Understanding Jordan Peterson

A Guide for Would-Be Critics

Gabriel von Max, “Der Kritiker” and Jordan B. Peterson (Wikimedia Commons)

Mass-popularity is a double-edged sword for an intellectual. Witness Jordan Peterson. He has an enviably gargantuan platform from which to promulgate his ideas; and a terrifyingly gargantuan platform from which to amplify his mistakes. He has abundant opportunities to inspire his readers and listeners to think new thoughts and change their lives for the better; and abundant opportunities to see himself reduced to a cartoon assembled out of soundbites and spite.

The caricaturing of Peterson is especially prevalent among academics, who relish nothing more than the chance to misinterpret one of their own made good. Rather than enlightening the conversation through reasoned critique or careful exegesis, many academic critics prefer the self-aggrandizing “dunk” — the academic equivalent of disparaging a new movie of which you’ve only seen the trailer, of hating on a band because they finally got a hit single. With no small irony, Peterson’s critics seem dead set on proving true his infamous parable of lobsters fighting for dominance. Rather than claws, they use words.

Partly as a result of witnessing this sorry spectacle over the last few years, I’ve tried to abide by a rule. Call it a “rule for critical life”: Thou shalt not publicly criticize an intellectual till thou hast read (heard, etc.) a major part of their work. This rule is based on a version of the golden rule of criticism (as once formulated by Wayne Booth): “review as you would be reviewed, try to understand even as you hope to be understood.” Obviously this cannot be a hard-and-fast rule. You need to take things on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Peterson, I would suggest something like the following:

Before launching a critique, be sure to have performed one of the following tasks:

• Read at least two of his books.
• View at least ten of his long-form lectures or interviews.
• Read at least ten of his articles.

(I include a few words on primary sources at the end of this post.)

Is this a lot to ask? Yes. And that’s the point. If you did any one of these things while keeping your critical wits about you, you would likely be well positioned to say something worth hearing about Jordan Peterson. Reading or listening to Peterson for 20 hours will change you. You still might violently disagree with him. Indeed, you probably should disagree with him on certain points. But now you will understand why you disagree with him, rather than disagreeing with him because it’s what your tribe expects of you.

But wait, there’s more! While there is no substitute for reading or hearing the man himself over an extended period, there is a growing body of secondary literature. Some of this can be very useful. It can force you to see Peterson from a new perspective. Your judgment of Peterson means nothing in isolation. It must be pitted against and modified by the conflicting judgments of others. Only then does it start to become a real judgment.

The secondary literature can also help you understand the cultural and intellectual contexts in which Peterson formulated his ideas. Ideas make sense only in context. Ideas have a lineage. They come from somewhere. If you don’t like Peterson’s ideas, it may be because you don’t like the traditions on which he draws. But while any intellectual tradition may count some number of scoundrels and idiots among its adherents, they are generally started and carried on by rational, well-meaning people. Make an honest effort to understand a tradition before dismissing it, especially when it conflicts with your own views.

Where to start? Well, in an article American Studies Journal I attempted to trace some of Peterson’s roots into the 19th century, into such developments as Romanticism and cultural Protestantism. But one should also look at Peterson’s place within the psychological and behavioral sciences, especially the pragmatist/Gibsonian/ecological tradition (I have given a general introduction to his theory of behavior here).

For more, I’d point to a book I contributed to titled Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (edited by Sandra Woein, Open Universe, 2022). This is not the first book about Peterson, nor will it be the last. But it is a sound collection of diverse perspectives on Peterson. I’ll mention a few highlights by topic (leaving aside my own contribution which I linked to earlier). Preprints of some of these can be found online.

On Peterson’s theory of truth

• Mark Garron, “We’re Science! We’re All about Coulda, Not Shoulda”
• Teemu Tauriainen, “On Peterson’s Truth”

Both of these essays put Peterson’s theory of truth in its appropriate pragmatist/anti-realist context.

On Peterson’s interpretations of the Bible

• David Ramsay Steele, “Clean Up Your Theory!”
• Marc Champagne, “Stone, Stone-Soup, and Soup”
• Ron Dart, “Biblical Lilliputians Meet Gulliver”

Steele is highly critical of Peterson’s interpretations; Dart shows how they make sense within a certain tradition of interpretation; Champagne falls somewhere between. The disagreement is over whether interpretations of historical texts should be purely historical-philological in nature (that is, illuminating the context in which the texts were produced) or whether such interpretations should also be emergent (that is, formulated in view of current problems). Peterson generally leans toward emergent interpretations of texts. Is there an intellectual or cultural cost to this? It’s a healthy debate to have.

On Peterson and Marxism

• David Gordon and Ying Tang, “What Jordan Peterson Should Have Said about Marxism”

Among other things, a useful primer on Marxism.

On Peterson in relation to ancient philosophy

• Tristan Rogers, “Are We Made for Happiness?”
• Sandra Woein, “Could Jordan Peterson Be a Stoic?”

Peterson is not much influenced by ancient philosophy, yet his ideas do show some affinity with it. This is perhaps due to Nietzsche’s influence on him.

On Peterson the human being

• Esther O’Reilly, “Missing God”

A beautifully-written chapter, reminding you that Peterson is, like you, a human being.

There are other books about Peterson and oh-so-many articles. Another book worth a look is Myth and Meaning in Jordan Peterson, edited by the aforementioned Ron Dart (Lexham Press, 2020). As I recall or come across other texts that are especially useful — that is, based on an honest engagement with and deep knowledge of the subject — I may list them here.

I will finally emphasize that what I have said here is not intended to be specific to Peterson. My “rule for critical life” is applicable, with due modifications, to any other intellectual in the public sphere. As the old saying has it: “Whereof one has not done one’s homework, thereof one must be silent.”

To conclude, let me say a word about primary sources:

Primary Sources

Peterson’s books are well known and easy to access; I won’t list them here. Likewise, a very large number of Peterson’s lectures and interviews are easily available online. It would be impossible for anyone trying to have a life to consume all of them, but I expect that listening to any ten one-to-three hour lectures/interviews will give you a solid grounding in Petersonia. Peterson’s academic articles are less well known, but they show him at his most intellectually rigorous and in direct engagement with tradition. I list some of the important ones below. I especially recommend numbers 3 and 8.

1. Hirsh, Jacob B., Raymond A. Mar, and Jordan B. Peterson. 2012. “Psychological Entropy: A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty-Related Anxiety.” Psychological Review 119 (2): 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026767
2. Peterson, Jordan B. 1999. “Individual Motivation for Group Aggression: Psychological, Mythological and Neuropsychological Perspectives.” In Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, edited by L. Kurtz, 529–545. San Diego: Academic Press.
3. Peterson, Jordan B. 2000. “The Pragmatics of Meaning.” Semioticon. https://semioticon.com/frontline/jordan_b.htm
4. Peterson, Jordan B. 2006. “Religion, Sovereignty, Natural Rights, and the Constituent Elements of Experience.” Archiv für Religionspsychologie / Archive for the Psychology of Religion 28 (1):135–180. https://doi.org/10.1163/008467206777832580
5. Peterson, Jordan B. 2007. “The Meaning of Meaning.” International Journal of Existential Psychology & Psychotherapy 1 (2): 1–13.
6. Peterson, Jordan B. 2008. “Neuropsychology of Motivation for Group Aggression and Mythology.” In Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, 2nd edition, edited by L. Kurtz, 1329–1340. San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373985-8.00112-4
7. Peterson, Jordan B. 2011. “Creative Exploration and Its Illnesses.” The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 56 (3): 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600301
8. Peterson, Jordan B. 2013. “Three Forms of Meaning and the Management of Complexity.” In The Psychology of Meaning, edited by K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, and M. J. Lindberg, 17–48. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14040-002
9. Peterson, Jordan B., and Joseph L. Flanders. 2002. “Complexity Management Theory: Motivation for Ideological Rigidity and Social Conflict.” Cortex 38 (3): 429–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70680-4
10. Peterson, Jordan B., and Joseph L. Flanders. 2005. “Play and the Regulation of Aggression.” In Developmental Origins of Aggression, edited by R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, and J. Archer, 133–157. New York: The Guilford Press.
11. Peterson, Jordan B., and Maja Djikic. 2003. “You Can Neither Remember Nor Forget What You Do Not Understand.” In Justice and the Politics of Memory, edited by G. R. Ricci, 85–118. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203787816-6
12. Shariff, Azim F., and Jordan B. Peterson. 2005. “Anticipatory Consciousness, Libet’s Veto and a Close-Enough Theory of Free Will.” In Consciousness & Emotion: Agency, Conscious Choice, and Selective Perception, edited by R. D. Ellis and N. Newton, 197–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ceb.1.12sha