Jordan Peterson: Sowing Order or Chaos? Part I

Image: Wikipedia

This multi-part series, conceived in collaboration with my friend and fellow writer Octavian, will be an in depth examination of Dr. Jordan Peterson, the former clinical psychologist and professor who has become a polarizing cultural figure as an outspoken critic of postmodern political correctness and a champion of traditional notions of gender. 
  

In these tribalistic times, with Alt-Righters, far left antifascists, and every gradient in between seeking to control the cultural narrative, one voice has emerged above the din, stoking both admiration and revulsion. Jordan B. Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and academic described as "the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now", first shot to Internet stardom for his impassioned resistance to Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to grant protection to"individuals from discrimination... and from being the target of hate propaganda as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression." 

Believing the Bill to be a Pandora's box, letting loose the evil of censored speech and enforced compliance (despite legal authorities pointing out otherwise), Peterson decried it as the latest assault of "cultural Marxists" on Western values; a trend he claims is part of a broader effort, starting in the late 1960's, to clandestinely introduce failed Marxist principles under the postmodernist guise of tolerance, inclusivity, and moral relativism (evocative of Glenn Beck's chalkboard conspiracy days). According to Peterson,  this Communist Trojan Horse has worked its insidious way into the halls of academia and government with spectacular success, using the pluralistic ruse of "identity politics" to propagate an us versus them, oppressor and oppressed ideology in the minds of the masses. 

“I don’t think its [postmodernism's] dangers can be overstated... And I also don’t think the degree to which it’s already infiltrated our culture can be overstated.”

Peterson has made it his mission to expose this cancerous strain, using his YouTube channel, books (including the best-selling 12 Rules for Life, which will be reviewed in a later installment), and public talks to extol the virtues of what he deems the order sustaining values of Western thought, which provide individual and collective stability against nihilistic chaos. Affecting the wizened air of a Gandalf/Obi-Wan Kenobi with an at times manic delivery (which some have aptly compared to Kermit the Frog) Peterson, utilizing a wide array of mediums including mythology, theology, Jungian psychology, philosophy, literature, with a sprinkling of evolutionary biology, exhorts his audiences to "grow the hell up, accept some responsibility, live an honorable life." 

Life, Peterson asserts, is ultimately tragic and rooted in suffering. It should be spent in the quest for transcendent meaning, rather than fleeting happiness and pleasure. Humanity is inherently weak, ignorant, and far more evil than we care to admit. If we deny this part of our nature and blame other people and groups for the evil in the world, it will manifest in destructive ways, even give birth to authoritarian ideologies like Nazism and Communism. 

After all, Peterson says, it wasn't psycho-paths who enabled atrocities like the Holocaust or Stalin and Mao's mass killings,  but everyday "normal" citizens. It is only by facing our dark side (that part of the psyche which Jung termed the Shadow) and, like Jesus, taking on our portion of "the sins of the world" that we redeem ourselves and society. 

Very heady stuff which has nonetheless resonated with many folks, especially younger men, whom Peterson feels are being emasculated and marginalized by political correctness. Rather than wallow in their sense of victim-hood, he declares men must re-assume the mantle of virility outlined in the great hero myths of old and exert order over the chaos of their lives.

I didn't learn about Peterson's social views until after I first discovered him on YouTube. As a student of comparative mythology, religion, philosophy, and self-help I was interested to hear his takes on these subjects. His offerings in the first few brief clips I watched came off as rather sensible: accept responsibility for your life, cease blaming, work on getting yourself together before criticizing others, etc. All perfectly sound maxims, but also rather standard verbiage in the self-help world. Looking to go deeper, I took the plunge into his formidably long lectures (each a little over two hours give or take) of his recorded "Maps of Meaning" college course and some of his Biblical symbolism series. 

While Peterson rehashed the work of thinkers like Jung, Freud, and Joseph Campbell, the more I watched the more I became perturbed by his fixation with the theme of "Order vs. Chaos". Citing the Taoist concept of ying - yang as an example, Peterson says life is the result of two conflicting energies: the yang or masculine, representing order, pattern, and authority, and the ying or feminine representing darkness and chaos. This is nothing new; indeed the motif of male/female/light/dark is a very old one, permeating almost every major world religion and spiritual philosophy. Peterson, however, often interprets the duality as more adversarial than harmonious. It is the role, he believes, of the masculine to tame and bring order to the dark unknown represented by feminine chaos, both within the individual and without in the wider world. He cites dragon slaying tales in Western mythology as the prime archetypal codification of this dynamic. 

The problem lies in Peterson's monolithic interpretation of archetypes and mythic narratives (which Campbell in particular cautioned against). For example, his instance that all men strive to adhere to the active Hero archetype, and that all women, despite postmodern/feminist claims to the contrary, are inescapably wired to be passive mothers and nurturers in keeping with the Great Mother archetype. This view is a narrow one mythologically, psychologically, and biologically: one need look no further than the Classical Greek Goddess pantheon to see that, while representative of the universal feminine, each Goddess also possessed her own special personality. Demeter was the Earth Mother; Artemis the virgin Goddess of the hunt; Athena the patron of wisdom and war; Aphrodite of love and sensuality, etc. 

The same is true for men: for every Achilles there is an Orpheus, a lover of music and poetry, for every King Arthur a Merlin, the contemplative sage who explores the workings of nature, or for every Zeus a Vulcan, the master craftsman and artisan.  If psychologist James Hillman's suggestion that "mythology is psychology in ancient dress" is true, than the manifold gods and goddesses (including androgynous and gay ones) are representative of numberless - or, to use that hated word, fluid - personal and sexual traits. It is interesting to note that Peterson, like many conservative champions of strength and aggression, never felt compelled to serve in a uniform himself whether as a solider or police officer. 

It is also ironic that he has misgivings about transgender people wanting to serve in the military. While admitting he's "not exactly an expert" in that area, Peterson says his traditionalism makes him "afraid of the unintended consequences" of such "radical change". Quite a departure for a normally unapologetic advocate of heroic courage, as well as a man who prides himself on being factually minded: all the major chiefs of the US Armed Forces, along with civilian physicians and researchers, have roundly debunked the notion that transgender troops (of which there are roughly 2,000 - 11,000 in the 1.3 million members of the Armed Forces) are less combat efficient than their fellow soldiers. I humbly submit that trans-soldiers like Kristin Beck, a former Navy Seal, are more inspirational and worthy exemplars of the heroic spirit than Mr. Peterson. 

Additionally, Peterson's insinuation that a childless life for both men and women is a less meaningful one is laughable. Is the life of a scientist who forgoes parenthood to devote their energies to cancer research a less noble one? Is a parent who abuses their child inherently superior to a monk or nun who has taken a vow of chastity to dedicate their lives to serving the poor, sick, and underprivileged?  To take Peterson's absurd premise to its (ill)logical conclusion, Jesus' celibate life as portrayed in the Gospels would be a pathetic one. To insist that all men or women conform to a broad archetype or cultural model is both unscientific and against the idea of individual liberty, which Peterson claims to champion as a classical liberal. 

This, along with his assertion that “the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory" has led to him, not surprisingly, being labelled sexist.  

Peterson's fans object to this, saying that he is not literally calling women personifications of chaos, or men the sole agents of order. Furthermore, they say, he is simply pointing out undeniable psychological and biological differences between the sexes, and to insinuate that he holds misogynist views is a smear. 

If that is indeed the case, Peterson puts his foot in his mouth repeatedly. There is his disturbing statement, made during an interview with Camille Paglia, in which he laments "men can't control crazy women" because "the same parameters for my resistance [against a man], which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical.... that's forbidden in discourse with women." Since Peterson and his ilk are "defenseless against that kind of female insanity" it is the job of "sane" women to put their "crazy sisters" in line by speaking up: "Look, enough of that. Enough man hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender."  His dead serious claim that the threat of physical violence underscores any "real conversation" between men is very telling, as is his statement that "If you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect".   

He's only upped the ante from there. In the recent New York Times profile by Nellie Bowles, Peterson - among other proclamations - said that the cure for sexual violence generated by so-called incel males "is enforced monogamy". Peterson eventually clarified his position, saying that enforced monogamy should be instituted through "social convention" rather than state edict as alleged by his critics. 

Again, Peterson's slipperiness leaves him open to deserved criticism. What cultural organ does he believe should be the arbiter of this "social convention"? Given his professed admiration of Christianity (despite being quite evasive on his belief in God, which we'll address in detail in a later piece), one can make a not too far fetched inference that Peterson would want to see the Church be the propagator of this social convention.  Though he voices support for separation of church and state, Peterson's idea that "social convention" should establish relationship dynamics ignores the fact that social institutions such as churches, as history has shown, will try to use the state to enforce their preferred "convention". 

As a brief example, there is the much skirted issue of the Roman Catholic Church's support for Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime in Italy. The Church, which had been decreasing in influence since Italian unification in the 19th century, latched on to the fascist platform. Mussolini, knowing that having the Church's blessing would consolidate his power, formally codified the Catholic Faith as the recognized religion of the Italian people in the Lateran Treaty (which also created the present day Vatican), and promoted the traditional family as the backbone of Italian society.  Women were to be dutiful mothers, raising their boys to be strong fascist warriors for Mussolini's vision of a new Roman Empire, with girls resuming their "proper" roles as homemakers. This was buttressed with Pope Pius XI's papal encyclical Casti connubii, which reinforced the Church's view on the nuclear family. A more recent instance is the efforts of religious conservatives to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, effectively codifying their belief in traditional marriage being the bedrock of society.    

I can imagine legions of "lobsters" (a nickname for Peterson's fans, the concept behind which we'll address later) screaming "You're just a liberal schill, MacCormack, using the tired fascist smear!"

I am not calling Peterson a dyed in the wool fascist, though as we proceed through this series we will discover some startling overlaps between his thought and that espoused by avowed fascists (and Marxists too, ironically enough. Perhaps there is more truth to the adage that we hate in others what we see in ourselves than we realize). Furthermore the whole purpose of this series is not to mock or denigrate the man Jordan Peterson, who I think misguidedly believes that he is performing a social good, but rather to show the fallacy of his throwing the cultural baby out with the bathwater when it comes to societal trends that upset our preconceived notions (both individually and collectively) of how the world works. 

I agree that there is much that is extreme with postmodern philosophy, but reverting back to the casual factors that gave rise to it (like patriarchal hierarchies and outmoded religious beliefs) will not solve the problem. We must engage with those ideas, examine them, cull the best and discard the worst. Let us find the Aristotelian "Golden Mean", which is lost in the conspiratorial style of jeremiads utilized by the likes of Peterson, Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck. I do this from a place of empathy, not contempt, for those with whom Peterson's message resonates. As I will write about in detail I too was once among their ranks: disillusioned, angst ridden, and angry over my place in the world, and the players who I wrongly believed were keeping me there. I became an ardent "self-reliant" libertarian and "Info-Warrior", caught in a web of paranoia and disillusion, socially inept and obnoxious, labeling all who disagreed with me as shallow suckers who didn't understand the seriousness of the threat posed by the "New World Order". Once the initial seduction of libertarian empowerment faded, I found myself at the edge of the abyss of despondent existentialism from which, as I will describe, I thankfully emerged sane. It is not my aim to sway the minds of avowed Peterson acolytes, but to appeal to those young men (or women for that matter) who, having been drawn in by his seemingly rational appeals, to soberly investigate and discern the roots of his thought. 

In Part II we will resume analyzing Peterson's views on religion, which on close examination are quite muddled.