No, Dr. Peterson, Social Justice is Not a Marxist Conspiracy
Written on
Chapter 1: The Question of Gay Marriage
In 2017, during a live Q&A session on his Patreon channel, Jordan Peterson responded to a viewer's inquiry regarding Australia's plebiscite on legalizing gay marriage. The viewer expressed opposition to the "Yes" campaign, attributing it to cultural Marxism, and asked for Peterson's opinion.
Peterson's reply indicated that he would also oppose gay marriage if it were indeed supported by cultural Marxists. He articulated concerns that such a movement might challenge traditional societal structures. However, it's crucial to note that he didn’t outright state his opposition to gay marriage; rather, he suggested that the backing of certain groups could influence his stance.
He elaborated on the complexity of the issue, acknowledging the potential for marriage to integrate gay individuals into mainstream society, which could decrease promiscuity—a public health concern, albeit not exclusive to the gay community. His argument hinted at the notion that the legalization of same-sex marriage might be part of a broader strategy by radical leftists, which he believed could undermine traditional values.
"This paragraph encapsulates the essence of Peterson's argument."
Section 1.1: The Conspiracy Theory Mindset
Peterson's response reflects a troubling tendency to validate the viewer's conspiratorial thinking. By framing same-sex marriage as a "wedge issue," he inadvertently endorses a narrative suggesting a coordinated effort by radical leftists to disrupt societal norms.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Cultural Implications
Chapter 2: The Inch-Mile Theory of Social Movements
The conversation surrounding social justice often revolves around the "inch-mile theory," which posits that small concessions to social movements will lead to larger, more radical demands. This perspective was echoed by a friend who expressed skepticism about transgender rights, arguing that today's demands would only escalate over time.
In this framework, movements such as Black Lives Matter or #MeToo are not seen as legitimate expressions of social change, but rather as manifestations of a larger, insatiable ideological beast: the Social Justice Kraken. This mindset dismisses the historical context and achievements of previous movements, like civil rights, by framing them as stepping stones to an inevitable crisis.
"Such arguments reveal a deep-seated fear of progressive change."
The first video, "The Rise of Cultural Marxism | Jordan Peterson," explores Peterson's views on cultural influences in modern society. It highlights how his arguments often resonate with those who hold conspiracy-like beliefs about social movements.
The second video, "Lecture: Identity Politics and the Marxist Lie of White Privilege," delves into the contentious debate around identity politics and how it intertwines with perceptions of privilege and social justice.
Section 2.1: Historical Context of Social Movements
When reflecting on social movements from the past century, such as women's suffrage and civil rights, it becomes evident that Peterson's arguments could easily be applied to any of these struggles. He might have said, "I would oppose civil rights if they were supported by Marxists," while attempting to mask his reluctance with vague support for equality.
This pattern of reasoning suggests that the success of social movements is viewed as a threat rather than an opportunity for growth and understanding. The inch-mile theory ultimately fails to acknowledge that these movements are not merely opportunistic; they represent genuine calls for justice.
Section 2.2: The Fallacy of Natural Hierarchies
Peterson often cites biological examples to justify social hierarchies, particularly his references to lobsters and dominance structures. He argues that just as lobsters establish hierarchies, so too should humans accept existing social orders as natural.
However, this reasoning is flawed. The biological principles governing lobsters do not apply to humans, whose social structures are far more complex. By conflating these two vastly different systems, Peterson commits a fundamental error in understanding social dynamics.
"His arguments rest on a misunderstanding of evolution and behavior."
In conclusion, it is essential to critically engage with the arguments presented by figures like Jordan Peterson. Dismissing social movements as conspiratorial or radical ignores the real struggles faced by individuals advocating for change. The ongoing discourse around justice and equality is not a battle between order and chaos, but rather a necessary evolution of societal values.