Understanding Jordan Peterson
The professor’s underlying message: Liberalism is a threat to the world
Anyone who has heard Jordan Peterson speak, watched his videos, read his writings knows that he has multitudes of socio-political opinions, a man with a message — maybe too many messages. He seeks limelight and he glows in it.
Yet there are diverse opinions, including in this newspaper, which make it hard to pin down what he stands for. He is described as: a man of great principle, a motivational speaker you can take your family to listen to, a motivational speaker for racists and misogynists, a supporter of the alt-right, a man telling men to get our acts together, a man with a dangerous message, and more. Why is he so hard to pin down? Ever since he started getting attention, Peterson has fought to keep it, even if it means being a chameleon. He changes colour and panders to his audience depending on the host and the makeup of the crowd.
But he has a way of operating that many have missed.
You can say he is against blacks, browns, women, transgender, minority, Marxists, and all other “ills” that he associates with “liberal society.” But none of those are his sole target. He is not interested in criticizing them every time he speaks.
To him there is only one disease, and all the social problems of the Western world are symptoms. His goal is to address young white men and prepare them to confront the main disease threatening Canada and the world — the liberal movement.
Peterson is a powerful motivational speaker. History shows such speakers can move disaffected masses, grab power, and do a lot of damage before they ultimately go down.
There is a kind of eerie feeling about Peterson. In some ways he is like Donald Trump, but he is not a maverick. He might become one if he got power. However I do not think that’s where Peterson is going.
Before I point out the real threat of Peterson, here is why I think he will fail. Fighting against women, immigrants, minorities and the dispossessed is like fighting time. You will not win. You can stop the clock on your wall but you cannot stop time. Imperceptibly but steadily time moves, people understand, communities change, things get better. And it will keep happening so in future — maybe slowly but steadily.
When the Peterson phenomenon began to morph, I must confess, uncharitable thoughts like “Yahoos rise again” or “the new drummer” for the racists’ parade came to mind.
But seriously, I was initially attracted to Peterson’s position on transgender pronouns. I thought if the aim was to move away from equating sex with gender, and if the aim was not to create a third “transgender” gender (because they are not a homogeneous group, for one thing), then what’s the point of creating new pronouns?
I thought it may be better to do away with the exclusive use of “he” and “she” and use one pronoun for all, as is the case in many languages around the world.
It would, of course, create chaos initially, but think: why do we need to know first and foremost the sex of the person in communication?
My interest in Peterson comes from my 40-year experience of teaching Human Diversity and Human Nature at McMaster University. Caste, call, race, IQ, women, sex and gender make the main content of the course.
I have reappraised my opinions on Peterson’s stand against transgender pronouns.
Peterson was simply not interested in gender linguistics nor was he picking fight with transgender pronouns out of academic interest. I believe he is a man with a message and maybe he does not like feminists and transgendered people. Maybe he was looking for an opportunity, and Bill C-16 gave him that opportunity.
I think the movement to create new pronouns can be seen as the first real attempt at dismantling patriarchy. Peterson recognized the threat and picked up the baton.
His direct message is not against women, immigrants and minorities. He thinks these are the result of men gone soft. He thinks motivating young men to become “real men” and take charge of their lives, thereby saving society from the “menace” of multiculturalism, feminism, immigration and all other ills of the world, might work.
We are sexual creatures. Our language has evolved to have words that heighten the sexual difference at every step of communication.
Interchangeable uses of pronouns, such as he and she, for all genders will be a revolutionary step and it may be taken up as an experiment in moving toward a uni-gender society. It can be taken up by men, women, and transgender alike as an all-gender feminist revolution.
Harvard professor Richard Lewontin has likened fighting racism to fighting fire. He says as soon as you put out one fire, another is waiting to break out. Jordan Peterson is not going to be the last drummer for folks against liberal change.