Introduction
For quite some time I have been bothered by Jordan
Peterson without knowing quite why. I watch his videos and find myself nodding
my head in agreement with some things he says, then shaking it in disagreement
and disbelief at others. What exactly was happening here?
I was somewhat hesitant to write about Dr. Peterson, as my
sphere of acquaintances has a very divided opinion on him, some praising and
others vilifying him, and I wanted to avoid needlessly offending either camp.
Also, it is easy for any criticism of Dr. Peterson to be dismissed as a
'leftist attack' on him, and thus undercut any valid critique one might make.
Finally, Dr. Peterson has admittedly been the object of extremist 'leftist
attacks', such as the unprofessional interview by Cathy Newman and the
unethical silencing he was subject to at Queen's University. These
unprofessional attacks are counter-productive, prevent dialogue, and only
reinforce the feelings of persecution that justify the rhetoric of Dr.
Peterson's vocal right wing supporters.
Recently, I happened upon a YouTube video of Dr. Peterson
being interviewed on FOX News about the Parkland shooting (February 14, 2018)
and his assessment of the shooter which I feel offers a chance to objectively
assess Dr. Peterson's publicly presented discourses, ie the values or beliefs
he expresses in his language. The video can be seen HERE)
Listening to the interview, it struck me that the reason
for my confused reaction to Dr. Peterson's talks is that there are two Jordan
Petersons on display, and they are entirely contradictory.
Analysis
First, there is the clinical psychologist, Dr. Peterson,
who says entirely reasonable things about the psychology or pathology of mass
shooters in a measured and emotionless tone, and who shows patience even when
the interviewer attempts to interrupt him (see 1:30). When asked why shooters
commit their crimes, Dr. Peterson replies,
"Because they're nihilistic and desperate. I think
life can make you that way unless you have a purpose, and a... destiny let's
say. There's no shortage of suffering and malevolence in life and it's easy for
people to become embittered by that. And if they don't see a way out, a way
forward, they get angry about it and turn against life itself. And they make a
display of their hatred for being by massacring the innocent. That's what's
happening."
For anyone who has read literature on serial killers, such
as Elliot Layton's (2003) Hunting Humans, Dr. Peterson's measured tone here is
representative of the clinical psychologist when dealing with aberrant
psychology. Dr. Peterson continues, "It's also kind of a psychological
epidemic. You know, these people keep track of each other, and there's a
competitive element to it." Once again, this observation is entirely in
keeping with clinical psychology, and a rational conclusion regarding the wave
of mass shootings in the US.
However, there is also the ideologue Jordan Peterson (or
JP to his followers), who takes over discussion and says entirely ideological
(ie reactionary, emotionally charged, and partisan) things about the world in
general and its state of affairs, emphasizing key words in a stronger tone.
After the above clinical comment on the 'competitive element' to mass
shootings, JP adds, "And the fact that the media INSISTS upon publicizing
the names of these shooters is not helpful. Because part of what drives them is
motivation for notoriety. Because notoriety is better than being ignored."
JP's emphasis on the word 'insist' (1:40) is noteworthy because 1) it is the
first word he has stressed in the exchange, and thus indicative of his
valuation of it, 2) as a verb it places the focus on the agency or responsibility
of the subject, in this case the media, and 3) it is not followed by reference
to any other possible agency in gun violence, such as the NRA or gun companies
who equally 'insist' on the right to bear arms, the unacceptability of
background checks or other regulation, and the impossibility of change in
America's supposedly constitutionally-enshrined gun culture. In terms of Dr.
Peterson's diagnosis of the shooter's pathology, this marks an ideological
schism in his thought, one that prevents him from making an entirely rational
and balanced diagnosis of the shooting or the pathology of the shooter.
The rest of the interview continues in this way, with Dr.
Peterson starting a logical assessment, and JP making discursive additions to
this. For example, Dr. Peterson answers the question "What mistakes do you
think we are making as a society to produce an ever-increasing number of young
men like this?" (which he notes is "A good question") by
repeating his initial assertion on the lack of direction in life, even re-using
the word 'malevolence', thus priming his audience to agree with him. However,
JP continues, "and we need to take these sorts of philosophical and even
religious issues seriously. But we don't." Adding 'religion' to discussion
of a case that, so far as media reports show, seems to lack to any religious
dimension, shows a clear ideological bent, specifically the appeal to
conservative values of FOX News in the face of the de-centering and
disorienting postmodern world in which we live. Carlson takes up this
discourse, leading to the following exchange:
TC: Do you think we're taking them less seriously then we
used to?
JP: Yes, definitely. I think that we talked in the past...
we spoke much more about responsibility and... responsibility in particular,
but also purpose and maturity, and we valued those things highly, we confuse
them with TYRANNY and TOXIC masculinity, for example."
Once again, Dr. Peterson starts the response but JP
finishes it with stressed keywords ('tyranny' and 'toxic') that have clear
discursive purpose. 'Tyranny' is a common buzzword used against gun regulation
in US political discourse, although it is not so clear in which sense JP is
using it here, or against whom he is applying it. This lack of clarity is
symptomatic of JP's speech patterns, and it is easy to see how this ambiguity
could be co-opted by Alt-Right viewers of FOX News. Moreover, stressing 'toxic'
and not masculinity implies that JP is OK with masculinity in toto, but refutes
the assumption that it can turn 'toxic'. In terms of clinical psychology, this
ideological dismissal of toxic masculinity seems to be out of step with Dr.
Peterson's own field. Kupers (2005) has examined the effect of toxic
masculinity in prisons, and since Dr. Peterson himself has done work in prisons
and later in the interview cites male tendencies towards violence as a factor
in their increased rates of incarceration, his refutation of toxic masculinity
as a factor in violent gun crime is suspiciously unprofessional. Another psychologist,
Veissiere (2018), offers a more nuanced interpretation of toxic masculinity and
how society needs to perceive it, including its opposite toxic femininity,
which offers more promise of utility than JP's ideological condemnation of the
term.
In addition to being at odds with his own profession, JP's
appeal to ideology is worrying because it shows how out of step he is with a
compassionate response to tragedy. First, his derision of toxic masculinity in
this interview is strange, as the Parkland shooting has not been especially
linked to masculinity, unlike the 2014 Isla Vista shootings where the killer
stated his intent to 'punish women'. In Parkland, men were as much targets as
women, and thus the shooting could be seen as more like Columbine. A clinical
psychologist would thus be expected to approach Parkland from a multifaceted
pathological angle, but decrying toxic masculinity is thus misplaced and
possibly a smokescreen to push JP's own agenda. In a case where 17 people are
dead and Dr. Peterson has been called to media to comment as an expert, this is
a terrible indulgence in the ideological right-wing soapbox.
As the interview progresses, the gap between Dr. Peterson
and JP seems to narrow. When asked about greater violence among young men, he
replies, "there's a very powerful biological component to that, despite
what the postmodern social constructionists have to say about it. But they've
got their head firmly buried in the sand so..." Here then we have a new
entity, which I will simply call Peterson, who starts clinical statements but
ends with off-topic ideological attacks on his imagined enemies. Peterson seems
to be forgetting that the fathers of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud and Carl
Jung, were considered both very much 'postmodern constructionists' at the time
they were active. His digression also implies that he cares much less about
discussing the supposed topic of the interview, the Parkland shooting, then
pushing his own agenda.
Finally, when Carlson asks how we should be thinking more
on how to raise boys as they are more likely to commit crimes, Peterson
replies,
"Uh yeah, I think we should be thinking about that. I
mean, the book I published here, this Twelve Rules for Life, is a meditation on
exactly that. I've been lecturing online about the idea that responsibility is
what gives life meaning and that meaning is the antidote to the sort of nihilism
and aggression and resentment that might otherwise be produced."
This is the moment when Dr. Peterson and JP become one,
when he pitches both his book and the video series that has increased his fame.
To turn an interview about the death of 17 people into the opportunity to push
one's writing and talks seems to me to be highly unprofessional in both a
clinical psychologist and public figure, and marks Peterson's abandonment of
any professional ethic. If there is one thing that Dr. Peterson and the ideologue
JP seem to agree on, it is not to let an opportunity for self-promotion go to
waste.
Finally, Carlson brings back the concept of toxic
masculinity as an ideological football to play with, and asks Peterson to
explain what it means. Peterson doubles down on his ideological detours,
stating,
"Well, it is an attempt to smear the idea of
masculinity by confusing masculine competence with tyranny. And it's part of
the underlying idea that our culture is a corrupt, tyrannical patriarchy that
was run by men for the advantage of men, which is a very pathological way of
looking at the world, but a very common one."
Peterson's definition of toxic masculinity is a denial of
the oppression and inequality in the male-dominated traditional society he and
conservatives at FOX News idolize. Unintentionally, his reference to 'masculine
competence' in the context of a mass shooting could also be read as praise of
violence, and so allying itself with NRA downplaying of the tragedy. Either
way, it is thus a populist appeal to his listeners, but more significantly, it
is also at odds with the clinical psychological definition of the term, which
Kupers (2005) describes as "the constellation of socially regressive male
traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia,
and wanton violence. Toxic masculinity also includes a strong measure of the
male proclivities that lead to resistance in psychotherapy" (714).
Peterson's response instead references back to the key word 'tyranny' he
introduced at the start of the interview, and thus he has primed both Carlson
and his listener's ears for agreement by repetition, also know as the 'illusory
truth' or 'Barnum effect', a clear rhetorical strategy. As a clinical
psychologist with knowledge of how to persuade people, this is a highly
unethical use of Peterson's rhetorical powers.
Peterson concludes by elaborating on his definition in a
way that clears up who he is really attacking - feminists, be they 'damaged'
women or lost men 'trying to shirk responsibility'. He states,
"And if that description is accepted, it means that
masculine energy, so to speak, whether it is manifested by women or by men,
masculine every does nothing but prop up the tyranny of the patriarchy and so
should not be fostered. And the only people who think that way are women whose
relationships with men have been extraordinarily damaged or men who have no
idea who they are or who are trying to shirk responsibility. The idea that
masculinity in its essence is somehow toxic is an absolutely dreadful
idea."
It must be noted that no one in the interview has attacked
masculinity, toxic or otherwise. Peterson's digressive attack on toxic
masculinity and defence of masculinity in general is a symptom of his own
pathology, which is a blinding adherence to right-wing ideology and a form of
split-personality wherein his ideological self compromises his professional
judgment and ethics. If any responsibility is being shirked here, it is Peterson's own as professional psychologist and academic, who is supposedly interested in objectivity and truth.
Conclusions
In conclusion, I have found my analysis of Jordan
Peterson's FOX interview disturbing on both a professional and personal level.
Whereas Dr. Peterson was called to respond to a tragedy and provide suggestions
for preventing ones like it, he has instead indulged in ideological posturing
and advertising his wares. These are actions I expect in neither a professional
academic or fellow human being.
To be fair, leftist critiques of patriarchy have left
little room for espousing positive male values, and polarization of clinical terms like
'toxic masculinity' strip them of their usefulness and transform them into ideological
lightening rods that stymy debate and understanding. This situation is at the
root of Peterson's single-minded defence of masculinity, which doubtlessly
reflects a similar struggle in the minds of his male followers. Yet as Veissiere
(2018) notes, there is a more fruitful, less polarizing way to think about
toxic masculinity. He states,
"The human mind is not well equipped to examine
counterintuitive facts that violate our expectations. Our expectations are
heavily modulated by cultural norms. These are norms we all know and obey,
often without knowing that we know them. In a culture where one version of
feminism has become an obligatory moral norm, pointing out that men fare much
worse than women in many indicators of well-being is likely to be interpreted
as "misogynist." Any talk of men’s issues is also likely to be read
as a call for victimhood. In this version of the victimhood story, some men get
to claim that women are the "real" oppressors. It is both interesting
and alarming to note that competition for victim status is found on both sides
of the gender equality debate."
If Jordan Peterson could engage issues of masculinity in
more psychological terms as Veissiere does, I feel he could both help more the
young males he purports to support, while refraining from unprofessional
ideological attacks when called to do his duty as a public figure and clinical
psychologist.
How do I now see Jordan Peterson now? To indulge in the
narrative or mythic analysis that Jordan Peterson himself often uses, it is
easy to see Jordan Peterson as a modern embodiment of Jekyll and Hyde. Just as
Dr. Jekyll is a learned and compassionate man saddled with the brutish alter
ego of Mr. Hyde, Dr. Peterson seems equally saddled with and morally
compromised by the right-wing, patriarchal discourses of JP and the army of
disenfranchised males that compromise his Alt-Right followers. Looking closely at
Peterson's speech, I keenly feel the aptness of Robert Louis Stevenson's
observation in Jekyll and Hyde: “With every day, and from both sides of my
intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to
the truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful
shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two.” (116)
I have great respect for Dr. Peterson and his attempt to
have people reflect on their own failings, how they sabotage themselves, and
find a purpose in life. However, I feel great sadness that this positive
dimension of his work is mitigated and even negated by the ideology he espouses
and the right wing extremism it inspires. By couching ideological thinking in
terms of the science of psychology, Peterson validates unbalanced and
irrational thinking. This has the consequence of dividing people on ideological
lines, and uniting people in extremist positions. As Robert Louis Stevenson
also wrote in Jekyll and Hyde, “You start a question, and it's like starting a
stone. You sit quietly on the top of a hill; and away the stone goes, starting
others...” (15). Peterson has started stones of questioning and doubting
others, which have been met with a cascade of both alt-right and extreme left
protests. I only hope that he can at some point see the avalanche he is
causing, and walk a more balanced path as both professional and person.
Sources
Based Jedi. (2018). "NEW: Jordan Peterson REACTS to
Parkland Shooting with Tucker Carlson"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrC8_PnR6g4 [Uploaded Feb.
27, 2018].
Kupers, Terry. (2005). "Toxic Masculinity as a
Barrier to Mental Health Treatment in Prison." Journal of Clinical
Psychology. Vol. 61 (6). 713-724. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20105
Leyton, Elliot. (2003). Hunting Humans: The rise of the
modern multiple murderer. Carroll.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. (2012 edition). The Curious Case
of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Project Gutenberg E-book.
Veissiere, Samuel. (2018). "The Real Problem With
'Toxic Masculinity': Why our culture needs strong and nuanced gender
archetypes." Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201802/the-real-problem-toxic-masculinity
