Jordan Peterson

[Finn]

@IlliniDave, right at the 10 second mark he makes that same claim, that postmodernism was like a disguise that Marxism put on in the 1970's when Marxism had been discredited. He specifically talks about this happening in the 1970's, saying: "and then the postmodernists came to the scene". Note that then he keeps talking about the evils of Marxism, communism and the Soviet Union (which naturally everyone hates), *not postmodernism*.

Well, that sounds great, until you take into account that the postmodernists "came to the scene" in the 1960s when Marxism was still going *very* strong, especially in France. By this I mean that many of the major works of Foucault and Derrida, for example, were published in the 1960s. There was still, among many Europeans, a firm belief in Marxism as a viable, practicable worldview. Europe's mad year 1968 saw Marxist student uprisings! Marxism as an ideology at that time was doing just great, and these thinkers lived side by side with people espousing that ideology, however, they were already working on something of their own.

Marxism was, then, *another movement*. To equate thinkers with another movement without so much as an explanation, and to then perform that kind of a slight of hand that I described earlier, is totally flippant and irresponsible. He quite clearly says about the postmodernists: "They were all Marxists". If we take one of Foucault's later works that was published in the 1970s (Histoire de la sexualité), it is specifically in *opposition* to Marx (and Freud), especially in aspects that deal with power.

Furthermore, the key tenet of Marxism is dialectical materialism, which maintains a view that there is a *singular course/explanation of human history*. Postmodernism maintains that there cannot ever be such a thing. In this one aspect, his own worldview seems to be much closer to Marxism, since he is a Christian, and Christians maintain that there is a singular storyline in regards to human history. Jesus also said some things that seem pretty "commie" to me, but I digress. I mean no disrespect by that, btw, I think those bits of the New Testament are beautiful.

Look, I have no vested interest in PoMo. It's pretty old already, and I'm sure there's a young crowd of social scientists and philosophers out there that are ripping it into pieces by now. But what JP is doing is deceitful.

Also, I've never heard JP say anything about the notion of (post)colonialism which emerged out of ethnography. To my mind, that seems to have been a a central influence behind contemporary identity politics? http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60804.pdf

And like I said, I claim no thorough expertise on postmodernism or any of these issues. I'm not a social scientist. But neither is he, clearly. Yet he presents himself as an authority on the subject.

[IlliniDave]

I have no idea if he's right or wrong with his terminology--I don't have a lot of interest in philosophy. I'll leave the judging up to the more erudite. For the most part he is describing what he is seeing at Canadian universities. And I know almost nothing about them either. There are other critics out there who say "postmodern neo marxism" is a conspiracy theory hatched by underground Nazis of which he is presumably the ring leader. It's only deceitful if it's wrong and he knows it's wrong. I get the sense he is coining terms where there isn't an established alternative. The topic came up here about 90 minutes after I saw the interview on Youtube so I shared the link because there seemed to be some question about, and expressed interest in, what he'd said.

[Finn]

Nothing wrong with sharing the link, iD, I’m grateful that you did, because we can address his actual claims here.

My issue with JP, however, is not merely one of misrepresented ’terminology’ but of a mistepresented fundamental worldview. That’s a huge one.

If I were to use Kegan levels to describe Marxism and JP’s own ideology, they would both be level 3, traditionalist, where the individual’s worldview sits firmly within a singular narrative/system. It would be no wonder he has to explain postmodernism as a continuation of such a system, *if* his thinking is generally on that kind of a level.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, has pointed out all the various different human narratives/systems of thought or belief that there are in the world. Once this has been done in human history, it means that we can now look at these various narratives/systems (postmodernism itself included) and consider their worth without swallowing the whole thing hook, line and sinker. In Kegan’s system, this breaks with the 3rd level’s traditionalist notions. Comparing various narratives/systems and seeing yourself as separate from them would be level 5! I’m hopeful that there are further ”levels” of development to humans’ worldview, but that’s another topic.

Now that I’m looking at this through a Kegan lens, however, I have to say that you might be right in that he may have no idea what he’s doing. I’m not big on conspiracy theories anyway, and am not aware of there being more people like him (the neo-Marxist thing you mentioned). Nevertheless, all this is extremely reckless for a college professor, since my fact-checking was at a barely-above-Wikipedia level here.

[IlliniDave]

I didn't meant to imply I think he doesn't know what he's doing, although he might not. I think he's describing a very real phenomenon he's observing in academics and politics in Canada (there are analogous things going on in the US) that doesn't have a widely agreed upon vocabulary yet. I don't think he's misrepresenting what he's seeing, even if he is not extrapolating back to it's "source" accurately. Of course, people look at him and conclude he's a Nazi or alt-righter, so he wouldn't be alone in overreaching in that regard.

I'm not a Kegan initiate so I have no way of judging Peterson on that scale. But I think he's spent a big chunk of his academic energy studying/comparing all the "narratives" out there (from the POV of psychology), and he's got a healthy dose of skepticism. So he doesn't seem to me to fit your terse description of level 3.

[daylen]

Jordan has spent a great deal of time researching, comparing, and writing about his interpretations of religious text. I have watched dozens of his videos and read both his books, and I am still not quite sure what his connection to religion is. He asserts his christianity, but his view of religion, god, and truth are complex. Jordan promotes a traditional institution, though his political views are quite modern and neutral in general.

It seems quite clear to me that he is not operating at the third order of consciousness.

Also, it doesn't make sense to assign an order of consciousness to ideologies.

[Finn]

@iD, I appreciate those general opinions on contemporary viewpoints are why many people adore him, and I specifically did not want to discuss those, because what's the use? Nobody will change their minds on these issues. I was merely discussing the *facts* of a *major* argument of his which he uses as a launching pad for his more general grievances. He brought up these facts as being in support of his other arguments (of which I'm not terribly knowledgeable about). These facts do not bear a closer examination, so I find his contribution there to be nil. That's not to say that he might not have other arguments that have merits, but the whole thing means he is either ignorant or purposefully false here. What bothers me is that he seems to get away with it. In qualitative research, if your argument is not coherent from your ontological and epistemological commitments all the way to your commentary of contemporary phenomena, it's not considered viable. I cannot see why he should get special treatment.

@daylen, I see that you are well read on JP, and I would genuinely appreciate it if you gave some additional detail to his other arguments.

Also, I'm intrigued: Why could it not make sense to assign "orders of consciousness"/*/ to ideologies? If Marxism says "there is one story to humanity" and postmodernism says "there is no singular storyline to humanity", I find it quite interesting how these at least seem to jive with Kegan's stuff. True enough, Kegan was talking about individuals, and his results emerged from an empirical study of individuals (as I understand it). But it would be, in my opinion, a totally legitimate exercise to go and see whether or not those concepts could be useful as a lens through which we could analyse ideologies.

/*/ Like many others on this forum, I find systems where knowledge is organized into neat systems or categories to be very compelling. However, I try to bear in mind that these systems are often way *too* neat, so when I talk about/through them, there's a large grain of salt involved.

[daylen]

@Finn

I'll look into writing a summary of his first book.

I do not think it makes sense, because ideologies are not conscious. It is not like anything to be an ideology. An ideology is simply a system of ideas and ideals. Though, there are connections between ideologies and the orders of consciousness since agents can interact with ideas and ideals (consciously or unconsciously).

[IlliniDave]

Finn, okay. I think we look at his talks in completely different ways. I see him saying: "This is what I see and here is where I think it's (in his case probably watched it) coming from..." I don't agree that how he traces back the philosophical beliefs of some of his academic peers is his launching pad. And like I said before, I'm not armed with a Keegan lens or even Wikipedia-level philosophy vocabulary. If you want that to be your launching pad for general grievances against Peterson, I can't stand in your way.

[IlliniDave]

Jordan has spent a great deal of time researching, comparing, and writing about his interpretations of religious text. I have watched dozens of his videos and read both his books, and I am still not quite sure what his connection to religion is. He asserts his christianity ...

What I've heard him say is that he "nominally" a Christian, so based on the plain meaning he'd be a Christian "in name only" implying he's not a religious person. I think he's sees importance in religious ideas/texts/philosophies via their role of organizing societies and cultures by providing a higher, future-oriented purpose. And he apparently sees similar parallels with respect to individual psychology. Speculating, I think he sees the religious texts as more a human achievement of symbolically capturing wisdom regarding good social order, rather than inspired by divine beings. But ultimately that's just a guess.

[daylen]

Yeah, that is basically the vibe I have in my head too. I am just hesitant to judge based on the perception that he tends to define controversial words in a highly subjective way.

[daylen]

For instance, he tends not to specify the way he thinks of truth. Sometimes he refers to scientific truth, and at other times he refers to a subjective form of truth that can change with respect to experience. See the first podcast with Harris if interested.

[IlliniDave]

Maybe it's a uniquely Canadian misunderstanding of the world, but here's another guy (philosophy professor rather than psychology) who seems to see the same threads Peterson does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w

[daylen]

Yes, I watched that too! Great video. He also wrote a book on postmodernism and has a series of videos on the philosophy of education.

[Finn]

@daylen, big, public ideologies that end with -ism are usually very much an explicitly a stated conscious thing. They spread through major documents like manifestos. The whole of the 20th century was rife with explicit ideologies that battled with each other. Mein Kampf, Marxist manifesto, etc. I think, with all due respect, that the US constitution (and all other constitutions as well) is a document that explicitly describes the ideological bedrock upon which the country is built. What we're discussing here are explicit, conscious ideologies: Marxism and postmodernism. Admittedly, both group ideologies and individuals' personal ideologies have components in them that are unconscious. I'd argue though, that personal ideologies/worldview are often much less explicit ("life unexamined"). What Kegan was doing in his study -- I think -- was identifying some core beliefs that people held about the world and their place in it.

@ "This is what I see and here is where I think it's coming from" is precisely how I see him, so we're in agreement there! Since his argument does not hold water, I see his contribution as being nil. Incidentally, there was a great cartoon here, where the first panel said "Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from it?" and the second panel said "Here is the conclusion, what facts can we draw up to support it." I think it applies here to some extent.

/edit, sorry, I was commenting on the wrong video in the last part of my post!

[IlliniDave]

Finn, I don't think observing a cultural phenomenon and tracing it's roots back historically is the inherent fallacy you are making it out to be. What are you proposing is the antecedent conclusion these guys (Jordan, Hicks, et. al.) started with? What makes you conclude that?

[7Wannabe5]

I think a lot of his philosophy or teachings are like the anecdote he offers concerning disciplining his own young children so that they were well-behaved in restaurants. He doesn't even think about the first place question of whether young children should be brought to restaurants at all. He admits that he is irritable, and anybody with a tad of experience or Developmental Psychology 101 knows that very young children are impulsive, so why brag about his ability to bring them under control through his authority administered as corporal punishment?

It's like he thinks other humans are so stupid or malleable that they won't end up doing what they want to do, what their nature compels them towards, eventually anyways. Like the 3 year old he "trained" to say "Please" at Applebees won't be able to figure out how to sneak out of her window to meet her boyfriend when she is 16, after quickly verifying that Dad has snoozed off in his armchair. His offhand dismissal of post-modernism (and many other matters) is like a rigid authoritarian father's take on his teenage daughter's sexuality. He doesn't like it, and he doesn't even want to think about it.

There is huge open chasm of raw reality in the realm between how anybody thinks the world should operate, and the way it actually just keeps on operating.

[daylen]

@Finn I get where you are coming from. I just don't think it is useful. More like trying to fit square pegs in round holes. A system can evovle without being conscious. Reducing everything to belief is dogmatic and deconstructive.

[daylen]

His offhand dismissal of post-modernism (and many other matters) is like a rigid authoritarian father's take on his teenage daughter's sexuality. He doesn't like it, and he doesn't even want to think about it.

What are your thoughts on postmodernism?

Seems to me that postmodernism can be used for deconstructive or reconstructive means. The deconstructive camp thinks that basically all decisions are aimed at increasing the power of the in-group. This conclusion can be used to deconstruct modern thought.

The reconstructive version deconstructs then integrates the parts into a new whole (order five consciousness).

I have only heard Jordan talk about the former.

[daylen]

Another note on Peterson.. his high neuroticism significantly influences his values. He probably feels more emotional pain than average, and this is probably why he finds the Christan narrative so "true". If you tend to suffer then it makes sense to believe that life is suffering and heaven is reached by enduring it. This is the metaphor that basically forms the bedrock of his philosophy.

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

Well, might be that I am pro-post-modernism because I like the feeling of being deconstructed (Mind blown!!! Fall down on my ass hard and then laugh at the absurdity of it all*) more than most people. Also, I must admit I am personally burnt-out on dealing with highly-neurotic, rigid, and irritable men of my generation.

*The recent tendency to see anything-other-people-do-that-I-don't-like as a sure path to the reconstruction of Nazi death camps strikes me as being in sharp contrast to the take on the topic by thoughtful people in the era closer to the actual events, which included great works such as several humorous novels of Kurt Vonnegut, Catch-22, and even popular takes such as "Hogan's Heroes." A completely humorless, taking myself VERY seriously, take on anything always seems to be a cause of concern to me.