It turns out Jordan Peterson isn’t just a man of facile deepities, he’s also a man of noisy threats.
Jordan Peterson joins the club of macho writers who have thrown a fit over a bad review.
The New York Review of Books, which is famous for drubbing high-profile authors, was particularly harsh on Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson in a review published online on Monday. Surveying 12 Rules For Life, Peterson’s new book, critic Pankaj Mishra warned that the self-help guru “may seem the latest in a long line of eggheads pretentiously but harmlessly romancing the noble savage,” but that he draws on a tradition of writers like Carl Jung who were prone to—as the headline put it—“fascist mysticism.”
Peterson’s elegant but forceful response:
You arrogant, racist son of a bitch Pankaj Mishra: How dare you accuse me of "harmlessly romancing the noble savage." That's how you refer to my friend Charles Joseph (https://t.co/uF5XV2DVXx), who I've worked with for 15 years? https://t.co/s8fqE1M7D7
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) March 20, 2018
Apart from everything else wrong with that response, there’s the oddity of (apparently) treating “noble savage” literally rather than as a reference to a very familiar literary/philosophical trope originating with Rousseau. Mishra doesn’t mention Charles Joseph, so “That’s how you refer to my friend Charles Joseph?” is mystifying.
Then he expands on the point.
And you call me a fascist? You sanctimonious prick. If you were in my room at the moment, I'd slap you happily. https://t.co/sC3Lc9Hhlu
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) March 20, 2018
Who wouldn’t want to learn timeless wisdom from that guy?
Nesrine Malik pointed out the mismatch:
The dissonance is comical in a Judd Apatow movie kind of way, where a human oxymoron is the punchline. Jordan is The Angry Guru, The Pissed-Off Yogi, The Totally Untogether Psychiatrist. A fragile authority who spends his time dishing it out but just can’t take it. A brittle ego who exhorts his fans to find peace by accepting that life is tough – while losing it completely every time he steps barefoot on a metaphorical piece of Lego. A tragic physician who cannot heal himself. It’s so jarring. Reading Jordan is, according to the writer Hari Kunzru, “like being shouted at by a rugby coach in a sarong”.
How about if Judd Apatow makes him the next Seth Rogen, and then we could all forget about him.
Jordan reminds me of the youngish Muslim preachers who became all the fashion in the Arabic-speaking world after the proliferation of satellite TV in the 90s. They just wanted youth to live a better life by following the simple rules of submission to the natural order of things – the pain was in fighting it. These preachers, always men, and always appealing to other men to shoulder their responsibilities, had the preternatural calm of the faithful but when challenged, the temperament of the hysterical. They derived their status from the hierarchy, and so once it was questioned, they were all fire and brimstone. They had little intrinsic value to offer, and even less original thinking.
I think we’ve found a match!
H/t Maureen
Comments
18 responses to “He’d slap you happily”
Re “…like being shouted at by a rugby coach in a sarong”.
Hee hee. That’s… evocative, that is.
He probably doesn’t know about Rousseau, him being one of the “hey, guys, civilisation started with ME” brigade.
Heh, Andrew, that made me laugh too.
Rugby coach in sarong is also my favourite.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1875786692439783/?type=3&theater
For some reason, Jung failed to notice that one.
In Mishra’s article, it follows:
Apparently Peterson is willfully misunderstanding “noble savage” as a reference to Charles Joseph, for being (I take it?) the artist behind that longhouse. It suggests that Peterson is too angry to read sensibly, or is banking on his cult not knowing a thing about Rousseau so he can smear Mishra as a racist this way. So yeah – not mystifying, so much as grotesquely unfair or an indication that Peterson is a dangerously thin-skinned pseudo-intellectual eager to appeal to force and anger.
And, well, when you’re all that, you’re not impressing anyone when you deny your fascism and then threaten to smack someone over it. Doc, you’ve got all the same fans as Richard Spencer for almost all the same reasons – the only places there aren’t overlap is where they don’t like you being coy about it.
At least Seth Rogen has done some good with his boorish fame—his Hilarity for Charity and other advocacy for Alzheimer’s disease (including giving self-aware, cogent congressional testimony that would likely put Peterson to shame) is more than a worthy cause.
I can see a new updated edition of Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life coming up, rebadged as 13 Rules for Life.
Guess what Rule 13 might be.
(Hint: it could well be based on this farcical fiasco.)
@ 7 – Huh, I didn’t know that. Well done him. A credit to the Seths!
What has Seth Rogan done that was boorish? I only know him from his acting in movies I don’t watch.
Oh wow, those tweets certainly come across as those of a rational thinker who stands up tall with his shoulders back.
…and his hair on fire.
Also, perhaps, his pants.
Holms: Seth Rogen’s style of humour is undeniably juvenile and crude, and though I have certainly enjoyed it in doses, I don’t think calling it ‘boorish’ is too insulting. It’s about the only attribute I can think of that would liken him to Jordan Peterson, as well, who manages at once to be boorish *and* boring, with the comedy incidental and quite unintentional.
Like most people, Rogen’s charity work is not entirely altruistic—he was made aware of the ravages of Alzheimer’s, and the general apathy of those who might shepherd a cure, by watching a close family member succumb to the disease. (His father in law, if memory serves.) But his work on the subject has done far more good for the world than Peterson’s whiny appeals to Patreon and his flimsy threats against people who don’t like him.
Would he enjoy the review of “12 Rules” in Private Eye (No. 1463, p. 32)?
“His substantial new book is the work of many years’ serious thinking and aims to give rules for life for those people unlucky enough to have been born less intelligent than Prof Peterson, which is to say pretty much everyone. … It’s pretty much a hair shirt in book form. … In general, though, the book throbs with the dilithium-crystal-powered warp engines of Prof Peterson’s vast learning. …” (that’s enough, Ed)
I haven’t read the book.
A colleague, a woman whose analytical skills I respect, recommended one of his lectures (Jun 4, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GKmznaqsQ). To me it seems in some respects Stoic and strives to be scientific. I’m ready to be corrected.
Eeeyeah, not so fast https://thewalrus.ca/the-story-behind-jordan-petersons-indigenous-identity/
If he really does choose his words carefully, then this claim doesn’t look so good on him.
I recommend the NYRB take on Peterson:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/
This resonates mightily IMHO with Trump’s “make America great again” slogan, which itself is a reference to the period between Hiroshima (1945) and the fall of Saigon (1975): only 30 years of American “greatness”, followed by over 40 years of apparent floundering, and of being overhauled economically by Japan and now Trump’s bete noir, China.
But to his credit, Trump personally made a great contribution to the effort bring about an American victory in Vietnam. This he did by getting himself a series of draft deferments, and staying right out of the conflict.
Omar, that’s the review Peterson is fuming about in the tweets of the OP.
Lady M:
Right.
Thanks