A few remarks on Jordan Peterson and masculinity

Can you separate someone’s intellectual production from their behaviours, ethics, and stances?

Well, I have long argued that the answer is yes, we can and should do that. But recently I started to question my position driven by my opinion of Professor Jordan Peterson (JP). I still believe that JP’s work on psychology is very important and accessible but how do I ignore the fact that the one who penned such excellent works is drifting deep into demagogy? How do I trust the intellectual production of someone who resorts to populism to strengthen his position in an imagined ideological battle? Currently, JP seems determined to become an online superstar by pleasing a crowd of emotionally and ideologically charged young males. It is not easy to see an intellectual you once admired transforming into a right-wing ‘a**-kisser’.

I am not saying that JP’s works have suddenly become rubbish, but I can’t help but distance myself from his work especially his most recent research and public lectures. In fact, I do share with JP some of his concerns regarding the hegemonic tendencies and claims to righteousness coming from the left end of the ideological spectrum, but I believe he’s been blinded by populism and driven by his desire for fame.

This is one part of the story. The other part is that we need to realise that JP is only one among many scholars, influencers, and activists who are attempting to fill an intellectual/ideological gap by galvanising a large stratum of young white males. These youngsters believe that they are being intentionally disempowered or at least neglected by a growing apologetic liberal discourse that demonises masculinity and seeks to undermine the foundations of traditional social institutions, including the family. Unless the needs and fears of this stratum are recognised, the likes of Peterson will always find mobs to mobilise and step over to become online icons and superstars. Of course, addressing this stratum should not mean abandoning freedom of choice or altering the meaning of equality. Instead, such efforts should disentangle masculinity from toxic masculinity, highlight the benefits of equity, and emphasise that equity and meritocracy don’t necessarily clash.