On the re-education of Jordan Peterson: Trying to make sense of it and figure out if we should care.

“Peterson will listen to his inner daimōn (conscience/intuition) and face his accusers. In a sense, we may get to see Socrates trailed anew for the crime of corrupting our youth.”

In the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.
David Foster Wallace

All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts.

William Shakespeare

Setting the stage

In his January 4th editorial Jordan Peterson, the internationally acclaimed psychologist, states that his fight with the Ontario College of Psychology should concern everyone. Is that true? Should we care? Even if we are somewhat concerned, will we show it? We Canadians are known for apathy: taxes are high, c’est la vie; government scandals erupt, we collectively sigh, forget, and re-elect the rascals a year or two later. It’s part of our national personality to not rock the boat. Although, in certain areas, hockey for example, we obviously do care and wear our hearts on our sleeves. And in politics, there is a thin red line that should not be crossed; the Freedom Convoy in 2022 demonstrated that only so much infringement of civil liberties will be tolerated before Canadians make themselves heard (and spurn others in other countries to protest in turn).

Those are however special cases. Hockey touches our national identity – every country needs to be good in at least one arena (ours happens to be an actual arena). And the trucker’s protest was about (among other things) a large group of working class people we depend upon being impacted by an overarching measures that impacted their ability to put food on the table. This however, is one man’s fight against an administrative body. And he is a highly successful man to boot. In a country that suffers from the tall poppy syndrome, that alone makes it likely that only devout followers of Peterson and ardent conservatives will take notice. Those that find his opinions on the social and political front offensive, will revel when the disciplinary actions against him are finally delivered.

So, what exactly is the case for paying attention and voicing an opinion? To begin, we cannot ignore the fact that Peterson came into the public eye on a broad scale after speaking out against bill C-16 (now law). It is obvious, that if he protested when the Canadian government decided they could tell him (read: us) what to say, he will oppose the College now trying to tell him what not to say. To be precise, they prescribe re-education, suggesting he also needs to be told what to think. We all know that the re-education sessions are never going to happen. A ferocious opponent of ideology, Peterson will fight the corrective measured being imposed upon him tooth-and-nail. Peterson is witty and draws from a wealth of knowledge: he will throw out zingers that appease the pubic, even if they do nothing for his case (it has been pre-determined by the College anyways). From that perspective, there is definite entertainment value in the fight. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Your attention however, is a precious commodity, multinational conglomerates fight for it all day long. Why devote any of it to what is essentially a fixed fight, for we can safely predict what will happen here. To predict the future, we need only take a look at what happened six years ago when Peterson spoke out against bill C-16. In that case, most people came for politics, but stayed for his rules for living. His psychology lectures skyrocketed in popularity as a consequence of the attention and wrote bestselling books and grew his media presence. It would be reasonable to assume that his licence will be revoked and he will gain even more notoriety, not just in matters psychological and social as is the case now, but in the political realm as well, as a proponent of free speech. Unfettered by the pesky administrative complaints of the College, he will devote more of his attention to his media presence and speak out wherever and whenever he sees fit. For their short-term pains, the College will get rid of a persistent source of complaints. This is good for them, they would be better served (and the public in turn) to employ their resources to investigate valid complaints laid against practicing professionals instead; after all, that would seem to be their raison d’être. From that point of view, the struggle between the Ontario College of Psychology and Jordan Peterson is a no-brainer. This could be much ado about nothing and a divorce would seem to be the obvious and easiest way out for both.

Yet Peterson is not rolling over or relinquishing his licence voluntarily (even if he no longer uses it). Of course, to some extent, expulsion from the College impacts his reputation, it is therefore natural that he defends himself. However, he claims that something extending beyond his personal fate is at stake here. In fact, he claims that it impacts us all. Thus, he has chosen to challenge the measures being imposed upon him, and since he is doing it on our behalf that is reason alone to know why and decide if we should pay attention.

The cast

Before we examine what he said and why it puts his licence in jeopardy, the first thing we must understand (the College included) is that there are several Jordan Petersons. I am not suggesting that he has multiple personalities, but that he plays several roles. Of course, we all do, some personal and others professional, the key thing here is that he plays several professional roles.
First, there is the clinical psychologist. Although the role of practitioner is one he no longer assumes, it is one he earned. Then there is the professor and researcher. It is these two Jordan Petersons that gave us Rules for Life. In his role as a professor he has provided engaging lectures and books about leading a life of purpose, confronting the challenges and vicissitudes of life voluntarily, and tipping the scales in your life from anxiety and conformity to courage and authenticity. This message is artfully delivered using mythology, religion, history, movies, literature, and anecdotes that captivates audiences and fills auditoriums. This is the Peterson that usually gets curated into motivational clips on YouTube. (To be fully transparent, I wrote a book that pays homage to the psychological ideas that Peterson promulgates).

However, the line between psychology and sociology is nebulous for species as social as ours; we desperately want to belong, are obsessed with status, and are prone to mimicry. The crowd influences the individual and vice versa. One could ask if sociology is anything more than psychology on a grand scale and if psychology is in large part sociology on an individual scale. In fact, Peterson came to psychology through a preoccupation with social phenomenon. He was drawn to by questioning how the world could bring itself to the brink of annihilation during the Cold War and how the terrible atrocities of last century such as the holocaust came to transpire. This investigation into collective phenomena led him to focus on the individual and become a psychologist. It is this social and cultural aspect of his work that is part of his appeal; the way Peterson bridges the gap between the interpersonal-social world and our internal world draws many to him. His lectures speak of how societies at large mediate between order and chaos and how personal and social values shape our destinies. This adds a dimension to his work that is highly educative and unique.

Thus, Peterson the psychology professor is also Peterson the sociologist. This third role is a natural extension of the former. He explores these interrelated domains, and many connected to them, such as environment, business and innovation, and political issues, to name but a few, as part of his role as an educator in the psychological-social domain. His curiosity is boundless and many follow him for it. However, within this third role he plays one that many university professors, journalists, or keen societal observers also assume, that is the role of a public intellectual. He draws upon his expertise and knowledge to comment on how social trends are impacting us and where they lead us. It is in this capacity that his views cause consternation to those who would rather that dissenting opinions or caution of any sorts not be voiced.

A tale of two universities

Peterson’s conflict brings to mind a recent case where a psychology professor at Mount Allison University was suspended for comments made outside of work (personal blog). Apparently, it was problematic for some that she claimed that there is no systemic racism in Canada. This despite the fact that it is difficult to see how the opinion could relate to her teaching. Ironically, less than a year after Peterson interviewed the said professor on his podcast (Episode 174), he himself is subject to similar treatment: sanctioned with scant explanation of how his statements are related to his professional role – the existence of a complaint seems to be sufficient grounds for levying corrective measures.

It is hard not to see why the Mount Allison professor would not hesitate to state her personal opinion, we must presume that she thought she was in a country where it is safe to do so. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Canada is among the most democratic nations in the world, even above the U.S., which is often held-up as a bastion of democracy for all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index). We learn from this see that celebrating any progress in these matters is taboo.

The treacherous ground the social justice movement has created is further illustrated through the case of another university professor, this time at the University of Ottawa, who unwittingly caused a stir for her use of the ‘n’ word. Apparently, she was demonstrating that certain offensive terms can be re-appropriated and rendered inoffensive under certain circumstances. Her misjudgment was thinking that a pedagogical context would be the type of circumstance context and intent mattered. That she did not use the term in a disparaging manner or with intent to harm was unimportant, just like at Mount Allison, and just like with Peterson, as long as someone was uncomfortable there was an uproar.

[I personally find it difficult to explain the new social norms to older generations. A typical ‘elucidation’ goes something like this: It is of course still wrong to falsely accuse someone of being a bigot, as it always was, but it is equally wrong for us all not to accuse society at large of systemic racism. Everyone is at fault but you the accuser, who has naturally expunged any and all biases form their thinking. However, since we are at once part of society, we are counted among the offenders and thus guilty by association. So, we are innocent and guilty at once. Which is starting to give me headache, so please stop asking. Just accuse no one and everyone at the same time, and vociferously denounce anyone who questions or denounces any of this, and you will be absolved of any guilt-by-association for the sins of your predecessors, you will be safe (for now). (I’m exaggerating slightly for effect here, although I think the point is clear that something is going on that is not always easy to fully comprehend and comply with, even among those that are well-intentioned.)]

Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and university professor, who also is a public intellectual, offers some insights into the social justice phenomenon we are observing. On his recent appearance on the Tim Ferriss podcast (episode 644) he explains how the current cohort of university students has grown-up with social media. More importantly, he outlines how once relatively closed social networks have shifted into media ‘platforms’ over the last decade, encouraging people to make viral statements that are shared en masse. Thus, an aspect of performance has come to the forefront of our communications and expressing outrage became more common. A useful analogy that comes to mind would be a soccer player turning a minor bump into a spectacular dive that captures the attention of the referee. Add to the mix that many live in filter bubbles where we are increasingly exposed to a single point of view, that view of the world gets drilled into our minds and anything anomalous creates much cognitive dissonance. Moreover, given that status comes with a righteous stance, we can understand the incentives to react so vociferously to any potential slight.

Through these examples, I am not suggesting that prejudices and racial or derogatory slurs should be tolerated, nor am I suggesting that nothing is off limits as to what we can and cannot say outside of a professional context. I am not even arguing that systematic bias does or does not exist, for we all know that we are by nature fraught with biases that we must acknowledge and confront. The existence or not of injustices is a separate issue, it’s the integrity of the informal ‘justice’ system that is a concern. My concern is how we deal with the problem. Using the soccer example, the issue is not the players, rather, it’s the impartiality of the referees.

In these cases, just as in Peterson’s case with the College, what is difficult to adjust to and accept for many is the fact that the moment you hurt someone’s feelings or say something contrary to the popular thesis, you are presumed to be guilty as charged. The definition of what is inappropriate to say and where is difficult to discern and penalizing and intimidating the ‘offenders’ regardless of intent (the legal concept, Mens rea, comes to mind) cultivates a climate of fear that may work contrary to the conciliation we seek. If accusation becomes the reflexive reaction we jump to the step of judging without first investigating. When we forego due process, both the accuser and the accused forego an opportunity to scour their conscience determine, respectfully, if they are guilty of malicious intent or if they actually have been wronged. Even in cases where there is some untoward actions, each loses the opportunity to negotiate an amicable settlement and thus learn and do better next time. Given that we are tribal and biased by nature, if there is a public hanging after every and any error, how can we negotiate a way forward? Who will be left to negotiate with? Our whole common-law system is based upon this idea of adaptation and evolution as the context changes. As Sam Harris, another prominent public intellectual, states in an eloquent essay on these matters, those who overreact to the use of certain words without consideration of the context are “morally unprepared to solve real problems in our world. And any culture that takes this attitude is morally unprepared to solve real problems too.” (Sam Harris podcast, episode 273)

It is this question of context that makes Peterson’s case preoccupying and worthy of our attention, as it is symptomatic of the cultural disintegration. His challenge to the authority of the College to regulate all of his public conduct is important, as the leap from his social and political commentaries to their mandate that is hard to make. The College’s mandate is “monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology.” In Ontario of course. On this front Peterson has astutely claimed that the issues being raised do not relate to his work with clients. He hasn’t seen any clients for years. Participating in social media and commenting on social or political trend is certainly not psychological counselling. He did not require any certification from them to post his lectures on YouTube or engage with the public, it was obtained to be a practitioner. His re-education is not going to ensure the safety of anyone seeking psychological care as he is not practicing psychology. From this angle, it would seem that the College could have, perhaps should have dismissed the complaints. The case supporting their actions seems spurious at best, at its core it suggests that one can be accused and prosecuted of malpractice without even practicing. This is a formidable leap of logic.

Nonetheless, I think we must assume that the College has their counsel and is acting upon advice that suggests that that they do have reason to consider these complaints. They argue that Peterson is a representative of the profession, even when he is not proffering individual psychological advice of any sort, does have certain ethical standards to respect. So, to employ an oft employed phrase of Peterson’s, let’s give the devil his due and presume they are correct to consider his broader role. Is he poorly representing the profession?

That he is very popular is undeniable, his material on psychology and sociology has made him arguably the most popular psychologist in the world at the moment. 15 million followers could vote with their feet tomorrow, but they are not. One could certainly argue that on a net basis he has likely done more to popularize the profession and the benefits that this relatively new science has to bring us. The complaints are few compared to the millions that appreciate his advice; perhaps to the order of 90 to 10 or even 99 to 1. That being said, we must be accountable for every single thing we do (although it remains to be seen if he is, or should be, accountable to them for everything). So what exactly are they asking him to be accountable for? Below I outline some of the main ‘offenses’ and provide a critique of them. I am at times harsh with Peterson, which is hard to do as he is the subject (you could say hero) of my latest book.

[It may be a faux pas in the eyes of some Peterson fans to make a public declaration that he could have behaved better. Since they are the ones most likely to pick-up my book, I should refrain. However, ‘fan’ is short for fanatic, and there will be some on each side, those unwilling to entertain the thought that Peterson could improve upon his approach, and those unwilling to accept that he could do any good; and they will scream ‘cancel’ regardless. That should not stop the rest of us from using our heads and speaking our truth. Which I can safely say is what Peterson would urge us to do. I do so knowing that thoughtful fans of his will appreciate the attempt to form a balanced perspective, as well as my candor and humor. Moreover, it is safe to assume that his followers are not amongst the social justice types and thus accept that few if any of us can make a claim to moral purity and thus are not beyond any critique. Or, maybe I’m mistaken, maybe it’s the public at large I should fear. Since he is crucified for every critical comment, so it will be with me? I am not drumming a different tune than those hammering on the social justice drum as I sort this out…? No, on second thought, that’s highly unlikely: since I’m slightly critical of Peterson, and he is reprehensible and thus open game, it will be just fine. Fire at will.]

Plot tweets

Four of the complaints against him are political comments. That political statements are found among the list of complaints is very concerning. On one level, citizens should not be reporting anyone for voicing a political opinion or make a political joke. And the College should not waste any time with those that do. If anyone with a professional licence or job becomes fearful to speak out against public policy or government because anyone at all within whatever organization they work or associate with may not agree, then what kind of a democracy do we live in? That being said, a few of those were unnecessarily harsh. Anyone that follows him knows that his comments in this arena are driven by his concern regarding the ideologies that animate those that he’s critical of, but it would be much, much, better for him and everyone if he would attack the ideology rather than the person captured by it. As a psychologist, he knows about ego, he knows very well that people will defend their ideas tooth-and-nail rather than question them, especially when both the idea and their ego are being attacked. Also, as one whose ideas have led to him being personally defamed – attacking the person directly unnecessarily polarizes the debate. It might be good for business, but it is bad for his reputation. If we need public intellectuals, then that is bad for us overall as it weakens his message. Many fans of his would ask him to exercise caution to not stoop to the level of his critics. He can outwit them and should stay on higher ground.

Other statements are offensive to some because they go against prevailing ideologies. In all cases, he is clearly acting as a public intellectual, offering a social critique. For example, on the Joe Rogan podcast Peterson associated the uptrend in people identifying as transgender as a result of a “contagion” and similar to “the satanic ritual abuse accusations that emerged in day cares in the 1980s.” This is not psychological advice, individual or broadly speaking. It is social commentary. He is asking to what extent people are being genuine or simply mimicking others due to social pressure to be ‘progressive’ or simply ‘belong’. He is asking if the excessive attention to gender identities we see (which undoubtedly has positive and progressive components for a few) is moving forward in a way conducive to the health of the population as a whole. It is understandable that the comparison to the past trend can disturb some, but only if one misreads it as a characterization of the participants rather than a characterization of the social phenomenon. Is the College reacting to a complaint in the manner that has become customary when one claims that they find something offensive? Are they asking is questioning psychological motivations is a valid thing for a psychologist to do? If the former, that would be unfortunate. Is it even feasible to think that our institutions could make the airwaves ‘safe’ for every single one of us?

There are three tweets that he sent that do the same as the above, he makes a social comment. The issues he touches upon – environment, body image, and gender dysphoria – and the sensitivity around them make it certain that one will provoke people no matter what. However, there is an additional problem. Just like with the questionable political tweets, he responds to or singles out an individual and thus adds an element of perceived insult to the injury. Even if directed at the population as a whole, or his followers, tweets are often perceived as a private communication between individuals made public (as creatures addicted to gossip we love nothing more than to be eyewitnesses to a good spat). In this context, a discouraging comment (to an individual, even if directed at the crowd) by a prominent psychologist is regrettable, even if the intent, in whole or in part, is the protection of many more.

Anyone who follows him knows that his terse response to a question expressing concern over the collective environmental footprint of an increasing and increasingly industrialized world population is an invitation to consider the larger issue of the moral implications of halting the economic progress of developing nations. Within the expansive context of his podcasts he has made this argument in a much more erudite way. It is a snarky remark and it is unbecoming of a public intellectual interested in debate to dismiss it so casually. It could have been done better. The same can be said of the tweet with respect to a gender-transformed actor. Followers know that it is a warning respecting the potential damage that the gender dysphoria craze is causing and how lopsided positive media towards transformation may have negative consequences for many. The tweet does not get the point across to anyone without this context and is problematic.

Finally, his tweet regarding a Swimsuit Illustrated (SI) cover is the most surprising of the bunch. First, because SI exists for one reason only, to sell magazines. Breaking from tradition of the slender supermodel on the cover was a great way to attract attention. It’s a cunning move, either they gain praise for being socially progressive, or, even better, some ‘genius’ calls them out and thus grant them copious free publicity. That Peterson would deliver for them is shocking. Perhaps it shows how one’s IQ can drop a few dozen points when on a platform that trends towards short pithy statements composed on the spot [Elon liked it so much he bought the company. Perhaps it does him a little good to think at the level the rest of us do from time to time…]. In this case, Peterson’s obsession with truth and his call out of the magazine’s attempt to appease the social justice movement explains the comment. However, it does not in my opinion excuse it. It’s a personal opinion that need not be made public. Celebrating excess weight in the midst of an obesity epidemic may not be a net positive, but it is not entirely negative as well, the traditional covers have their pros (presenting an ideal) and cons (an unattainable ideal for most) in terms of their impact on individual health and personal psychology as well. Painting it as either black or white with a few impulsive words plays handily to SI’s move and does little to point us in the right direction.

The problematic tweets are unfortunate because Peterson does much justice to complex and sensitive issues like this when he brings his curiosity and academic rigor to the table on platforms conducive to true dialogue. The acerbic nature of them are also perplexing to many fans as his capacity for pithy and insightful statements usually leads to helpful comments; moreover, he publicly displays a surprising amount of vulnerability and compassion towards people in most situations.
His recent podcast with a gender-transitioned adolescent (episode 319) is recommended listening to anyone who is interested in this issue in any way or struggling with their physical appearance. Although an interview and not counselling, Peterson treats the youth respectfully, is compassionate about her suffering, and provides a wealth of evidence-based educational material to young people confused about gender and body image. Most importantly, he brings to our attention evidence that suggests that the majority of dysphoric youth settle into their biology by the end of adolescence. It is critical that someone brings this type of information to the pubic forum. In the aforementioned tweet he sounds categorical, he assumes he knows what camp this actor falls within, and it therefore does a disservice to him and to his message. In the dialogue, the alternative and cautionary view comes to the fore much more effectively.

If we remember McLuhan’s famous insight, “the medium is the message,” by engaging on social and political issues using certain media and methods, Peterson risks implicitly sending a message that we can say all we need to about these complex issues with short and simple one-liners. More accurately, rather than communicating his message, he is amplifying an already loud and clear signal (albeit false) about how we should engage with ideas. By doing so, he undermines his ultimate argument for a civilized debate that explores the realm of possible solutions. Of course, he has a wealth of long-form content; unfortunately, that is not what detractors will study and use to get a complete picture of his positions. It is a difficult position to be in: If one refrains from using pithy and polarizing posts in popular media, one brings no attention to their warnings, yet, if one does, one engages in a dangerous game where one gets pummeled if the missive misses the mark (as it is wont to do). The only advice I could offer (for what it’s worth) is: quality over quantity (of people reached), stick to long-form, and, if he does go with the popular channels, proceed with extreme caution.

Denouement

Overall, looking at the complaints outlined here, none have anything to do with practicing as a clinical psychologist. If everything he says in any context is fair game for assessing how he represents the profession (the hypothesis I am exploring here, and the College sems to have assumed), three brief comments warrant some attention. If taken as personal advice provided by a psychologist (although it is obvious they are not counselling) to an individual, they present obvious problems. As taken as statements about the psyche of the population by a public intellectual, one could argue how effective they are, it does however becomes more difficult for anyone to argue that his views are completely or consistently unfounded or inappropriate. Unpopular should not equate to unwelcome in a functional democracy. As with the two university cases described, context matters. The College does not seem to be taking into consideration that Peterson plays many roles, and all of these statements are made as a public intellectual commenting on social issues. This is two steps removed from his role as a clinical psychologist.

By presenting Peterson as one person playing multiple roles I am not trying to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card. That would be too easy: it would be an out that could be employed in all contexts. Even as a public intellectual, I would say that Peterson may have some ground to give. He knows all too well the power of words and ideas. Be precise in your speech is an injunction to express your ideas but also to articulate them clearly. Acerbic tweets that must be explained and put into context afterwards do nothing of the sort. Moreover, as a psychologist steeped in theories of personality, he also knows that our temperaments differ. Some of us can have their idea torn apart and come out unscathed as nothing more than a defective pattern of thought gets disrupted – ideally, replaced by a better one. Some get thrown into a state of chaos or uncertainty that they tolerate well. Others suffer tremendous blows to their ego when their ideas are attacked. There are also those among us that are more prone to heed authority figures. His stature in the media gives him much power, and with that comes great responsibility. More consideration of broader public reception might be in order in circumstances such as those outlined. It would also make it appealing for others to come to his defense.

Notwithstanding that, becoming so careful and so nuanced that your words have no meaning is not a viable option. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is not a solution – for any public intellectual. In fact, public intellectuals should be doing the opposite (at least in open democratic and progressive societies). The chain is only as strong as its weakest link – stifling public debate will only weaken us all.

[My unsolicited advice on walking this fine line would be: If one would not say it to someone in person, then don’t do it on any social media platform either. If you have something to say, direct people to a place where thoughtful arguments can be made and constructive dialogue can occur.]

Peterson’s own advice to one who finds themselves embroiled in a conflict or in a chaotic situation would be, “Sit alone for a moment, on the end of your bed perhaps, and ask, what part of this
situation, no matter how small, was of my own doing?” Perhaps he has already taken his own advice. Not only has he not re-offended on Twitter for several months (as far as I know), he has allowed his friends to share a critique of his tweets and offer him some advice on these matters publicly (episode 282). The latter shows an openness to dialogue and critique, something many public personalities could and should do but lack the courage to do. In fact, when we listen to that discussion we get a hint of him struggling with the many roles he plays – Peterson-the-public-intellectual defends his statements as valid on the social level. There are also hints that in he was so absorbed in that role that he hadn’t fully processed the statements as something the public may see as psychological opinions. Again, this does not excuse it, it only underscores that the lines are blurry, which emphasizes the need to need to discuss it find a negotiated solution.

[Many on-air psychologists have a disclaimer after their podcasts that remind listeners that they are having public discussions and not proffering psychological advice. Even if this is obvious to most, and especially in the case of Peterson, who advertises his background as a professor. Nonetheless, this may be a strategy that Peterson may wish to consider.]

On one level, we see him valiantly attempting to slay a giant ideology that bullies people to submit to it or suffer the shame of being cast as morally corrupt, warning that the ideological bent could be perilous for us all in the long run. From a public relations perspective, we also see that he seems to struggle to grasp that the larger public might see him as Goliath rather than David – a man with a large following and a formidable intellect, pouncing on others during their moment in the sun.

It is precise this issue of exactly who is the giant and who is holding the slingshot that is likely to be most difficult in gaining supporters for his cause: those among us who pay attention to the societal debate either squarely sides with the ideological giant or are fearful of it. Alternately, those that are oblivious to it, may see him as the giant bully. In both cases, it is cased closed before it even gets its day in court; most have already decided who the hero and the villain are and how the story should end. How many of us will go beyond the superficial and grasp the understory and the relevance it may have in our society and in our lives?

Tragedy of the commons

By keeping this story superficial, a David and Goliath tale rather than a collective quest for truth, it becomes a tragedy. Possibly, for us all. Quest and question derives from the Latin word quaerere: ask, seek. This is what is most troublesome about this situation. Peterson’s podcast with his friends about his use of media shows us that the only dialogue about what is the appropriate use of social media by someone playing many roles simultaneously is going on between the various Peterson’s rather than between him and the institution.

If the College was to take Peterson’s advice and contemplate their motives and their reaction to the situation, would they come to the conclusion that they are fulfilling their mandate towards the public and their members? There is a line to be drawn somewhere. By throwing the book at Peterson, all complaints, political included, is the College showing the due diligence of attempting to precisely outline how and when they expect a representative to act and in what contexts one can and is playing a different role entirely. The College doesn’t seem to need to investigate those types of questions, if they’ve probed this question, they already have the answers. They are not sharing how they came to their conclusions. All we know is what they conclude: Peterson requires re-education.
How far does their reach as a regulating body extend? Do members really represent the profession at all times – even when one was employed as a university professor and scientist (public intellectuals by definition)? Is the board the arbitrator of their members actions in all contexts? If things he said while teaching psychology were troublesome, would it have been their job or the University’s to intervene? If Peterson or another member who is also a researcher comes to a conclusion in the context of a scientific study that they do not appreciate, would that too be fair game? Can a psychology practitioner also be a public intellectual and make broad social commentary as well? If he decided to moonlight as a plumber and made some comment about the state of society that ran against their conception of the world, or even if he said something they found insulting, would that be grounds to take his licence away? Why is a conversation with Joe Rogan any different (Joe was not getting advice publicly, nor did he, as the interlocutor, complain)?

[But I could be wrong, we must consider the ‘representation’ justification for argument’s sake. Perhaps there is something to this idea? Take for example politics, there’s another domain where we know for sure they are all the same, or, at least, many are poorly representing the profession. Surely, some top-to-bottom house-cleaning would be welcome there. Thus, maybe we should extend the idea? Maybe we should form a Royal College of Politicians. Since we are also incapable of tuning into and tuning out those voices of our own accord, the Grand Poobah of that organization can relieve us of this terrible burden and ensure that our choices are pure.]

Would they treat a practicing psychologist with no history of complaints by clients to the same treatment and thus deprive him or her of their livelihood? Does Peterson get special treatment because he is financially independent and not currently using the licence?

Furthermore, even if they have valid reasons to disagree with his views and statements, even on psychological matters, why is removal of his licence the solution? Would a public statement dissociating the College from his opinions be insufficient? And If you or I wanted treatment by Peterson (some will say that by questioning all this I may need it) and he agreed to provide it, why would they be allowed to deny it to us? (I guess, the obvious answer is that all psychologists are the same and any one still holding a licence will do, thus they are not denying us anything.) All told, are they combing their conscience to ask if they are doing what is best for the long-term psychological health of us all or simply doing what is easy instead of what is right? I’m not accusing, I’m just asking, we must investigate, they must investigate these questions.

The College would do well to follow the lead of the University of Ottawa. In the abovementioned case, rather than come down hard on their professor or alienate their students by dismissing their complaints, they steeped back and investigated the issue in order to find a workable solution. In short, they used the crisis as an opportunity to open a constructive dialogue and find a way to strike a balance between their educational mandate and showing sensitivity to the concerns of students. One could argue against this approach and say that education should not be a safe space, after all, what has anyone learned by not stepping out of their comfort zone? On the other hand, the students are young, and society has taught them to react this way; perhaps only by meeting where they are is there any chance of reaching them and finding a place where education can evolve and eventually equip them to learn to question, to seek, rather than accuse or profess. This is the way I’d like to see this case play out, there are many questions that are being sidestepped.

True crime

This question of accusation, of who did it, is at the core of the problem here. And, if we look closely at the situation, we are not merely bystanders, we are more likely to be perpetrators, accomplices, or the next victim. The real issue, the one that impacts us all, centers around the unbridled reach of institutions as the arbitrator of the public good. And it impacts us in three ways.

First, and most obviously, we all play many roles in life. The reach of regulatory bodies and employers into the realm of personal values, beliefs, and freedom of expression, is especially concerning given the complicated nature of the new and ‘correct’ desired behaviours. (As I outlined above, it’s not always obvious what is the right behaviour, even to the well-intentioned.) How much influence should institutions and our employers have outside the bounds of the official functions for which we are renumerated? In the case of a supposed transgression, will we be provided an opportunity to make our case? Or is the simple fact that someone claims to be offended or that someone proclaims themselves a victim evidence enough to convict us? Will the context and intent of our gestures be taken into consideration? In brief, can we have a conversation? It seems like this is a question of picking our poison. Our choice is between being fearful of speaking and of being shouted-down if we accidentally make a transgression or question the status quo in any way, or, we can be fearful of the kind of society we will have if we are no longer able to engage in constructive dialogue about our collective values.

Second, can we have some privacy please? In 1967 Canadians applauded vigorously when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stated that “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” as the government repealed outdated socially conservative laws that criminalized homosexuality. Now, it would seem that social liberalism has come full circle and brought the state back in the bedroom; what was private – our cultural identity, gender, and sexual preferences – have suddenly become public and professional matters again. After decades of fighting to make these aspects irrelevant to our decision making processes they suddenly hyper-relevant. Where the state had no business, they are now the champions of intervention, using equity and commitment to it to shape the values and the face of our public institutions. Public institutions (universities and regulating bodies) and private companies (like the Ontario College of physicians) have followed suit. I don’t know if we invited them in, if we let them step in, but it seems like the obsession with identity has degenerated into a party – the state, institutions, employers, and us have are all in these four walls and baring it all.
Third, are we guilty of an excess of pride? Greek playwright Sophocles reminds us “All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.” Much like Peterson’s brand of psychology, what applies at the level of the individual also applies at the level of the state. Lao Tzu made this observation over two thousand years ago:

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.

The prerequisite here is of course that we have permission to indicate that there may be a fault line somewhere. It seems that Peterson is targeted on these matters not for what he is, it is for what he is not. Rather than celebrating the progress the diversity, inclusion, and equity movement, he has questioned it, he is telling us that we may be on shaky ground. His fundamental message, if I dare distill it, is yes to raising the status of women and minorities, and anyone without equal opportunities, just not by tearing down others; educate and edify the individual (this is a fundamental reason why the ‘mean tweets’ do not serve his aims as a public intellectual). An analogy is useful here: A parent who only has guilt and shame in their toolbox for disciplining their child, who does not primarily resort to faith and encouragement, will not raise a healthy child able to function properly in the world. Likewise, we will not have a healthy society if we focus on group identity and burden ourselves only with negative feedback and discouragement.

On matters of social equity, Peterson’s fundamental question is if we are conflating equal opportunity with equality of outcomes. Are we imposing equality rather than opposing barriers to equality? Along the way are we neglecting that merit will ultimately be determined by skills and temperamental aspects such as interests rather than superficial markers of diversity. Is this forced diversity going to lead to improved governance of our organizations and institutions?

As one who has worked in the fields of environment and social governance all my career, I have a certain understanding for the thrust to diversify the faces holding various positions; for we must not also forget that our species is one that claims to be rational yet is fraught with cognitive biases. We often mistake correlation for causation, there is therefore some merit to the approach of equality of outcomes, lest we infer that a lack of certain groups in certain positions of status as a sign of inability. Yet, that approach does not come without a host of challenges, abuses, and unintended consequences as well. If we question it we might come up with a more robust concept of diversity (ie. personality or cognitive style rather than the defunct notion of race). Would this not align well with the intended aim? In sum, I would state that most of the population recognizes, accepts, and welcomes the fact that we may need to make our differences matter to some extent so that they eventually won’t matter at all. The thing we are increasingly wondering is to what extent and ‘are we there yet?’ Some even ask if we’re going so far as to get back to where we began.

The questions being asked are not about the virtue underpinning the intention as it is at its core good, rather, it is about the real-world impacts. Pierre Trudeau said that ““…in the long run a democracy is judged by the way the majority treats the minority.” One could argue that Canada has adopted that as a guiding principle and to some extent we measure our success by this yardstick. The diversity D.I.E. movement certainly adheres to this philosophy and has had considerable success popularizing diversity as a measure of progress. This is where we risk going astray, for incentives, measurements, and outcomes, are related but different things. Every management practitioner or student knows the mantra, “what gets measured gets managed.” It would however be prudent to realize that the mantra did not come from eminent management scholar, Peter Drucker, the meme is likely a journalist’s summary of the work of another academic, V.F. Ridgway. We would be well served to read that summary: “What gets measured gets managed — even when it’s pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organisation to do so.” And, we would do well to go a step further and read Ridgway: He tells us that “indiscriminate use [of measures] may result in side effects and reactions outweighing the benefits (…) The cure is sometimes worse than the disease.” In brief, a target is a great thing to motivate action, we must also be careful not to mistake a numerical target as the thing is a proxy of. If stock price becomes the measure of a company’s performance the incentive may lead to cooked books. If we want to increase monthly profits, that can be easily done: reduce quality to boost margins. It works until the brand has no value in the eyes of customers. The question that should be asking is if choosing a narrow measurement of diversity or a singular approach is missing the mark. For example, Peterson is asking if a no-questions-asked approach to gender transformation is getting us the measures we want on the social scorecard but blinding us to a health outcome that might matter more.

The same argument can be made on most issues he is making noise about. Through his podcasts, Peterson lets his curiosity investigate diverse opinions. It is to be avoided by those who already have the answers or who would rather not entertain a new idea. But those new ideas can change opinions. On matters of environment, before listening to the experts Peterson has brought forward I think I could safely say that I had bought, holus-bolus, the narrative that we are in a crises and that de-industrialization was the only solution. The subversive idea that industrialization, while an important source of the problem, could also be the solution, has been an eye-opener that has expanded my approach to this issue. On issues such as gender dysphoria he is not saying that it does not exist, or is not a problem for those suffering, he is asking if we are we ignoring the psychological studies? Overall, the questions that Peterson is asking do warrant consideration. They are complicated questions and simplistic approaches may not be the best tools to tackle them with. As one diversity advocate states: “No diversity means no variance in response to new challenges; means one solution (likely the wrong one) to every problem.” (Jordan Peterson in Maps of Meaning). It is only with a range of options that we can find optimal paths forward. In theory, we need only find the right theory and put it in practice. In practice, we need to test multiple theories to find that which works best in practice. But for that to occur, we need to allow a multitude of theories.

The College obviously does not feel the same way respecting dialogue, debate, and searching for answers. They have rejected the option of following in the footsteps of The University of Ottawa and at least questioning before reacting. Either they are simply intellectually lazy, just want to shake-off a bad headache, or, they have feel that they have the answers. On the question over the limits to their role as the arbiter of their members, there seems to be none or few – as with the universities, statements made off the job on platforms they do not regulate impact the job. The argument that they can and should consider the complaints is founded on Peterson’s representation of psychologists as a whole.

There are two assumptions within this argument that warrant our attention. First, it assumes that the public cannot discern between Peterson’s when he is acting as a public intellectual or as a psychologist. Second, it also assumes that the public sees one psychologist and will extrapolate that all psychologists will be the same. Is it fair to the public to assume that people cannot distinguish between him commenting on social issues and the practice of psychology? Is it even fair to us to use the argument of him being a poor representative of the profession? Are Freud, Jung, Maslow, Frankl, and Rogers are all interchangeable? Are modern media personalities such as Dr. Peterson, Dr. Phil, Dr. Ruth, Dr. Perel, and Dr. Julie Smith also cut from the same cloth? Or, is this argument of representation insulting our intelligence?

There is irony here. Peterson argues with fervor that people ought to be evaluated on their individual merits. Moreover, the whole ethic of the diversity movement is to not make prejudiced generalizations, to treat people as individuals. The whole premise of treating Peterson as a representative is that the public is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between the group and the individual – the individual is in all cases and at all times a representative of their group. Is group-thinking (always defaulting to treating individuals as examples of the group) the groupthink (to use Orwell’s term) of our times? Were we not attempting to move beyond this kind of tribalism?

What will come of it? Peterson will of course not comply, he will not stand at the blackboard and write his lines and thus appropriate, or feign allegiance to, the ‘correct’ way of thinking. They will therefore get to remove his credentials rather than debate his opinions or enter into a constructive dialogue that could delimit the question of representation and the reach of their mandate. They know that stripping him of his licence will not diminishes the impact of his voice; nor, will it protect anybody. The same people will continue to be ‘offended,’ if not by him, by others on social platforms. All that is to gain, is whatever benefits they reap from his excommunication.
There are however more benefits than drawbacks for the College. Perhaps there are no advantages to keeping Peterson around. In fact, it’s hard not to be slightly sympathetic to their dilemma, in this age of outrage, the unstated law in these matters is that you’re either with us or against us. It’s good versus evil, right versus wrong.

[If I hesitate to publish such an essay, it’s for this reason. Will my plea in favour of a rational debate of ideas be seen as such? Or will it be condensed into a simple unnuanced sound bite that pits me against the forces of good? It seems, the math goes like this: Being in favour of speech equals being in the Peterson camp, which equals not standing for social justice, which equals all sorts of nasty things. Which is reputationally dangerous. Which leads to fear. Which leads to silence. Which is antithetical to progress. Which is very sad. Didn’t we make formidable gains on the social front when people like Martin Luther King Jr. broke their silence despite the risks? Why does the equation only work in one direction? If it were balanced, it should work both ways. Or is this some new math? …. Perhaps I would have served myself better by going with a short story, a sort of allegory, maybe something about a tribe, a shaman, just a little tale about their argument about their gods. All those gods could be equal, with some being, of course, more equal than others.

And perhaps Peterson could learn from MLK. A significant component of his revolutionary influence came from the fact that he treated his enemies as worthy of his love and above contempt. The statements that get Peterson in trouble all treat the social justice types as wrongheaded. This is an opinion he has the right to have and to share. He could also bring out his compassionate side and show his understanding that many may be wrong, but for the right reasons. He is persuasive, if he could refrain from turning-off those who would be swayed through understanding and an appeal to a higher good, he could possibly have a significant role as an arbiter of an enduring peace.]

For the College, dissociating with one perceived as an enemy of the social equity movement provides more upside than downside in the public view (even if there is only a small number of complaints that seem spurious at best). Acting decisively and in favor of the plaintiffs comes with a badge of honour. There is little or no status offered to those speaking out for free speech, academic freedom, or a healthy debate on ideas outside of the confines of academic circles (and possibly to a diminishing extent every day). If the College administrators truly believes that Peterson is a poor representative of their values then the bounty on his head rises, now they get to set an example of him.

We should hope that the College is simply lazy, for it is this last part of the equation that is the third and most important reason that this case impacts us as it means that they are either reacting out of fear or acting in order to propagate fear. If that is the case, this is a bad show, and we’re players in it.

Cliffhanger

The ‘play’ we are watching goes something like this: A skilled performer, a popular leader within his tribe, who has passed all the rites of initiation, rises to prominence. He is especially popular among the youth. The tribe is in a delicate state as it has become increasingly fragmented. The spirits that guided them for countless generations are losing their sway and a new spirit promising new powers is animating the group. The leader is somewhat of a shape-shifter, he adopts the role of provocateur in some circles in an attempt to warn the group that the seductive new spirit may be a demon in disguise. Provoke it does, it upends and disturbs the emerging myth that has united the tribe of late. Predictably, some cast him as a threat and a villain rather than the new deity. The tribal elders are uncertain of how to deal with the situation: be loyal and forgiving to their kin, a one-time favourite son, or side with the clan and cast him out? Ultimately, they succumb to the voice of his most vocal detractors. This comes as a surprise to no one, as blind adherence to the ascending emerging godhead has elevated the status of the tribal elders of late. However, the exiled leader is somewhat of a shaman, and while the tribe is satisfied with their move, a sense of unease haunts them as it remains to be seen if his prophetic vision will lead to their downfall.

Hero’s Journey

I am not a psychoanalyst, however, I wonder to what extent this was engineered by Peterson (subconsciously of course) or even fated – not in the sense of being pre-determined, but inevitable, as all the ingredients for a collision course were lying in wait. Has he pushed the envelope just to see where the boundaries are? As a fervent advocate of truth and freedom of expression, and a student of the fine line that we must collectively walk between chaos and order and the hero mythology that mediates that balance, could it be that he decided to embody it, to live it rather than merely preach it? This is merely speculation, not a critique. Perhaps we need exactly that, perhaps the time has come, perhaps his example is one we need to follow on a personal and on a broader social level. The fact is that Peterson is doing just fine, he does not have to fight this as if his livelihood were at stake, but he will; he will fight on principle.

A glimpse inside Peterson’s home might give us a glimpse of what the principle is and why it matters. Peterson is known for his rather peculiar taste in art. He has amassed a substantial collection of Soviet-era paintings and at one time the walls of his home were covered with propagandist art. As Norman Doidge outlines in the preface to 12 Rules for Life, “The paintings were not there because Jordan had any totalitarian sympathies, but because he wanted to remind himself of something he knew he and everyone would rather forget: that over a hundred million people were murdered in the name of utopia. [They were] a visual marker of his earnest quest to move beyond simplistic ideology, left or right, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.” Each of his books expressly warns readers that clinging to ideology is in no way a solution to complexity inherent in the problems of human society. It is advice that works at the level of the individual and the group.

Advice however, only has an impact if it is heeded, and the paradox here is that by attacking the messenger rather than considering the advice, we are behaving exactly the way he is cautioning against. The point is not if the alternative ideas on matters of environment or equity that he brings forward and debates are right or wrong or regressive or not, it is the quasi-religious knee-jerk reaction against them that is the problem. Painting him and others attempting to present different perspectives as heretics – climate-change deniers, or ultra-right-wing fanatics, proponents of hate speech in the name of free speech for example – is to miss the point completely. Demonizing dissenters in the name of what is ‘good’ and ‘right’ may be anything but beneficial at a societal level, history has taught us that. Thus, it is not that the ideals behind the social justice ideology are misguided, or that these ‘unorthodox’ opinions and options are categorically better, it is the danger of living in a society that has a one-size-fits-all solutions for complex problems and a severe allergic reaction to opposing ideas that is ultimately the problem he is bringing to light and ultimately fighting for.

In sum, Peterson is not fighting for his opinions, he is fighting for his right to have an opinion. And it has little or anything to do with ‘his’ ideas, it has everything to do with ideas in general. He is fighting for ideas, which is a fight against ideology. We of course need some set of coherent ideas and values to organize our society and guide our behaviours; however, as philosopher and Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt cautions us, it is dogmatism that is the real threat: “[A]n ideology differs from a simple opinion in that it claims to possess either the key to history, or the solution for all the ‘riddles of the universe,’…”

The forces that have painted him and all who question the current dogmas have made significant inroads. It is unlikely that the leap from a healthy debate on academic ideas to the democracy will be made. Peterson knows this and will disregard it. He has chosen the role he will play nonetheless, as he states in Maps of Meaning (1999):

The revolutionary hero is the individual who decides voluntarily, courageously, to face some aspect of the unknown and threatening. He may also be the only person who is presently capable of perceiving the social adaptation is incompletely or improperly structured in a particular way;…

He continues,

He is therefore the agent of change, upon whose actions all stability is predicated. This capacity – which should make him a welcome figure in every community- is exceedingly threatening to those completely encapsulated by the status quo, and who are unable or unwilling to see where the present state of adaptation is incomplete and where residual danger lies. The archetypal revolutionary hero therefore faces the anger and rejection of his peers, as well as the terrors of the absolutely unknown. He is nonetheless the “best friend of the state.”

Peterson will listen to his inner daimōn (conscience/intuition) and face his accusers. In a sense, we may get to see Socrates trailed anew for the crime of corrupting our youth, for pushing people to think for themselves, by those that would rather not consider all those pesky questions.

That might be an overstatement, however, as Mark Twain observes, “History does not repeat, but it rhymes.” There are times when we collectively become particularly disturbed and severe with heretics – and the long-term outcomes (of the punishment, and the ideological entrenchment) are rarely good. And in those times, with fear reigning, silence is the rule. This is exactly why I think that Peterson will have a difficult time rousing the support of the nation and his peers. His cause is too abstract, and it’s too dangerous to associate with. It’s easy for his handful of supporters to see him as a hero of sorts and rally to his side, or for ardent social justice warriors to see him as an enemy and gloat as he loses his credentials. Hero and villain is easy to grasp and easy to cheer. It’s also easy for the right wing to say some words defending his right speak (as they have, ie. The Wall Street Journal), but ultimately be drowned-out by the vocal and more popular left wing. Professionals such as psychologists and health care professionals should be chomping at the bit to speak out. We witnessed many speak of feeling intimidated during the pandemic if they spoke out against the measures being imposed; public policy, sometimes misguided, trumped their expertise and discouraged a healthy debate on approaches. They may be sympathetic to Peterson’s dilemma, but will they risk exposing themselves to the same fate? If they stayed silent then, they certainly won’t speak out now that they will cast as a supporter of one who has been casted as a potential danger to human health.

Academics should be first and foremost concerned about his plight and first in line to speak up for him, as their livelihood depend upon the open debate of ideas. Searching for the best ideas and the best and most true ideas is what our scientists, professors, and public intellectual’s do. If someone has skin in the game, it’s them. Yet, perhaps because many are left-leaning and do not appreciate the diagnosis nor the prognosis (on social and environmental issues) Peterson brings forward, or perhaps because the risks are too high given the paucity of any personal reward and likelihood of trouble, they will likely sit by quietly; even if that eventually saws-off the branch they sit upon.

That leaves it to the rest of us. If we care. How many among us care an iota about ideological dogmatism. Unless we swim in poli-sci circles, the number of friends and family that care to engage in a discussion about this is low. This is not like the Freedom Convoys. The truckers gained the sympathy of half of Canadians because the public could identify with a group of working-class people struggling to make ends meet. Many were fed-up of being spoon fed simple answers to difficult questions and uniform solutions to a complex problem. It became increasingly difficult to trust governments and institutions that put on a deep voice (and a strong German accent) a reassuring “don’t worry public, we know what’s good for you” when it was obvious that they did not. Collectively, we could feel our democracy eroding as rights were frittered away, although we could not always articulate exactly why and how. It was literally visceral: A significant element of the issue was one’s right to decide what gets injected into their body – by coming down to what does or does not go in our bodies, it had an element of the sacred in it. Agree or not with the protests, we could sympathize with the truckers desire to draw a line when it comes to their body.

This however is ‘only’ about words – a lot of hot air we might say. This is the type of thing that the academic types get their knickers in a knot over. Of course, perhaps that depends on what we believe about words since it is through our words that we express our ideas. Peterson has aptly stated that “You don’t just have ideas, ideas have you.” This is an injunction to perform the uncomfortable task questioning our assumptions. It brings to mind the words of the Catholic Bishop, Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, “Be very, very careful what you put in that head, because you will never, ever get it out.” Words, ideas, can cast a spell over us. English writer Rudyard Kipling once confessed to a crowd of pharmacists, “I am by nature a dealer in words, and words are the most powerful drug known to humanity.” This is perhaps an angle on this that could rouse Canadians, we are proud of universal medicine, this is an expression of our fundamental belief that we all have the same status as human beings – all peoples in Canada have an equal right to medical treatment, there are no elites on this matter. If we would see our words as medicine, as the only treatment we have for our social ailments. If that were the case, we might want to fight against what is a limited and universal prescription for all – no second opinions, no alternatives, one drug regardless of the dis-ease.

If this were happening in the United States (and it is, one only needs to learn how many teachers and professors have been terminated for the statements they’ve made) I would look to a variant on the words of Kipling, by writer Paulo Coelho:

“… of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.”

The dose determines the poison: Words can hurt, but they can also cure. If Canadians will fight for medical care, Americans will fight for the right to bear arms. If a weapon can be used against us, it can also be used in self-defense. If we allow our right to speak to be taken away from us, if we submissively give it away by remaining silent, we may protect some, we also leave all of us defenseless against all attackers.

Relinquishing our right to speech also weakens us in other ways that may be even more important. Irrespective if we see words as drugs or words as weapons, words are extraordinarily versatile tools, the most powerful tools ever invented. We relinquish them at great cost – personally and socially. As the great statesman, Nelson Mandela, reminds us, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Words and ideas are the tools of education for words are the of ideas. Never doubt that ideas can’t change the world; they’re the only thing that ever has.

Happily ever after

Of course, unless we have all the ideas we need. Maybe the job is done. Our home renovations are complete, we can put the toolbox out by the curb and hold a garage sale. Now that we’ve reached the pinnacle of social evolution, now that everyone has all the rights and freedoms they require, we can stop it with all the incessant and annoying questioning. On the issue of environment and economics, this is one area of science where we can stop getting more and better data: no more questions or research required. This is a unique and exceptional case in science, where we need not advance our knowledge any further. Even if we tend to paint the social and environmental picture bleakly, there is a silver lining, there is something important to celebrate; we know exactly who is wrong and who is right, we have no more need for any dissenting views, for considering alternatives, for any questioning at all. This is a colossal achievement, 5,000 years or more of recorded civilization and we have finally reached the pinnacle of moral development. We have reached the end of history, it no longer has to keep repeating (or rhyming as Twain suggests), it is steady-as-she goes from here on in, nothing to improve upon. That pesky process of being open to new ideas and allowing debate can be thrown out now that we know all we need to know. The whole philosophical and scientific endeavour of 30 centuries has brought us home. We have The Truth. So praise the Lord that the truth we enjoy now is complete (I mean finally complete) – not the mistakenly complete truths we had in the Spanish Inquisition, nor the one we had during times of slavery and segregation, or even in the prevailing attitudes of thirty years ago (think homophobia during the AIDS epidemic). Hallelujah! We have finally reached the promised land, search no more.

It gets better. We won’t need to waste so much of our attention on education if we make a significant upfront investment in it now and get to the youth when they are significantly young. Our most precious resource can be fully diverted to implementation. Think about it: Without people like Peterson cluttering our minds with reckless backwards opinions [I use the word opinion with hesitation, for on many issues his statements are more of a caution to consider a broader set of evidence before coming to absolute conclusions] and squandering energy arguing, we throw all our weight into executing the perfect solutions we do have.

[If you want to test if any indoctrination is currently in swing, speak with a sufficiently younger person and take notice that someone is ‘diverse’ in some way, or, mention that the world might not be going to hell in a handbasket. Then watch the reaction. This will expose another difficult new norm for an ‘older’ person (I will not suggest a cut-off date here for fear of being accused of ageism – there is a cultural divide, I just don’t know where it is). On one hand, we must be hyper-aware of our differences in any situation where we are potentially constructing Utopia, whilst, oblivious to it day-to-day – if you noticed, even nonjudgmentally, you are biased. Likewise, you must be convinced of our singularly destructive tendencies – any positive feedback or doubt is akin to living in a state of denial. The rule-of-thumb is something like: When acting as conscious architects of The Matrix, differences are real – we must publicly declare them, celebrate them, and pledge allegiance to defending them. Meanwhile, when living inside that virtual reality, differences shall not exist and must go completely unnoticed. Likewise, despair regarding the state of the world is paramount – no sacrifice is too great, no effort is to be spared in fixing it, it’s all hands on deck if we have any hope of prevailing. Yet we cannot have hope or faith on the environmental or social front, it is antithetical to improvement, pessimism, guilt and shame, must be maintained. Of course, we must ignore the fact that our day-to-day life actually constructs our reality and hope and faith in humanity have historically been among the most powerful drivers of social and technical progress. With practice and patience you will learn Doublethink; you will learn to be free of or to ignore the cognitive dissonance that pesters you at the moment and you will know precisely where to draw the line between these worlds and think ‘right’ within each.]

Of course, there will be unintended consequences associated with those solutions, and new generations of humans will come up and question our approach and our values, as unruly youth always has, but, we have solutions for that too. Since we have superior faculties of reason and compassion, since we have ascended to higher moral state in advance of these foolishly rebellious youths, and since we have ‘evolved’ faster on a personal level, we can use more forceful methods such as social exclusion to force them into re-education to get them to finally think ‘correctly.’ If our indoctrination of the populace is sufficiently effective, we can keep this to a minimum. We could say that we are morally obliged to do that. Peterson can serve as a pilot project.

Of course, he may be a hard case, his skull seems exceptionally thick. If he refuses, he might need to be punished, that may help him evolve more rapidly. Or, if he really is a lost cause, if he is a threat to evolution in general, we can at least set an example of him for others who are morally corrupt. In that case we need only look to history for a great model of how to do this. A broader inquisition, going far beyond him would be effective to weed-out threats to progress. Yes, that’s a way to a happier ending for us all, the path to paradise on Earth.

If anything I’ve written here sounds off, if the questions are annoying or the propositions outrageous, then we would do well to consider the words of Spinoza, another heretic that suffered excommunication (with vitriol and curses, from his Jewish religious community) nearly 400 years ago: “Philosophy has no end in view save truth; faith looks for nothing but obedience and piety.” But we have moved beyond a faith-based civilization for centuries: As Nietzsche stated, God is dead. Although, I wonder if Nietzsche was mistaken by declaring that we killed God, that’s not usually how it works. Perhaps he has simply been usurped. There is nothing to get concerned about here, it happens all the time. In pre-historic times, when one nation conquered its neighbour the chief deity of the vanquished was supplanted by the God of the conquering tribe. In many cases, the transition was smoothed out by allowing the obviously inferior deity to hang around as a demigod. All stays well and peaceful, as long as the true God is the primary focus of worship.

Peterson is a public intellectual, he belongs to a tribe that worships this ‘lesser’ God named ‘Truth.’. He earned his PhD from McGill, their moto is Grandescunt Aucta Labore (‘By work all things increase and grow’); the work of thinking is obviously done. He began at Harvard; they brandish the word Veritas on their emblem. The search is over, we have found it. He then went to the University of Toronto, the crest says Velut arbor aevo – ‘may it grow as a tree through the ages.’ As we have established, the tree of knowledge has fully matured. If only he would learn to bow to the supreme being instead…

The irony of the situation is that Peterson has been an ardent public defender of the values that the great religions, notably Christianity, offer us. He has defended religion while the new atheists point to the dogmatism that religion often engenders – the kind that led to the crusades and the inquisition. We all know that that the zealots that ran the inquisition, where people were tried and prescribed to proclaim their belief the right things, or face excommunicated. In some cases, when an example needed to be made, they were burned at the stake. And here we find Peterson being told what he can and cannot say (lest he anger the new God). We can only conclude that the quasi-religious about having the right beliefs that motivates similar situations we’ve seen recently is playing out here. The fervor will likely lead to his excommunication from the priesthood of psychologists. But, knowing that he will continue to preach about the salvation that the antiquated deity we call truth offers, it will not suffice. If they want widespread an unflinching obedience they should burn him at the stake. That would serve the greater good; that could bring peace; that would allow us all to live happily ever after.

Dystopian social science

Of course, I’m being facetious, we live in a democracy, we don’t do things like that anymore – at least there are no pyrotechnics of the physical kind – we have freedoms. If I’ve written this much (and you’ve read this far), freedom is the issue, it’s because I have a nagging sense that we are in danger of losing a degree of freedom if we continue on the path we set ourselves on. Whatever happens in this case per se is, on the grand scheme of things, inconsequential to our democracy; however, it is symptomatic of something being amiss.

The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates that most of the world does not live in a democracy, and many that do have dysfunctional democracies (6% of the world population enjoys life in a full democracy). Most of the world does not enjoy a comparable level of freedom. We instinctively know that our freedoms are something we need to cherish and respect. We are acutely aware that we enjoy a privilege that we should never relinquish. What exactly is it that we have that they don’t that we think they should have?

Democracy is founded upon rule of the people, with majority rule the dominant form. I think we would agree that this form of government is better than rule by some despot. Since absolute power corrupts, even a benevolent leader could easily become a tyrant. But reducing it to majority rule is to dismiss why it works. The majority rule comes with limits, the majority cannot tyrannize the minority. The majority (you can read ‘the enlightened’ or ‘the mob’ here depending on your perspective) does not enjoy the privilege of suppressing the minority view. Individual rights and freedoms accompany the majority rule if the democracy is to be in any way functional. Without our freedoms, democracy falls apart and with it the quality of our lives.

[Unless…. unless, we’ve been sold a bill of goods? Maybe freedom is overrated? I notice that of the 150-odd countries that rank lower than Canada and the U.S.A. and free countries, they all still seem to be fiercely proud when their athletes compete on behalf of the country at the Olympics – even those that rank dead last. They willingly go to war to defend their system of government and societal values. On a similar note: Maybe our freedoms are a burden. Peterson interviewed Yeonmi Park, a brave woman who managed to escape from North Korea (episode 172), she outlined that before living in the West, like her compatriots, she didn’t really understand what freedom was. How could she? She’s never been exposed to it. We must eliminate all biases. Perhaps if we simply let our freedoms be frittered away, we too will come to forget what it was. This would lead free us from the loss aversion bias that leads us to be concerned over this case or that troubles us when we sense that we are living in fear. Maybe we’d be better off that way?]

With the pandemic fresh in our minds, every single one of us knows how delicate the balance between individual rights and the collective good is and how hard it is to come to find workable solutions on these matters. As we witnessed first-hand, not only are there are no easy answers to these questions, it is precisely in these times where we need to resort to the open and respectful dialogue that is at the foundation of our democracy. This is brilliantly underscored in an informative and evenhanded essay on vaccine mandates (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/needle-points-vaccinations-chapter-one), penned by psychiatrist Norman Doidge, where he offers an overview of the psychological and social and forces at play when the public discourse is dominated by fears. In the essay he does what public intellectuals, as modern-day shamans, are expected to do – consult with the spirits of dead ancestors to see if they have any guidance for the path ahead. While our ancestors do not tell us exactly what we should do, they do tell us what not to do, and the antidote to chaos they can offer centers on this question of freedom of expression and individual rights.

For Tocqueville, “the tyranny of the majority over the minority” is the ever-present danger in democracies, the remedy for which, John Stuart Mill argued, was a protection of minority rights, and, above all, the right to continue speaking—even if a majority opinion seemed to be crystalizing. Mill in the end was influenced and changed by Tocqueville’s notion of the tyranny of the majority, and pointed out that the tyranny unique to democracy gave rise to “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” in the social sphere, in our so-called free societies. It moved him to write his great plea for free speech, in On Liberty:

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

As Doidge reminds us in the conclusion of his essay, “To find that limit and maintain it becomes the difficult but essential task when a plague besets a democracy—especially one that wishes to remain in good enough condition to survive it.” Respectful dialogue and civilized debate is the immune system of a healthy democracy.

Peterson often reminds us of the insightful quote by Alfred North Whitehead, “The purpose of thinking is to let the ideas die instead of us dying.” At the level of the individual, in terms of personal psychology, we must play out diverse scenarios in our minds so to find the optimal path forward. As always, what applies at the level of the individual also applies at the level of society. As hard as we try, we cannot successfully do what Cardinal Wolsey recommends, some bad ideas will infect our thinking, only a robust immune system can keep them from taking hold. The only weapon we have against bad ideas are better ideas. The meta-idea that imparts immunity and thus survival (and antifragility beyond that) is respect for ideas and debate. If we attack the person rather than the idea, if we punish or outlaw people for their ideas, we become infected with fear, and that makes us vulnerable in the long run.

Thus, we need to speak out – more importantly, because we agree to disagree – we need to speak with each other. To quote , for the third time, a liberal Prime-Minister: “Democracy recognizes that one person may be right and ninety-nine wrong. That is why freedom of speech is so sacred: the one person must always have the right to proclaim his or her right to proclaim his or her truth in the hope of persuading the ninety-nine to change their point of view.” (Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Approaches to Politics, 1970) Of course, this is from a bygone time, before the left was more conservative in their approach than the conservatives are now. It is an argument in favour of the best method we have for inching ever more closely to what is true and what is right. We need to collectively ask if we are losing balance and need to publicly debate if we need to be also devoted to a diversity of opinions, lest we slide into a reality where we all adopt Newspeak. If true, that would be un-fortunate. [I am tempted to use a stronger adjective here, but hesitate. Recall that in Orwell’s 1984 we must avoid non-political antonyms. For example, the standard English words warm and hot are replaced by uncold, and the moral concept communicated with the word bad is expressed as ungood.] No, that would definitely be very ungood.

Afterward

So why in God’s name would I bother to write all this? There is nothing for me to be gained by it. It may even cause me trouble. Well, to begin, I write to think – to help figure out what I think. But why think about this? If I’ve chose this topic, what really motivated me? In a word, it’s exasperation. It seems like identity is all we talk about. It seems like outrage and conflict is the only response. I want to say what I think (perhaps more what I feel) this one time and be done with it. What I really want is…. I just want to live my life and not be bothered with these things: Raise my family, pay my bills, live and laugh with all peoples and enjoy this precious sojourn on this beautiful planet. I want this all to go away. I want to pledge allegiance to pursue a higher objective that requires us to pull together rather than one that pulls us apart. I want it to be assumed that I was raised to treat other people as equals and with dignity; that comes with the territory, they are people and have it by right of being born. I want to be innocent before proven guilty. I want it to be assumed that we can be friends rather than assuming that we are natural born enemies that need to be taught how to get along. I want meaningful work and to earn it based on my I.Q., E.Q., and my C.V. and for you and I to win and lose fair and square based on those letters alone. This is the only way to play so that we all win in the end. I want my private life to stay that way, and I want to grant you the privilege of having one too. Otherwise all we have is a public life. I want to focus on atoning on the sins of my life and my life alone, there’s enough there for any one person. I want to hold meetings and not feel obliged to begin in the past. The past is full of tragedy for all peoples. We need to learn from the lessons of history overall and tap the wisdom of all cultures. Thus, I want to talk about us in the here and now and moving forward together since we are all here to stay. I want to know who you are – the person – not your group – your value is in your personality, in your personal story. I want you to be as different as you need to be, and fully recognize that fundamentally we are all the same. And I want you to see me for who I am, as an individual, for I am not another one of them. Identity shares its root with identical, which none of us are; so let’s talk about who we really are, which is not the same, but always similar. Of course, I know that we won’t always get along, as individuals, or collectively, but I want us to talk. If we’re talking, we may not be agreeing, but we’re not fighting. I want us to disagree with civility, in a way that allows us to move towards common ground. Otherwise, we just add unnecessary suffering to a world that has enough built-in. After all, I’m hurt, you’re hurt, we all suffer, we all make mistakes; and the mistakes are there to learn from, I want to be defined by my response to my mistakes, not the error itself. I believe that we can only alleviate our suffering and improve ourselves and our lives if we are compassionate and work together. I want us to find the signal in the noise, so we can focus in on the things that really matter, rather than making noise about things that really don’t matter.

K. Wilkins is the author of:

Stoic Virtues Journal: Your Guide to Becoming the Person You Aspire to Be

Rules for Living Journal: Life Advice Based On the Words and Wisdom of Jordan B. Peterson