I don't think it's incumbent upon the critic to delineate "good reasons" people might be captivated by Peterson's message (and not just because I don't think there are really any "good reasons"). I can understand (and I'm sure the author understands), that many young people, particularly men, may feel lost and displaced in modern capitalism, within a highly volatile job market, where, mostly white men, feel they are losing cultural power to minorities and women. Of course that's not a "good reason" to become a Peterson acolyte.

There's nothing wrong with these things per se. — Thorongil

Of course not. However, as the author points out, they have also been used, historically, to bolster a Fascist volkgeist.

In regards to Peterson's politically leanings, I never said he was an "outright fascist". I said he is part of a intellectual lineage, and some of whom, within said lineage (e.g. Julius Evola) were highly influential fascists, and who leveraged national myths etc. to promote their fascism. No, I certainly don't think Jordan Peterson is a fascist, or part of the white supremacist alternative-right. But if you advocate a socio-political hierarchy that's based on social Darwinism, and criticize social activism in abstract, or believe that women's inherent psychological traits mean they are unsuitable to work with men, or take positions of political power, and conduct lectures criticizing "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", etc. etc. etc. then I don't know what to call you, other than right-wing, and disturbingly far enough on the spectrum to warrant concern. Richard Spencer, by the way, while disagreeing with Peterson on a range of views, has nevertheless said that he and Peterson "share a lot of common ground and political starting points".

However, as the author points out, they have also been used, historically, to bolster a Fascist volkgeist. — Maw

That's as thin a claim as saying that the occurrence of trains running on time has been used, historically, to bolster fascism. Yes, and? If there is no essential relation between the two things being compared, you're just poisoning the well.

I never said he was an "outright fascist". I said he is part of a intellectual lineage, and some of whom, within said lineage (e.g. Julius Evola) were highly influential fascists, and who leveraged national myths etc. to promote their fascism. — Maw

A distinction without a difference. If I told you that person X is "part of" a particular sporting lineage, some of whose members (e.g. Michael Jordan), were highly influential basketball players, then I am talking about a basketball player. What else is "part of" supposed to signify here? If Peterson isn't a fascist, then he isn't "part of" fascism. Everything shares at least something in common with something else, so again, you need to make an essential connection between the two.

But if you advocate a socio-political hierarchy that's based on social Darwinism, and criticize social activism in abstract, or believe that women's inherent psychological traits mean they are unsuitable to work with men, or take positions of political power, and conduct lectures criticizing "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", etc. etc. etc. — Maw

These are all hilariously uninformed caricatures.

Richard Spencer, by the way, while disagreeing with Peterson on a range of views, has nevertheless said that he and Peterson "share a lot of common ground and political starting points". — Maw

So? Slavoj Zizek finds things to admire in him, too. You're just peddling guilt by association. If it's true that Hitler was a vegetarian and came to his vegetarianism by means of the same rational and ethical starting points that I have, does that make me a Nazi or "part of" Nazism?

You are misunderstanding entirely. You mistakenly believe that by contextualizing Peterson within a genealogy of intellectuals, some of whom were Fascist, that we are claiming Peterson is a Fascist too. Neither Jung nor Campbell, both of whom are hugely influential for Peterson, were out-and-out Fascists, and yet Jung believed that Aryan's were a superior race, and Campbell, who also spoke disdainfully of academic Marxists who were "overtaking American universities", harbored a deep hatred of Blacks and Jews.

As Umberto Eco wrote regarding "Ur-Fascism", incidentally also in the New York Review of Books:

The fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some 'family resemblance,' as Wittgenstein put it.

There is no doubt, to me, that some of Peterson's views harbor "family resemblance" to Fascism, which aren't "hilariously uniformed caricatures" (seriously...have you even read Peterson's work, or watched a single video? And he literally has a video titled "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", as posted in the beginning of this thread).

I am not claiming Peterson is a Fascist. 'Y' might overlap in several key conceptual ideas with "X", without being considered "X", outright. What I found most interesting about Pankaj Mishra's article is how Peterson's thought fits into a larger intellectual history, and how this history can help explain Peterson's sudden prominence and influence. I don't see how you can consider his views innocuous, but I suppose if you position your own political views to the right of Peterson, well then that would explain quite a bit.

You are misunderstanding entirely. — Maw

Ah yes, the courtier's reply, right on cue.

Neither Jung nor Campbell, both of whom are hugely influential for Peterson, were out-and-out Fascists, and yet Jung believed that Aryan's were a superior race, and Campbell, who also spoke disdainfully of academic Marxists who were "overtaking American universities", harbored a deep hatred of Blacks and Jews. — Maw

Genetic fallacy. Address the arguments on their own terms and merits or do not address them at all.

seriously...have you even read Peterson's work, or watched a single video? — Maw

More than you have, I suspect.

'Y' might overlap in several key conceptual ideas with "X", without being considered "X", outright. — Maw

Such as your own political ideas, I would be willing to bet.

Haha alrighty then.

Let me appeal to your likely revulsion to hypocrisy. You're an antinatalist, if memory serves. In a recent video with David Benatar, Peterson committed the same fallacy you have employed when discussing him when he asserted that antinatalism overlaps with eugenicism, totalitarianism, and the genocidal impulse. He was careful to qualify his claim by excepting Benatar from being a genocidal maniac himself, just as you are careful not to label Peterson an outright fascist, but he nonetheless effectively averred that antinatalism was familially related to such things, just as you aver that Peterson's views are familially related to fascism. In both cases, the fallacy of guilt by association has been committed. Antinatalism as well as Peterson's ideas aren't refuted by such appeals.

No, I'm well aware that anti-natalism can flirt uncomfortably with eugenics and genocide. Personally, I feel very comfortable disassociating myself with that "totalitarian" strain of anti-natalist thought, as I believe anti-natalism should be a free choice by the individual, rather than imposed. Benatar, if I recall correctly, has stated that if he were in a viable position of power he would make it illegal or enforce an anti-natalist policy, which I find utterly detestable. But I am at least comfortable (and not delusional) enough to acknowledge the fact that anti-natalism can overlap with virulent politics.

But if you locate your own politics to the right of Peterson, and if you believe there is "nothing wrong" with natural hierarchy or masculine politics or that, perhaps, these aren't right-wing, then I seriously question how we can have a meaningful conversation on where Peterson fits politically when our own political views are so unaligned. I think the really important question here is whether or not you think we (or rather Mishra) can appropriately discuss mysticism within Fascist or Quasi-Fascist thought, by bringing together several key thinkers and epigones and their overlaps, or "family resemblances" (pace Eco), while acknowledging that differences exist as well. It's called nuance. No one is "refuting" Peterson's ideas based on such casual observations, especially since Peterson's views can be easily refuted without such appeals.

I don't think it's incumbent upon the critic to delineate "good reasons" people might be captivated by Peterson's message (and not just because I don't think there are really any "good reasons"). I can understand (and I'm sure the author understands), that many young people, particularly men, may feel lost and displaced in modern capitalism, within a highly volatile job market, where, mostly white men, feel they are losing cultural power to minorities and women. Of course that's not a "good reason" to become a Peterson acolyte. — Maw

No, of course not. It's not a good reason all things considered. All things considered, Peterson's calls for action only are worthy of being ignored. But I was rather thinking about something like the good reasons why Trump voters were discontent with a political establishment that had betrayed them. Some people focus on all the reasons why voting for Trump was a bad idea (which it was) and don't pause to reflect about the sources of the vacuum that he opportunistically filled. And so is it with Peterson's brand of populism.

If it's not incumbent on Peterson's critics to point out also how mainstream left-wing ideologies and political institutions generate discontentment, them some of the best critics (such as Slavoj Žižek and Gyrus) are going beyond the call of duty. A side benefit from such "even handed" critiques is that they're more philosophical. They seek to dislodge the flawed assumptions that not only animate Peterson's thinking, but that tend to be ignored because his main critics share those assumptions. Another side benefits of those critiques is that it tends to diminish rather than increase the polarized intellectual and political climate. This is a polarization that Peterson himself promotes and strives on.

But I am at least comfortable (and not delusional) enough to acknowledge the fact that anti-natalism can overlap with virulent politics. — Maw

Yes, and the point is that such overlap does not constitute a refutation of the view in question. You're playing the part of historian at best, not philosopher, when you harp and carp on about these alleged "overlaps."

No one is "refuting" Peterson's ideas based on such casual observations, especially since Peterson's views can be easily refuted without such appeals. — Maw

I haven't ever seen such a refutation, curiously enough. Just variations of the guilt associating and courtier's replies witnessed above.

Yes, and the point is that such overlap does not constitute a refutation of the view in question. You're playing the part of historian at best, not philosopher, when you harp and carp on about these alleged "overlaps." — Thorongil

I literally stated in the previous post that, "no one is 'refuting' Peterson's ideas" simple because they overlap with historically vile politics (which you subsequently quoted yourself). And yes, I, or more precisely, Mishra, is playing the role of historian over a philosopher. That's essentially the main crux of the article, within which he states:

It is imperative to ask why and how this obscure Canadian academic, who insists that gender and class hierarchies are ordained by nature and validated by science, has suddenly come to be hailed as the West’s most influential public intellectual....

Closer examination, however, reveals Peterson’s ageless insights as a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations...

In all respects, Peterson’s ancient wisdom is unmistakably modern. The “tradition” he promotes stretches no further back than the late nineteenth century, when there first emerged a sinister correlation between intellectual exhortations to toughen up and strongmen politics.

That is, as I have stated multiple times now, he is contextualizing Peterson's thought within a larger intellectual tradition of combining mysticism and "right-wing pieties". Of course, that's not to say that the article is "not philosophical", but if you think that the intent of Mishra's article is to "refute" Peterson's own philosophy, you have severely misread it.

I haven't ever seen such a refutation, curiously enough. — Thorongil

Well if you position yourself on the right of Peterson, I daresay you never will.

@Maw is the perfect example of an outright propagandist when it comes to politics, so it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with him on this topic (or so I've found). He calls hit pieces and shameful propaganda as "unique articles", "excellent summary", etc. :brow:

but if you think that the intent of Mishra's article is to "refute" Peterson's own philosophy, you have severely misread it. — Maw

I haven't. The intent is clear: to smear him.

Well if you position yourself on the right of Peterson, I daresay you never will. — Maw

Meaning what? I've read critiques of him, but none of them has successfully refuted him, at least with respect to his practical advice and critique of the left. I myself have disagreements with him, but none give rise to the level of smug vitriol those like yourself proffer.

Well, as long as he gets to appeal to authority, then I might as well, too. On the topic of white privilege, I would recommend the following excellent essay (written by someone center-left, no less): https://theamericanscholar.org/the-privilege-predicament/#.WrLEgegbOUk

Do as you wish, but I don't think it will be possible to have a discussion - it will just be a monologue from each of you :lol:

What is special about Marx is that he doesn't accept any particular set of economic relationships as being somehow the natural state of affairs; — Londoner

Neither does economics. Of course relations change all the time (over longish periods). The laws of economics don't change though, they're praxeological, they just fall out of agency, rationality, etc.

On the other hand, in a sense Marx does talk about an unchanging factor throughout history - those who control the means of production set the terms for society.

Well, as long as he gets to appeal to authority, then I might as well, too. On the topic of white privilege, I would recommend the following excellent essay (written by someone center-left, no less): https://theamericanscholar.org/the-privilege-predicament/#.WrLEgegbOUk — Thorongil

I like The American Scholar. Good mag. I also like this response to the article to which you linked. Thanks.

The better team apparently won the privilege game and took home the trophy. The 2nd place team took home -- well -- 2nd place.

If they say the game was rigged, then my ancestors were smarter than theirs and figured out how to rig the game and theirs didn’t. If they say my ancestors were more savage than theirs then that means theirs were weaker than mine. If they say there were more of mine, then that means that mine were simply better at understanding how to use the environment and technology to sustain a greater population. If they say that my ancestors were better geographically situated that means that they were better realtors, able to find and hold superior territory. If they say my ancestors had bigger, badder, and more destructive weapons that means than their ancestors were probably stuck in a stone-age existence for 10,000 years past their time.

lol what the fuck is this shit?

lol what the fuck is this shit? — Maw

It's Prager U.

It's like, some kind of conservative video production group founded by a religious American conservative pundit who panders to pro-American Christians by providing rebuke to the evil amoral nihilist atheist humanist democratic hordes intent on voting away your right to spiritual virginity.

This holy alliance between Peterson and Prager is a matter of convienience: both Peterson and Prager employ religious and Christian foundations in their ideology (although Peterson's actual religious ideology exists in the context of clinical psychology (therapy) while Prager's is philosophically Christian) and both of them are against "the radical left". Prager just hates foreigners and non-christians, while Peterson does have a couple fair points.

Prager's style of cartoon based indoctrination does make the video a bit ironic given Peterson begins by speaking about indoctrination.

It's worrying that many people take him seriously, and that he's considered a leading conservative intellectual today. Nothing but senseless raving.

I did see a post to the effect that white privilege does not mean your life has not been hard. Instead, it means that the color of your skin is not one of the reasons. And there is some truth to that.

yes, whatever happened to the good old days when our politics were so serene?

and if they say that my ancestors were just meaner and more war like, then that just means that my ancestors were meaner and more war like. Not every trophy is worthy of being won.

Not every trophy is worthy of being won. — Arne

Wait and see how much envy and jealousy the deluxe and full trophy case engenders compared to the shabby and nearly empty case.

Yes. One does have to have sense in order to understand Peterson.

[Delete] @Baden

Absolutely astonishing how fucking stupid Jordan Peterson is in this video. When asked why academics gravitate towards Socialism, Peterson responds that, "they don't get paid enough and they are resentful... adjunct professors don't have tenure, they get paid abysmally, they live in their damn cars, they teach four courses, they have no power, they make $16K - 21K annually...that's a place where plenty of resentment can be generated."

Resentment? That's his interpretation? Fucking really?

Here is an intriguing thought to add to this page on identity and race politics. I was thinking if Barack Obama's presidency was positive for identity politics and race relations in the United States of America or not. Looking around on social media and different news networks, one would think that race relations are at a recent low after the first black american presidency. Why would this be? Is this a bad or good thing?

Starting premises:
1. Race relations were cooling during the 80's 90's and 2000's, however the underlying problems like police brutality and employer racism didn't go away.
2. Race relations exploded into upheaval and divisive politics during and after the Obama Presidency.

Hypothesis:
[(Why would this be?)
While race relation conversations were quelling prior to the Obama administration, many americans assumed the problem would correct its self after a long enough time. Contrary to this belief, Many black americans still felt discriminated against but didn't have the political will to push their issues such as police brutality or employer discrimination. When the Obama administration and social media viral video conveying racism entered the scene, the political will increased enough to bring these issues to the forefront of public discourse.

(Is this a good or bad thing?)
While I first held the belief that if we don't discuss race relations, somehow they would harmonize. I thought that the recent upheaval in race relations was detrimental to decades of race relation improvements. My recent personal observation has since changed my view. I think that for true equal opportunity and race relation harmonization to occur, race related issues must first be discussed. Even though race relation and politics might seem decisive or even hostile at the moment, perhaps it is necessary in order for the United States of America to optimally improve its race relations and related issues in the long run. In essence... it is a "good" thing.

Welcome to the forum!

I'm a 71 year old gay white man; I've worked in education and social service, and have followed the discussions around various liberation, equality, and civil rights groups since the 1960s. Some of the discussions have become incoherent to me--the transgender one, for one. I've heard an on-going discussion about race; I don't think it has every stopped entirely. It also hasn't been well informed, a good share of the time.

For instance, most people (white or black) are not aware of how discrimination against black people was structured from the 1930s forward. During the depression the Roosevelt set out to organize a vast housing project -- now known as the FHA. Whatever Roosevelt had himself intended, southern congressmen demanded that blacks receive minimum assistance for private housing. For blacks, money could be used to build 'communities of apartment blocks'--the projects.

A massive amount of urban renewal was conducted by the FHA, especially after WWII. The FHA financed most of the housing in new suburbs, and blacks were explicitly excluded. The very good quality suburban housing would hold up well and become a source of equity for millions of white families. For blacks, renting of course led to zero equity.

The 1930s scheme remained in force until around 1980, and no compensatory program was ever proposed. Nor were housing policies actually changed very much. The result was the permanent poverty to which most blacks were consigned.

All this was never a secret, but except for a couple of years in the 1980s when redlining (discrimination by banks) was an issue, most journalists didn't cover it. So most people never knew much about the details.

We can discuss race relations until the cows come home (I think we have). Conversation isn't the missing ingredient. What are missing are the means to bring populations who have experienced long-term economic discrimination into prosperity. This is going to be quite difficult to accomplish -- assuming there was a general consensus that we should. What are the barriers?

1. The US is not longer the single dominant economy that it was in 1950. We will probably never experience another boom as long or as intense as the post WWII boom.
2. Income and wealth have become increasingly concentrated among a few percent of the population. The super wealthy are in a position to either promote or scuttle any redistributive justice effort.
3. Building the suburbs was in most respects an ecological disaster and an economic success that can't be repeated (in any practical sense).
4. The structure of the economy has changed hugely since 1945, with large categories of workers being declassed as "unnecessary" thanks to automation, computerization, and shifting production work off-shore. The supply of well-paying low-skill jobs has pretty much disappeared, and even white collar jobs are being affected.
5. Even good education can not guarantee success at this point, because of economic and technical changes. (Education is certainly worth while, but it doesn't have quite same efficacy it once had.)

So, bringing disadvantaged people into meaningful and rewarding employment, decent housing, excellent communities, and so on is going to be extremely difficult to engineer.

What applies to disadvantaged blacks also applies to disadvantaged whites. 1973 was the end of the post-war boom. The 1973 Israeli-Arab war resulted in the Arab oil boycott which sent a shockwave through the world economy. The Arab freeze on oil sales didn't cause the next 40 years of gradual but pretty much continuous economic decline. Several factors drove the decline. The result is that most white working class people have lost most of the economic share they once held. The same is true of the more affluent "middle class" -- people who are better employed, better paid working class people.

I hate the thought that the present economic structure is going to be permanent, with 5% at the top, 20% in the middle, 50% slowly sinking working class, and 25% lumpen proletariat who can't get much poorer. But I suspect that that is what's going to happen.

We should all be talking about it. It's time for revolution. Set up a guillotine in Central Park and let's start liquidating the richest 5%. (Well, they can avoid the guillotine by handing over ALL their wealth.)

Your question is dependent on the definition of privileged as a class. The proliferation of blame on the White upper class, is usually based upon conjectures that lead to false propositions The ideologically promiscuous tendencies of Left-Wing politics, leads to various different narratives being espoused. The most defined and voraciously defended, is the proposition that whiteness as a mere physiological representation, leaves other classes of the same nature at a disadvantage. This disposition of men in all material forms i.e,. skin color, leads to a false representation of their mental faculties which consist of their nature. This loosely defined system of ludicrous prejudices, is in itself vague, and dogmatically pernicious. The system which puts prejudice at the forefront of thought, ignores whether prejudices of personality exist rather then mere material prejudices. This error in thought, allows for no congruous position.

Cultural dysfunction can cause individual dysfunction. The main problem with identity politics is it groups and segregates people into cultural niches, many of which are not the most functional, resulting in functional problems for many individuals in that group.

For example, if you are from a third world country, one will have become indoctrinated in third world behavior. This does not mean one is not a good person. However this conditioning may not prepare one for an optimized life in the first world. For example, simply retaining a native language, that is different from the majority, will shut one out a lot of opportunity. This adds dysfunction to dysfunction.

Where the left does a disservice is blaming higher functional cultures, like the white male, as the problem, because its culture is better geared for first world opportunity. That particular culture sets a pace that is too fast for many dysfunctional cultural identities. White guilt is an attempt to shame a faster paced culture into a slower pace, so the identity illusions appear to work better.

It makes more sense for dysfunctional identities to evolve themselves toward group identities which works the best. This was called the melting pot.

The modern left got rid of the melting pot, by persuading people to assume their native or newly defined cultural identities. This creates social dysfunction, which makes more and more people dependent on big Government, to make it fair, for everyone, via a regulated slow pace; quota system. The better solution was assimilation into that which works the best.

Teaching in 20 languages will put many people at a disadvantage, in the long term, even if it helps some in the short term. It could pigeon hole some into having to stay in a tight knit community where opportunity gets saturated fast. The left tends to think short term, while the most functional cultures are in it for the long term.