Jordan Peterson: Calling a certain audience to order and mightily annoying the rest
One of my 30-year-old sons sent a Mother's Day e-mail that said,
"I have learned so much from you and I believe the reason why I have such a wonderful partner to raise a family with is due to the many lessons you imparted...I make my bed every day now!"
I was delighted, but also jolted. "Make your bed" is a tenet of the controversial psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson's from his best-selling "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos", along with "stand up straight with your shoulders back" and "take responsibility".
Had I been a Peterson Mom?
I have been watching Peterson's profile gain traction for a time, via videos and press coverage. I can't look away.
Some of what he tells his audience makes sense. At the same time, he promotes a return to traditional sex roles (in the name of stability and safety), is dismissive of LGBT persons' struggle for inclusion, and has a creepy jones for suffering—but then I think that about certain Buddhist personages, too.
Peterson fills a need. Just like the times get the shoe choices they deserve, every so often the culture seems to require someone new to tell them How to Live. Or, because so many of Peterson's fans are young adults, How to Grow the Eff Up.
He draws fierce criticism and cheap personal shots (a writer slammed his bedspread), a common response to prominent figures who disrupt the status quo and propose unpalatable strategies. And he may be falling into the classic trap of guruhood: believing his (positive) press, letting it fan arrogance.
Peterson delivers not particularly new advice cemented to some retrograde strategies. His approach is fear-based, not a surprise given that his private counselling practice addresses loss, confusion and crisis. In his university class lectures (see YouTube), Peterson addresses issues in psychotherapy with fluency; when he speaks to the public in vintage-looking piped suit, he plays to the attendees' sense of powerlessness, irrelevance, impasse.
He delimits a polarity, Order vs Chaos, a deep, ancient, irreconcilable human condition, the font of myth, art and plenty of monkey business between the sexes. His Jungian roots are always two inches grown out; he introduces archetypes to a mostly young, often male audience.
In Peterson's rat-a-tat delivery, I also hear a good shot of the Stoics, and the Bible, big time. (For a neat dissection of Dr. Peterson's philosophical chops, see this Psychology Today article by Paul Thagaard. However, Peterson is neither a philosopher nor an ethicist; the lines blur in his presentations.)
Not bad stuff if you are thirty, living in your parent's basement, and sick of a life afflicted with what one of his fans calls "face-sucking nihilism". Persons stuck in that space need someone, and this will not be a gentle, "smile on your brother" figure. A Jordan Peterson will rise.
Over the past fifty years, I've seen friends grab on to their guides, from the Buddha to Bentham, from Osho to Erhard; seen many go from from devotion to disillusionment. A handful have been scarred to the point of hiding past affiliations.
Others have flourished on their path, finding peace, purpose, community. If still followers after three decades, they are like persons in a long marriage, accepting the ups and downs and staying the course. Not one of the contemporary "gurus" whom I or close friends met at close range was without personal flaws and inconsistencies.
Though I never followed one particular teacher, in my twenties, the work of Dr. Albert Ellis (himself a controversial figure), especially his "Thirteen Irrational Beliefs" was foundational to my emerging adulthood; I guess he was my Peterson.
What about you? Was there someone whose teachings, whether religious or secular, were formative? Are those still valid for you today?
This year, Peterson holds the stage, drawing fire, selling tickets, stirring it up. We should not ignore the gurus, they are a mirror of our culture. We might remember when we were young and looking for someone with answers, whether that was a prof or Stevie Nicks.
I wondered, why do young adults need Peterson to tell them to clean their rooms, make their beds? I'm pretty sure their mothers did. Sometimes it takes a fervent preacher in a suit to make the point.
"I have learned so much from you and I believe the reason why I have such a wonderful partner to raise a family with is due to the many lessons you imparted...I make my bed every day now!"
I was delighted, but also jolted. "Make your bed" is a tenet of the controversial psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson's from his best-selling "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos", along with "stand up straight with your shoulders back" and "take responsibility".
Had I been a Peterson Mom?
I have been watching Peterson's profile gain traction for a time, via videos and press coverage. I can't look away.
Some of what he tells his audience makes sense. At the same time, he promotes a return to traditional sex roles (in the name of stability and safety), is dismissive of LGBT persons' struggle for inclusion, and has a creepy jones for suffering—but then I think that about certain Buddhist personages, too.
Peterson fills a need. Just like the times get the shoe choices they deserve, every so often the culture seems to require someone new to tell them How to Live. Or, because so many of Peterson's fans are young adults, How to Grow the Eff Up.
He draws fierce criticism and cheap personal shots (a writer slammed his bedspread), a common response to prominent figures who disrupt the status quo and propose unpalatable strategies. And he may be falling into the classic trap of guruhood: believing his (positive) press, letting it fan arrogance.
Peterson delivers not particularly new advice cemented to some retrograde strategies. His approach is fear-based, not a surprise given that his private counselling practice addresses loss, confusion and crisis. In his university class lectures (see YouTube), Peterson addresses issues in psychotherapy with fluency; when he speaks to the public in vintage-looking piped suit, he plays to the attendees' sense of powerlessness, irrelevance, impasse.
He delimits a polarity, Order vs Chaos, a deep, ancient, irreconcilable human condition, the font of myth, art and plenty of monkey business between the sexes. His Jungian roots are always two inches grown out; he introduces archetypes to a mostly young, often male audience.
In Peterson's rat-a-tat delivery, I also hear a good shot of the Stoics, and the Bible, big time. (For a neat dissection of Dr. Peterson's philosophical chops, see this Psychology Today article by Paul Thagaard. However, Peterson is neither a philosopher nor an ethicist; the lines blur in his presentations.)
Not bad stuff if you are thirty, living in your parent's basement, and sick of a life afflicted with what one of his fans calls "face-sucking nihilism". Persons stuck in that space need someone, and this will not be a gentle, "smile on your brother" figure. A Jordan Peterson will rise.
Over the past fifty years, I've seen friends grab on to their guides, from the Buddha to Bentham, from Osho to Erhard; seen many go from from devotion to disillusionment. A handful have been scarred to the point of hiding past affiliations.
Others have flourished on their path, finding peace, purpose, community. If still followers after three decades, they are like persons in a long marriage, accepting the ups and downs and staying the course. Not one of the contemporary "gurus" whom I or close friends met at close range was without personal flaws and inconsistencies.
Though I never followed one particular teacher, in my twenties, the work of Dr. Albert Ellis (himself a controversial figure), especially his "Thirteen Irrational Beliefs" was foundational to my emerging adulthood; I guess he was my Peterson.
What about you? Was there someone whose teachings, whether religious or secular, were formative? Are those still valid for you today?
This year, Peterson holds the stage, drawing fire, selling tickets, stirring it up. We should not ignore the gurus, they are a mirror of our culture. We might remember when we were young and looking for someone with answers, whether that was a prof or Stevie Nicks.
I wondered, why do young adults need Peterson to tell them to clean their rooms, make their beds? I'm pretty sure their mothers did. Sometimes it takes a fervent preacher in a suit to make the point.
Comments
On my son's urging I tried watching a couple of Peterson's youtube videos - I didn't last very long, I didn't think he was a very good speaker, he droned on and on. I do find him worrisome.
Rather like Brene Brown and Martha Beck, however (in keeping with my status as a middle-aged woman).
Peterson worries me a bit, now that I've looked him up. I''m not sure that I have been particularly shaped by any particular guru, although a good deal by philosophy as I've read over the years. I'm happy that you mentioned Ellis though, his "13 irrational beliefs" really challenged my acceptance of certain beliefs and behaviors I had been reared to take as a sort of gospel, and really helped me to find the road to independence. I suspect each of us needs to find our individual path, and those paths may be different. It also always makes me smile that my own children and those of my friends so often find enlightenment from gurus and friends who are telling them the same things that their parents and I had been saying all along. I am sure I was the same way
I tend steer very clear of anyone who tries to impose rigid one-size-fits-all solutions for a complex world, and to me Peterson is just a shinyd-up version of patriarchal religious fundamentalism.
Someday I might write about the evening I spent in a hot tub, drinking a cache of champagne that a former employee of Erhard's liberated when she did not receive severance pay.
I do not find Peterson remotely as worrisome as some persons now fully elected to make world-changing potentially devastating decisions.
And nice to hear from others who appreciate Ellis' work. It is worth noting that he had some points of view about woman that would be considered retrograde now... not to mention his behaviour in personal life.
I very much enjoy your writing, Duchesse. This post was a delight to read.
I have a problem with any messiah types so I approach what he has to say with caution. But a friend and I were just chatting this afternoon and she is a retired teacher who still supply teaches. She never raises her voice, threatens or cajoles - she simply has an expectation of behaviour and if that expectation is not met then the child knows that there will be consequences. She VERY rarely has a child challenge her and in fact they love when she arrives. Her classroom is a place of calm because there are rules for everyone and because certain manners are required. The problem is, younger teachers and parents want to be the child's friend and don't want to be "the bad guy" so expectations are low and things like manners and personal responsibility are never taught. In many ways I think this is Peterson's appeal - children crave order and some sense of security in their lives (even if they do rebel against it at some point) and this seems to be what Peterson offers.
see also https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex
And, just to round out the picture:Peterson is homophobic, and racist.
NOT pro-woman.
2. You asked who influenced me-- Hannah Arendt and Kate Millett. Kate Millet's Sexual Politics, 3rd chapter on feminist theory holds up, today. And, yes, while Kate became a good friend, like all humans she was not perfect, but she was one of the most intelligent beings.
And someone alive today, please. Then, we can see a positive exemplar.
I have watched a number of lectures and do not conclude that Peterson hates women; I think that his perception of their role is severely limited and that he is not interested in the gains made toward equality, and would sacrifice those for the sake of some other goal, which he calls "order".
At the same time, he speaks of marriage as "an adoption of responsibility" and promotes taking marriage vows seriously, I look at the divorce and separation stats, and wonder, What is going on? What are the causal factors for a 50% failure rate? It is in this arena of relationships, of doing the heavy lifting and committing to mutual growth that I listen to and wonder, Is there some sense here, along with the worrying, wrongheaded diatribes against perceived violation of free speech, etc?
I saw Germaine Greer decades ago; articulate, galvanizing, but a good dose of misandrysm.
I see why you think of "Handmaid's Tale".
His idea of order is to maintain the patriarchy, not adapt it.
Marriages take work, from both members of the union.
(prepare yourself for getting into the weeds :) )
BUT not everyone marries: the overall marriage rate in the US is about 50% (varies based on race/ethnicity & education) according to http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/
And, according to the US CDC the rate of both marriage and divorce has fallen since 1990
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/state_marriage_rates_90_95_99-16.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/state_divorce_rates_90_95_99-16.pdf
But all said:
I do like your blog, btw, because you make readers think.
Thank you.
I already agreed about Peterson's strategies, so I repeat my request to provide a better resource. A link to the talks will be useful.
I do not think that divorce rates (in the US stats you provide) have fallen because the parties have grown more adept at managing their differences. I suspect a major causal factor is that divorce is very expensive.
Other reasons are summarized here: http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
Note the 50% failure rate.
Canada is different; cohabitation is generally more socially acceptable. Where I live, in Quebec, it is more common than marriage; one third of couples are in common-law unions versus 18% for rest of Canada. (https://www.mcgill.ca/msr/volume2/article4)
Does not yield a lower dissolution rate, the U-Haul is still at the door.
The most popular Peterson YouTube lectures are about 'relationships' and so it seems persons are looking for guidance even though not married or cohabiting. Who else do you think can help?
Even Dr. Phil (a flaming behaviourist whom I have never heard promote equality) may be better than Peterson, but Philip McGraw is not the man of the hour.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
Having digested a lot of his material, I have to be careful how I judge people who bring allegations of isms and obias; people have their own lenses, filters and conditioned responses. There are a few interviews where Peterson discusses the Neuman interview. In that moment after all the word-twisting where she had to stop and think, he felt that was the first time in the interview that he was talking to the real her. He regretted taking that little "gotcha", and wishes he would have been gentler and built on that bit of shared understanding.
What was particularly interesting to me was Peterson's reference to D.E. Brownings"Human Universals".
Peterson says monogamy is •a strategy to reduce male violence• (with the exception of rape of women). (It is not the only strategy but Peterson emphasizes its presence across many cultures.) In his way, and personal characteristics aside, Peterson is advocating a less-violent society, Tthough some critics charge that he still wants that society to be patriarchal, I am not sure it's that black and white.