i mesis wh ich we see at work ac ross
the various examples I outline in the chapters of this book. Drawing on
Michael Taussig’s explorations of mimesis and alterity, I seek to capture
this notion within the formula of “contact and copy,” an operational logic
which equally includes its reverse—“copy and contact.” Mimesis invokes
the other (understood in the widest sense of that to which a representa-
tion, as a copy, refers) to participate in some of its qualities. We see this
logic at work in religious and ideational contexts, such as Babule mediums
invoking the power of the European colonialists and radical Muslims
conjuring that of Osama bin Laden. We also see mimesis at work in the
more mundane contexts of emerging culture industries, where cultural
producers tie their own products to already successful foreign templates
(films from Holly wood, Bolly wood, and Nolly wood, for example). They
thus seek to confer the global appeal and success of these templates on
their own work. The secondary purposes attached to mimetic relation-
ships may vary, as they depend on the contingencies of changing social
contexts, but the primary function of invoking and participating in the
qualities of that which is copied remains the same.
Mimesis’ intermediary nature is highly ambiguous because along
with the positive and valued qualities of a given model that are acquired
through imitation come its undesired and negative aspects as well. Hence,