OK, so I have to split the second part into several parts as it is just too long. I am going to still keep my general outline by now discussing some of the praises and criticisms this book has received and discussed whether I think those assessments are accurate. Let's begin with a praise.
Is this book the answer to Relativism and Ideology?
I want to discuss the praise for this book found in the forward by Norman Doidge. I think that Doidge correctly understands this book is not simply a set of rules. (See part I of my review.) He understands it as a response to the modern day evils of relativism and ideology. What is lacking from modern society, says Doidge, is not simply the rules themselves but the proper analysis that will lead society to finding meaning and purpose in life. Doidge locates this book within the long line of great philosophical works that struggle to find meaning and purpose in uncertain times. He states that Peterson "is doing what reasonable people have always done: he makes no claim that human wisdom begins with himself, but, rather, turns first to his own [rules], . . . the foremost [of which] is that you must take responsibility for yourself." (pg. xxiii)
I think Doidge's forward is spot on with the scope of the book and with Peterson's approach. Peterson takes his own rules seriously, and I got the impression while going through the book that he has sincerely used these rules to help find meaning in his own life. The sincerity of this book, and the seriousness with which Peterson takes his own rules, truly comes through, especially in audiobook form. This book is full of anecdotes drawn directly from his own life. These anecdotes come across as honest, good faith attempts to document Peterson's own journey. There are tiny bits of hubris in the book, but in all these anecdotes are fitting and sensible. In many ways, what we see is not so much a set of rules, but a memoir of one man who is trying to apply these rules in his own life.
Peterson has always struck me as honest, although I sometimes question his positions. (OK, I question his positions a lot.) This book captures his sincerity. The audiobook captures it best. Even some highly critical reviews of this book have noted how honest and forthcoming it is. (Here's one such review by Philosophy Tube.) Doidge is not off base at all to compliment Peterson on this point. And Doidge is right in capturing the scope of the project. The scope goes beyond the rules themselves and delves into the philosophy beneath them, the search for meaning through following the rules by which meaning must be searched out. This is not to say that I feel this task was adequately executed throughout the book, but it was clearly the aim, and for the most part that is what happened.
So how does Peterson fair in combating relativism and ideology? This is a mixed bag, in part because there are elements in Peterson's own theories that have hints and tinges of ideology and relativism. It's no secret that Peterson is a pragmatist and has claimed to be a pragmatist on many occasions. But one of the distinct features of pragmatism (a feature it is often criticized for) is its subversion of the notion of truth. William James, the quintessential American pragmatist, wrote an entire book in an attempt to redefine how philosophers viewed truth (appropriately entitled The Meaning of Truth). Part of this subversion of truth is extremely similar to relativism. James, for instance, wanted to claim that different religious traditions may be true for different individuals. It comes as no surprise then, for philosophers such as myself, to hear Peterson himself using relativist language. For example:
Truth will not come in the guise of opinions shared by others, as the truth is neither a collection of slogans nor an ideology. It will instead be personal. Your truth is something only you can tell, based as it is on the unique circumstances of your life. Apprehend your personal truth. Communicate it carefully in an articulate manner, to yourself and others. (pg. 230)
To those who are expecting a spectacular takedown of relativism, this quote may be quite jarring. It is anti-ideological, but it seems to embrace personal relativism. I have my truth, and you have yours. Truth is not envisioned as communal or an outside object that must be assented to. This is the type of language that people who rail against relativism typically criticize. Again, this comes as no surprise to those who have studied pragmatism. But this raises a question: is it really possible to combat both relativism and ideology?
I would argue that Peterson's entire project, insofar as it is philosophical, is an attempt to work his way out of the relativism his anti-ideological stance forces him into. Concerned so greatly to avoid the tragedies of collectivism, he is forced into a state of almost extreme individualism, one where truth resides not outwardly in the world but inside the individual's psyche. This is what I find genuinely fascinating about Peterson's philosophy. (See my postscript.) Peterson does have a real philosophical problem on his hands. How do you build a coherent society based on mutual values in the face of truth being grounded not outwardly in the world but deep in the human individual?
For Peterson, this is what these rules are about. He thinks and theorizes on Jungian terms that relativism will defeat itself the moment you try to do anything right for yourself. You can't be a believer in chaos if you genuinely care about yourself. By finding your individual meaning within the world, you contribute to the meaning of the whole world. This meaning needs to come from you, but it really adds to the meaning of the whole universe. You need to confront your own chaos. You need to live your meaning. As you do so, the world itself, on an objective level, will move away from relativism. (I recommend watching this short video where Jordan Peterson explains his reaction against relativism.)
Many of the rules Peterson offers are there to assist people in creating their own meanings. Even when you think his rules are not about creating your own meaning, he turns them into rules about creating your own meaning. But the question remains, is his philosophy too extreme in its individualism in order to overcome the relativism he rejects? Consider rule 9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't. Initially, you might have thought, as I did, that this chapter was about learning from other people, about building common meaning between one another, about finding the communal aspect of truth. That is a good assumption based on the rule itself. Unfortunately, that is not what this rule is about. Rather, this rule is about letting other people learn from themselves. Let me explain.
Much of this chapter is devoted to a story of one of Peterson's clients, a professional women who "thinks" she was raped five times. Peterson discusses how he practiced active listening with this client. Most importantly, he did not tell her whether he thought what she experienced was rape or not. He facilitated her thinking on the matter. Note that the rule says nothing about learning from the other person, it just says assume they know something you don't. In this case, Peterson assumed this client knew something about her own experience that he did not. Peterson was following his rule by letting her talk to herself on the matter. He let her create her own meaning. I have to admit, it took me quite a long time to understand why this story was in this chapter, until I realized that the rule was not about learning from other people. In this very poignant story, the rule was about assuming his client knew something about herself and could tell herself this truth.
As the story of Peterson's client demonstrates, this rule, which at face value people interpret as being about learning from other people, turns out to be a rule about letting other people learn about themselves. The communal aspect of truth is not the purpose of this rule. For Peterson, this rule is actually a reinforcement of individualism and the need of letting people discover their own truths. Far from a takedown of individualism and relativism, it enforces a kind of isolation of the psyche. Let other people discover their own truths. Don't tell them what the truth is, because you, as an outside observer, don't have access to the truth. How can you? You need to assume they know something (namely their own truth) which you don't.
Now, I'm not saying that Peterson was being a bad therapist with this woman. In fact, he presents very good reasons for why he, and therapists in general, don't tell their clients what to think. People really do have to work things out for themselves. What I am saying is, I fail to see how this overcomes the relativism he rejects. I fail to see how living the rule, as interpreted by Peterson, brings us into communal truth. In fact, this rule reinforces the notion of personal truth over common truth.
When you read this book, you have to look for these kinds of enigmas. Peterson is not clear, and he often interprets the rules differently than they are used in everyday parlance. My suggestion is, if you cannot understand why any particular story is associated with a particular rule, try to reinterpret the rule in a way where individuals create meaning in their own lives. This is a helpful tip for reading. It may not work in all situations, but I can at least say I found it to work well for chapters 9 and 10, which I went back and reread.
So, does Peterson's book deserve the praise Doidge gives it? I'll say yes, insofar as Doidge correctly identifies Peterson's project. Peterson is working with a real philosophical problem, and he is trying to confront relativism and ideology with rules for living. I suggest reading the book from this perspective. Is it the be-all and end-all of the discussion? Absolutely not, but Doidge doesn't make that claim. (I sometimes question whether Peterson would.)
Do I believe Peterson succeeds? I am skeptical.
Post Script: a note on Jung
This problem of personal truth is also why Peterson embraces Jung. Jung advanced the idea of the "collective unconscious." This collective unconscious is supposedly the same for all people. Peterson's overall philosophical project is to say that truth is deep in the human psyche, and therefore you can only find truth within you, not outside you. But since we have a collective unconscious, as you delve deeper into your individual psyche, you are also delving deeper into the the collective unconscious, which is universal. As such, by embracing your individualism, you are actually embracing the universal and communal psyche. The way to the collective is through the individual.
This is Peterson's philosophical/psychological project. This is truly a fascinating project, and it is the reason I take Peterson as a serious intellectual. However, note that if Peterson's Jungianism fails to meet the occasion, he is left with a deep and fractured individualism, which I would argue can be dangerous in its own terms. It is this individualism that Peterson is often challenged on. However, what many of his critics fail to realize is that if they want to destroy Peterson's theory, they really need to attack his Jungianism, not his individualism. This makes many of his critics ineffective because they do not know how to go about attacking Jungianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment