Connect ALL the Dots

Here we go again. The far left is baying for Dr. Jordan Peterson’s head on a platter, but there are compelling reasons they should pipe down and think this through. I’m a left-leaning feminist myself, and when Peterson popped up on the radar last year over the issue of Bill C-61, I did some research before jumping on the bandwagon. Peterson was and is correct in his unpopular assertion that Canadian law can now compel us to use language dictated to us by others.  This is fundamentally different from telling us that certain language is unacceptable and cannot be used.

Under Bill-C61, it is possible for unreasonable people to abuse the law and target people unfairly, and it is already happening. As an example, I know a young person with mental health issues who went through a period of gender dysphoria whose gender identity and expression seemed to shift into something new every couple of months. I can tell you that it is possible to weaponize your preferred pronouns and use them to make your family ‘wrong’ for slipping up and referring to you as the gender they have perceived since before you were born. One hopes that adjudicators of the new law will take this into account.

Plenty of people seemed to think that Peterson was a bad person for pointing out a serious flaw in the proposed legislation, and assumed incorrectly that his views were based on bigotry, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Those too lazy to think for themselves adopted the flip-side of the view that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” because they assume that someone who is admired by the alt right must be an enemy to anyone on the left. This is ignorant and short-sighted because the conservative views that Peterson holds are based not on prejudice, but on careful thought and sound scientific evidence. Having watched many hours of his classroom lectures and I can’t help but admire the brilliant mind and well constructed arguments behind even the views I don’t share.

It makes no sense to tear down one of the most intelligent people on the right, because his influence can have a positive impact on the extremists and lead them back from the edge. The advice he gives to juvenile, racist, misogynist trolls is to clean your room, sort yourself out and become a better person. In this respect, Dr. Peterson is a positive role model, and considering the available alternatives, it would be daft to knock him down.

The most recent kerfuffle centers on a short video clip extracted from a much longer conversation with Camille Paglia. Peterson, used the term “crazy” in the colloquial when referring to radical feminists with views so extreme they’re unable or unwilling to have a rational debate. He wasn’t referring to women generally, or even those who generally disagree with him, but those who attack without giving any consideration to opposing viewpoints. You would have to be crazy to think that psychologists never use that term in the colloquial.

Peterson, speaking as a man, pointed out something that underlies conflict between men generally: that when having a serious verbal dispute, the “option” of resorting to physical violence lurks under the surface. This possibility can temper a man’s behaviour because he knows if he goes too far, he might get punched in the face. While it is true that a woman who ‘goes too far’ may suffer the same fate, – notwithstanding the depressing facts behind domestic violence statistics even for women minding their own business – Peterson is probably correct that a woman is statistically less likely to be punched in a similar situation. However, critics need to understand the difference between acknowledging violence and endorsing it. I think its worth pointing out to those who enjoy life in safe bubbles, where violence only happens on film, TV or video games, that the direct experience of physical aggression is a daily reality for millions of people – men, women and children. However, some of the women who recoiled at Peterson’s comment about men holding back may have experienced men who didn’t.

Perhaps the statement that was most offensive was the idea that you have absolutely no respect for a man who will not fight you under any circumstances. Although swords or pistols at dawn is no longer considered an acceptable way to settle a disagreement, men still use their fists when they ‘take it outside’ but this usually happens only when they’re drunk. Christians will point out that Jesus refused to fight when they came to arrest him and also refused to let others fight on his behalf, and he seems to get plenty of respect. Pacifists like Ghandi and MLK are certainly worthy of respect, but Peterson’s comments were directed at conflict between two individuals, not the phenomenon of non-violent resistance on a grand scale, which can be an effective method of fighting injustice. People who freak out at any mention of physical aggression need to appreciate that the threat of violence by the state is what creates the safe bubble they live in.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Peterson’s comments was the way he used the word “control” as applied to “crazy women.”  This got backs up for pretty obvious reasons. The long history of men exerting control* over women, coupled with more recent memories of men who still try to do so, makes many of us feel hurt and angry. This comment could be considered insensitive, but I would give Peterson the benefit of the doubt and assume he’d reconsider the way he phrased that particular thought. If this was the only thing I’d heard from Peterson, in a hit piece intended to paint him as a monster, I might think he was one, but having listened to the way he talks about his own family, its clear he isn’t. He expresses profound admiration and respect for his wife, loves his family deeply and is very grateful to and for them. Jordan Peterson says lots of things very well, so if he sometimes says something poorly, I’m not going to get my knickers all in a twist. Jordan Peterson has become a public figure who has many, many admirers and a few loud detractors. Those on the far left dislike that he makes reasonable arguments against their most extreme views. It’s fine to attack his ideas, but calling him a ‘nazi’ is unworthy, unhelpful, unkind, and incorrect. On the other hand, calling a critic who calls him a nazi “crazy” is not an entirely unreasonable position. He may be a public figure, but he is also a human being and his critics are no less flawed.

I don’t know Peterson’s big five personality profile, but I suspect he might score below average on the ‘agreeableness’ trait. Agreeable people are nice, and easy to deal with, so its natural that we all want other people to be agreeable. However, I can tell you from personal experience that people who are too agreeable tend to be doormats and others tend to walk all over them. If a couple is having a dispute with a landlord or tradesperson, the partner who is less agreeable is the one who is best suited to handle that conflict. As a society, we prefer agreeable people because they are easier to control**, but we need to understand the dark side of being agreeable, and develop more appreciation for the utility of disagreeableness. If Rosa Parks was more agreeable, she wouldn’t have been arrested.

Its fine to appreciate agreeableness, but those who demand political correctness and seek to police and prohibit disagreeable speech and thought are on a very slippery slope. We already pathologize introversion and celebrate extroverts. Demanding that everyone behave in an agreeable way is very dangerous, and legislating it is far worse. When George Orwell wrote “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” the person under that boot would be an agreeable person, so be very  careful what you wish for.

* see reference in next paragraph marked “**”

** see reference in preceeding paragraph marked “*”