The anti-progressive philosophy of Jordan Peterson
Lately I’ve been engaged in a few arguments over the “most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now” Jordan Peterson. I have called him a charlatan and promptly been asked to clarify my views on him in a more structured manner. I asked for a talk of his to use as an object for my criticism, and was provided with this from Ideacity. However, after watching his talk I knew this text would be more about the ideologies he promote and the supposedly ‘contemporary cultural dissonance’ that he capitalise of.
There are several great critiques of Peterson out there already. John Ganz and Steven Klein wrote a great piece about him in The Baffler, explaining how his pro-enlightenment ideals are in fact counter-enlightenment. Alexander Offord outlines the intellectual fraudulence behind Peterson’s misinterpreted the now legendary Bill C-16. Metamoderna picked his conversation with Camille Paglia to pieces. Zizek himself just weighed in on the subject.
My critique will be of the underlying dichotomy between individualism and ‘collectivism’ in Petersons talk, and to show how a dogmatic belief in this dichotomy is detrimental for a progressive politics. I’m focusing on his political and philosophical aspirations here, and have no opinion on his qualifications as a psychologist or a self-help guru. All the opinions by him that I share here are taken from the talk at Ideacity if not otherwise stated.
The text consist of two parts:
First, I pick apart his argument from the talk and show how it’s based on 1. a total misconception of postmodernism, and 2. a straight out malicious misconception of Marxism. I argue that his ill-conceived critique borders on anti-intellectualism.
Second, I will address the underlying dichotomy between individualism and ‘collectivism’ that he builds his argument on. This is the interesting part, skip the fist if you already know what post-modernism is and isn’t. I argue that his sometimes very meaningful advice on personal self-work coupled with his faulty political analysis is a dangerous mix, because it constitutes exactly the kind of atomised individualist ‘philosophy’ that allow the current political hegemony to continue unchallenged. I will then end with a short rant of why Derrida is a much better guide to today’s complex society than Peterson.
A critique of Peterson’s talk at Ideacity
(Skip this part if you already know what post-modernism is and isn’t.)
Peterson starts his talk with explaining postmodernism as a philosophy based on the tenet “there is an infinite numbers of interpretations of the world with none of these interpretations being privileged above any other”. He counters this by explaining that not all interpretations of the world is viable, evolution put a certain number of constraints on the way we can conduct our life which privileges some interpretations and punishes others by killing off the individuals with inadequate interpretations. This proves that postmodernism is ultimate wrong since evolution (and real life) proves that not all interpretations of the world are viable.
He traces the history of postmodernism to the French Marxists of the sixties, which he admits is a strange connection since Marxism operates on a very strict interpretation of the world, viewing it through the lens of the oppressor vs. the oppressed. He believes Marxism is at it’s core a murderous ideology as proved in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, based on this he rules out ’shared empathy for the oppressed’ as a reason for this strange coupling. He argues that no one with the heart in the right place can honestly be both fighting for the oppressed and believe in Marxism.
He continues to question the post-modern belief that everything is mediated by power, and questions how this is combined with their statement that no interpretations of the world hold privilege over any other. He then speculates on the secret motive behind a postmodernist standpoint and reasons it is caused by resentment from overlooked academics who do not hold the positions and power they think they deserve, and that “they are disguising their will to power as a political philosophical ideology that masks itself with compassion”, which is reprehensible.
The mistakes in his argument
Peterson makes two fundamental mistakes in his argument. The first is his assertion that postmodernism is equal to absolute relativism, that it is phenomenologically nihilistic/indifferent, i.e. that it allows for an infinite numbers of interpretations of the world and that believes that none of these interpretations should be privileged above any other. The second is his assertion that Marxism is intrinsically totalitarian and murderous.
Postmodernism is absolute relativism
First off, there is no such thing as ‘postmodernism’, just as there is no such thing as ‘rock music’. They are both extremely vague umbrella terms used to refer to a vastly diverse set of individual entities and sub-movements who share a general — but not at all definitive — tendency. To dismiss all postmodernism because you don’t like a particular author is like dismissing all rock music because you don’t like Nickelback. However, let’s go with it for the sake of countering Peterson’s argument.
Quick extremely simplified recap: Postmodernism departs from modernism, hence the ‘post’. In a simplified way modernism can be explained as a positivist thought structure, i.e. only allowing for one specific interpretation of the world, an interpretation that is interlinked with it’s utopian ideals and emancipatory technologies. During the 60s and onwards several thinkers voiced critique of this dominant thought structure. Their main critique was that the only interpretation of the world that seemed to be allowed within the modernist framework was that of the successful straight white male.
Post-modernist thinkers argued that in the modernist framework only a very small portion of the various interpretations of the world was used as the basis for discourse. They asked if it wouldn’t be a better idea to include all various interpretations present in society, and then use this much broader pool of interpretation as the basis for discourse. In that way we make sure that we have the as much material as possible at hand when discussing a subject, e.g. where society should be heading or how society should deal with homosexuals. If you are working on a big project that important, wouldn’t you rather base it on as much data as possible?
Postmodernist philosophy has never asserted a stance of absolute relativism and phenomenological nihilism, as Peterson want to have it. It regards all interpretations of the world as valid to be included in the discussion of which interpretations of the world that are viable. Valid and viable are two different things in this context: All options are on the table for the conversation, but only the best ones are chosen to act upon — ever done a brainstorming session?
The idea that postmodernism is a project to include more interpretations of the world in the discussion of which one is the most viable is very present in Derrida’s work. I’m no expert on Derrida, but Peterson has apparently not even read the wikipedia page:
Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position, “thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively”.[17]:42 To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay.
The fact that postmodernism is not absolute relativism fail Petersons Darwinian critique that post-modernism isn’t evolutionary viable. Instead it appears to be the other way around, that postmodernism is an even more evolutionary viable mode of thinking, since it includes a broader pool of available ideas. As he surely knows, a species with more genetic variations is much more resilient than a genetically homogenous one.
It is clear that Peterson’s understanding of postmodernism is either completely wrong or he is deliberately misleading his audience to think that it is something it is not. He seem to have taken all his readings on postmodernism from Stephen R. C. Hicks controversial book “Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault”. He might want to look into broadening his sources, for example Rick Roderick has a great lecture on Derrida with the intent do dispel just these myths about him:
Derrida’s project … is to examine philosophy as a broad longstanding cultural institution stretching back to the Greeks and to try to do so in a framework that reminds us that philosophy so understood is a product of Indo-European languages — to the extent we know what that phrase means — and the product of Western Civilisation. It is not an eternal project in the mind of God, you know, but a project with a certain materiality, a certain history and that many of the most interesting things we will find out about philosophy won’t be from reading it badly, or from saying any reading of a book by a philosopher is as good as any other, but will be by paying attention to the very things the philosopher tried to repress in his text; the things that the philosopher tried to put on the margins, as it were, of the text of philosophy, the things that the philosopher wished to exclude. By drawing our attention to these, Derrida in some ways is like Freud. See, Freud wanted to investigate things like slips of the tongue, jokes in the relation to the unconscious and so on. In a way Derrida’s meta-philosophical project is to investigate philosophy’s slips of the tongue, philosophy’s unconscious witticisms, and so on.
Marxism is totalitarian and murderous
The argument that Marxism = authoritarian dictatorships is nonsense, standard far-right crackpot conspirations a la Alan Jones. I won’t waste time on countering it since there is plenty of great articles on why this is wrong and stupid. Zizek wrote a number of books on the subject, or actually just read Marx and see for yourself.
…such was my aversion to the personality cult… When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels Collected Works, Volume 45, p. 288
Peterson argues that the emancipatory ideals of postmodernism are morally inconsistent when coupled with Marxism. The fact that Marxism isn’t inherently murderous fails this argument. It turns out to be rather the opposite in this case as well; contemporary Marxism and postmodernism go hand in hand just because they propose an emancipatory alternative to the status quo.
These two mistakes invalidate Peterson’s argument and are so obvious that anyone with basic philosophical or political literacy can point them out. By not properly engaging with the philosophical tradition he claims to criticise he puts his own interests before his discipline, his readers and this ‘truth’ he hold so dear. He reveals himself a proponent of the anti-intellectualism he so proudly contends and hence discredit himself as a serious interlocutor.
The whole basis of dialectics as defined a few good millennia back is to regard what previous people have said about the subject you wish to engage with and then build your argument atop these. If we don’t have a common set of references we are not able to have a proper debate — even if your project is to criticise these references. Otherwise we’re just kids throwing words at each other. To break the rules you need to know the rules, Peterson makes it obvious that he either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, about the rules. A person who position himself as an intellectual but who dismisses the practices and responsibilities that underpins the title of ‘intellectual’, is ultimately a fake. Oxford Dictionary’s defines a charlatan as “a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill”. I therefore maintain my earlier stance that Jordan Peterson is a charlatan.
Addressing Peterson’s actual argument
(The interesting part.)
If we see past his discursive mistakes, what Peterson tries to formulate is a critique of a supposed ‘post-modernist neo-Marxism’, which he believes is a disease infecting contemporary academia*. He brings forth his own set of interpretations of the world — a ‘philosophy’ — that he assume by default correct. He identifies an enemy of his philosophy, named above, and goes on to speculate that the underlying motive is resentment against a world that ultimately adheres to his own philosophy. Basically, he assumes that critique of his worldview is caused by resentment of the fact that his worldview is correct: “the reason you critique me is because you are angry since you know I am right.”
His argument in this talk ultimately boils down to the age-old libertarian dichotomy between individualism and more-than-individualism, what Peterson would call ‘collectivism’ — i.e. everything within the field of sociology. I disagree “collectivism” is a suiting term, I would rather label it more-than-individual processes — tweaking the terminology of New Materialist Jane Bennett — processes that are to complex to be explained by individual internal causes alone, i.e. things like mass unemployment or every meme you’ve ever partaken in, but at the same time not bound to the human realm as in the classic definition of sociological science.
It’s at this intensity between individualism and the other that his charlatanry becomes dangerous, and this is where we need to meet his argument.
*I’m not addressing the question of political correctness and academia in this text, but have added a separate comment on it here.
Peterson is trench digging in a false culture war
In a recent op:ed Zizek called for the joined forces of the followers of Bernie Sanders and the fans of Steve Bannon in the face of a common enemy: the dangerously incompetent neo-liberal economic and political system currently in power. This kind of popular peace-making over political divisions is exactly what’s needed to create a viable and progressive alternative to the current system.
Meanwhile Peterson and much of the liberal left are trench digging in a false culture war that ruins any possibility of a popular movement like this. This ‘culture war’ is a comforting fantasy when the reality is that the only war to come worth the name is a war over resources, and this will be the deadliest war yet. It’s an especially comforting fantasy for the powers at hand when all the critical energy among the people who’d actually be able to challenge these powers are focused on arguing over non-issues.
This ‘culture war’ ought to be a debate between the political and economic system in power and emerging progressive alternatives. This is a scary debate, if we fail the result will be a catastrophe. It is easy and comfortable to resort to the simpler questions proposed by people like Peterson, because to loose those battles are not as devastating. In this sense he is a useful fool for the current powers, wasting political energy into infighting over trivialities while neo-liberalism continue its incompetent hegemonic path into social, economical and ecological collapse.
Dogmatic individualism limit your personal agency
Don’ get me wrong here, I’m not saying that personal work is unimportant, or that discussions over gender issues and such is trivial at their core. Personal work is important for any kind of meaningful political project, a fact quite often overlooked by academics, both on the left and on the right. It’s great that Peterson inspires self-work among a group of people who are otherwise sceptical to introspection. The problem is that he frames his self-help philosophy in such a way that it dismisses all more-than-individual processes and renders these invisible or unattainable.
This is the same atomising self-help ideology such as described in Barbara Ehrenreich’s brilliant ‘Bright-Sided’ (2010), but tailored for a new audience. An ideology that has already been thoroughly disseminated to middle class single moms reading Gwyneth Palthrow’s blog, low-wage workers with “Stay Positive!” badges, top CEO’s in mindfulness training to be able to cope with 100h work weeks, start-up kids microdosing acid to come up with the next killer app, and so on. It’s no surprise that someone should find a way to capitalise on a group previously immune to anything resembling self-help; young right-leaning men.
This new self-help for the right-wing follow in many ways the same pathologies as the hyper-identitarian tumblr-left, in their shared dogmatic belief in individual exceptionalism — whether you call it being a snowflake or working on your self-authoring. They do manifest in different ways, but they are both are so blind in their grappling for any sort of stable identity that they dismiss any more-than-individual processes. This render these philosophies unable to deal with the world as it is.
People think they are free because they are aware of their actions and ignorant of the causes that determine them.
Spinoza, E3p2s
You are not a sole rock standing tall in a chaotic sea, indifferent to time and wear, immune to external influence. You are a wave in this sea, short-lived, produced by the waves before you, producing the waves after you, almost nothing but external influence. In difference from actual sea waves you do have agency, and if you focus this agency hard enough in a specific direction you might cause a chain reaction, altering the chaos of the surge, causing storms, making lulls. Your self is rather like a “Möbius strip connecting interior and exterior in an endless uncontrollable drift of the inside into the outside and the outside into the inside,” with your body being the “the threshold or borderline concept that hovers perilously and undecidably at the pivotal point of binary pairs.” (Elisabeth Grosz, Volatile Bodies 1994)
The individualist perspective is not wrong, but it’s limited. To be able to change anything outside your personal life you need to understand the processes which governs these more-than-individual entities. Yes, you need to clean your room and ‘understand and improve your present personality’ to get somewhere, but you also need to understand how your position in society is mediated by labour relations and economic history to be able to actively change your position; you need to investigate the hidden ideologies behind the culture you consume to be able to understand and gain control over your desires; you need to map the ecological and social processes that produced the context that produced you to fully understand yourself, and so on.
In other talks Peterson have argued that all more-than-individual processes are caused by our biology, and that we need to adapt society to these natural restrictions on our being. That they are the cause of biology might be true, but it was true as well for the feudalist system, and the system before that. Even the Aztec’s were guided by their biology when they ate the hearts of living men. Of course we need to acknowledge that “nature or materiality constrains human (and nonhuman) activities”, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that “because nature or materiality is not a perfect machine, it and we are never fully analyzable.” (Jane Bennett, 2010)
Peterson’s fatalistic and biologically deterministic view on humans capabilities for progress is strangely pessimistic. Oughtn’t this overcoming of the limits of human biology be at the very core of the human project? As Luke Turner writes in his Metamodernist manifesto, that we ought to “set about our task as if those limits might be exceeded, for such action unfolds the world.” Or as Laboria Cuboniks writes in the Xenofeminist manifesto, “If nature is unjust, change nature.” Or as Huizinga and maybe Graeber would rephrase it “If nature is boring, change nature”. That’s what we’ve been doing since the first humans started making tools a few million years back.
Why Derrida is a better guide to the future than Peterson
Derrida states that ‘there is no out-of-context’, meaning that all viable interpretations of the world arise from specific contexts, however eternal they might seem. In old times these viable interpretations might hold true over millennia, with only a small number of viable interpretations of the world being necessary.
Today is different, a dystopian hyperreality shape-shifting at breakneck speed, where technology that were mere sci-fi a couple years back is commonplace today, with quantum computing a looming fact, a culture where people edit their DNA with crispr on the fly, injecting artificial hormons bought from amazon to alter their gendered appearance, a society where badly attuned algorithms change the outcome of national elections while neural networks create languages of their own…
Nothing but a deep analytical scepticism that takes no prisoners and holds nothing holy will save us from the daily onslaught of fake news, post-truths and hidden intentions. To be able to navigate this strange new landscape we need to constantly revise what interpretations of the world are viable, and to get access to more interpretations we need to allow ourselves to consider all alternatives. The projects of Derrida, Baudrillard, Debord and other ’post-modern neo-Marxists’ are tools that can help you understand this new reality.
Peterson’s statement that only a certain set of interpretations of the world are viable seem rather to be a promise that if you close your eyes hard enough this nightmare will just go away. He seem to yearn for days of yore, when men were men and women women, when moral was black and white and science only allowed for one absolute answer to one absolute reality. The world for which this philosophy is intended for no longer exist (and to be honest it’s never been that simple in the first place.)
Nostalgia wont take you far here, you will be gone as quick as the disillusioned men of youtube find a new prophet to voice their anxieties over this new strange landscape. Update your agenda, question everyone and everything, most importantly yourself.
Some final thoughts
Empathy and curiosity is the most crucial skills to be able to understand others interpretations of the world. Curiosity is what drives you to see the world from other viewpoints than your own, and empathy is what allows you to internalise this viewpoint. Peterson’s project is inherently lacking these qualities, since he by default disqualifies the interpretations of the world that run contrary to his. I believe this rigidity come from fear for a more and more uncertain future. A progressive political project need to address this fear, without giving in to it.
Perhaps there are certain ages which do not need truth as much as they need a deepening of the sense of reality, a widening of the imagination. I, for one, do not doubt that the sane view of the world is the true one. But is that what is always wanted, truth? The need for truth is not constant; no more than is the need for repose. An idea which is a distortion may have a greater intellectual thrust than the truth; it may better serve the needs of the spirit, which vary. The truth is balance, but the opposite of truth, which is unbalance, may not be a lie.
In the sense of Sontag’s quote above I believe that Peterson actually fills an important role in the contemporary discourse, not as the harbinger of truth as he would have it, but as the voice of those who fear the truth and need their spirit reassured. In that sense his project fits perfectly into the postmodern theoretical framework, not as a challenger to it, but as one of the symptoms of the world which that framework was built to analyse.
