Mihail Pojarsky/Jordan Peterson
In some incredible way, the discussion of Yegor Zhukov was transformed into a discussion of Jordan Peterson (in connection with Zhukov’s references to Peterson on the sacramental issue with the letter “f”). Now the cream of the domestic twitter intelligentsia has finally discovered a Canadian professor whose fame is already on the decline. And local lovers of gender grievance studies vied with each other to expose the “pseudo-scientist” who denies the objective reality of the class struggle.
Who is Jordan Peterson? Charlatan, pseudoscientist? Not at all. He studied literature and political science, worked at various universities, and received his doctorate in clinical psychology. He has scientific papers - one is quite amusing and is devoted to the influence of fiction on the development of the reader’s emotional intelligence.
Glory came to Peterson in 2016, he was already 54 years old. Then the Canadian professor became famous for speaking out against the law on the mandatory use of a gender-neutral language in universities. This was followed by interviews with millions of views, in which the professor famously smashed the political correctness that had set the teeth on edge, calling it new tribalism. Over time, Peterson turned into an intellectual rock star, traveling with lectures in cities and villages.
In 2018, Peterson released The 12 Rules of Life: An Antidote to Chaos. This is a self-help trendy piece that essentially offers a mild form of stoicism, where references to the divine logos are replaced by references to evolutionary and cognitive psychology (which suits a modern audience better). And writing self-help literature is a clinical psychologist in his own specialty (recall also the stoic roots of cognitive-behavioral therapy).
Here Peterson did a good job. The modern world is frightening and complex, regularly confronting people with issues of alienation, complexities of identity, finding their place in an intricate social structure. There are two ways to be saved here: either by turning inward, to the development of reason and virtue, as Peterson suggests (even if illustrating this, God forgive me, with lobsters), or by starting to seek salvation in instincts, in the comfort of a small group, the warmth of an ancient tribal community. This is what the “politics of identity” offers us, both in the left and in the Altright version.
But what ended up happening to Peterson? Peterson’s rhetoric gradually shifted more and more from personal virtue to exposing the enemy in the form of “cultural Marxism.” The main problem is that, being a psychologist, not a philosopher, Peterson simply does not know what it is. And he hardly understands how post-Marxism differs from post-structuralism. Therefore, he fights mainly with windmills, which he himself invented. This culminated in a natural disgrace at the debate with Slavoj Zizek, where Peterson, in all seriousness, began to present the “Communist Manifesto” to him. The response was a sarcastic “dude, it’s been 150 years for us.”
But the more Peterson chopped down the straw man of “cultural Marxism,” the more popular he became with the “dark intellectuals.” It is understandable: any community, especially a marginal one, needs the image of an enemy to strengthen its social ties. Whether it’s white cisgender oppressors, insidious nomenklatura or cultural Marxists, it’s all for one. Uniting the ranks, strengthening the group, accentuating those very emotions of the tribal society.
And so Peterson, who started off stating that he was going to save altrights from groupthink, turned himself into a groupthink preacher, exchanging his mind for popularity with pimply imageboard incels. And Natalie Wynn (contrapoints) is now doing a much better job of de-radicalizing youth. It seems that the situation is as old as the world, but there is still something to learn. As one of Peterson’s favorite authors said: “When you stare into the abyss for a long time, you can eat shit.”
Mihail Pojarsky 2019-12-09
