More Questions Surface About DCP's Use of Sources
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:27 am
Thanks to a friend's recent comment to me, I was prompted to re-examine one of Dr. Peterson's classic polemical texts--a rather vicious article entitled "Text and Context." In this piece--which was written in the wake of the FARMS/Signature "kerfuffle," Dr. Peterson vigorously defends the use of ad hominem attack as legitimate:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147
Later, Dr. P. goes on to suggest that homosexuality is immoral, and that homosexual "immorality" is at the heart of certain "anti-Mormon" works:
And:
And:
Finally, he wraps up his defense of argumentum ad hominem with this:
This is important, I think, because it shows that he's trying to downplay the conflict with Signature Books. What "treasonous," "apostate" homosexual associated with Signature Books might DCP be referring to? I'll leave it to readers to guess.
Instead, I want to backtrack a bit to examine the source of Dr. P.'s quotations. Towards the beginning of the second chunk of text I quoted, Dan cites a book called Degenerate Moderns by one E. Michael Jones. Obviously, this is the principal book supplying DCP with his evidence and his theoretical framework---in short, his basis justifying his use of ad hominem argumentation to paint people--including Signature Book authors, apparently--as "traitors," "apostates," and "degenerates"--including, one assumes, in books that have nothing whatsoever to do with these sorts of things.
So who is E. Michael Jones? I'll admit that I haven't delved too deeply into the man's life's work and biography, but I did find some things on his Wikipedia page highly provocative:
Hmmm... Perhaps Jones could find a cozy new home at the Maxwell Institute? In any case, I suppose it's worthwhile to know what kinds of sources Dr. Peterson finds useful for his academic work. It's useful to know that this is the kind of text that helps to support his advocacy of argumentum ad hominem.
In December 1993, Gary James Bergera, Signature's director of publishing, announced to readers of the Salt Lake Tribune that "Mr. Peterson continues to insist that character assassination and ad hominem attacks are respected hallmarks of the intellectual enterprise."36 But Mr. Bergera is wrong, and he is equivocating.37 By ad hominem "attacks," he obviously means the use of insulting or abusive language. I do not advocate such rhetorical attacks. However, the classical ad hominem is an argument, and I do believe, along with virtually all logicians, that ad hominem arguments can be legitimate, relevant, and significant—provided their limitations are clearly understood and their conclusions properly weighted. Obviously, they can be abused. But they are by no means invariably fallacious.
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147
Later, Dr. P. goes on to suggest that homosexuality is immoral, and that homosexual "immorality" is at the heart of certain "anti-Mormon" works:
Pablo Picasso's paintings image the artist's checkered sexual career. Even Alfred Kinsey's studies of human sexuality, purportedly based on hard statistical data but now known to be far wide of the mark, seem to have been distorted to a great extent by Kinsey's own (possibly homosexual, certainly odd) personality.
And:
In the brilliant third chapter of Degenerate Moderns, entitled "Homosexual as Subversive," E. Michael Jones demonstrates the crucial and explanatory role of personal lifestyle not only in the traitorous career of Sir Anthony Blunt, but in the theories of John Maynard Keynes, the biographical writings of Lytton Strachey, and the novels of E. M. Forster. "Modernity was the exoteric version of Bloomsbury biography; it was a radically homosexual vision of the world and therefore of its very nature subversive; treason was its logical outcome. . .
And:
As their involvement in sodomy increases, so also does their opposition to Christianity."56 That denial of the truths one can know about God should lead to sodomy is in some sense a mystery," concludes Jones. "However, it is a mystery that can be fairly well documented, from Paul's epistle to the Romans to any objective view of modern British history."57 In any event, it seems clear that immorality (not merely of the homosexual variety) and intellectual apostasy are, and always have been, frequent (though not invariable) companions. (Joseph Smith's famous announcement of a link between adultery and sign-seeking is apropos here.)58 Sodom and Cumorah are apparently not compatible.
Finally, he wraps up his defense of argumentum ad hominem with this:
It must be clearly understood that I am not charging any particular individual, at Signature or anywhere else, with sexual im morality. I have used rather dramatic examples in order to make the case that writers are reflected in what they write. Human beings are not asocial, ahistorical, disembodied intellects. Clearly, considerations of the total personality of the individual advancing a theory, writing a book, or painting a picture may be entirely germane and legitimate in analysis of what that individual produces. Having once established that ad hominem analysis can be relevant, it then becomes merely a question of when and how much it should be used.
This is important, I think, because it shows that he's trying to downplay the conflict with Signature Books. What "treasonous," "apostate" homosexual associated with Signature Books might DCP be referring to? I'll leave it to readers to guess.
Instead, I want to backtrack a bit to examine the source of Dr. P.'s quotations. Towards the beginning of the second chunk of text I quoted, Dan cites a book called Degenerate Moderns by one E. Michael Jones. Obviously, this is the principal book supplying DCP with his evidence and his theoretical framework---in short, his basis justifying his use of ad hominem argumentation to paint people--including Signature Book authors, apparently--as "traitors," "apostates," and "degenerates"--including, one assumes, in books that have nothing whatsoever to do with these sorts of things.
So who is E. Michael Jones? I'll admit that I haven't delved too deeply into the man's life's work and biography, but I did find some things on his Wikipedia page highly provocative:
Wiki wrote:He was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, but lost interest in it in early adulthood. He became involved in the counterculture of the 1960s. He found little satisfaction after leaving his faith, and eventually returned to it after reading The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton. Jones then obtained his Ph.D. from Temple University and began to teach at Saint Mary's College, of Notre Dame, Indiana. To Jones' displeasure, he found this college to be what he considered to be (in the words of Michael W. Cuneo who interviewed him) "the antithesis of what a Catholic college should be", being pro-choice, feminist and secular. He made little effort to conceal his views, leading to conflicts with many faculty, his department chairwoman and eventually the college's president. His department, which viewed him as a religious absolutist, decided against renewing his contract after his first year.
[...]
Some of his critics have claimed his later work displays antisemitism, a claim that Jones denies, saying that any form of racism is against his Catholic faith.
[...]
Jones has stated publicly that he considers modern Judaism to be a wicked ideology, but that he condemns criticism of Jews based upon race.
[...]
In an interview with PressTV on the Libyan Civil War, Jones praised Muammar Gaddafi for running his government "in the interest of the Libyan people" and denounced the NATO intervention as "a looting operation...
Hmmm... Perhaps Jones could find a cozy new home at the Maxwell Institute? In any case, I suppose it's worthwhile to know what kinds of sources Dr. Peterson finds useful for his academic work. It's useful to know that this is the kind of text that helps to support his advocacy of argumentum ad hominem.