Jordan Peterson has become a cultural phenomenon that no one seems able to counter or fully explain. A clinical psychologist, Peterson spent most of his career focused on improving the well-being of others through counselling and popular YouTube — self-help type chats and videos that tackle issues of insecurity, personal responsibility, and sometimes venture into philosophy.

Peterson jumped into collective consciousness when he took a hard stance against changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act that came in the form of Bill- C16, a bill that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression, something that already exists to protect other classifications such as race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, etc.

Peterson opposed the bill on the claim that this will regulate speech and will mandate the use of certain words, effectively criminalizing someone for either misusing or refusing to use someone’s preferred gender pronouns. Essentially, Peterson argued that Bill-C16 was a threat to freedom of speech. These claims have been repeatedly debunked and his argument continues to be a wild misrepresenting of the law that places limitations on speech falling in line with current hate speech laws; criminalizing the likes of advocating for genocide.

Since the Bill was passed, life has continued as normal for everyone in Canada. It’s detractors, however, attribute it to the emboldening of ‘Political Correctness’ citing action taken against a teachers assistant in Waterloo which never made it to any sort of courtroom and has resulted in the university itself issuing an apology. (more details on the story here)

This is far from the apocalyptic scene that Peterson had painted. Nevertheless, and since his strong stance against Bill-C16, Peterson has embodied the role of outspoken political commentator and has become known for his ‘empiricist’, no holds barred, accept nothing but facts, attitude.

Through this attitude, Peterson has been successful in carving an interesting space for himself between the worlds of personal development and political commentary. By operating in these two fields, Peterson has been able to insulate himself from meaningful criticism as he seamlessly jumps back and forth between either role, escaping political criticism by claiming individualism and escaping individualistic arguments by leaning on statistics, claiming that he himself is not saying anything.

To get a deeper understanding of Peterson’s approach then, and counter it if we so wish, we have no choice but to isolate his views on each element, and from that analysis try to come to a larger conclusion.

Peterson the psychologist

As a clinical psychologist, Peterson works with patients to help them find solutions to their problems, to maneuver around the ‘chaos’ in their lives; a fact he is quick to use to ground his arguments. Watch any debate Peterson has participated in, and it won’t be long before he qualifies one of his argument by saying he’s helped many become better-adjusted individuals through his work with them.

His examples though are limited to two elements, career and personal relationships, confining possible solutions to a system of binaries. You either advance in your career, or you don’t, you either get the romantic interest, or you don’t — success or failure. This creates a clear input-output relationship where the only room for agency is the patient’s (or listener’s).

By focusing on the patient, anyone and everyone else becomes an externality to be controlled or acted upon. They become objects absent their own agency, obstacles to be maneuvered around.

This is important to understanding Peterson’s perception of individualism and agency where his role as a psychologist becomes to help individuals maneuver around these obstacles by helping them develop their sense of agency in a world that already is. A world with pre-determined values and rewards for competitiveness, assertiveness, and dominance.

Petersons suggested solutions to an individual’s problem then, must be developed within the limits of its rules. It’s for these reasons that Peterson’s suggests, and cannot but suggest, solutions focused on themes that mirror what is rewarded in our current society, themes we would identify as patriarchal.

This explains Peterson’s appeal to his large male audience. For them, Peterson himself becomes a paternal figure who embodies the scientific solutions for the chaos found in an “objective” world.

But what is this chaos? For Peterson, it is the competition found within it, the competition for dominance and success and the key to winning this competition is found in science, especially that of trait psychology (one of many disciplines found within the field of personality psychology) where the correlation between one trait and success can be easily established.

This was clearly on display in Petersons interview with Cathy Newman where he continuously mentioned the trait of agreeableness and leaned on the scientific fact that women score high on that trait. This, he argues, acts to their detriment in the workplace and can be one of the causing factors of the gender wage gap.

In that argument, Peterson accomplished two things. First, he excuses himself from explaining why women score high on agreeableness — an area where research in the fields of social psychology and sociology has provided plenty of evidence as to how society molds women to be more agreeable, extending to the competitive economic dynamics of a family unit where male members need to learn to earn a living as opposed to women who may be able to source a rich husband to meet their needs.

Second, he can set up the discussion within a scope that accepts the existence of an “objective” world.

This is the typical fashion in which exchanges with Peterson around issues of personal development proceed. By controlling the narrative, reporters are forced to go along with his logic, which, for the record, is sound logic. Reporters then find themselves trapped as they have no retort to this logic, and are unprepared or unwilling to shift the discussion into one on the premise of how and why our world functions the way it does. As such, they come off as moralists living in denial of scientific facts, a half correct accusation.

But this also reveals the superficiality of Petersons solutions, solutions that remain relevant so long as an argument is kept within strict parameters, solutions that present a linear progression to life and don’t allow for deviations and deeper analyses into causality. Solutions that are largely prescriptive to the extent that they themselves become limiting for the individuals that seek them.

Assertiveness and other patriarchal traits may help someone get ahead or provide with a sense of agency and security. But they do not equip individuals with the tools of navigating setbacks in life on their own or develop the cognitive frameworks needed to tackle life’s curveballs. Asertivness might be great in a competitive environment, but not all environments are competitive especially when we talk about social relationships. By externalizing everything relevant to the subject, Peterson presents individuals as islands that have no need to understand themselves, the struggle found within a relationship or losing one altogether, losing a job, or complex philosophical and political questions necessary to help an individual through existential struggles.

Peterson even argues that these elements are, from the get-go unnecessary, as they will not translate into success. All you need to do is understand our world as is, follow these set principles and you’ll be fine. He further argues that any investigation into these matters has been settled and have resulted in our current systems, therefore any reconsideration is not only a distraction, but will undermine the individuals development and chances of success.

It’s here that Peterson reveals himself as the mundane academic he is as his prescriptive model becomes the very instrument of tyranny that he claims to oppose. A model that required unquestioned uniform adoption and implementation as any deviation from its premises will have the entire system collapse on itself. Peterson then must view his understanding as “objective” and counter, with viciousness, any theory that may undermine his premises. Peterson the fighter for the individual, becomes Peterson the ideologue.

Peterson the politico

The extent to which Peterson is willing to go to defend the premise of his psychological principles — that we exist in an objective world at its zenith, is best displayed in his role as a politico.

Building on his stance against Bill-C16, Peterson became a leading voice against the creep of ‘political correctness’. His battle against it has seen him branded as a member of the ‘alt-right’ and a transphobe. This is to no surprise as he willingly accepted more than $195,000 (CAD) from Rebel Media (Canada’s equivalent of Breitbart), wanted to put together a McCarthy-esque platform to out “post-modern neo-Marxist” university courses, and has used social media to identify activists who successfully blocked a panel he was meant to take part in leading to online harassment.

With these action, Peterson consolidated an image of himself as an embattled intellectual being attacked by a mob for daring to speak the truth, and a classic liberal looking to lure in people from political extremes and reaching out to anyone willing to help (as is how he justified accepting money from Rebel Media).

But what is Peterson’s political argument? Well, that goes a little like this. 1) French, Marxist intellectuals, upon learning of the horrors of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, had to disavow that version of Marxism, and so, in an attempt to save the ideology itself, and through ‘sleight of hand’, fused Marxist theory with Post-modernism (which suggests that there is an infinite number of interpretations of the world that are in constant conflict) 2) Post-modernism, as theory, naturally undermines ‘canonical’ value structures, this creates an environment of disarray. In this vacuum, people fall back to a sort of raw egalitarianism found in Marxism. 3) This new Ideology arises as ‘cultural Marxism’, the totalitarian ideology that seeks control through the introduction of ‘political correctness’. 4) This new ideology is infiltrating western institutions and through resentment and deceit is corrupting it. You can watch Peterson’s passionate presentation of this argument here.

But this line of argument has baffled almost anyone operating at a serious academic level. To begin with, the concept of post-modernism itself has been contested as a term by some of the very philosophers attributed to it. Even if we took Peterson’s definition of the philosophy, one that’s deconstructive and promotes subjectivity, it would mean that the philosophy reinforces individualism to an even greater extent than Peterson’s ‘classical liberalism’. Somehow though, Peterson has managed to present the philosophy as inherently collectivistic and anti-free speech when in fact the movement was geared at undermining dominant structures, meaning it required to radical freedom of speech.

Furthermore, his presentation of the philosophy as a coordinated attempt to ‘save Marxism’ is laughable at best. Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek labelled Peterson’s arguments about a global Marxist project as “ridiculous” — the invention of a phantom enemy to fabricate proof for his ideology. In his piece, he goes as far as to compare these antics to those of “Politically correct partisans”. It’s worth noting here that Zizek has also written and spoken about the cultural phenomena of Political Correctness as a form of totalitarian self-discipline and spoken out against perceived dangers of the #MeToo campaign — that is to say that he agrees with Peterson on the existence and threats of political correctness and deconstructive trends.

The most destructive of Peterson’s assertions though is that this new ideology is undermining the institutions and values of the ‘West’. This argument is in line with continental conservatives who claim that increased immigration is sullying the Christian values previously found in Europe and conservatives who make claims that homosexuality threatens the moral fabric of society.

What makes this assertion destructive is its puritanical absoluteness which creates an alarmist reaction. Even worse, the fact that the border of this absoluteness is continuously shifting and unclear. What lays on the right side of the line and what lays beyond it? Is it Ideology? The Education system? Immigration? Inter-racial marriage? I’m aware that Peterson is not making all of those arguments, but the dynamic behind the argument is one and the same. There is an external threat to our ‘pure’ identity and it will be the death of us if we don’t crush it! This rhetoric was used by Nazi’s (to promote the Aryan race) and Communists (in their accusation of counter-revolutionaries which they used to justify the purge) alike and it’s the rhetoric that draws in the reactionary and right wing elements of Petersons followers.

By relying on this rhetoric, Peterson, the defender of free speech clearly identifies pluralism as his enemy and embattles himself with those who promote a puritanical, non-historical, and ill-defined egotistical interpretation of the ‘West’. Here, Peterson moves as far away from science and classical liberalism as possible, for he does not want Liberalism, he wants his liberalism.

Putting it all together

As an extension of his views on the individual, Peterson has been required to develop a worldview that helps him anchor and justify his original views on the individual. A world which needs to be defended as objective and good. This fabricated world has become the nest in which his ideological egg lays.

Any deviation from that constructed world is attacked on moral lines as post-modern, neo-Marxist, or whatever other invented accusation that can be created to undermine it at its core. In short, it is a moralistic ad-hominem that refuses to engage with an argument on principle, as any engagement will be quick to reveal the pillars of sand that Peterson’s ideas are built on.

This assessment is not limited to Petersons views on politics and the individual, but they seep into his views on larger societal issues where he uses parables and loose association to re-center arguments around his core themes of agency and hierarchy in his typical patriarchal fashion. (For clarification, my use of the term patriarchal here is in the traditional image of a father telling children what they should be doing)

With all of this, it would be wrong to look at Peterson as an active figure of the alt-right (not to say that he does not have reactionary tendencies similar to right-wing ideologues). And in defence of him, it’s easy to see how his non-political views are interesting for novices, although they remain fraught with the hollowness and rigidity that comes with any sort of prescriptive advice.

Rather, we need to look at Peterson as a confused academic who has been thrust into a political arena well beyond the remit of his ability or knowledge, where, in an attempt to maintain a sense of agency, he has fallen back on the only things he knows, and from them, built a quickly assembled, narrow, and unoriginal worldview.

Continue to part two of this analysis ‘PC culture’ and subjectivity.