An Antidote to Controversy
On 12 Rules for Life and its Divided ReceptionBSA - Thesis
Roos Kerstin van der Borden 10777717
30-08-2019
Dr. Peter van Rooden Word Count: 10571
Layout
Introduction ... 2
Chapter 1 – On Jordan Peterson & popularity of the book ... 3
Chapter 2 – 12 Rules for Life ... 4
Overture ... 4
Rule One - Stand up straight with your shoulders back ... 6
Rule Two – Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping ... 6
Rule Three – Make friends with people who want the best for you ... 6
Rule Four – Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today ... 7
Rule Five – Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them ... 8
Rule Six – Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world ... 8
Rule Seven – Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient) ... 9
Rule Eight – Tell the truth – or at least, don’t lie ... 10
Rule Nine – Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t ... 10
Rule Ten – Be precise in your speech ... 11
Rule Eleven – Do not bother children when they are skateboarding ... 12
Rule Twelve – Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street ... 12
Coda ... 12
Chapter 3 – On its Messages ... 15
Informing the Reader ... 15
Giving Advice ... 17
Inspiring to Think ... 18
Chapter 4 – On its Popularity and Alt-Right ... 19
Anger ... 19
Knowledge ... 20
Direction ... 21
Hope ... 22
Chapter 5 – On its Critique ... 24
Analysis ... 26
Conclusion ... 29
Literature ... 30
Introduction
In 2018 dr. Jordan Peterson published his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. As is stated on the cover, the book has become “The N˚1 International Bestseller” (Peterson 2018). According to MarketResearc.com the U.S. self-improvement-market in 2016 was worth 9.9 billion dollars, which will grow to 13.2 billion dollars (LaRosa 2018). It is not surprising then, that Peterson’s book became popular, and even a bestseller (Elliott 2018). What makes his book stand out from others, however, is the amount of people that seem to have (strong) opinions on it and the fact that there seems to be a strong divide between people who love and those who oppose Peterson, his theories, and his book. As self-help books seem to me to be usually rather harmless, I want to find out what it is about Peterson’s one that created so much discussion. The question I therefore want to ask is the following: How can we
understand the very opposing reactions that Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life has evoked and how does it fit into the debate between liberal versus conservative perspectives? To find
an answer to this question, I will start by looking first at Peterson himself, and then take a close look at his book, looking at the twelve chapters and rules he wants to convey to his readers. Next, I shall look at the underlying message(s) of the book, to find out its overarching themes. I will then look at the reasons for both its popularity, and the critique it has received. Lastly, I will analyse the information I gathered, and draw a conclusion.
Chapter 1 – On Jordan Peterson & popularity of the book
To be able to understand his book, a short description of the writer of these 12 Rules is in order. Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist who teaches at the University of Toronto.1 He grew up in a small Canadian town called Fairview, attended the University of
Alberta, where he graduated in psychology and political science, and earned his doctorate in clinical psychology at McGill University. His first book, Maps of Meaning, came out in 1999 and was described by ‘chairman of the psychology department at Harvard’ Sheldon White as a “brilliant enlargement of our understanding of human motivation”. Nonetheless, the book gained only little attention, selling only around 500 copies. In fact, it was only in 2016 that Peterson became increasingly famous, after a video was posted that showed him arguing against the then proposed law “that would make so-called misgendering – that is, using pronouns other than the ones a person prefers – a potential human-rights violation”. His reason for objecting said law was the fact that he “considers such laws anathema to free speech and makes the case […] that measures of implicit bias are based on shaky science” (Bartlett 2018).
In an interview with Tavares and Schonhorst, Peterson explains that he finds free speech an essential part of ‘our society’, because “it is the magic of speech [that] can transform the world” (Tavares & Schonhorst 2017: 209). He further states: “That is the highest of values, the ability of the individual to do that, because it is that ability that the stability and the transformation of the state are predicated, it is the transforming agent because the State is just old and dead, it is always anachronistic and blind. The living must provide it with vision and modify it, but to do that you must understand the tradition, you must have respect and gratitude for it, and you must attentively and carefully tweak it and alter it with all respect so that it can live again and guide the people into the future” (Idem: 211). From this we can conclude that Peterson finds freedom, tradition, and the individual responsibility to take care of those values to be highly important values. We will see this again in the book.
Chapter 2 – 12 Rules for Life
Peterson’s book consists of a foreword by his friend Norman Doidge, an overture, twelve chapters corresponding with the twelve rules, a coda, acknowledgements, endnotes and an index. I will use this same order to go through his argument, both because it provides me with some structure and because this order has been (actively) chosen by Peterson, showing us how he likes to create order from chaos. He has chosen, for example, to start his book with half a page titled “What are the most valuable things that everyone should know?” (Peterson 2018: i). Its first sentence reads: “Acclaimed clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has reshaped the modern understanding of personality, and is one of the world’s most influential public thinkers, with his lectures on topics from the Bible to romantic relationships to mythology drawing tens of millions of viewers” (Ibid). The rest of the page consists of a description of the “frank and refreshing message” Peterson portrays in his book, stating “he provides twelve profound and practical principles for how to live a meaningful live” and that he draws “on vivid examples from his clinical practice and personal life, and lessons from humanity’s oldest myths and stories” (Ibid). As this description draws quite a positive picture of both Peterson and his book, its writer seems to me to be a fan of his. It is not made clear, however, who this writer is.
Overture
The overture tells us of Peterson’s decision to write 12 Rules for Life. He states that there is both a short and a long history to it and starts by telling the former. It starts with Quora, a website on which people can submit questions which other people can subsequently answer. These answers can be read by anyone and can be up- or downvoted. Peterson tells us of some of the questions he had answered, one of them being: “What are the most valuable things everyone should know?” which he answered with “a list of rules, or maxims” (Idem: xxvi). According to Peterson, this answer was received very well, as he states: “To date, my answer […] has been viewed by a hundred and twenty thousand people and has been upvoted twenty-three hundred times. Only a few hundred of the roughly six hundred thousand questions on Quora have cracked the two-thousand-upvote barrier” (Ibid). Naturally, he chooses to leave out whether it received any downvotes, and if so, how many.
Peterson further describes how in his Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief he had “come to believe that the constituent elements of the world as drama were order and chaos, and not material things” (Idem: xxvii). These two elements are referred back to throughout
12 Rules for Life as well, order being described as acting “according to well-understood social
norms, [remaining] predictable and cooperative. It’s the world of social structure, explored territory, and familiarity.” (Idem: xviii). In contrast, chaos “is where – or when- something unexpected happens (Ibid). Moreover, he states that: “As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, [chaos is] presented imaginatively as feminine. […] It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise)” (Ibid). Peterson further links these opposites to the Taoist symbol of yin and yang, and explains that the two are linked, as “the black dot in the white – and the white in the black – indicate the possibility of transformation: just when things seem secure, the unknown can loom, unexpectedly and large. Conversely, just when everything seems lost, new order can emerge from catastrophe and chaos. […] For the Taoists, meaning is to be found on the border between the ever-entwined pair” (Ibid).
Peterson then goes further into how he developed the idea for the book, and shared belief and cultural systems. He states: “A shared cultural system stabilizes human interaction, but it is also a system of value – a hierarchy of value, where some things are given priority and importance and others are not. In the absence of such a system, people simply cannot act.” (Idem: xxxi). And then, more specifically: “In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures, partly to decrease the danger of group conflict. But we are increasingly falling prey to desperation of meaninglessness, and that is no improvement at all” (Idem: xxxii). Then he adds that “we can no longer afford conflict […] but we cannot simply abandon our systems of value, our beliefs, our cultures, either” (Ibid). How to solve this dilemma? Peterson gives the following answer: “through the elevation and development of the individual, and through the willingness of everyone to shoulder the burden of Being and to take the heroic path.” (Idem: xxxiii).
Rule One - Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Peterson’s first rule pertains to lobsters and what we have in common with them. As Peterson explains, lobsters are “obsessed with status and position” (Idem: 3). They, as many other animals, behave according to a dominance hierarchy. “A lobster loser’s brain chemistry differs importantly from that of a lobster winner. This is reflected in their relative postures. Whether a lobster is confident or cringing depends on the ratio of two chemicals […] serotonin and octopamine. Winning increases the ratio of the former to the latter” (Idem: 7). Then, according to Peterson: “If you slump around, with the same bearing that characterizes a defeated lobster, people will assign you a low status, and the old counter that you share with crustaceans, sitting at the very base of your brain, will assign you a low dominance number. Then your brain will not produce as much serotonin.” (Idem: 25). “So”, he says, “attend carefully to your posture. Quit drooping and hunching around. Speak your mind. Put your desires forward, as if you had a right to them – at least the same right as others. […] Doing so will not only genuinely increase the probability that good things will happen to you – it will also make those good things feel better when they do happen” (Idem: 28).
Rule Two – Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
The second rule is based on Peterson’s theory of people choosing not to take their prescribed medication. He gives the example of people who receive a kidney transplant but do not take anti-rejection drugs, despite the alternative of dialysis being highly unpleasant, and asks the question: “How could people do that to themselves?” (Idem: 32). Furthermore, he states that: “People are better at filling and properly administering medication to their pets than to themselves. […] how horrible is that? How much shame must exist, for something like that to be true?” (Idem: 33).
Rule Three – Make friends with people who want the best for you
Rule number three tells us to think about the friends we make and to choose only those friendships that are reciprocal and support our “upward aim” (Idem: 82). Peterson warns us both of repetition compulsion, a term that Freud used to describe “an unconscious drive to repeat the errors of the past”, and of rescuing the damned (Idem: 75, 76). Both of these underlying reasons for choosing a friend can be harmful, as the first has us choose the same
damaging relationships over and over again, and the second brings us only friends that “[make] the world a worse place” (Idem: 82). Instead, Peterson argues, we should surround ourselves “with people who support your upward aim, [as] they will not tolerate your cynicism and destructiveness. They will instead encourage you when you do good for yourself and others and punish you carefully when you do not” (Ibid).
Rule Four – Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Peterson starts his explanation of the fourth rule by saying that no matter how good you are at something, there will always be someone better, and that knowing this makes us strive to rise above mediocrity. He explains: “Differentials in quality are omnipresent. Furthermore, if there was no better and no worse, nothing would be worth doing. There would be no value and, therefore, no meaning” (Idem: 87). However, Peterson also questions how we can then still “the voice of critical self-consciousness”, and answers by first stating that there is not a clear binary of success or failure (Idem: 87, 88). Instead, we should see it as a gradient scale. There are many ‘games’, as Peterson calls it, that we can succeed or fail in and we do not play only one of those games. Furthermore, he shows the difference between winning and growing, as winning at a ‘game’ does not always mean you are growing and growing might be more important than winning (Idem: 88). Finally, he states, one should realise that “the specifics of the many games you are playing are so unique to you, so individual, that comparison to others is simply inappropriate (Idem: 88, 89). The point is thus to aim, to focus on who you are and what you want to change, as “what you aim at determines what you see” (Idem: 96). Peterson then brings religion into the picture, stating that it “concerns itself with domains of value, of ultimate value” and “is about proper behaviour” (Idem: 102). He points out that:
“You cannot aim yourself at anything if you are completely undisciplined and untutored. You will not know what to target, and you won’t fly straight, even if you somehow get your aim right. […] It is therefore necessary and desirable for religions to have a dogmatic element. What good is a value system that does not provide a stable structure? […] That is not to say (to say it again) that obedience is sufficient. But a person capable of
obedience – let’s say, instead, a properly disciplined person – is at least a well-forged tool. At least that (and that is not nothing). Of course, there must be vision, beyond discipline; beyond dogma. A tool still needs a purpose. It Is for such reasons that Christ said, in the Gospel of Thomas, ‘The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, but men do not see it.’ Does that mean that what we see is dependent on our religious beliefs? Yes! And what we don’t see as well!” (Idem: 102, 103).
Rule Five – Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
The book’s fifth rule goes into the essentials of raising children the ‘right way’. This is important, because as Peterson explains: “You love your kids, after all. If their actions make you dislike them, think what an effect they will have on other people” (Idem: 144). He underlines this by taking Rousseau’s notion of the noble savage, who “claimed that nothing was so gentle and wonderful as man in his pre-civilized state” (Idem: 120). Instead, Peterson states: “But human beings are evil, as well as good, and the darkness that dwells forever in our souls is also there in no small part in our younger selves. In general, people improve with age, rather than worsening, becoming kinder, more conscientious, and more emotionally stable as they mature” (Ibid). Children only become decent human beings if they are raised well by their parents. A parent should therefore not sacrifice their child’s respect to gain their friendship, learn to discipline their children carefully and punish them when needed (Idem: 123, 124, 129). Furthermore, Peterson states that: “the fundamental moral question is not how to shelter children completely from misadventure and failure, so they never experience any fear or pain, but how to maximize their learning so that useful knowledge may be gained with minimal cost (Idem: 132). Peterson closes with five principles: limit the rules; use
minimum necessary force; parents should come in pairs; parents should understand their own capacity to be harsh, vengeful, arrogant, resentful, angry and deceitful; parents have a duty to act as proxies for the real world (Idem: 142, 143).
Rule Six – Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Rule six tells the reader about Mephistophelean thinking, or “the temptation to question Being and to curse it”, and “the need to blame someone or something for the intolerable state of their Being. According to Peterson: “The stupidity of the joke being played on us does
not merely motivate suicide. It motivates murder – mass murder, often followed by suicide” (Idem: 148 - 150). He further tells us that experiencing evil gives us the choice between vengeance, perpetuating that evil, or transformation, learning from it (Idem: 153). Not preparing for what may come in the future is seen by Peterson as sin. Instead, he tells us to take responsibility, as “to judge reality as insufficient, to criticize Being itself, [is] to sink into resentment and the desire for revenge” (Idem: 157). In conclusion, Peterson’s message is: “Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience” (Idem: 158).
Rule Seven – Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
This seventh rule starts with the line: “Life is suffering. That’s clear” (Idem: 161). The question of what we may do about it is, as Peterson states, most easily answered with the pursuit of expedient pleasure (Idem: 162). The alternative to him is represented in the stories that we have been telling for centuries, as “not so long ago, we woke up. We were already doing, but we started noticing what we were doing. We started using our bodies as devices to represent their own actions. […] Then we started to tell stories. We coded our observations of our own drama in these stories” (Idem: 163). We have learned that sacrifice means “that something
better might be attained in the future by giving up something of value in the present” (Idem:
164). This delay of gratification “was simultaneously the discovery of time and, with it, causality” (Idem: 164). It will, however, only “[become] useful when civilization has stabilized itself enough to guarantee the existence of the delayed reward, in the future” (Idem: 167). Through saving up for the future, we create excesses that we can then choose to share with others. This brings us to the so-called social contract. To Peterson, sharing “does not mean to give away something you value, and get nothing back. […] To share means, properly, to initiate the process of trade” (Idem: 168). Furthermore, he states, sometimes it is required to sacrifice that which is most precious to us (Idem: 170).
“Sometimes, when things are not going well, it’s not the world that’s the cause. The
cause is instead that which is currently most valued, subjectively and personally. Why?
Because the world is revealed, to an indeterminate degree, through the template of your values […]. If the world you are seeing is not the world you want, therefore, it’s
time to examine your values. […] If the value structure is aimed at the betterment of Being, the meaning revealed will be life-sustaining” (Idem: 170, 199).
Rule Eight – Tell the truth – or at least, don’t lie
Rule eight teaches the reader the value of telling the truth, rather than “taking the easy way out”, which according to Peterson “are not merely two different choices. They are different pathways through life” (Idem: 209). Taking the easy way out is then to act politically, to “manipulate the world into delivering what you want” (Ibid). He takes from Alfred Adler, who coined the term life-lies, which are used to “manipulate reality with perception, thought and action, so that only some narrowly desired and pre-defined outcome is allowed to exist” (Idem: 210). Why would someone choose not to lie, when it can benefit them? Peterson states: “The reason is simple. Things fall apart. […] Without attention, culture degenerates and dies, and evil prevails” (Idem: 228). To lie, then, is to look away because the truth is too painful (Ibid).
Rule Nine – Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
The first sentence of Peterson’s ninth chapter is: “Psychotherapy is not advice” (Idem: 233). Instead, he argues it is “genuine conversation. Genuine conversation is exploration, articulation and strategizing” (Ibid). Additionally, he explains: “The past appears fixed, but it’s not – not in an important psychological way. There is an awful lot to the past, after all, and the way we organize it can be subject to drastic revision. […] The present can change the past, and the future can change the present” (Idem: 237). This, to Peterson, is important to remember, as not only does it mean that our memory of some past experience can change, it also means there are different sides to every story (Idem: 239). Additionally, he states that while people may think they think, it is instead “mostly self-criticism that passes for thinking. […] True thinking is complex and demanding. It requires you to be articulate speaker and careful, judicious listener, at the same time. It involves conflict” (Idem: 241). Someone who is not able to be both at once needs someone else to do the listening, and to do this properly means to listen “without premature judgement” (Idem: 248).
This way of conversing is not the only one, however. Peterson first lists “the conversation […] where one participant is speaking merely to establish or confirm his place in the dominance hierarchy” (Ibid). Second, there is one where neither participant listens to the other. “Instead, each is using the time occupied by the current speaker to conjure up what he or she will say next” (Idem: 248, 249). Third is a conversation style in which one is trying to win the other over, establishing their perspective as the only right one. The fourth variant is that of the lecture, in which verbal communication (mainly) takes place in one direction. As a fifth conversation style, Peterson takes those that “work primarily as demonstrations of wit” (Idem: 250). The last on the list is one “of mutual exploration, [requiring] true reciprocity on the part of those listening and speaking, [and allowing] all participants to express and organize their thoughts” (Idem: 251). In conclusion Peterson finds one should listen “to yourself and to those with whom you are speaking. Your wisdom then consists not of the knowledge you already have, but the continual search for knowledge, which is the highest form of wisdom” (Idem: 255, 256).
Rule Ten – Be precise in your speech
To explain rule number ten, Peterson describes the way we perceive the world in the following way:
“Our evolved perceptual system transforms the interconnected, complex multi-level world that we inhabit not so much into things per se as into useful things (or their nemeses, things that get in the way). This is the necessary, practical reduction of the world. […] We don’t see valueless entities and then attribute meaning to them. We perceive the meaning directly” (Idem: 261).
Following this, he explains that identifying the things we perceive in a precise manner is important, as “[shirking] the responsibility of confronting the unexpected, even when it appears in manageable doses, reality itself will become unsustainably disorganized and chaotic” (Idem: 281). We should therefore “identify things, with careful attention and language”, in order to simplify them (Ibid).
Rule Eleven – Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Skateboarding is used in rule eleven as a general symbol for ‘dangerous behaviour’. Peterson explains: “They wanted to triumph over danger. They would have been safer in protective equipment, but that would have ruined it. They weren’t trying to safe. They were trying to become competent – and it’s competence that makes people as safe as they truly can be” (Idem: 286). According to Peterson, human beings “don’t seek to minimize risk. They seek to optimize it” (Idem: 287). Becoming competent is important, because: “competence, not power, is a prime determiner of status. Competence. Ability. Skill. Not power” (Idem: 313).
Rule Twelve – Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
The closing chapter states that to go through life means to suffer. To make this suffering lighter, we should “pay careful attention […] to be confronted with small opportunities”, such as when a cat is letting you pet it. Find these things, Peterson says, as it is “a reminder […] that the wonder of Being might make up for the ineradicable suffering that accompanies it” (Idem: 353).
Coda
Right after his last rule, Peterson chooses to end his writing in a Coda, subtitled “What shall I do with my newfound pen of light?” (Idem: 355). It starts with the story of how he received a pen that “beamed light out its tip” to make writing in the dark easier (Ibid). Peterson sees this as a metaphor, as “we’re all in the dark [… and] could all use something written with light to guide us along our way” (Ibid). As he further explains, he asked himself the question stated in the subtitle and answered it as follows: “Since I had just been given, of all things, a Pen of Light, which could write Illuminated Words in the darkness, I wanted to do the best thing I could with it. So, I asked the appropriate question – and, almost immediately, an answer revealed itself: Write down the words you want inscribed on your soul” (Idem: 358). And so, Peterson goes on to ask himself “the hardest questions I could think up, and await their answers” (Idem: 358). These answers form a good overview of the book, as Peterson links them to its different chapters.
First, and even before he talks about these questions, he tells the reader of how disagreements with his wife have shown him that it is more important to distinguish between being right and having peace by listening and negotiating (Idem: 357). This, he says, “is to truly abide to Rule 2 (Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping)” (Idem: 357). The first ‘Difficult Question’ Peterson asks is “What shall I do tomorrow?”, its answer being: “The most good possible in the shortest period of time”, followed by “What shall I do
next year? Try to ensure that the good I do then will be exceeded only by the good I do the year after that” (Idem: 358). Then: “What shall I do with my life? Aim for paradise and concentrate on today”, which he links to Rule 4 (Compare yourself to who you were
yesterday), by which he means to say: “Orient yourself properly. Then – and only then – concentrate on the day” (Idem: 359).
The second set of his questions pertains to his relationships with people (Idem: 359). Among the questions asked are a few that Peterson connects to different Rules. “What shall
I do with a fallen soul? Offer a genuine and cautious hand, but do not join it in the mire” is
linked to Rule 3. “What shall I do with the world? Conduct myself as if Being is more valuable
than Non-Being” to Rule 1. And “How shall I educate my people? Share with them those things I regard as truly important? he connects to Rule number 8 (Idem: 361). “What shall I do for God my Father? Sacrifice everything I hold dear to yet greater perfection” can be linked to
Rule 7. “What shall I do with a lying man? Let him speak so that he may reveal himself” with Rules 7 and 9. Finally, “How shall I deal with the enlightened one? Replace him with the true
seeker of enlightenment” shows Rule 4’s importance (Idem: 362). A third group of questions
“focused this time on ingratitude”. In this set Peterson first combines Rule 12 and 6 to answer
“What shall I do when I despise what I have?” with “Remember those who have nothing and strive to be grateful” (Ibid). Rule 6 is referred to again with “What shall I do when I ruin my rivers? Seek for the living water and let it cleanse the Earth” (Idem: 364). The fourth set “were
associated with proper response to crisis and exhaustion” (Ibid). “What shall I do when my
enemy succeeds? Aim a little higher and be grateful for the lesson” combines learning from
others with Rule 9 of really listening. Rule 3 is named in regard to that of: “What shall I do
with the fact of aging? Replace the potential of my youth with the accomplishments of my maturity”. And “What shall I do in the next dire moment? Focus my attention on the next right move” is in reference to Rule 10 (Idem: 365. 366).
Lastly, he formulates questions on the “development of character”. (Idem: 366). Its first question is: “What shall I do with my faithless brother? The King of the Damned is a poor judge
of Being”. Peterson states that in order to make the world a better place, we should first take
a look at ourselves, as was explained in Rule 6. Peterson then closes this Coda with the following statement:
“I hope that my writing has proved useful to you. I hope it revealed things you did not know you knew. I hope the ancient wisdom I discussed provides you with strength. I hope it brightened the spark within you. I hope you can straighten up, sort out your family, and bring peace and prosperity to your community. I hope, in accordance with Rule 11 (Do not bother children when they are skateboarding), that you strengthen and encourage those who are committed to your care instead of protecting them to the point of weakness. I wish you all the best, and hope that you can wish the best for others. What will you write with your pen of light?” (Idem: 368).
From this, then, we can assume that Peterson had at least three intentions with his book. First, to provide the reader with knowledge, second, to give advice, and third, to inspire them to think (critically) about the discussed matter, and maybe to write. As I don’t think anyone would find those sentiments bad or even offensive, I want to further understand why this book has prompted so much discussion by looking at its (underlying) messages and how they were received.
Chapter 3 – On its Messages
To understand better the position that Peterson takes in his book, we should first take a closer look at the way he executes the three aforementioned intentions (informing, advising, and inspiring).
Informing the Reader
The information Peterson provides the reader with consists first of all of that which is already discussed in the different rules. Not only is there more, however, it is also worth taking a look at where Peterson takes this information from as that will show us who and what he considers to be significant sources of knowledge. The first on that list, and probably the one he refers to most, is the Bible. To elaborate on Rule 2 (Treat Yourself Like Someone You Are Responsible
for Helping), for example, Peterson uses the story of the Garden of Eden to point out that we
are all born from sin, and that it is therefore easy to neglect self-care (Idem: 58). However, if we strive to “direct the world […] a bit more toward Heaven and a bit more away from Hell”, then that would give Meaning to our lives, which in turn would “justify your miserable existence” (Idem: 63, 64).
Second are the ‘Big Thinkers’, the main ones being Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, and Friedrich Nietzsche. We have already discussed Freud’s concept of repetition compulsion in Rule 3, but Peterson also calls him “the father of psychoanalysis”, after which he quotes him as saying: “A man who has been the indisputable favorite of his mother keeps for life the feeling of a conqueror, that confidence of success that often induces real success” to underline Rule 5 of raising your children the right way (Idem: 115). Most notably, however, he is named in combination with both Jung and Nietzsche, as Peterson notes that all three of them taught us that “there is a dark side to everything” (Idem: 288).
Next, Peterson often discusses stories, both fictional and personal ones. Fiction often appears in the shape of fairy tales to again support one of his rules, taking elements of these stories as metaphors for reality. For Rule 5, again, the story of Sleeping Beauty is used to point to the fact that we should not be overprotective over our children. Peterson tells us how, when Aurora is born, her parents plan a christening:
“But they fail to invite Maleficent […] who is essentially Queen of the Underworld or Nature in her negative guise. This means, symbolically that the two monarchs are overprotecting their beloved daughter, by setting up a world around her that has nothing negative in it. But this does not protect her. It makes her weak. Maleficent curses the princess, sentencing her to death at the age of sixteen, caused by the prick of a spinning wheel’s needle. The spinning wheel is the wheel of fate; the prick, which produces blood, symbolizes the loss of virginity, a sign of the emergence of the woman from the child” (Idem: 132).
Apart from fictional stories, there are those taken from his own experience. Rule 12 consists almost completely of anecdotes about Peterson’s children, more precisely about some of the hardships they faced in their childhood, which he links to human vulnerability. He states:
“Artificially fortifying Julian would have been the same as destroying him. Instead of his little three-year-old-self, he would be a cold, steel-hard robot. That wouldn’t be Julian. It would be a monster. I came to realize through such thoughts that what can be truly loved about a person is inseparable from their limitations. Julian wouldn’t have been little and cute and lovable if he wasn’t also prone to illness, and loss, and pain, and anxiety. Since I loved him a lot, I decided that he was all right the way he was, despite his fragility” (Idem: 341).
The (fictional) stories in Peterson’s book can be interpreted in a similar way to how he uses Wikipedia: “I cite Wikipedia because it is collectively written and edited and, therefore, the perfect place to find accepted wisdom” (Idem: 114). Peterson takes these stories as empirical proof for his theories, and in turn sees the theories reflected in the stories.
Giving Advice
To gain a better understanding of the advice that is conveyed by Peterson, and why many find so much solace in them, we should first take a deeper look at what his advice entails. What we can see at first glance is of course the twelve rules. There are also some themes that come back throughout the book and are linked to these rules. First is that of Chaos and Order and “the process that mediates between the two, which appears identical to what modern people call consciousness” (Idem: 35). Chaos is described as being the following: “the domain of ignorance itself”, “unexplored territory”, and “all those things and situations we neither know nor understand” (Idem: 35, 36). It is, however, also “the formless potential from which the God of Genesis I called forth order using language at the beginning of time. […] And Chaos is freedom, dreadful freedom, too (Idem: 36). Order is that which has been explored, “the hundreds-of-millions-of-years-old hierarchy of place, position and authority”, “tribe, religion, hearth, home and country”, it is “the place where all things turn out the way we want them to” (Ibid). Order can also be “tyranny and stultification, […] when the demand for certainty and uniformity and purity becomes too one-sided” (Ibid).
These two elements are explained by Peterson as being “perceived, experienced and understood […] as personalities”, and importantly, he tells us that we do not understand them objectively before we personify them (Idem: 38). Instead, “we see what things mean just as fast or faster than we see what they are”, as we have throughout human existence developed an “hyperactive agency detector”, as “the most significant elements of our environment of origin were personalities, not things, objects or situations” (Idem: 39). Peterson goes on to explain that “the personalities we have evolved to perceive have been around, in predictable form, and in typical, hierarchical configurations, forever, for all intents and purposes” (Ibid). Female and Male are examples of those, and as Peterson states, Order is typically linked to masculinity, whereas Chaos is “the eternal feminine” (Idem: 40, 41). The advice that lies in this knowledge is the following:
“Thus, you need to place one foot in what you have mastered and understood and the other in what you are currently exploring and mastering. Then you have positioned yourself where the terror of existence is under control and you are secure, but where you are also alert and engaged. That is where there is something new to master and
Meaning, as we have seen, is examined in greater detail in Rule 7, as being the counterpart to expedience. Interestingly, in his seventh chapter Peterson describes Meaning first in a way similar to the one above but goes on to say: “If the value structure is aimed at the betterment of Being, the meaning revealed will be life-sustaining. It will provide the antidote for chaos and suffering” (Idem: 199). This Being is another one of Peterson’s continuing themes. He describes how he writes the word with a capital B, after Heidegger’s explanation of the term: “Heidegger tried to distinguish between reality, as conceived objectively, and the totality of human experience (which is his ‘Being’). Being (with a capital ‘B’) is what each of us experience, subjectively, personally and individually, as well as what we each experience jointly with others” (Idem: xxxi). To Peterson, then, we should strive to find meaning and improve our Being, through following the right value systems. All of Peterson’s advice points to a final and overarching theme, namely that of taking responsibility. As he tells us in his
Overture:
“I hope that these rules and their accompanying essays will help people understand what they already know: that the soul of the individual eternally hungers for the heroism of genuine Being, and that the willingness to take on that responsibility is identical to the decision to live a meaningful life. If we each live properly, we will collectively flourish.” (Idem: xxxv).
Inspiring to Think
That Peterson wants the reader to think for themselves is mainly portrayed in that last sentence of: “What will you write with your pen of light?” (Idem: 368). A reader who agrees with the book might want to spread and evolve Peterson’s ideas, whereas a disagreeing one could argue against his theories. Of course, this can be said about any book, but I would argue that especially for the first group of people, Peterson’s insistence on personal responsibility underlines his call for the spreading of thought.
Chapter 4 – On its Popularity and Alt-Right
The message as discussed seems to have effect. To understand better why people want to listen to Peterson, we can take a look at the reasons his followers have stated for their interest in him. Warwick Marsh names seven of these reasons, namely the following: “He has humility and integrity and promotes integrous living”; “Peterson believes in personal responsibility”; “Peterson is taking a stand for truth as foundational and inarguable, and won’t back down”; I believe Peterson is truly compassionate towards people”; “Peterson has taken a stand against political correctness and cultural Marxism”; “Peterson is a family man”; “Peterson supports the Judeo-Christian value system that is the underpinning of western civilization”(Marsh 2019). Natalia Dashan describes how her love, and that of others, for Peterson is based on the fact that he provides people with four main things: a way to vent their anger; knowledge; hope; and direction (Dashan 2018). Combining these opinions, we can see the three intentions of Peterson reflected, as well as the tools to express dissatisfaction.
Anger
The release of feelings of dissatisfaction that Peterson invites, seem to come mainly from the sides of men and right-winged people. De Volkskrant explains that Peterson himself beliefs his followers to consist of more than 80 percent young, white men who feel attacked by accusations of being privileged (Bahara 2018). This is interesting, as self-help books generally are read more by women than men (McLean & Kapell 2015: 58). Of course, the 80 percent probably consists also of men who have not read his book but have watched his Youtube videos. I argue, however, that as the topics and manner of speaking in his videos are very similar to exactly the same as those in his books, people watching will probably also have similar motives to those who read his book and can thus also be used in this comparison.
In an interview with De Volkskrant Peterson states that he is often associated with alt-right because the far-left has a hard time accepting the fact that reasonable people like him do not identify with them and try to therefore link him to neo-Nazi ideologies. He goes on to say that he is anti-alt-right as well, and that the fact that alt-right minded people sympathise with him stems from the fact that they too dislike the far-left, even though he does not agree with their ‘white identity politics’ (Bahara 2018). The fact that he does not fight these as much as he
become the norm at universities. When asked about the rise of white identity politics outside of university, he answers that that is mostly the case among dissatisfied young men who are continuously accused of being part of an oppressing patriarchy, and as such are discriminated. Alt-right is then a good place to channel their anger. Similarly, Peterson calls out postmodernism in his book, and in particular its ‘leader’ Jacques Derrida, stating that his work can be interpreted as stating that “everything is interpretation” and that “hierarchical structures emerged only to include […] and exclude” (Peterson 2018: 310, 311).
Knowledge
Instead, Peterson claims that “although there are myriad ways to interact with – even to perceive – even a small number of objects, that does not mean that all interpretations are equally valid. […] An endless number of interpretations, certainly: that is not different than saying an endless number of problems. But a seriously bounded number of viable solutions” (Idem: 312). For example, he explained to The New York Times that hierarchies are the natural order of the world, and that the left “refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it” (Bowles 2018). What Peterson is really saying then, is that there are things that should not be challenged, because they are unquestionably correct. This is contrasted with what he calls “the ideology of Neomarxist Postmodernism”, ideology being defined by Norman Doidge as “substitutes for true knowledge” and “simple ideas, disguised as science or philosophy that purport to explain the complexity of the world and offer remedies that perfect it. Ideologues are people who pretend they know how to “make the world a better place” before they’ve taken care of their own chaos within (Peterson 2018: xiv).
Daniel Burston writes how he instead follows Karl Mannheim, defining ideology as “a (relatively) coherent pattern of attitudes and beliefs that shape a person’s political outlook. Considered in this light, traditionalists like Peterson share an ideology that values cultural cohesion and continuity over change” (Burston 2019: 5). This brings him to the following point:
“Needless to say, as long as he defines ideology as a collective delusion, or a ‘substitute for true knowledge,’ rather than a more global and encompassing philosophy of history
feminists, postmodernists, queer theorists – of acting in bad faith, of deceiving themselves (as well as others), becoming conscious or unwitting agents of harm and misdirection to the young and gullible.” (Ibid)
In this way then, Peterson puts himself in a position of objectivity. Not only does he neither claim to lean to the right or left side of politics, which makes him seem a perfect objective middle-man, he makes it so that other ways of seeing the world (in particular those of the radical left and right) become part of ideologies and thus can be pushed away as substitutes of the truth. In contrast, Peterson tells his stories and data as factual matters. Biblical stories, the fairy tales, and personal stories are all told as being part of our cultural narrative, and as such they hold truth about us as Western socialised humans. Peterson himself, being a psychotherapist, builds himself up as an expert of human thought and underlines it by quoting well-known names, such as Jung, Nietzsche, and Freud.
Direction
Along with the given information, Peterson provides the reader with advice. As we have seen, some of it is clearly stated in the different rules, while other recommendations are more hidden. Regardless, many people have claimed to have benefited from said advice, as can be seen in the praising words of Warwick Marsh and Natalia Dashan. According to Ad Bergsma (2008) people have been searching guidance in their lives for a long time but have quite recently started to bring psychological insight into this (341). Bergsma further explains that “most psychological advice for improving the quality of one’s life is not obtained in consulting rooms, but picked from popularizations in the mass media”, of which self-help books are one example (Idem: 341, 342). Dolby defines self-help books as “books of popular nonfiction written with the aim of enlightening readers about some of the negative effects of our culture and worldview and suggesting new attitudes and practices which might lead them to a more satisfying and more effective life” (Dolby 2005: 38). She adds to this definition by “[recognizing] the self-help book’s function as an educational and perhaps inspirational resource rather than as simply a remedy” (Ibid.) This definition is thus very much in line with the values that Marsh and Dashan found in Peterson and his teachings.
are so popular because of their low cost, accessibility, privacy, and excitement (Bergsma 2004: 342). With excitement he means the feeling of being “part of an in-group” (Ibid). Bergsma further explains that self-help books first emerged over 200 years ago, when society changed from one being based on class to “an open system in which […] obstacles to upward social mobility were removed and people felt that they also could be part of the American dream, if only they knew how”, and that “this individualistic background is also recognizable in most of the self-help books that sell well in the Netherlands (Idem: 347). This argument is in line with that of Bishop and Willis, who speak of the fact that “the life-course has concomitantly been destandardised, as people no longer move in a linear fashion through discrete phases and can choose to avoid some phases altogether” (2014: 779). By this they mean that in contemporary life many people feel lost because there is no longer a set way to lead life. The fact that so many people chose to buy Peterson’s book points to a certain demand for direction, as Dashan also pointed out, and a title like “12 Rules for Life” immediately shows a potential reader that they can expect to find exactly that.
Hope
Alongside this direction comes a sense of hope, as is the case in every self-help book, because the reader is being told that they can create a better future through following the instructions. On this, Bishop and Willis reflect on Raco’s (2009) idea of hope:
“Hope is socially produced; different forms of hope are given different meanings and levels of importance within different groups and societies. Cultural theorists have argued that in neoliberal societies, there is now a dominant and normalised way of thinking about hope or aspirations that reflects ‘middle-class’ values and norms. This pervasive form of social hope reflects a narrow set of aspirations that focus on improving the social standing in particular domains of life including income, education, and employment, for individuals rather than society as a whole” (2014: 781)
They further state “Hope, as we defined it, is the ability to perceive positive futures” (Ibid). Whether it’s meant as a way to feel better personally, or to help make the world a better place, the idea behind self-help books is that the person reading can make a difference
information in such a way that it will make the person better equipped to deal with life. Looking at the title (’12 Rules’) and subtitle (‘an Antidote to Chaos’), we can see that Peterson promises to give twelve rules that will help the reader deal with chaos. Scott Oliver writes on Vice.com:
“Aside from the fact his arguments naturally resonate with this generation of Reddit-schooled conservatives, it isn’t too hard to fathom the more generic reasons for Peterson’s appeal. The times are changing faster than ever – geopolitically, technologically, microbially – and we humans constantly look for guidance amid the uncertainty. Call it the Cambridge Analytica strategy: sow confusion and anxiety through deliberate disinformation and watch people hanker after strongmen or gurus.” (Oliver 2018)
Chapter 5 – On its Critique
On the one side we have now seen what makes Peterson’s book popular. At the same time, however, the book has raised critique as well. Daniel B. Klein describes Peterson’s tendency to ‘bash’ Postmodernism. As he states: “Jordan Peterson positions himself in opposition to certain adversaries. He often identifies ‘postmodernism’ as a core feature. […] Peterson says that postmodernism holds that ‘there are no qualitative distinctions between modes of interpretation” (Klein 2018: 477). While Klein agrees with Peterson that “most self-described postmodernists are bad news”, he argues that others are great (Idem: 478). Additionally, he argues that so called ‘PoMo-bashing’ is a dumbing down of the “challenges facing liberalism” which makes liberalism seem like “a demon that believes an absurdity (‘no interpretation is better than another’)” that can be defeated by correcting that belief” (Idem: 480). In conclusion Klein states that the way Peterson posits postmodernism is unfair and too simplistic, but closes by saying: “more importantly, PoMo simply does not deserve the centrality it has been given by Peterson and other critics of leftism” (Ibid). In a related argument, Oliver from Vice describes how:
“the real problems [with the book] are that it misuses science for unacknowledged political ends; that it grotesquely misrepresents Peterson’s intellectual opponents; and that it requires absurd philosophical and logical gymnastics to render the supposedly scientific standpoint compatible with his religious convictions […], which he partially skirts around by claiming that ‘scientific truth is different from religious truth.”(Oliver 2018)
An example of this can be found in Rule 1, in which Peterson links lobsters to humans on the basis of neurochemistry, explaining that the social behaviour of both are essentially similar. His claims have since been contradicted by biologist P. Z. Myers, who has stated: “Peterson is distorting the evidence to fit an agenda… It’s appalling the degree to which this man is asserting nonsense with such smug confidence. This man is lying to you” (Ibid). Kelefa Sanneh, from The New Yorker, writes how this lobster story is a way for Peterson to help readers “imagine themselves as heroic lobsters”, and that Peterson dreams of “a world transformed” (Sanneh 2018). Peterson sees a world in which there is good and bad, and that
we can strive for the good as “each human being understands, a priori, perhaps not what is good, but certainly what is not”. However, Sanneh explains that “when it comes […] to our politics – our intuitions have proved neither reliable nor coherent” (Ibid).
Apart from not painting too simplistic a picture, and using incorrect information to do so, one other main critique Peterson has received has to do with his fight against such subjects as feminism and political correctness. In his book he talks about “the strong turn towards political correctness in universities”, arguing that “there are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men. These are the areas of study dominated by postmodern/neo-Marxist claim that Western culture, in particular, is an oppressive structure, created by white men to dominate and exclude women (and other select groups); successful only because of that domination an exclusion” (Peterson 2018: 302). When Peterson was invited to come to the University of Amsterdam in 2018, students and employees of said university protested and asked to make the interview so that he would be accompanied by an expert of opposing opinions (Folia 2018).
Analysis
We have seen that in contemporary Western society, which seems increasingly divided in its politics, many people seek guidance in the form of self-help books. As becomes clear from the first page of the book, Peterson himself sees “the most valuable things that everyone should know” reflected in his “12 Rules for Life” (Idem: i). These rules pertain to seemingly simple ideas, such as taking care of oneself, learning to listen, striving for competence, and living a truth- and meaningful life. Whereas we have seen that some of the knowledge behind these rules may be false or problematic, such as in the case of the serotonin levels in humans and lobsters, I argue that the rules themselves do not hold much controversy. On first glance, then, the book seems an innocent way of getting people to take responsibility in their lives.
Taking a closer look into the different chapters behind the rules, however, we can see themes that could call for more discussion. We have seen that both the arguments for and against the book’s theories use either the bigger themes or the information that Peterson uses to support his rules. These can for example be seen in Warwick Marsh’s reasons for liking Peterson, which can be summarized as being based on liking what Peterson stands for, and how he portrays that. For example, “Peterson is a family man” can be seen in his arguments for the importance of family and the regular referring to stories of his wife and children. Again, there are probably not many people who would argue against family as a valuable part of life. The way Peterson describes family, however, is one that has potential for discussion. With this I mean that Peterson makes it seem like some ways of ‘doing family’ are better than others, insisting for example on the importance of having two parents, ideally consisting of one male and one female (Peterson 2018: 300, 301). Statements such as those can call for both people who agree and people who disagree. As Peterson’s book is filled with similar sentiments, we can better understand how people would go from agreeing over the importance of family, to disagreeing over what that family should be like. This could probably be said about many self-help books, as statements can always cause disagreement. However, I would argue that the topics Peterson displays in his book are ones that are often contested in today’s society as it is. Themes like family, masculinity versus femininity, social hierarchies, and objective truth are some examples that figure quite heavily in Peterson’s book, and that can be found in many discussions in- and outside the academic world.
Through his psychology doctorate Peterson can take a position of knowledge, that doubles as a leader-status. As Marquis describes, scientific recognition is important when it comes to whether people see a self-help book as credible or not, although his research pointed out that its readers “consider that self-help deals with areas and carries messages which cannot always be re-translated easily in the scientific register” (Marquis 2019: 144). Peterson himself experienced this duality, as his first book Maps of Meaning was much more densely and academically written and did not nearly receive the same attention that 12 Rules for Life did (Sanneh 2018). The latter work combines scientific explanation with empiric examples that are easy to understand, which could partly explain its popularity. Peterson takes themes that are popular and commonly known, in order to make the book accessible to most people.
One such theme is that of order and chaos, which is even named on the cover of the book. As the book is subtitled An Antidote to Chaos, we can already assume that Peterson wants to provide its reader with ways to create order in their lives, and that chaos is thus not wanted. In the book he then links order to masculinity and chaos to femininity, effectively saying that what we are missing in today’s society are masculine values, and that we should find a way to restore that order. It is not surprising then that the pro-Peterson camp consists of many white young men. As becomes clear in Rule 11, Peterson takes their side, arguing that: “Boys are suffering, in the modern world. They are more disobedient – negatively – or more independent – positively – than girls, and they suffer for this, throughout their pre-university educational career. They are less agreeable (agreeableness being a personality trait associated with compassion, empathy and avoidance of conflict) and less susceptible to anxiety and depression, at least after both sexes hit puberty (Idem: 298). If a reader belongs to this group and has felt out of place in contemporary debates around patriarchal oppression, he might feel understood by Peterson. Furthermore, Peterson tells him that the current hierarchies are only natural, and that he will not have to excuse himself for partaking in them. He thus provides such readers with a justification for his dominant position, whereas for example feminist discourses would challenge those.
Of course, it is not only men who agree with Peterson, and women could just as well agree with his theory of a natural order in which men stand hierarchically higher than women. I argue that these sentiments reflect a more conservative view on the world, in line with Scott Oliver from Vice statement: “his arguments naturally resonate with this generation of Reddit-schooled conservatives” (Oliver 2018). In his book The Three Languages of Politics, Arnold
Kling explains a theory in which progressives (P), conservatives (C), and libertarians (L) think about politics in different languages, stating:
“I call this the three-axes model of political communication. A progressive will communicate along the oppressor-oppressed axis, framing issues in terms of the (P) dichotomy. A conservative will communicate along the civilization-barbarism axis, framing issues in terms of the (C) dichotomy. A libertarian will communicate along the liberty-coercion axis, framing issues in terms of the (L) dichotomy” (Kling 2017: 5)
As Kling further argues, a conservative would likely agree with the following statement: “My heroes are people who have stood up for Western values. The people I cannot stand are the people who are indifferent to the assault on the moral virtues and traditions that are the foundation for our civilization” (Idem: 4). Furthermore, he describes how conservatives want to get rid of “tenured radicals’ on college campuses, ‘political correctness’ in public schools, and the ‘mainstream media” (Idem: 38). Peterson describes: “In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures, partly to decrease the danger of group conflict” and has in the past fought against political correctness, specifically Bill C-16, which concerns among other things “the use of gender-pronouns in the classroom” (Burston 2019: 1). Peterson himself claims to have done so in the name of freedom of speech, which he believes is under attack (Cumming 2016). This shows not only conservative standpoint, but a libertarian as well. As Kling describes a libertarian view as: “My heroes are people who have stood up for individual rights. The people I cannot stand are the people who are indifferent to government taking away people’s ability to make their own choices” (Kling 2017: 5). The one left out is then the progressive perspective: “My heroes are people who have stood up for the underprivileged. The people I cannot stand are the people who are indifferent to the oppression of women, minorities, and the poor (Idem: 4).
As I have argued before, however, Peterson takes up a relatively ‘objective’ position by not directly stating which side he is on, other than that of the ‘truth’. That such a truth exists is affirmed by him through his attacking of what he sees as postmodernist thought, in which everything would be subjective. By taking the opposing side, then, he states that some matters are simply true or not. This objective position seems to be in contrast with Peterson’s conservative and libertarian principles that were discussed in the last paragraph. As I see it,
Peterson does not directly state his political stance in the book, as to be able to keep his objective position, but rather reflects his opinions in ways that will probably make both conservative and libertarian readers relate to the book more than progressives will. It is not surprising then that Marsh and Dashan, who both write for quite conservative magazines (respectively the Spectator and the Weekly Standard), have such a positive reaction, whereas Vice (Oliver) and The New Yorker (Sanneh) are more on the progressive side and take a more critical stance.
Conclusion
In this thesis I have questioned the reasons why a self-help book would amass the amount of strong opinions that Peterson’s book did. I asked the question: How can we understand the
very opposing reactions that Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life has evoked and how does it fit into the debate between liberal versus conservative perspectives? We have first seen that
people find knowledge, hope, direction, and a way to vend their anger in his book. Second, as it is mostly young men that the Peterson’s messages attract, it is not surprising that he takes their side, saying that they are the ones suffering in our Western society, and that they subsequently agree with his ideas. Third, Peterson takes a position of relative objectivity and scientific knowledge, which he combines with empiric evidence. This, and the fact that his writing style in this book is quite easy to understand, makes it so the book can be read by almost anyone. We have seen then that the reasons that people contest him mostly come down to him stating false facts, and the fact that his opinions conflict with theirs. As I have stated before, much of the book consists of themes that are heavily discussed nowadays, such as family, masculinity versus femininity, social hierarchies, and objective truth. To bring this into a political perspective, I have argued that his sentiments seem to be mostly conservative or libertarian, whereas he fights against such notions as political correctness and the idea of an oppressive patriarchy, which are more typically progressive or liberal. To conclude then, I argue that the opposing reactions his book has amassed are a reflection of political stances, as the bigger themes of his book are quite political ones, that can easily provoke strong opinions. Peterson in a way thus simultaneously shows a path to order for those who look to him for help and creates chaos along its course.
Literature
Bergsma, A.
2008 Do Self-Help Books Help? Journal of Happiness Studies 9(3): 341-360.
Bishop, E.C. and K. Willis
2014 Without hope everything would be doom and gloom. Young people
talk about the importance of hope in their lives. Journal of Youth
Studies 17(6): 778-793.
Burston, D.
2019 It’s Hip to Be Square! The Myths of Jordan Peterson. Psychotherapy and
Politics International 17(1).
Dolby, S.
2005 Self-Help Books: Why Americans Keep Reading Them. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press. Marquis, N.
2019 Taking One’s Responsibilities While Facing Adversity. A Balanced
Analysis of Self-Help Book Reading. Sociological Research Online 24(2): 137-153.
McLean, S. and B. Kapell
2015 She reads, he reads. Gender differences and learning through self-help
books. European journal for Research on the Education and Learning of
Adults 6(1): 55-72.
Klein, D.B.
2018 On Jordan Peterson, Postmodernism, and PoMo-Bashing. Society 55:
477-481. Kling, A.
2017 The Three Languages of Politics. Talking Across the Political Divides.
Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. Peterson, J.B.
Raco, M.
2009 From Expectations to Aspirations: State Modernisation, Urban Policy,
and the Existential Politics of Welfare in the UK. Political Geography 28(7): 436–444.
Starker, S.
[2002] 1989 Oracle at the supermarket; The American preoccupation with
self-help books. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Tavares, P. J. and I. A. Schonhorst
2017 Maps of Meaning: Interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson. Interfaces
Brasil/Canadá. 17(1).
Websites
Bahara, H.
2018 Jordan Peterson, de held van alt-right: ‘Links moet inbinden, of we
krijgen een catastrofe’. De Volkskrant, 19-01-2018.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/jordan-peterson-de-
held-van-alt-right-links-moet-inbinden-of-we-krijgen-een-catastrofe~b1488ab0/. (02/07/2019). Bartlett, T.
2018 What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 01-17-2018.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-s-So-Dangerous-About/242256. (20/07/2019). Bowles, N.
2018 Jordan Peterson. Custodian of the Patriarchy. The New York Times,
18-05-2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html. (02/07/2019).
Cumming, L.
2016 Are Jordan Peterson’s Claims About Bill C-16 Correct? Torontoist,
19-12-2016.
Dashan, N.
2018 Why I Love Jordan Peterson. The Weekly Standard, 16-08-2019.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/natalia-dashan/why-i-love-jordan-peterson. (02/07/2019).
Elliott, M.
2018 What Was the Best Selling Book of 2018? Showbizz Cheatsheet,
08-12-2018.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/what-was-the-best-selling-book-of-2018.html/. (17-07-2019)
Folia
2018 Room for Discussion, zet een extra gast naast Jordan Peterson. Folia,
25-10-2018.
https://www.folia.nl/opinie/124762/room-for-discussion-zet-een-extra-gast-naast-jordan-peterson. (02/07/2019). LaRosa, J.
2018 The $10 Billion Self-Improvement Market Adjusts to a New
Generation. MarketResearch.com, 11-10-2018
https://blog.marketresearch.com/the-10-billion-self-improvement-market-adjusts-to-new-generation (15-08-2019)
Marsh, W.
2019 Seven Reasons Why I Like Jordan Peterson. Spectator Australia,
25-02-2019. https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/02/seven-reasons-why-i-like-jordan-peterson/. (02/07/2019)
Oliver, S.
2018 The Fundamental Errors of Jordan Peterson. Vice, 04-06-2018.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/evqekn/the-fundamental-errors-of-jordan-peterson. (02/07/2019).
Sanneh, K.
2018 Jordan Peterson’s Gospel of Masculinity. The New Yorker, 05-03-2018.
