Photo by Chris Williamson, Getty Images

Love him or hate him, Jordan B. Peterson is a man that needs no introduction. Whether you see him as a sexist alt-right extremist or a champion of free speech and traditional values, he has made a lasting mark on western society.

Not until discussion of this Canadian psychology professor entered my 11th grade classroom in the Republic of Georgia, halfway around the world, did I realized just how great a footprint Peterson’s lectures had left globally. The words that launched Peterson to fame in the west were having the same impact on the young men and women in my post-soviet classroom. Right or wrong, Peterson’s perception of hierarchy, individualism, and traditional values spoke to the core of the human condition.

I’ve spent the last year dissecting not only Peterson lectures, but also the criticisms of his dissenters and have identified a number of common themes, the most overarching of which is Peterson’s conception and defense of hierarchy.

The Universality of Hierarchy

All societies, no matter how large or small, have developed hierarchies. In his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond separates societies into four categories (bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states) according to population size. Of those four societies, formal hierarchies are a common characteristic of three. Only bands, which consist of mere dozens of individuals, are egalitarian in terms of individual authority.

Even bands, however, resist true equality in measures of competence and admiration. That is why, Diamond writes, that despite foraging providing a greater and more consistent number of calories, young men in hunter-gatherer societies have always tried to differentiate themselves from their peers by hunting large, dangerous animals and are revered for their success.

Those hunters are, in some ways, the prehistoric equivalent to modern-day sport stars. They are celebrated not only of their economic contributions (in the form of meat or entertainment value), but also for having reached the pinnacle of their chosen pursuit. In other words, they are respected for having climbed to the top of the social-economic hierarchy.

Peterson takes the anthropological perspective of hierarchy one step further into the field of evolutionary biology. Peterson asserts that because hierarchical structures can be found throughout the animal kingdom (from lobsters of chimpanzees), they are an evolutionary universal. While Peterson admits hierarchy is fundamentally tyrannical, no human society has ever escaped it clutches.

Diamond support Peterson’s claim. He argues that those societies that quickly progressed from more egalitarian bands to rigidly stratified nation-states were ultimately more successful and historically dominant. Because the invention of new technology is a time-consuming endeavor, a class structure was necessary to support innovation. An underclass of farmers freed elites from food production, thereby allowing them channel their energy in alternative directions.

While many of these alternative pursuits, such as empirical expansion (e.g. Napoleon) and sexual gratification(e.g. Casanova), may have done little to advance human well-being, inventors like Nikola Tesla and thinkers like Aristotle never could have achieved success if they were responsible for their own food production.

However, one may argue that the farmers, rulers, scholars, and inventors should have been (and should be) equally appreciated by society, an opinion I am sympathetic to. Food production has always been the cornerstone of human civilization, and yet it has historically been underappreciated. No bureaucracy could have sustained itself without farmers to support them, and yet the bureaucracy (and other elites) have always considered themselves above the common people and enjoyed rights and luxuries not afforded to the lower classes.

Thus we arrive at two fundamentally opposing views of hierarchy. One that hierarchy is a universal human constant, responsible for the development of modern world, and a second that highlights its fundamentally oppressive and unequal nature.

Peterson’s Traditional Practicality

Allow me now to strongman Peterson’s argument.

Throughout the world, society is structured around a formal political and economic hierarchy.

Peterson assets that the organization into a hierarchical structure is inevitable, and that any attempt to dissolve that hierarchy will ultimately fail. Moreover, fighting against that hierarchy leads individuals to resentment of those at the top and ultimately leads to a life of meaningless suffering (as see by the opioid crises in the mid-western United States) or radical extremism (perhaps, best characterized by the French Revolution).

Even when the social hierarchy of a nation was successfully dissolved, as was theoretically the case in the early years under Soviet Russia, a new hierarchy swiftly replaces its predecessor.

Peterson presents a common-sense solution to this Darwinian struggle. In his view, individuals are best served by finding a place in the established hierarchy and reaching to better themselves, not because the hierarchy is ideal, but because the alternatives lead those individuals to needless depression, or even violence.

In order to climb the hierarchy, an individual must choose a specific goal and work to attain it. As that individual progresses upwards, he or she gains the approval and acceptance of society. Furthermore, psychology shows that progress made towards a specific goal is the greatest foundation of long-term human happiness. Moreover, financial rewards associated with higher positions in the hierarchy provide freedom and luxury in exchange for hard work, determination, and (yes) undeserved luck.

Peterson also advises individuals to take take on responsibility, characterized by cleaning one’s room and then striving to clean up society. Those additional responsibilities are a long-term investment towards social capital and create serious consequences for laziness and failure, which motivates individuals towards further success.

On the other hand, Peterson also admits that hierarchies cannot exist without their flaws and can easily become corrupted. He argues that different generations play different rolls in the maintenance of our social fabric. The elder members of society, who occupy higher positions in the hierarchy, struggle to maintain its existence for their own benefit. They prevent the hierarchy from becoming unstable and society from collapsing into anarchy. This benefits everyone, because without the hierarchy, society would dissolve into theHobbesian state of nature, bellum omnium contra omnes — the war of all against all.

On the other hand, the youth resist the hierarchy. They see its faults more clearly than older generations and strive to correct them. They are determined to create a fairer, more just world than the one their parents and grandparents provided. Their youthful energy invigorates society by fighting back against discrimination and corruption. By doing so, the hierarchy undergoes constant flux, thereby granting it the elasticity to change and adapt to the ceaseless march of history and disruptive technologies.

The undying tension between rigidity and agility maintains the social fabric of our societies. Too much rigidity leads to narcissism, tyranny, and nepotism. Too much agility, and the entire structure collapses.

57-year-old Peterson struggles to maintain and promote the tradition values and social structures, characteristic of older generations. At the same time, he is a constant admirer of the Harry Potter books, in which Harry, Ron, and Hermione embody of the spirit of the disruptive youth by breaking rules and bending social norms in order to purge the resuscitate wizarding world and rid it of its faults.

Peterson’s Misunderstanding of the Left

Peterson fails to understand that the liberal left is dominated by neither post-modern nor Marxist thought. When he speaks of the political left, Peterson riles against a fictitious caricature of extreme progressive ideology. Peterson’s imaginary antagonist (bent on authoritarian equality) would find himself at home in the dystopian world imagined by Kurt Vonnegut in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron” (excellent story; highly recommended).

Peterson’s misunderstanding is best seen in his debate with the the self-professed Marxist philosopher, Slavoj Zizek.

Peterson prepared for the event expecting to debate a fanatical post-modern Soviet-style communist. He studied Marx’s Communist Manifesto and presented an argument designed to highlight its shortcomings. However, in reality, Zizek was nothing of the sort. Instead, Zizek turned out not a communist at all and would be better described as a rational critic of capitalism.

In fact, both Peterson and Zizek were extremely critical of communist ideology. Likewise, both Peterson and Zizek agreed that western capitalistic society was often unfair and unforgiving.

Peterson and Zizek’s main contention was their perspective on how society should move forward. Peterson argued that despite the oppressive nature of the western social hierarchy, individuals — including members of protected classes — are best served by integrating into the dominant hierarchy rather than struggling to defeat it.

Like Zizek, most liberals are not interested in transforming the western social fabric into a communist utopia. Instead, they question the vast wealth inequality and wonder why members of different genders and racial groups are not equally represented in dominate positions throughout society.

One readily available answer, espoused by the liberal media, is a narrative of systemic discrimination. But because they play extremely lose with their definitions, the core of their argument and justification for their policies is often impossible to pin down and refute.

Informed by the media, activist groups and liberal policy makers have supported legislation that prioritizes equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity, fueling the political right with the evidence of serious, unintended consequences caused by these programs, best explained by Thomas Sowell, a black conservative thinker, and Larry Elder, a black conservative author and radio host.

Unbeknownst to Peterson, the overwhelming majority of American Democrats I have spoken to have expressed discomfort with the trade off affirmative action-based policies require. At the same time, however, they are willing to tolerate discriminatory legislation as a temporary solution to otherwise insurmountable levels of inequality. In their view, some individuals, namely members of protected classes (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), are missuited for the current hierarchy and require a leg up in order to compete on a level playing field.

The graph below shows the result of aPew Research Center study, which describes how American Democratic and Republican views have changed over time. While the American left has moved further towards liberalism, according to Pew Research Center, there is still an enormous overlap between Democratic and Republican thought.

If Peterson wants the liberal left media to stop mischaracterizing his views, perhaps he should also frame parts of his argument around center-left ideology instead of constantly refute his caricature of the radical extreme. While, the median left has certainly moved towards the fringes, the majority of left leaning voters do not share such extreme views.

The Left’s Misconception concerning the Nature of Hierarchy

Like the extreme right, the radical left can (and in today’s world, often do) take their positions and responses too far. After the American woman’s soccer team won the 2019 World Cup, fans in New York began to protest unequal pay in men’s and woman’s sports. In my mind, this protest prompted a series of question with seemingly contradictory answers:

Do top female athletes (inherently) deserve the same financial intensives for reaching the top of their respective hierarchies? Of course.

Do they receive equal pay? Absolutely not.

If that is the case, why are male and female athletes paid differently?

To answer that question, the first thing we must understand is that the social-economic hierarchy isn’t a single, unified behemoth. It is a web of hierarchies nestled within a greater meta-hierarchical context.

One identifiable hierarchy is “entertainment.” That hierarchy contains numerous sub-hierarchies, such as “stand up comedy,” “laser tag,” and “spectator sports.” Each of those sub-hierarchies competes for American’s attention and their entertainment dollars. The most successful forms of entertainment are able to reward individuals associated with those hierarchies higher financial rewards, especially to those stars who occupy the highest positions in their respective hierarchies.

The New York protesters seem to believe that all athletes, regardless of sex, occupy (or, perhaps, should occupy) the same hierarchy. That, however, is only partially true. Because American football attracts great viewership than American soccer, American football players have higher financial gains than American soccer players who occupy similar standings inside their respective hierarchies.

Comparing the contracts of male and female soccer players is just as problematic as comparing those of NFL players and American soccer players. Each set occupies a different hierarchy. In order to reap the same financial gains in a capitalistic system, women’s soccer, as a whole, would need to rise to the same level of economic value as men’s soccer.

Men’s and women’s soccer are competing for two different economic pies. It is the same reason the world’s best middle school teacher and the world’s best investment banker receive wildly unequal incomes.

While both the left and the right might agree that in a perfect world those two individuals (the teacher and the banker) might deserve similar financial benefits for their labor, neither the liberals nor conservatives can point to a path which leads to a sustainable economic reality in which that is possible.

The Take Away

In conclusion, the left should be aware that Peterson and the majority of the political right understand the inequality inherent to the modern capitalistic society. They view the wealth disparity as a trade off for social stability and freedom.

At the same time, the left must remember that hierarchies, while oppressive, are an evolutionary universal. Peterson is merely trying to show his audience the benefits to and strategies for working inside the established hierarchy, because, in his view, individuals fighting for total equality are more likely to fall into nihilistic depression or create unnecessary suffering than to establish any lasting change.

While these two forces, the left and the right, are opposites, in my opinion, they don’t need to be enemies. They each play a necessary role in our society, which allows us to avoid the pitfalls of both the total rigidity of a corrupt hierarchy and the dissolution of modern society.