Why Jordan Peterson and the college left are both wrong about postmodernism.
Jordan Peterson is all over the media right now, the controversial professor of psychology from the University of Toronto was thrust into the spotlight over the past year, receiving both scorn and praise from an increasingly divided public on the issues of free speech and gender equality. To those unfamiliar, Peterson became publicly known for the first time with his public opposition to Canada Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act recognized “gender identity and expression” to the list of protected grounds. Peterson’s objection was this bill infringed on free speech and created “compelled speech.” Peterson claims the wording of the bill made it to where one could be charged with a criminal offense for misgendering a person or not using their preferred pronouns.
Peterson has since gone on to be at the forefront of debates centered around free speech, gender, feminism, sexuality and so on in western society. He is a leading voice of a current that believes in a “scientific realism” behind issues like gender; claiming it is settled science. Why has there been so much debate and hysteria over these ideas? According to Peterson, it is all because of postmodernism.
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernism is a broad philosophical movement developed in the mid to late 20th century but has roots all the way back Friedrich Nietzsche, who, ironically, is one of Peterson’s largest influences. A significant idea that came from the postmodern movement was a critique of enlightenment rationalism and objective truths; instead positing that there is no ‘truth’ or, if there is, we can’t observe it.
Two central figures of the movement, and by far the most influential, were Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida whom are both criticized by Peterson. Derrida and Foucault’s ideas revolve around power structures and relations and the idea that all subjects are relative and determined by social structures; in other words, our society, culture, language, and so on determine what we think of as “real” or “true”. What you perceive as real is determined by your values and the ‘truths’ of another society or culture are no less valid than your own. Thaddeus Russell has a great example of how value determines what a thing is that I like to paraphrase:
Think of a desk. What does a desk mean to you? How do you define a desk? To most adults, it is for work. It’s for your computer, books, files, whatever but, this isn’t objective. Why? Ask yourself, what is a desk to a child? It’s a toy; a fort, something to climb on and crawl under. It all comes back to value. The child values fun so it interprets that object as a toy. The adult values the table for work thus, they interpret it that way. Is the child’s interpretation of the thing any better or worse?
The Deployment of Power
Now we have a little understanding of postmodernism how does this tie into the current polarizing issues facing western society and how is postmodernism responsible? Peterson has a few central claims, one of which is the college left is dominated by “social justice warriors” or, SJW’s. Peterson alleges they use postmodern thought to push the idea of socially constructed gender norms and thus claim, no gender is any less valid than another; anything can be a gender and no one can tell you that you can’t be one of the over 100 genders that have been constructed. As far as I am concerned Peterson is correct about this. This isn’t to say that gender is binary but we should refrain from constructing endless genders. So were do “SJW’s” and Peterson go wrong?
Both Peterson and the college left suffer from a flawed interpretation of postmodernism that are antagonistic to the foundations of postmodern thought. The first of which is the concept of power. In an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience”, Peterson begins explaining postmodernism, which he seems to agree with, until he gets to the concept of power. Here Peterson states the postmodernist believes everything is controlled by power structures and everyone falls into an oppressor/oppressed binary. In JRE 958 he says,
[a postmodernist] “believes you can interpret the world any way you want and all anyone is ever doing is playing power games based on their identity and there can be no cross-talk between the power hierarchies. It’s not even allowed, that’s why they don’t engage in dialogue.”
Peterson doesn’t seem to understand the context of power. To Foucault, power wasn’t merely a force being exerted from an oppressor upon the oppressed. Foucault and Derrida almost universally critiqued “state power” and how it manifests in society. Foucault’s major works typically dealt with power in a state form and what he called biopower, or power over the body; in “Madness and Civilization”, the creation of the insane asylum; in “Discipline and Punish”, an analysis on the evolution of prisons including how similar a prison looks to a school or a factory when the structures are analyzed. Or, in “The History of Sexuality”, how power is exerted by state structures upon sexuality; how sexualities considered ‘unnatural’ were pathologized and suppressed. In this text, there is a quote that deconstructs the idea of a postmodern belief in an oppressor/oppressed binary. In speaking of his rejection of Sigmund Freud’s theory of sexual repression earlier in the book Foucault is remarking how this isn’t a completely original thought; other psychoanalysts “have challenged the simple little machinery that comes to mind when one speaks of repression,”
“the idea of a rebellious energy that must be throttled has appeared to them inadequate for deciphering the manner in which power and desire are joined to one another; they consider them to be linked in a more complex and primary way than through the interplay of a primitive, natural and living energy welling up from below, and a higher order seeking to stand in its way;’
Meaning, this is much more complex than a “higher order” — the oppressor — simply seeking to and exert power and halt power from “below” — the oppressed. Foucault didn’t believe power was one directional; only being wielded by an oppressor against the oppressed but, rather, power flows and circulates between all people and all systems.
In the podcast, Peterson goes on to argue that postmodernism is “anti-science”; I believe he says this because of the postmodern claim that gender isn’t ‘real’, which Peterson thinks is ridiculous. I would argue the opposite, science is necessarily postmodern, at least when executed correctly.
Postmodernism and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
In 1962, Thomas S. Kuhn published “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, a landmark of postmodern thought. In “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Kuhn proposes a radical thought; contrary to the mainstream idea that scientific knowledge is gained by the accumulation of facts and theories, in actuality, it advances through anomalies and “paradigm shifts”. Simply put, science is advanced by people being wrong. The prevailing ideas — ideas entire civilizations are structured on — are found to be false. Only, when ‘truth’ is overturned do we get large leaps forward in thought. Most of the text uses the example of the Copernican Revolution to illustrate this.
Nicolaus Copernicus was among the first to propose something radical; even considered criminal and insane, the Ptolemaic System was wrong, the Sun did not revolve around the Earth, rather, the Earth around the Sun. At this time this was a dangerous thought. You could be imprisoned or have your reputation destroyed; the latter is what happened to Copernicus. After the publication of his hypothesis the Catholic church and the Inquisition began a campaign to defame and discredit Copernicus. Copernicus was labeled a fool and a heretic; his work banned and censored for heresy. As far as the church was concerned this was blasphemy. Not to mention, Ptolemy had developed the model via the scientific method and all scientists of the time concurred. Through the scientific method they had determined the Ptolemaic system was a universal truth and anyone who said otherwise was a simpleton or a heretic. It wasn’t until over half a century later that the hypothesis resurfaced and began being tested by Galileo.
Think, for a moment, what happened with this revelation and what the ramifications really were. This wasn’t merely a simple change in the cosmological structure; to the people at the time, reality was shattered. One day everybody knew the Sun orbited the Earth the next day their entire reality had been replaced. This means the “objective truth”, this fact, wasn’t objective or true at all it was simply the subjective interpretation of an observer. The epiphany that this “truth” wasn’t “truth” changed the world forever.
Today, when employed properly, science is essentially postmodern. It deploys an agnosticism upon all truth. Science is structured to where all ideas are constantly trying to be dis-proven, where nothing is settled and everything is open to debate. Corner stones of society that are considered fundamental to our lives like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity aren’t even considered absolute truth. There are still phenomena relativity can’t account for and an antagonism between Relativity and quantum mechanics. This illustrates neither Relativity nor quantum mechanics are absolute. We can see another example in Newtonian Physics and Relativity. For all practical purposes, in the everyday world, Newtonian physics work just fine but, a problem arises when extreme variables are introduced. When gravity and exceptional velocities and distances come into play Newtonian physics reaches a limit and we need to use Relativity. This isn’t to say Newtonian physics is ‘wrong’ but it isn’t truth; it has limitations and you certainly wouldn’t know any better from the observations of your everyday life. Who is to say the same won’t happen with General Relativity? Isn’t it at least possible that we will reach a a limitation of General Relativity?
This agnosticism should also be applied to the current gender debate. We have all heard someone claim something along the lines of, “There are only two genders; it is against science to say otherwise!” They are telling you this is settled; a fact, and if you disagree you are against science or against God. What about the different forms of gender expression and roles in societies and cultures across the earth that have always manifested and still do? It seems arrogant to me to say they are all wrong and we are the first to discover the ‘truth’. Sounds a little familiar, no?
An Egregious Misrepresentation
Significant portions of the left use postmodernism as a tool for constructing hundreds of genders, they use arguments of ‘power’ to justify their belief in the existence of a binary system of oppressor and oppressed — which is actually from misreadings or misinterpretations of Marx and completely contrary to what Foucault wrote. Peterson believes their interpretation of postmodernism is correct and he even goes as far to say it is deliberately being deployed by the left as a Trojan horse to undermine western society and transform language as a means to install Marxism and communism. It is almost as if he believes it was developed for this purpose in some grand conspiracy, almost. As mentioned earlier this is not at all compatible with postmodernism if you haven’t been convinced here is another quote from the “History of Sexuality” that completely dismantles this idea,
“Power comes from below; that is, there is no binary and all encompassing opposition between rulers and ruled at the the root of power relations.”
In the interest of disclosure, I should add, there are branches of postmodernism, associated with thinkers like Jean Baudrillard and Giles Deleuze, that are informed by Marxist and socialist theory. Whereas Foucault and Derrida speak more specifically of the exercise of state power; Deleuze and similar thinkers are more concerned with “capitalist power” and consumerism. The reason this is mostly omitted from my critique is not that it doesn’t fit my narrative but, because I have scarcely heard Peterson mention these more “Marxist” postmodernists. He rests blame on Foucault and Derrida, especially the later, identifying him as the “central villain.” Foucault and Derrida were “cultural relativists” and never proposed an alternative society. They presented a way to critique and question all forms of power.
Postmodernism posits everything we encounter, is relative, determined by our values, which in turn, are determined by constructed concepts; from culture and race to gender and age. It does claim the definitions of gender, sexuality, race or, even the table you are sitting at are determined by ideas and presuppositions that are informed by these concepts and constructions. All of these things are subjective. Here we arrive at the rub, where the “postmodernists”, to Peterson, do something that goes against the entire idea of postmodernism; they construct categories and they present them as ‘truth’.
What the faux postmodernists have done, as far as I can tell, is say, since these concepts are socially constructed we can construct whatever we want and make it mean whatever we want; moreover, this is ‘true’ and you have to believe it; because it is real to me. This position seems to rely on the presupposition that an individuals experience is real. No ones experience necessarily constitutes a reality. Think about any interaction with any person, you both may have different perceptions of the interaction; surely, it is impossible for both parties to be correct and it is extraordinarily likely that neither party has an ‘absolutely true’ perception.
The recognition that ‘truth’ really isn’t ‘truth’ and is really a construction of your environment doesn’t mean we should define truth how we see fit. I allege postmodernism postulates the opposite; that we reject, or at the very least, remain constantly skeptical to any truth claim. As stated earlier, when someone says, “X is true.” They are really telling you not to talk about it; the debate is over. Our awareness of the absence of truth means we are able to dismantle these systems that shackle us based on constructed concepts and a presupposition of what is ‘natural or unnatural’ and remove the power from them in order to make our own destinies. This awareness means we can think outside of our ideology and what we want to see as true; remaining continually cognizant to the idea we might not be right, in fact, it is most likely we aren’t. We should be aware of the idea these are concepts and aren’t ‘real’ and we certainly should not claim them as truth. We should be cautious of falling into an ideology. A deep identification with an ideology only serves to put your thoughts in a box. They make you part of a tribe and force you to identify with the tribe. Ideologies constrain your thoughts and hinder the growth of intellect. In the words of Slavoj Žižek,
“an ideology is something that has you.”
Postmodernism as a Structure for Liberation
Progress isn’t achieved through conforming. It isn’t achieved from “safe spaces” and in echo chambers nor is it via the belief in a universal truth. Progress is achieved by saying, this isn’t settled, the same way it was achieved by Copernicus; thinking differently, saying controversial things is what advances our societies. This is something I can applaud Peterson for. Although I don’t agree with him on pretty much anything, I wouldn’t have thought about any of this if he hadn’t raised difficult questions. His hostility to postmodernism is what led me to learn about it.
Am I proposing a dismantlement of these constructs? Absolutely not. Nor am I proposing a persons identity — and whatever constitutes it — is not valid. I would claim many of these concepts are fundamental and developed for good reasons during the course of evolution. These concepts are precisely how we derive meaning from the world and are one of our greatest inventions. They separate us from beasts. They give us expression and culture. Without attaching meaning to a guitar it is pointless and has no use; simply a piece of wood with metal strings. What I am proposing is what I see as a central utility of postmodernism; becoming cognizant these constructs have informed your opinions on everything you have ever and will ever experience. Once you are aware every subject in your gaze is viewed through an infinite number of lenses that distort the subjects ‘truth.’ You can attempt to move these lenses and you can view the subject through lenses of others. It allows you to look at life through the eyes of another and empathize with them.
I realize that merely doing this doesn’t change these structures. We still face the problem that these concepts are often used to justify discrimination, racism, sexism and dehumanization of people. The internalization of the shame and guilt associated with concepts, what is ‘natural and unnatural’ is the direct source of this power. Our societies belief in it is the only thing that allows it to be acted out. With the knowledge of what really informs and creates these concepts and structures we can reject the core reasons for their construction and begin the process of determining our values as societies and as a species; a process made exceptionally easier once we are able to step outside of our ideologies and presuppositions of other people and cultures.
We are all products of our environments. Postmodern thought doesn’t say we deny reality and become nihilists but live according to our values and not values imposed on us by any outside structure; values we are able to act out over time. Your values and how you choose to act out your life are no less valid than mine or any other person’s. You are sovereign and have agency of your body and mind and no one has a right to force you to live outside of your values, insofar as those values don’t take autonomy and agency from another.
