Yes, But Which Group Do You Belong To?
“On your interest in young men, particularly on the young male in Western societies… I think that’s your focus – I think it’s fair to say that your focus is on how men feel in society…”
“No, I don’t think that that is my focus…. I think the fact that what I’m doing is being construed in that manner is a consequence of the overwhelming influence of identity politics on our political and philosophical discourse. What I’m doing is constantly being viewed as a manifestation of identity politics, and so people talk about my particular attraction for ‘young white men.’ The audiences that come to see me – and I hate to even categorise them in this manner because it’s part of playing the same game – are very diverse ethnically and with regards to gender. The problem is that the way that our discourse is framed right now, it’s impossible to avoid being shunted into an identity politics box. And I think there’s nothing about that that isn’t reprehensible.”
“You sound quite angry.”
The Economist’s Anne McElvoy interviews Jordan Peterson.
The interview is by no means a Cathy Newman-level car crash, and is at times quite interesting; but it does, I think, tell us more about the assumptions of the interviewer, and by extension her peers, than those of the person being interviewed. For instance, about 43 minutes in, Peterson mentions sex differences in antisocial behaviour, and the types of bullying that tend to be favoured by women more than men. This is met with disbelief and indignation, as if this rather obvious and unremarkable phenomenon – the differing ways in which men and women tend to express aggression – were some kind of scandalous affront to womanhood, something one shouldn’t acknowledge, and indeed should lie about.
I haven’t watched the interview, but it might have been interesting to suggest that an MOK who had got his house in order might have been a more effective proponent of civil rights…
Significantly, Dodd immediately launches into Peterson’s christian influences and doesn’t shut up about it for ages. In the UK, unlike the US, even most christians would roll their eyes or look suspiciously on anyone who banged on about religion outside of a church.
Dodd knows that if he can paint Peterson as a frothing-mouthed Old Testament evangelist then most of the UK audience unfamiliar with Peterson will be safely put off him from the start.
Peterson might be christian but there doesn’t seem to be much about his advice which is uniquely or excessively so (even for an atheist like me). It rather seems as if Dodd didn’t have much more ammunition than Cathy Newman but realised that the “sexist” and “right-wing nut” attack hasn’t been too successful so tried a slightly different tack.
That and nit-picking about the book’s title at some length!
Dodd also seems to think that Hillsborough proves a clear-cut point about the benefits of social activism when it seems to me it was an early Grenfell-esque example of activism (allied, of course, to the appalling behaviour of the police and press) making it impossible to reach an entirely considered unbiased conclusion. (Shhhh! Don’t mention any fans at the back!)
Of course Dodd shroud-waves Hillsborough knowing that Peterson either won’t know the details of the case well enough to argue and/or will know that anything he would be allowed to say in a short space of time would only be be a gift to his enemies.
Dodd ultimately either doesn’t know, or purports not to know, how unbelievably bad things have become in North American universities. As most of his audience won’t either it’s easy for Dodd to use his own ignorance (feigned or not) to paint Peterson as being paranoid or deluded. Sadly, I suspect this may well have worked with many of the audience.
The most interesting thing about the Dodd interview was that Dodd didn’t appear interested in what Peterson had actually written. Instead, the interview was focussed on what Dodd thought he should have written, and Peterson’s failure to stick to approved topics meant that he needed to be scolded. Repeatedly.
His intro was also particularly slanted, and made a number of demonstrably false claims in quick succession:
“He refused to use gender-neutral pronouns” – no, he protested against compelled speech.
“Defending… the need for men to be tough” – no, he encourages everyone, male and female, to shoulder their burden.
“Defending… hierarchy” – no, instead he argues that hierarchies are not primarily a social or patriarchal construct and have biological origins.
Also, I noted Dodd’s claim that “It’s the case though that common courtesy leads us to to address people in ways that people feel easy with”. Idi Amin as King of Scotland? Hilary Clinton as Madam President?
From that unpromising start it only went downhill.
The most interesting thing about the Dodd interview was that Dodd didn’t appear interested in what Peterson had actually written.
Yes, that’s sort of what I meant upthread about Peterson’s desire to communicate with such people, i.e., in good faith, often seeming futile. (Dodd didn’t appear interested in hearing why some of his own assumptions – “Capital!” – might be inadequate and repeatedly shut down attempts to explain.) And to the extent that there’s any listening happening on the part of the interviewer, it’s generally subordinate to the attempt to win. Or punish. Or misrepresent.
You could compare how Peterson has often been approached by supposedly impartial interviewers – with naked hostility from the first breath – with how, say, Peter Robinson interviews his guests.