Jordan B Peterson And The Trojan Horse Of Reactionary Politics

Introduction

This is Professor Jordan B. Peterson from the psychology department at the University of Toronto, notable for his outspoken stance on the current state of campus politics, his comparison of transgender activist to Stalin, and his love of western ideologies, lobsters, and systematic hierarchies. With over 72 billion views on his variety of lectures posted on his Youtube channel with over 1.4 million subscribers. He was described “The most influential public intellectual of the western world”, by David Brooks of the NY times, in January of 2018. However, while it is generally understood that very few university professors have the same level of mainstream relevance Professor Peterson, we are left to wonder “how does this happen”?, What makes the seemingly controversial opinions of a psychology professor resonate so well with the masses.

I believe that the best introduction to Peterson position in the political realm is his infamous interview with channel 4’s Cathy Newman. * To best summarize Peterson’s interview with Cathy Newman, it was a culmination of broad statement made by Professor Peterson on the innate biological differences between men, and women, and differentiating equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, with Kathy Newman then repeating rather unfavourable interpretation of his claims back to him. Which seemed as more of a cat and mouse chase rather than actual intellectual discourse. But, I believe this to be a fair analysis of his stance, as Peterson often references this specific interview many times later in his career. However, while the primary goal of this presentation is not to analyze or condemn Professor Peterson’s outspoken political stance, but rather understand how his use of language influences his audience and shapes the current state of reactionary politics, I thought it was important to also analyze another one of his works, to fairly contextualize his relationship with his audience and use of language to convey meaning.

Moving on to notable literary devices. While it is often said that you can identify an author by their diction and speaking style, I believe this is even more so the case when you looking towards Jordan Peterson. The eloquence in his speaking style and approach to issues that seem almost oversaturated with intellectual opponents is almost refreshing as a listener. With the speaker of the house describing him as being “genuine, eloquent, and profound”. The most prominent literary device used by Jordan Peterson is that of rhetoric, in which he uses persuasion and reason to articulate the various claims he makes. This is seen throughout the entirety of both videos, as a way to substantiate his claims, making it truly difficult for his opponents to refute. Ideas such as political correctness has gone too far, radical left often feels as though they are stifling free thought, or even that western ideologies such as freedom of speech and democracy are undervalued by the left. However they’re often veiled in some greater underlying message, for example during his channel 4 interview, Professor Peterson often states that there are innate biological differences between men and women, which as a listener is rather agreeable. However, continues by stating the reason there are significantly fewer women CEO’s, in comparison to their male counterparts , can be attributed to men being more driven, and women being too agreeable. Which is a somewhat of a ridiculous claim. Furthermore, Professor Peterson, also often uses the phrase “Post Modern Neo Marxist”, as a way to ridicule his leftist opponents. Now, while the word modernism seems to be one of the most vague words in the English language, I chose to use a simplified and all encompassing definition.

Modernism is the period after 1945 in which philosophers attempted to use the scientific method to describe fundamental truths about humanity and philosophy. While postmodernism is the period of skepticism following, where philosopher rejected these ideas, and in turned focused their attention on scientific fields . Postmodernists believe that we should not try to understand or describe these fundamental truths, but rather see them as product of the progression of society. Now for the second part of this puzzle, while as most of you already know Marxism - “is the governing socio economic theory, that believes society should be understood as a class struggle, among the upper, lower, and middle class.”The juxtaposition of these to very contrary words creates an interesting oxymoron ,as these two ideas are incompatible, fundamentally opposing theories. As Marxism which oddly enough is a modernist theory. However, Professor Peterson does not use the term “Post Modern Neo Marxist’ in reference to modernist or marxist intellectuals, but rather liberal politicians, academic administrators, and radical feminists. As an attempt to replace the current system of progressive politics, and instil some sort of fear into his audience. Now moving forward to the second video it is evident that, Peterson describes human suffering with a concerning level of non-chalance, and understatement and views it as an inevitable means to an end. *plays video*This is best exemplified in the phrase “You suffer miserably, and then you die”, or again in the phrase “There are plenty of ways to be stupid enough to perish, and there are plenty of ways to be stupid enough to die”. While these phrases hold a lot of weight and concern, the audience accepts as basic humans’ truths, due to the tone at which Peterson presents the points. Furthermore, in the quote Peterson also uses repetition to add emphasis to certain words, and really functions to captivate the audience attention. Thus, speaking with a level of conviction and authority that draws in eager listeners.

Later, in the same video Peterson states, “Fundamentally it is a war on idea’s, and not only is it a war on idea’s I believe it is one that can be won”. In this quote Professor Peterson is using metaphor, to compare the clash of ideas between the Neo Marxists, and the modernist intellectual, to that of an actual war. Claiming that their “repugnant’ ideologies and “false appeals to compassion”, have no place in a functioning society. Later stating “ there is no need to administer to marxist doctrine, as if it were the bomb needed by the compassionate, sorry tried that didn’t work”, commenting on the aggressive nature and fundamental failure of marxist ideologies, and the resulting culture war of the socialist left. Moreover, Peterson also uses hyperbole in many of his arguments in an attempt to accentuate “the faults”, of the radical left. One of the most notable being his comparison of student and LGBTQ activist to Chairman Mao of China, and other leftist totalitarian leaders such Stalin. Which in itself is an absurd statement, however should not be taken in the literal sense. Instead Peterson compares the governing philosophies of the two, and states. “The philosophy that is guiding their uderses , is the same philosophy”, meaning not that Trans activists are not comparable to twentieth century mass murders, but rather the governing philosophy feels equally as stifling and radical. Also Peterson use of colloquialism sandwiched in between that of his political jargon and intellectual rhetoric makes him truly a unique public speaker. We as an audience see this contrast between formal diction, and phrases such as “Went of the rails” or “really wanna”, to that of phrases such “Pseudo intellectuals”, “Identity Politics”, or even “Post Modern Neo Marxism”.

Learning Outcome

The learning outcome I chose to focus on was “how audience and purpose affect the structure and content of the text.” Jordan Peterson’s unique speaking style, use of diction, and fundamentalist views are what draw in his almost cult like following.To them these ideas seem new, refreshing and urgent amongst the virtue signalling and political correctness of the left. However, while not too many of his ideas are unique in themselves, they are grounded in the intellectual trappings of philosophy, psychology, and Jungian psychoanalysis. As opposed to his fellow right wing counterparts, on Youtube who often take a more aggressive and/or comedic approach when looking towards public figures such as Lauren Southern, or Steven Crowder.

In conclusion whether you agree, or disagree with Jordan Peterson’s philosophical outlook, analyzing his use of language, diction, and speaking style aids us as viewers in better contextualizing and analyzing the current state of the polarizing political discourse between opposing parties.