A little compassion for Jordan Peterson’s postmodern neurosis

When Jean François Lyotard wrote “The Postmodern Condition” in 1979, he referred to postmodernism as “incredulity towards metanarratives.” In other words, we should be suspicious of anyone who forwards big stories about how the world works. Since truth, knowledge and interpretation are human constructs, we must always be aware of their contingent nature.

Once properly understood, postmodern philosophy is not that contentious. Nor is it remotely dangerous. Jordan Peterson, however, begs to differ. For years, the University of Toronto psychology professor has given speeches to gullible audiences, focusing mainly on the sins of the political left and its fondness of postmodern intellectuals.

But zealotry comes with a price. In Peterson’s case, it’s neurosis, the emotional distress experienced whenever someone needlessly obsesses over the postmodern boogeyman. The result has been a series of bizarre claims forwarded, many of which can only be described as delusional.

For instance, discussing postmodernism on “The Ben Shapiro Show,” Peterson suggested that because there is an “infinite number of ways to interpret the world,” we have “no way of ranking those ways on a values scale.”

This brand of cynicism mischaracterizes the essence of postmodernism. As University of Toronto English professor Ira Wells points out in “The Walrus,” “it is not that interpretation is potentially infinite and therefore meaningless. It is that interpretation must be socially and historically contextualized in order to become meaningful.”

Dismissive of postmodernism’s emphasis on context and perspective, Peterson imagines a different source for truth. During the same interview, he admitted that ethical truth “supersedes our species” and that there is a “metaphysical overlay” that reveals truth. But if moral truths exist outside of culture and are derived supernaturally, how can mere mortals access them?

Peterson tells his admirers that postmodernism has somehow morphed into a kind of political dogma in which “warring groups” vie for power to promote an “oppressor/oppressed” mentality, what Peterson typically refers to as neo-Marxist.

Peterson even suggests postmodernism contains an inherently evil quality that threatens Western values. During a 2017 Manning Centre Conference speech, he told a receptive audience that postmodernists “don’t believe in the individual,” “don’t believe in logic” and “don’t believe in dialogue.”

But none of these assertions are consistent with postmodernism. If anything, more careful and elaborate discussions are warranted because postmodernism assumes that no one possesses Godlike wisdom. Peterson was, in fact, making a genuine case against fascism and its affinity for collectivism, blind obedience and state censorship.

Desperate to convince American audiences of the perils of postmodernism, Peterson even appeared on a promotional video for PragerU, a non-profit organization that promotes right-wing perspectives. His message was blunt. If left unchecked, “postmodernism will do to America and the entire Western world what it’s already done to its universities.” Most of us would be amazed to know that such an obscure philosophy possesses so much clout.

Oblivious to criticism, Peterson keeps rambling on about how radical postmodern leftist thinkers are “hell bent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization,” qualifying such statements with, “that’s no paranoid delusion.” Really?