Few have reigned as steady and strong a champion of free speech as well as an opponent of political correctness as University of Toronto professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson. Over the years he has attracted a host of followers in his crusade against identity politics, postmodernism, and campus orthodoxy. Additionally he has been able to earn an impressively high honorarium through donations from his ever-increasing fan base.
However, despite his growing reputation, because of his refutation of Bill C-16 and his criticisms of socialism and gender identity, some have claimed that Jordan Peterson is an ally of neo-nazis and “right-wingers.” Many however, including this author, have come to his defense believing these comments and their accusatory tone are farfetched and miss their mark.
Let’s be clear: Peterson is erudite. He has impressive knowledge in a vast array of seemingly unrelated fields. On a podcast hosted by evolutionary psychologist, Gad Saad, they both agreed with Steven Pinker’s premise in The Blank Slate that our core psychological traits are designed by evolutionary mechanisms. In other words, Peterson is not uninformed on a number of complex and pressing issues. Even in a surprisingly convoluted podcast with Sam Harris (where the discussion was bogged down over “what is true”), Peterson still managed to affirm his understanding that things like gender, race, sexual preferences, etc. are not just social constructs.
To reiterate, Peterson’s criticisms of identity politics and postmodernism are in concordance with that of this author’s. For example, while I listened to the Joe Rogan podcast which included Bret Weinstein (of Evergreen State College fiasco fame), Peterson’s comments resonated almost identically to my own. I had little to no disagreement with what he said. But closer inspection reveals a man behind a curtain.
When Peterson articulates his understanding of how the evolutionary mechanisms of group dynamics have set the stage for modern identity politics something of curious note arises. I say “of curious note” because although he seems to levy fair accusations against postmodernism, is able to brilliantly elucidate the toxic nature of identity politics, and while he clearly is able to espouse on the evolutionary roots of identity, upon careful inspection, the philosophical premise he operates on has at least one wheel in the ditch.
In an article Peterson published, he sounds not so much a critic of postmodernism, as he is heralded, but more like a bishop of it. In this article, Peterson pays homage to the philosopher, Heraclitus, whose ancient philosophical works on logos, many agree, are the progenitors of postmodernism. He agrees with Wittgenstein, whose magnum opus, Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus, influenced the way postmodern and poststructuralist thinkers have come to believe language is a tool of the oppressor. He also mentions Alfred Adler, whose individual psychology paved the way for a paradigm shift in utilizing postmodern thinking with psychotherapy.
Peterson rails against postmodernism but in the article referenced above he suggests that subjective experience is the equivalent with what is in fact real (which is the exact argument postmodernist and poststructuralist thinkers make). This makes as much sense as when someone criticizes ISIS but praises the Saudis. So as to avoid a straw man argument here, it is important to consider alternative explanations. Perhaps Peterson had a change of heart — after all, the document was published in 1999. Was Peterson, like this author, once PoMo, but now no mo’?
In a nutshell: he criticizes the anti-rationality of postmodernist and poststructuralist thought but then goes on to suggest (in a number of places) that we do not live in an objective world. To use his own phraseology: what if we risk the presupposition that he is a charlatan and conclude that Peterson’s rhetoric is nothing but fanfare designed to lead his followers up the garden path?
Is Jordan Peterson and/or his followers even aware that he is doing this? To be clear, the question isn’t so much whether or not Peterson says subjective experience is prime but then goes on to criticize this notion himself — he undoubtedly does, and does it often. The question that arises is what degree of self-deception is he practicing? Is he, like the Wizard of Oz, playing a game of smoke and mirrors to make people happy while he is fully aware that he contradicts himself? That would be something! On the other hand, if this is ignorance on his part is a result of basic human cognitive errors, he should address it and change his views somehow. But if this deception is in fact willful then the question is to what degree is he a hypocrite and to what degree is he psychologically compensating for the loss of something? What exactly is going on here?
Having studied postmodernism and poststructural thinking in graduate school I am familiar with the “double speak” that many deconstructionists and poststructural lecturers and writers utilize. Many of these academics are what some might call “moderate Christians” (for lack of a better phrase). Meaning they have left the dogma of the church but retain many elements of its thinking — including its obfuscations, its biases, as well as its parochialism. With one hand they will (as Peterson often does) say science can in fact make valid predictions about reality. With the other, however, they will incite an almost convincing cantrip and say, “but since a person’s ‘subjective experience’ is prime, anything beyond one’s immediate experience of ‘the things themselves‘ (which includes science) is nothing but an abstraction and is to be considered secondary at best.” This use of (dare I say) “logic” is similar to the type employed by Pope Francis when he declared evolution and the Big Bang to be real — but ultimately thanked God for them.
Like recent others, I too have wondered for some time how Peterson manages to make such spot on critiques of postmodernism (like he does on podcasts with Gad Saad, Joe Rogan, and others) while at the same time praise the primacy of subjectivity as well as things like legends and Jungian myths (which, as most academics know, are often loosely associated with phenomenological psychology and postmodernist/poststructuralist frameworks). When someone makes valid and well stated critiques of postmodernism and identity politics but tips their hat to Heraclitus, Wittgenstein, and Adler, a healthy amount of skepticism should be applied.
Those who offer counter refutations to refutations of Peterson’s comments will often say something like: “Well, what’s the big deal? Why are you being so smug? Myths are beneficial and help give meaning to peoples’ otherwise secular lives.”
To be fair, Jordan Peterson is a person who, like anyone else, struggles with the reality of existence. So then who am I to criticize how someone makes meaning in this or any other world? Identity is complex and is not as black and white as we often think it is. Why should anyone get on someone’s case for using free speech and earning some money while doing so?
But when someone says personal truths are the same as reality, that we live in a more spiritual world than a materialistic one, and when this person makes a substantial earning by condemning and criticizing a philosophical framework that holds aloft the very thing he earns a living criticizing (i.e. the primacy of subjective experience), one’s alarm bells should be ringing. To shed light on why this discrepancy in Peterson’s philosophy is so important, it may help to contextualize this.
If someone (like Jordan Peterson, for example) says experience is prime and that truth is based on one’s subjective experience (as Peterson ostensibly does), one is then essentially saying that anyone’s experience is prime. This would mean then that the experience of the Antifa and neo-Nazis are both valid truths… that is, unless you are proclaiming social hierarchies — which is precisely what postmodernists do. By suggesting that one’s experience is the equivalent of what is real, as Peterson does, he is not attacking postmodernism, he is either a follower of it or contributing to it — and his followers are inadvertently and unwittingly helping him subsidize this intellectual cesspool.
Although Peterson may not publicly endorse the dogma and superstition of Christianity, he has stated that in order to prove something scientifically, one’s subjective experience must include a belief in God. There is nothing necessarily wrong with personal beliefs per se — in fact, religious beliefs can be healthy. But claiming subjective experience (which includes personal belief) as prime is not antithetical to postmodernism (as Peterson claims it to be) — it is in direct conjunction with it. Placing personal belief in front of scientific evidence is an epistemological error.
But deep down, since this author is a humanist, I understand that in life we are all jousting windmills one way or another. Postmodernism is quite toxic as an orientation to the world, but it may have some clinical applications. When people give up the dogma of religion, they seek things to fill the loss of that certainty. Some end up believing in auras while others become lost in substances or astrology. A few deny the moon landing and wax into conspiracy theories about 9/11, while others seek righteous indignation that is often supported by postmodernism. And because it has essentially come to resemble a religious organization itself in terms of campus orthodoxy, dissent from those who dissent, as with any other group, has consequences — just like membership has its privileges.
What happens when we begin to critique the very thing used to replace religion? What happens when it retains vestiges of the elements that caused us to leave it in the first place? One thing that can happen is that a person can start equating a subjective, moral truth with a fact in the shared world. Secondly, that person can pretend they aren’t pedaling their own brand of identity politics while at the same time criticizing it.
In the end, I support Jordan Peterson on his stance on free speech but his inconsistencies and his equating the truth with “what is useful” or meaningful has left this author wondering how a person can hold such incompatible views at the same time. That is, how can he on one hand criticize the primacy of subjectivity on the side of postmodernist and poststructural thinking but valorize it when it comes to myths and religion? That, I propose, is the curious case of Jordan Peterson.
[…] Canadian professor known for his lectures defending the patriarchy and denying the existence of white privilege while decrying “postmodern neo-Marxists,”—did not find NotJordanPeterson.com […]
[…] Canadian professor known for his lectures defending the patriarchy and denying the existence of white privilege while decrying “postmodern neo-Marxists,”—did not find NotJordanPeterson.com […]
[…] Canadian professor known for his lectures defending the patriarchy and denying the existence of white privilege while decrying “postmodern neo-Marxists,”—did not find NotJordanPeterson.com […]
[…] Canadian professor known for his lectures defending the patriarchy and denying the existence of white privilege while decrying “postmodern neo-Marxists,”—did not find NotJordanPeterson.com […]
It is indisputably the case that certain persons – quite a large number, actually – are intent on both misrepresenting Dr Peterson, and ascribing to him all sorts of weird and disturbing motives. The only difference is the level of analysis. This is definitely a cut above the ‘so you’re saying we should live like lobsters’ approach.
This very insightful article on Peterson is about a year old and it’s important to note, since this author’s contribution, Jordan B. Peterson has become an even worse walking, talking contradiction. Listen to his current podcasts and it’s clear he’s a wannabe preacher for Christian patriarchal beliefs and a promoter of sexist, archaic Jungian views which share the same narrow-minded male/female archetypes relevant in Christian fundamentalist beliefs. Please, psychologists of today, stop adhering to the false notion of a pure male/female dynamic like Jung’s view to explain people’s so-called male/female archetype in answer to their tribulations in life. Biological research will tell you we have a gene variant which holds us steady as a female or male not some antiquated archetype notion. Ironically, Jung stole many of these writings from women who were his peers or student lovers! Universities do no good to continue credits in such studies which are… Read more »
The real question isn’t precisely what pomo philosophy is, but how adherents to it ACT. That is a major part of Peterson’s critique that you failed to address, and changes the entire stature of your characterization of his position and, subsequently, your critique is invalid
Very good article. One key issue the author saw is the contradictory between anti-Pomo and subjective truth. I don’t see that. As Peterson mentioned, life is a struggle, subjective truth can be a natural protection (or determination) of a living person against the nature, while postmodernism focus on struggle against other people or groups of people. So, Peterson thinks fighting nature to get meaning is good, fighting other people is bad. My humble interpretation.
Postmodern Heraclitus? What did you smoke?
Moreover, the Tractatus is the emblem of the “first Wittgenstein”, the analytical one. The “Wittgentein precursor of the postmodern” will take place much later, criticizing the analytical philosophy of his Tractatus himself.
Heck, study philosophy.
you criticise JPs stance on postmodernism when JP is clear that his issue is with a postmodernist justification for a brand of Marxism, I am wondering if this was ignored in your article to create something to talk about
[…] in Maps of Meaning, lays out a very relativistic approach to truth that seems almost openly postmodern. It directly appeals to “ancient” knowledge and seems to put it on some kind of a level with […]
Brilliantly put
Response to “rr”: This was a thread of intelligent reflections and debate about the merits of JP’s thought, and this article’s summary of his ideas – which most commenters seem to disagree with. Your Twitter-style ad hominem attack is both groundless and infantile. Grow up. Play the ball, not the man.
What I’ve always found curious about Jordan Peterson is that he’s employed. Also that he is not confined to a mental hospital.
https://cosmolearning.org/video-lectures/12-phenomenology-heidegger-binswanger-boss/
here . he said it clearly that he doesnt agree with either of this sides and he thinks the answer is both ( regarding to subj and obj )
before writing a 10 pages long post and analyzing someone by listening to podcasts and debates ,,, its nice to listen to his core argument , that out there in the open !
My hypothesis is that Prof. Peterson (intelligently) finds support for each of his religious beliefs in whatever discipline happens to serve a particular belief, scientific or postmodernist. In that sense, his modus operandi is not much different to that of, say, an astrologer or a conman. Here is my case: As mentioned in the article, Peterson seemingly affirms and denounces postmodernist thinking at the same time. Why? Because the common denominator in Peterson’s arguments is religion. He needs (objective) science to criticize subjective gender identification and to make an evolutionary case for the validity of religion as a moral code. But he also needs subjectivity to preach the virtues of religion, to not be forced to apply a scientific filter to religion which he knows it will not pass. Religion seems to come first, and anything that may be used as a tool to defend it, scientific or postmodernist, is… Read more »
Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism: Why You Have to Fight It:
https://youtu.be/MPojltjv4M0
In the transvaluation of all values from good to evil (decadence), clearly Peterson values Pomo less by comparison to other decadent values dejour.
Enough to stake his political reputation on it. Enough to risk losing his job to the Canadian thought police. This is high stakes subject matter. JP is not a nihilist.
Pomo wants to destroy the free speech platform upon which it arrogantly makes objective knowledge claims about subjectivity. Akin to Apple and Amazon arguing against platform marketing, the edifice upon which they stand.
Others commenting here have already made the point but it’s worth underlining: you mischaracterise and quite possibly misunderstand Peterson in thinking that he believes subjective experience is prime and therefore he’s the same as the pomos he critiques. He acknowledges that pomo is right to claim all truths are subjective and that there are an infinite number of interpretations of any given thing (a book, a law, an interaction, a belief, Life itself). Where he differs – and this is perhaps where you get him wrong – is that he makes the compelling case that not all interpretations are equally valid. Hamlet is not about frog hunting in the Amazon. We are constrained by biology, nature and social hierarchies of competence (which are millions of years old and to which we have adapted, they are not constructs) to only have a limited set of workable interpretations of how to act.… Read more »
istm one yardstick JP has for reality and truthfulness is survival. Much of the way we relate to the world (relate to it in the non PoMo manner) is deeply programmed and tested over evolution, and so more true and real than less ancient evolved things like arms and legs. The spurt in cognitive evolution which made us human, not ape, is part of that. He seems to take the deep creation myths as a recapitulation of that spurt: mythology repeating phylogeny. It may therefore be true in a way which combines science, history, practicality. He certainly links their abandonment to the crumbling of civilisation. He especially links the individualising parts of these myths to civilisation: an ideology which leaves out individuality is one regressed to an earlier evolutionary point and incapable of maintaining a civilisation. As I understand it One risk is that linking evolved local populations to the… Read more »
You are wrong in your judgement of Peterson, Let’s start with the the two debates between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson about the nature of truth, they are a clear indicator that Jordan doesn’t believe that our experiance of the world is entirely objective, it’s clear he believes there is a degree of subjectivity to everything, that’s a clear and consistent stance of his, this is something he also shares with the post-mods but where they drastically differ is that Jordan doesn’t believe that ALL subjective experiances are equal, he clearly believes that subjective experiances (or even religious experiances) that align with scientific facts, well-known archtypes and are proven to be useful in a somewhat objective way have more value than other experiances, whereas the post-mods believe that ALL subjective experiances are equal, and the radical left just creates a hierarchy of victimhood to gives some people’s experiances more value… Read more »
He has explained that he’s a Pearce/James-style Pragmatist. Re-start your critique from there.
I enjoyed this piece quite a bit until this line: “Those who offer counter refutations to refutations of Peterson’s comments will often say something like: “Well, what’s the big deal? Why are you being so smug? Myths are beneficial and help give meaning to peoples’ otherwise secular lives.” That’s not at all a Jungian or Christian argument. That’s an atheist caricature of religion. Peterson doesn’t defend Jung to defend the infinite subjectivity of being. It’s the exact opposite – Carl Jung advocates for a wholly synthesized individual who is fully aware of their thoughts and their deepest origins, and maps those thoughts onto a symbolic structure, such as the biblical stories. The message of Jungian psychology is the exact opposite of infinite postmodern subjectivity. In his biblical lectures, and his study of Jung, Peterson marshals these symbolic stories, such as Cain and Abel, or Noah and the flood, to argue… Read more »
Good article, and you have clearly identified Peterson’s feet of clay. It’s a shame, because he’s one of the most articulate critics of postmodern identity politics working today, and he has many of us cheering on his good days. But his bizarre underlying metaphysics and epistemology undercut what at first seems like a rational world view. And that undercuts his whole message. A curious case indeed.
What is an evolutionary mechanism?
I’ll attempt an answer:
A Pre-Existent Uncaused Cause.