Member-only story
Understanding Jordan Peterson: Why Bother?
Introduction
I was a sophomore psych major at the University of Toronto when I came across Peterson’s 2nd-year elective. It was 2003. The class caught my attention in the course calendar: it had a 90% re-take rate, which meant that nearly every student who took the class would recommend it. Most psych classes were in the 60–70% range. The class blurb mentioned Freud, Jung, Adler and others, so it was also the only psych course that even hinted at self-development psychology, which interested me more than research psychology. I went for it.
I went on to take all of Peterson’s courses between 2003–2006, and I can’t overstate the positive impact they had on my life. Being exposed to his work during those years was so formative that it’s difficult to imagine what kind of person I’d be like if that hadn’t happened. For years after I graduated, I eagerly introduced friends to his work whenever a conversation revealed a mutual glimmer of interest in questions of life, purpose, and what it means to be a human being.
When the Canadian media and (my friend bubble) began to characterize him as transphobic, I didn’t have any reason to doubt them. I assumed the years had taken their toll and turned him into a crusty old bigot. A real shame. But then I got curious: what’s his problem anyway? What is he actually saying?
If his position on Bill C-16 was the point you felt inclined to dismiss him, it’s worth investigating his issue with the law before adding to the slander; examine the content of his criticism, not the fact that he’s critical. His position on the virtue of personal responsibility is not a denial of historical oppression as much as it is his practical advice to every individual — regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or economic status — for how to deal with the real problems they’re facing in their lives.
Peterson’s detractors would have you dismiss him as a deplorable who doesn’t deserve your attention, framing his ideas as either “dangerous” or “bigoted” and his defence of free speech as a secret wink to white supremacy. The idea that he “only speaks for white men” is a narrative that will unravel as soon as you dig a little deeper.
