HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ etplayer

From the video description, I read the following; I do not wish to dismiss the video (which I'm watching at the moment), though I would like to pick up on a point that is rather irksome to me as a Marxist:

>I was invited to speak at Harvard University in mid-April on the use of compassion as a mask for the advance of the profoundly anti-western postmodern and neomarxist doctrines.

It's known to anyone with experince with either modern Marxism or the origins of postmodern theory that postmodernism has nothing to do with Marxism, as not only I but others have also noticed Peterson conflate. In fact, this error was pointed out even in opinion articles; one example is "Who's afraid of Jordan Peterson?"[0] which claims to find error in his categorisations.

I'll quote from the article, which is much more informative if read in full (as it explains the origins of these theories and how they cannot be both compounded into outgrowths of one another):

"In several of his recorded lectures, broadcasts, and interviews, Professor Peterson even claims that postmodernism is merely the latest incarnation of Marxism – a claim that would surprise and offend many postmodernists, and indeed, many Marxists, too. Rightly or wrongly, most Marxists subscribe to a materialist epistemology that postmodernists reject unequivocally as obsolete and reductionist. And by contrast with Marxists, who stress the formative role of labor in the ontology of social relations, postmodernists stress the primacy of language as the key to understanding human culture and development."

There is in fact a large observable split within both academic Marxism and modern Marxist groups which demonstrate this anecdotally; figures such as Derrida, Foucault and other French post-structuralists of the 20th century are sometimes embraced and sometimes dismissed, though they are read.

I cannot blame Peterson for his apparent misunderstanding. It is frequently found in online and indeed real life discussions that for example "Marxists transitioned from thinking of bourgeois and proletarian as oppressor and oppressed to thinking of other categorisations such as men and women, or straights and LGBTQ.", which is not only totally false, it is lacking in any evidence at all. Note that I do not wish to strawman Peterson with this, but rather, to provide some context to his views.

Frequently also found in such a context are whispers of "cultural Marxism", harking back to the "cultural Bolshevism" of the 30s; supposedly, a "brand" of Marxism designed to undermine Western society and values by dismissing the nation, the family, the state, and tradition and thus lead the way to a Communist one. Although anyone familiar with the Frankfurt School would find this laughable[1], it's taken seriously.

[0] http://quillette.com/2017/06/14/whos-afraid-jordan-peterson/

[1] A good explanation of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, in "The Origins and Ideological Function of Cultural Marxism": http://www.academia.edu/10149049/The_Origins_and_Ideological...

Edit: I was wrong. Peterson really does believe the idea of the transition from "class war" to "identity politics" as he says in the video at the point 20:30 or so. Peterson also proceeds to make the point I am arguing against in this comment a few seconds later, as such, I hope my comment can help inform people on Peterson's misunderstanding of the facts.

⬐ etplayer

Why the two downvotes without explanation? It hardly seems in the spirit of discourse to say "You're wrong but I can't argue my point."

Especially as my post is on topic and enlightening to those who have similar misconceptions to Perterson, while it is also gentle and balanced.

⬐ danielam

I'm not sure HN is the forum for argumentation, but I agree that there is nothing in your post that merits downvoting. In fact, I think what you've drawn attention to is valuable.

FWIW--from what I've come across--while I do sympathize with his frustration and distaste for, e.g., mindless campus activism, I'm not left with the impression that Peterson's views are particularly philosophically sophisticated. He seems to succumbs to polemical emotional outbursts in place of sober and cogent argument. These could be made more tolerable if he were able to offer some justification for the claims he makes.

I know that Derrida addresses Marxism and its lingering "ghosts" (as much as Derrida can be said to address anything), but I do not quite understand how Peterson believes Marx is smuggled into the humanities (or wherever else) through "postmodernism". I don't know that you need to appeal to postmodernism to explain the presence of Marxism in the humanities. It was there long before postmodernism came about.