A Strong Response to Peterson
When I
told people that I was going to read Jordon Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life I received
a lot of strong responses. One group of
people were convinced I was about to have a near transcendent experience;
reading the book would forever mark my life as before Jordan Peterson and after,
this book is enlightenment itself. Another group of people were convinced
merely putting my eyes to the page would damn me. Some recommended only looking
at secondary sources about the book, it was so dangerous. People treated this
book like the One Ring from Lord of the Rings, filled with a strong, wicked, overwhelming
and corrupting power.
There was usually a caveat by the second
group; if you are going to read it, please write something up about it
so we don’t have to read it ourselves. So, consider me your Samwise; I’ll do
the heavy lifting and take you to Mount Doom, where you can cast the Ring into
the fire.
What He’s up to Intellectually
Peterson’s overriding concern is
totalitarian violence. He is exploring the question: How can we be human after
the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge? He regularly points to the book The Gulag
Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a cautionary tale of the type of
people and society we wish to avoid, and Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for
Meaning as a way out.
When giving his 12 pieces of
advice, Peterson turns to several thinkers and ideas on a consistent basis.
He is a Jungian psychologist, and
as such he relies heavily on Carl Jung, and with that, he describes human
experience using mythical archetypes, and when he interprets Christian scripture,
he does so in a Gnostic-like manner.
He also leans heavily on the idea that our
hind/reptilian brain is the main driver of human actions. For example, in the
opening chapter he traces most human behaviors to lobsters sorting themselves out
as winners and losers.
Finally, he has a propensity to cite
Nietzsche to diagnose a problem and Dostoyevsky to fix the problem. For
Peterson The Brother’s Karamazov can fix most of what ails the human
soul.
So, just to name what a typical
chapter feels like. 1. Here’s a self-help proposition along with a folksy
example from rural Canada or a description of a problem of one of Peterson’s
patients. 2. Here’s a reductionist description of human behavior, ignoring that
we are more complex than lizards. 3. Here is a Jungian archetype illustrated
with Disney or Marvel, and the Bible or Egyptian myth. 4. Here is a larger
social critique with a quote from Archipelago followed by Meaning.
5. Nietzsche problematizes things and Dostoyevsky fixes it. 6. Finally, he ends
with an expanded riff on the self-help proposition.
The Juicy Bits
I know,
some of you just want to read about Peterson being weird. So here you
go.
I was not ready for how Woo-Woo he
is. I mean, I went to the University of Oregon and have seen a thing or two… Dead
Heads protesting while silent and naked, their only form of communication
grunting, and shamen at the Country Fair, regularly commanding crowds to look
into the eyes of your neighbor and ask, “What gives you bliss?” until you fall
in love. But if Peterson started talking about his ideas to folk there, he
would be taken to a time-out tent. It’s the Jungian stuff, I get how it can be
moving, but not everything is part of our hero’s journey. If you want a feel of
the Woo-Woo aspect of Peterson’s writing, just read the “Coda” of the book,
where he reflects on what to write with his pen of light.
He
hates Elmo, with a passion.
He’s
delt with some mental health challenges. 1. He had a period where he
disassociated from himself and had an internal and external voice, one that
told the truth and the other that manipulated people for fun and profit. 2. He was
plagued with terrible violent and antisocial impulses at one point in his life
and had to learn to control them.
Peterson
is a Gnostic and some sort of Marcion (Marcion was a heretical Christian who believed
in two gods, a good God who sent Jesus and an evil God who created the world
and was faithful to the Jewish people)—ultimately it is the whole Jungian
project of shoehorning the Christian story into an archetype system.
He believes Christianity as
currently practiced is a pale shadow of an unrealized true form of the faith.
True Christianity, as he expresses it in at least one place, is a Christianity
that acknowledges that God is the Cruel Father but embraces Jesus, whose genius
is that he pretends God is the Kind Father, even while knowing God is not. Peterson
sums up the totality of Christianity in these words: “The Word that produces
order from chaos sacrifices everything, even itself, to God.”
To be clear, the God who was
faithful to the Jews and the God found in Jesus are one in the same God. For
that matter, God is not a cruel father; we call God Father because it gives us boldness
and confidence that God loves us. The good news of Jesus Christ is not wishful
thinking or gaslighting. Peterson’s false description of God should be a big
deal to at least some of his readers!
The 12 rules
ONE: Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Sensible:
Embody self-confidence. Know that
conflict can be necessary. Get enough sleep and eat a nutritious breakfast.
He lost me:
Hierarchy is fused to our being on
a DNA/biological level. Any attempt at creating equality is unhinged and
dangerous. Whatever system exists there will be winners and losers, so embody
being a winner.
TWO: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for
helping
Sensible:
Care for yourself. As a parent you
should want your child to grow up. Recognize that everyone struggles. Be aware
of your worst impulses and aim yourself elsewhere.
He lost me:
“Heaven is built, immortality is
earned.” I know this is a self-help book, so doing things is of primary
importance, and this phrase sounds uplifting, but it is worth stating that in
the Christian tradition immortality is unearned and heaven comes about on its
own without our building of it (in fact, that is kinda the point of Genesis chapter
11). Jordan Peterson’s way of viewing the world leaves no room for grace.
THREE: Make friends with people who want the best for you
Sensible:
Friends should
want what is good for you. Find people who support you.
Codependency is
a thing! Don’t try to rescue people who don’t want to be rescued.
Groups are often
shaped by their weakest link.
He lost me:
“Not everyone who is failing is a
victim.” Only those who really are in need should be helped.
FOUR: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not who
someone else is today
Sensible:
Winning
at everything is impossible, so try out multiple activities. Know that winning
isn’t what’s going to make you happy, but aiming for the goal of winning, that is
what makes you happy.
Our goals determine what we notice
in life. Sometimes, if you are unhappy, just changing your goals can make a big
difference. Even a goal of “I want things to be better” can be a good goal; it
is the start of a journey and may help you perceive a way out of unhappiness.
He lost me:
The odd
Marcionism I described above. Jesus pretends God is good, but actually God
isn’t, and it is our actions that are good. Describing God as evil should be
a big deal.
FIVE: Do not let your children do anything that makes you
dislike them
Sensible:
Saying
no to children gives them boundaries within which they can explore. Addressing
issues, even small ones, is worth it, after all they can take up a lot of your
time. A parent’s goal should not be to be their child’s friend.
Parents should give children a
limited set of rules and enforce them using the least amount of force that will
get the desired result. Also, it is good to parent with at least one another
adult, as parents can get tired and frustrated, which can lead to bad parenting.
There should be a second responsible person who can step in when fatigue sets
in.
He lost me:
Social harm
experienced by minorities are really just private troubles. As such, altering
society for the sake of difference is detestable, as it can lead to revolution,
which is the gravest of dangers.
SIX: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize
the world
Sensible:
Before
you criticize others, fix yourself.
When your conscience tells you that
something you are doing is wrong, stop doing it. That might even set you on a
trajectory toward doing good things.
He lost me:
If you
really think about it, manifestos by school shooters and those of environmental
activists are both anti-human. In some ways, the shooters follow through more
logically than the environmentalists.
SEVEN: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Sensible:
Perhaps
sacrifices to gods are really enacting delayed gratification, the idea that
fate can be bargained with.
He lost me:
The
future is a Judgmental Father and Socrates “took his poison like a man.”
Experiencing vulnerability will
lead to a desire to torment other people.
EIGHT: Tell the truth—or, at least, don’t lie
Sensible:
Having
boundaries can be healthy. It is important to know yourself well and live
authentically. Lies build upon one another, and are unmasked during a crisis,
usually making the crisis worse.
He lost me:
Tailoring
a message for an audience is always a manipulative and political act.
NINE: Assume that the person you are listening to might
know something you don’t
Sensible:
Learn
how to listen. Develop active listening skills. The best way to ensure that
you’ve listened to someone else is to summarize what they’ve said and make sure
you got it right.
There are a variety of types of
conversations you’ll run into, they have different purposes.
He lost me:
Peterson’s
example of listening well is listening to a patient who thinks she’s been raped
multiple times and deciding that she’s just such a nothing person that she
hardly has a self with which to consenting to sex.
TEN: Be precise in your speech
Sensible:
Notice
and name an issue as early as possible, so it doesn’t get out of control and becomes
the proverbial elephant in the room.
He lost me:
You get
the impression that Peterson takes this advice much further than a reasonable
person would.
ELEVEN: Do not bother children when they are
skateboarding
Sensible:
When
confronted with an undesirable behavior, it is a good idea to start with the
assumption that the person is acting that way out of ignorance not malevolence.
When mastering a skill, the goal
shouldn’t always be safety, but competence; competency can lead to safety.
A well-run society should offer
multiple ways to win, as there are multiple types of people.
We should seek to make our children
independent adults.
He lost me:
This
chapter! Oh my gosh, Peterson just goes off into irrational frothing mode!
On the Left:
Labor activists don’t care about
justice, they just hate the rich. Universities are political operations that
advocate the demolition of the culture that supports them.
Derrida is a Marxist, he just critiqued
power instead of capital. The Khmer Rouge is Marxist. The Khmer Rouge committed
mass murder. Therefore, Derrida is responsible for mass murder.
Peterson offers an alternative
theory to Marx and Derrida about how society works. He does not think capital
or power shape hierarchy. Instead, competency shapes hierarchy. So, all the
winners in society are highly competent people, it doesn’t have to do with
inherited wealth or finding an unjust role from which they can exert power.
They’re just more competent people than the losers.
On Women:
Girls like winners. Women do not
want a spouse who would be dependent on them. Instead, women want someone to
struggle against them. Educated women will be alone and ultimately will yearn
for bad boys.
On Men:
Man-code
can be summed up using one famous phrase, “Don’t be a girlie man.” No matter
what, don’t be dependent on anyone else.
If society makes men compassionate,
they will seek reciprocity, which inevitably leads to resentment. Ultimately,
such men will be either naïve or whiny. Trump and fascist movements in Europe
arise because society has made a virtue of being soft and harmless. Men demand
toughness.
TWELVE: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Sensible:
Limitation is what allows each of
us to be who we are and gives us our story. We ought to be thankful and
observant, noticing the unique good in our life in the face of fragility and a
limited world.
Conclusions:
I
imagine the folk who expected me to have a revelation reading this book will
feel I didn’t express Peterson’s thoughts with enough nuance, while those who blanch
at the book’s existence will be shocked that he does, in fact, engage
with some deep thinkers and draws from a particular intellectual tradition.
Peterson’s
formulaic fusion of Jung, Frankl, Dostoyevsky and all the rest is compelling.
It kept making me think about one of the unnamed big questions of junior high
and high school humanities curricula for my generation—how do you read poetry/interpret
history/live, after Auschwitz? Instead of leaving young people with a question
mark, Peterson gives them a bold exclamation mark. For some, I bet, it feels
like a capstone to that rather disturbing question.
I can
imagine myself in junior high, or again my freshman year of college, or maybe
even the first three years of ministry, those alienating years with more
questions than answers, grasping onto this book as a lifeline. Not because it
was right, but because it offered clarity.
I also
have to name the elephant in the room, Rule 10. Peterson’s own mental health
challenges very clearly color his rules. He struggled with self-control:
control of his violence and control of the stories he tells others. Even as he
gives general rules for everyone, the advice that gets repeated no matter the
particular rule he’s focused on, tends to be about corralling violence and
encouraging truth telling.
A good
bit of Peterson’s advice are life skills that should be shared with people:
Self-care, goal setting, delayed gratification, making friends, the art of
conversation, and how to listen… and yet, that last one sours the whole
batch—his example of active listening was pathologizing a potential rape victim,
it just makes the whole thing untenable.
And that
kind of thing is weaved through every chapter: lauding the status quo, essentializing
hierarchy, subtly and then not so subtly transforming responsibility into self-aggrandizement,
and a screech of grievance that feels simultaneously primal and petty.
To return to the Lord of the Rings metaphor,
as Samwise, it is my duty to warn you that Peterson is Smeagol/Gollum. The
tension within his character is palpable and infuses his rules with irredeemable
elements. As such, it is, ultimately, Smeagol himself who causes the Ring to be
destroyed.
