René Girard's take on desire is somewhat restrictive, but very thought-provoking. He is interested in desire only insofar as it is shaped by what he calls the mimesis - the impulse to imitate. This impulse is a wonderful thing, it is one of the things that allow us to learn and grow as human beings and social beings. But it has a nasty side effect, in that it can also express itself in the impulse to own what the other has, thereby creating conflict.
Try a little thought experiment: place 10 children in a room with 10 identical toys. What do you think will happen? At least 2 or 3 of the children will end up fighting for the same toy. Because we value things and desire them only insofar as someone else values and desire them.
As I said, this conception of desire is too restrictive in my view. There are other forms of desire that have nothing to do with mimesis. I don't know if Girard only ignores them because they are not useful to his theory, or if he truly believes that they don't exist.
Still, my impression is that many of the human desires that seem most pointless and destructive fit within Girard's reasoning perfectly. How many of the things that seem so important to us are important only because of their social value - we want them because we know they will make others jealous, because they will show how cool/rich/powerful we are. Because, in a way, by acquiring objects of desire, we hope to become an object of desire ourselves. Drive a Ferrari and you get all the chicks. Something like that
