How I See Memorial University

To serve well on the Memorial University Board of Regents, candidates must both have an idea of where MUN came from and where it is going. In other worlds, what makes Memorial University special, and how can we preserve that?

1) Local Social Experiment

Put simply, Memorial University (College) is a uniquely Newfoundland social experiment. In the early days, its primary purpose was to upgrade the credentials of teachers in Newfoundland as the republican government fought illiteracy. After World War One, it became a way to provide locals with a cost effective way to an education, with the additional intent of stemming the brain drain of professionals away to other countries.

Pre-Confederation, few thought Newfoundland could support a full fledged university past the basic Arts and Sciences formations given at that time. Joey Smallwood made the decision to gamble on a full-fledged higher education institution that produced doctorates. This endeavour has progressed in fits and starts, and it wouldn't be until 2022 that a campus would be built off the island in Labrador.

In the past century, Memorial has expanded and taken on a pivotal role in the social, economic, cultural, and political life of Newfoundland. The majority of our social workers, businessmen, artists, and politicians have passed through its doors.

Anyone governing MUN needs to respect this history and purpose, while building for the future.

2) Bottleneck University

Memorial's influence on the fabric of Newfoundland society aside, it is geographically limited. For Newfoundlanders, it has always been the cheaper at home option. For first generation native students like myself, MUN was the only place we knew. Mainland universities attract those with the funds and academic habitus to aim for more reputable or specialized degrees. When my richer white friends would discuss going to university A, B, or C, I would nod my head dumbly. MUN was the only university name I knew.

Despite this, MUN has become known outside of Newfoundland for the quality of its education. When I did my BEd here in 2005-6, there were also many mainlanders who had come to take advantage of the affordable but good quality 1 year teaching degree. Considering that NAFTA later ratified the acceptance of teaching degrees across North America, this means a cheap, one year MUN Teacher's Certificate is a key to a professional career all over North America, and in many cases, the world.

Whereas Memorial's student body was largely locals when I started in 1989-96, when I returned in 2004-6 I was happy to see faces from all over the world, in addition to other parts of Canada. I made friends with engineering students from China and Nepal, ESL students from Korea and Taiwan, and was surprised to notice the ATM in the TSC had replaced the French button with 中文 or Chinese. Newfoundland's renowned isolation and hospitality conspired to make it a welcoming place for foreign students, as it would during 9-11.

MUN is thus both a welcoming place for people from abroad, as well as a leg up for people from here.

3) Inferiority Complex

However, due to Memorial's historical and geographical isolation, MUN has always had an inferiority complex. Just as the College was created to upgrade the credentials of Newfoundlanders, there has always been a feeling that MUN alone cannot create professionals, but needs help from abroad. For many students, a MUN degree is the start of a career that will be continued elsewhere, or a choice imposed by finances. Ironically, Memorial University PR often boasts about MUN alumni who succeed abroad, testifying to the value of an education here. I myself have a BEd and MA in English from Memorial, which allowed me to get my PhD in Global Society Studies at Doshisha University in Japan, then transition to associate professor in Kobe. The teaching methodology, analytical skills, and communication ability imparted by Memorial University faculty over the years has served me well.

This inferiority complex also extends to faculty. Even when I was an undergrad, many of the professors were from the UK, and even some local professors affected an English accent. Although MUN has had wonderful professors from overseas, we have also had mismatches who have done fraudulent research, as well as instructors who refuse to accommodate the special needs of students. (To be fair, I've also had terrible local professors as well, who were inept in teaching or made advances on students around me.)

This inferiority complex has become increasingly visible in the executive, with the expensive headhunting used to find new leadership, and the disastrous result of this practice which has led us to the current crisis. For example, the former president  may have come from Labrador, but her degrees were all obtained from universities in Canada (Mount Allison & Acadia) and the US (Gonzaga University in Washington). A look at previous presidents shows a growing preponderance of foreign educated academics.

Kachanoski (University of Alberta, University of Saskatchewan)

Loomis - pro tempore (Queen's University)

Campbell - interim (Memorial, University of Toronto)

Meisen - (Imperial College, California Institute Technology, McGill University)

May (Memorial, McGill University)

Harris (Memorial, University of London, University of Virginia)

Although the limited offerings at Memorial University necessitates that foreign educated executives are hired, and many bring skills and experience that have added immeasurably to Memorial's standard of education, MUN needs to grow out of the belief that foreign + expensive is inherently better.

(PS: On a lark I applied to be president at MUN through its Borden employment system for executives. I was unsurprisingly turned down.)

4) The Irony of Being The Only Shop In Town

Canada has over 100 universities, with 1/3 of the top ones in Ontario alone. All of Newfoundland and Labrador has only one. MUN's status as the only institution of higher learning in the province comes with a number of benefits and drawbacks.

First, on the good side, it is indelibly linked with Newfoundland society, culture, & economy, as mentioned. The University of Toronto may bear the city name, but could be transplanted just about anywhere on the continent. The same could not be said of Memorial. Memorial still relies on the local populace to provide paying students, and has added international students in the ESL and Engineering programmes to fill the coffers even more. It also added NL government funding to this income, until recently.

On the downside, this means events like the housing crisis also hits MUN students harder. I have heard from sources at MUN that student housing is already booked up for fall. If MUN cannot do more to address situations in the community, it will have to pay the price if people choose to go elsewhere.

To put it bluntly, MUN can no longer depend on a captive student body anymore. Memorial is no longer the only choice for less fortunate Newfoundlanders - trades have (fortunately) lost their stigma, and many Newfoundlanders rightly choose a trade that very quickly pays for itself. When I did my teaching internship at Gonzaga HS in 2005, I was told "Don't tell them university is the be all and end all." I assured them that, compared to my friends and family in trades, I was lagging far behind and would tell students the truth of the situation.

After decades of oil money flowing into the pockets of Newfoundland families, many more are also choosing universities elsewhere in Canada, or even abroad. Moreover, with the advent of cheaper air travel, Newfoundland is no longer 'the Rock' or minimum security prison it used to be jokingly referred to during my salad days in the 90's. Rare is the Newfoundlander who hasn't lounged on a Florida beach these days.

The loss of government funding to offset Memorial's tuition freeze shows that Newfoundland has had enough of a MUN that puts profits before people. Add to this the fact that university enrollment is dropping worldwide, and a course correction seems in order. In Japan where I taught university for 15 years, and where smaller private universities dot the landscape of islands not much larger than our province, falling enrollment was a constant concern of faculty meetings. The total number of universities, which had ballooned in the rapid economic expansion of the 60's and 70's, and became bloated during the 80's, was projected to drop by half in the next decades as some smaller institutions amalgamated, were absorbed by larger ones, or disappeared outright.

Memorial's question should be, "If the only shop in town closes, what then?"

5) The Changing Meaning of Value

When Joey Smallwood inaugurated Memorial University in 1965, he created the only free post secondary education in North America. By the time I enrolled in 1989, then again in 2004, government funding had become spotty and incoherent. Even in the early 2000s, the values of MUN could be seen to change. While foreign students were welcomed, when I worked at The Writing Center (2004-5), some told me of being scouted in China to enroll in engineering at MUN, where they were told their English was sufficient to study at Memorial. Upon arrival, they were re-assessed and told they'd have to take extra ESL classes and exams, incurring more expense and costly re-adjustment of their plans. By 2013, CBC was reporting on the extra 'special' fees levied on foreign grad students.

MUN has seemingly gone from valuing its charges to charging its students to create value for the institution. Although tuition does need to increase to match inflation and expenses, this needs to be tempered with what the market can bare, and what will keep students coming through the doors. As the sole institution of higher learning in Newfoundland, it is in all our interests to put Memorial back on the right path, leading from its storied past to a brighter future.

Conclusion

MUN is both a common good of the people of Newfoundland as well as a shining example of Newfoundland culture. 

Source

Furey Says MUN In Chotic Situation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/furey-mun-tuition-1.6821928

History of Memorial University College.

https://collections.mun.ca/digital/collection/extension/id/2916/rec/34

HE Enrollement: Decline or lost opportunity?

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/higher-education-enrollment-inevitable-decline-or-online-opportunity

Past Presidents of MUN

https://www.mun.ca/president/about/past-presidents/

Staggering Fees For Foreign Grad Students

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/staggering-fee-targets-foreign-grad-students-1.1386566

Transformative Learning and the Parkland Kids

Mezirow's Transformative Theory

I've been reading lots of Jack Mezirow lately. Mezirow is a guru of adult education, and has gained renown for his formation of what is known of as transformation theory.

According to Mezirow's (1997) transformational theory of education, whose goal is to prepare people for social change, three things are necessary for transformative learning - reflection, awareness of fields of reference (i.e. discourses), and participation in social change. Although Mezirow published his initial work in 1990, the clearest formation of his theory can be found in his 1997 formation, "Transformative Learning: Theory to practice," which appeared in New Directions for Teaching. Mezirow (1997) notes,

"Transformative learning is not an add-on. It is the essence of adult education.

With this premise in mind, it becomes clear that the goal of adult education

is implied by the nature of adult learning and communication: to help

the individual become a more autonomous thinker by learning to negotiate his

or her own values, meanings, and purposes rather than to uncritically act on

those of others. This goal cannot be taken for granted; educational interventions

are necessary to ensure that the learner acquires the understandings,

skills, and dispositions essential for transformative learning. Critical reflection,

awareness of frames of reference, and participation in discourse become significant

elements in defining learning needs, setting educational objectives,

designing materials and methods, and in evaluating learner growth using nontraditional 

methods such as portfolios." (Mezirow 1997: 11)

There are two problems with Mezirow's theory as articulated. First, he applies it only to adults, when in fact we had better provide Transformative Learning for our children, who face changes we cannot even foresee, if we want to build a better, lasting society. Second, Mezirow's definition of 'change' is narrow. Mezirow (1997) cites US Department of Labor and Australian government data on workforce preparation (7) as indicative of the changes people face, and for which they need Transformative Learning.  Not only is this complicit with capitalist valuation, which is precisely what causes inequalities and rapid change requiring Transformative Learning in the first place, it also ignores the pressing concerns of environmental degradation, growing inequality, and the erosion of democracy that we currently face worldwide.

Parkland Kids and Transforming America

Looking at the Parkland kids protesting now in the US, I can see ample proof that Transformative Learning is not only for adults, and that it can tackle more than job-readiness for labor market changes. The Parkland kids have undoubtedly been transformed by their (sadly traumatic) experience on February 14, 2018, just as the US has been transformed by the mounting toll of gun violence. Now, they have mobilized to shake the foundations of their society and demand change that protects their life.

These kids are showing an instinctive grasp of the tenets of Transformative Learning, as can be seen in the speech of student leaders (available HERE). First, they have reflected critically on the problem, how it affects them, and how others like politicians have failed to do so. "The adults have failed us," their representative intones, "This is in our hands now. And if any elected official gets in our way we will vote them out and replace them ourselves" (2:09-2:17), implying a transformation both in the status of the kids from powerless to powerful, as well as signalling their intent to enact a change in the status quo.

Second, they are aware of the fields of reference that dominate the discussion, and they know that guns in the US are seen by conservatives as an intractable political problem, as well as an essentialist cultural one. In response they have reframed it as a moral question, stating, "if that's what it takes, we will shame our national policymakers into protecting us" (0:20-0:24). They continue this vein, adding,

"This is about guns, and about our morality as a country. When the commander in chief's solution to this country's gun problem, you know we have a moral problem in the White House. When national policymakers value the blood money of the NRA over the lives of children, you know we have a moral problem in the halls of Congress" (1:07-1:35).

Since research has shown that conservatives respond to moral appeals (Feinberg and Willer 2012), this is a winning strategy for transformation.

Last, they are participating in the national discourse, the societal conversation about guns in all its aspects. The speech above touches not only on the students' own experience with guns, but the toll across American society, from conservative bastions like churches, to different racial communities. The representative asks for protection by policymakers "Not just in schools, but in churches, movie theatres, on the streets, and in the communities of colour, which are disproportionately devastated by the sickness of gun violence" (0:27-0:37). Besides the speech above and student walkouts across the nation, an art protest of 14, 000 shoes has been left on the lawn of the capitol to represent all those who have died in gun violence (PBS News). These multimodal appeals to various strata of American society, giving them a greater chance for enacting transformation.

As I write a chapter on Transformative Learning, and the attempt to codify it called Transformative Pedagogy,  I am inspired by those that have already made transformation a life practice, and hope to bring similar reflection, awareness of fields of reference, and social action into pedagogy.

Sources

Feinberg, Matthew and Willer, Robb. (2012). "The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes." Psychological Science, XX (X) 1-7.  London: SAGE.
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612449177

Mezirow, Jack. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, Jack. (1997). "Transformative Learning: Theory to practice." New Directions for Adult Learning and Continuing Education, no. 74, Summer 1974. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 5-12.

Open Book Media. (2018). "Student Speaks at US Capital: 'The Adults Have Failed Us. This Is in Our Hands Now'." Youtube Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJvfO3UAwfY

PBS News Hour. (2018). "'The Adults Have Failed Us. This Is In Our Hands Now.' Students walkout over gun violence." March 14, 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ANlCiNJSI

The Two Jordan Petersons

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