Hierarchy - Is This at the Center of the Lib/Con Debate?

[_honorentheos]

The link below is to a recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan on Rogan's podcast. Peterson is certainly a controversial figure who rose to public awareness for refusing to use new gender neutral pronouns at the University of Toronto. Subsequently, he's developed a bit of a reputation for being an enemy of the left due to his stance on social justice issues and use of the language common to Alt Right trolls while clothed in patched-elbowed professor jackets. But he's also made enemies among the same crowds for his views on Christianity and religion as narrative. In short, he seems to be a lightning rod for controversy with frenemies like Sam Harris with whom he shares both common cause and enmity. The two have recently taken to the road to have public discussions on the range of issues where they both agree and disagree, which I share for the unfamiliar's benefit. Peterson is possibly a public intellectual of sorts, but hardly one that is viewed broadly with unequivocal respect.

So, why pass along something that he says with this board?

The link begins after Peterson and Rogan began a discussion over what is seen as the lefts' opposition to free speech and where it originates. The discussion to this point is interesting to me, but it is very heavily laden with language that will give folks like ajax a boner while setting other people off. And at that point, I think this section I link to would be overlooked.

https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc?t=1072

I suggest playing to at least minute 21:50 to get the full idea.

At the link, Peterson is answering a question from Rogan regarding the value of extreme opposition to inequality in society and that even if wrong it helps move society in a better direction? At this point, Peterson says a number of things with which I honestly agree, and rather strongly. Among those are the importance of dialog between left and right in our country, the failure of many on the left to recognize that society inevitably has AND NEEDS hierarchy, and that the correct role of the left is to oppose corruption of hierarchy rather than try to flatten it out.

Anyway, I thought of this in light of the attempts to discuss a similar issue with ceebs in that thread about fearing the left. In some ways, I think a more intellectual examination of the problems many intuit with the way the MEETOO movement is both necessary and overreaching; that because racism and sexism are issues that need to be acknowledged to be addressed doesn't mean being white, male and successful is a vice; that supporting people finding themselves including whatever that identify may include doesn't require making enemies of those who didn't struggle with this and are going through life with historic cultural support.

Enjoy.

[_honorentheos]

To add to this, around minute 19:20 and after making the case that hierarchies are essentially part of any social order no matter what we want to believe, he suggests that the healthy role of the left and the right in society is to work in conflict to assess and correct the health of these hierarchies.

He proposes the role of the left is resisting corruption of the hierarchy that results in it no longer rewarding competence and merit, but instead maintaining power dynamics. And also it is the left that defends the "widows and orphans" or those made vulnerable or pushed to the bottom of the hierarchies.

He proposes that the role of the right is to defend the value of hierarchies and their meritocratic benefits to society.

He makes the comment that this conflict doesn't have a single one-off solution, but that the conflict is needed to keep things in balance.

He then points out that while most people have a good idea of when the right is out of balance (i.e. - the Alt right, Nazism, racism, etc.), we have a far more difficult time recognizing when the left is overreaching. It seems far harder to see the moves that take us from, "Harvey Weinstein is a predator, is being protected by the hierarchy of establishment Hollywood, and that needs to end so he can be punished!" to, "The problem is men." We recognize that the Trump administration is morally on the evil side of the spectrum when they are forcibly separating kids from parents at the border who are seeking asylum but when this jumps to violating a member of his administration's own civil liberties some defend it as necessary while others see it as a violation in it's own right and therefore indefensible.

Where I think he touches on something insightful is when he makes the observation that the liberal tradition has a problem with hierarchy of it's own. That being, there becomes this hierarchy of moral standing where it doesn't say much to be opposed to Nazis because, "Who isn't opposed to Nazis but Nazis?" But because there is a need to establish oneself as virtious one looks for other oppressors and being against them. And no matter who one is, it's alway conceivable almost anyone could be considered a member of an oppressive class of some kind or other. Those who call liberals social justice warriors and decry virtue signaling seem to be trying to call this out while doing so flags them as oppressors and therefore part of the problem rather than someone calling out a problem.

There then comes the question of if it's the responsiblity of moderate liberals and moderate conservatives to police their own, which seems to be the case historically. But given the current environment, it seems the left and the right aren't clear as to what is overreach on the part of the radical elements of the left. And given the hostility that dominates the discussion between the two sides today, it feels difficult to focus on self-policing when the other side seems to be on the march trying to take over the world.

And who does one fear most? The radical elements in one's own political wing? Or the surge and apparent takeover of the opposing wing by the radical elements among them?

I think these are the underlying concerns that ceebs OP meant to grapple with but got lost in part because the sources raising the issue are so appalling to those on the left/progressive side that it's not easy to entertain the idea they may have legitimate concerns regarding the direction the left is heading.

[_huckelberry]

Honorentheos,

I enjoyed your link though it grew a bit overly long in the last portion.I have followed Jordan Peterson off and on over the past couple of years. I think he has been vivid defenses of free speach.I find that a value easy to like. I grew up with father who strongly supported it. I was influenced by the sixties free speech movement. I find myself feeling that people on the left rejecting it are treasonous heretics.( treasonous to all progressive principals I hold dear) I have wondered in the past how much conservative complaints about campus attitudes were exaggerated based upon a few extremists. I have been out of any academic environment for enough decades I find myself unsure .

I have wondered if his diagnosis of post modernist thinking taking over the universities was a bit of paranoia. Were people really willing to treat a speake completely as representing their power group and not ideas?.That to me is a disgusting possiblity. Yet the negative reaction Peterson is garnering from some quarters fits that diagnosis exactly.

Even in the preenlightened age, say 1968 when I was a college student people were aware of how a particular social position time and place would influence ideas and experience. But that is not the only consideration.
/////

I do agree with his reasoning on why the left and right need each other and need to cooperate. It is the extremes which make serious difficulties for that.

[_huckelberry]

honorentheos, as I noted in the previous post there are basic Jordan Peterson talks about that I largely agree with. He has interesting thoughts about religion which I may or may not be in complete agreement with. I find them interesting however.

I have sort of a different thought about identity politics. I supported Hillary. I even supported her on the local caucus level( I live in one of those states where we get together locally and argue face to face about who should be nominated). I was frustrated by a sense her message kept coming across as a bit mechanical and short of substance. She supported minorities, lgbt folks etc. that's fine but is not a lot of actual substance.

I think the Democrats have enacted the their actual ideas to a large part already and are stuck running on either status quo or tinkering improvements on that. I do not think Hillary is a identity politics radical but the phrases can help fill the spaces for her in her political speech.

[_Some Schmo]

While I completely support free speech and am disappointed in these universities who "de-platform" certain speakers once they've been invited (why invite them in the first place?), I understand the impulse to tell particular people on the right to shut the “F” up. I mean, how much stupid should we be expected to hear? Still, it's an impulse we need to resist.

The left has to remember that everyone needs to hear how stupid these people are so they understand why they shouldn't be supported. Just because you may have had the chance to judge these morons doesn't mean everyone else has.

[_DarkHelmet]

I haven't paid a lot of attention to Jordan Peterson, but it seems like he is everywhere lately, so I have a general idea of what he believes. I listened to his interview on Rogan's podcast and he has some interesting ideas, many of which I agree with. I did like his description of hierarchy, why it's important, and how both conservatives and liberals are required for its success. Liberals challenge the hierarchy to ensure it does not become corrupt, while conservatives defend the non-corrupt aspects of the hierarchy. The problem comes from the extremes, liberals who want to completely destroy the hierarchy (anarchists), and conservatives who argue the hierarchy is perfect and doesn't need to change (a certain religion we all know). One thing I find interesting in this age of Trump, is how this model is turned on its head. We have Trump conservatives attacking the hierarchy (deep state paranoia, distrust in intel agencies, the press is the enemy of the people, draining the swamp), while liberals find themselves defending the hierarchy from Trump's attacks.

[_honorentheos]

One thing I find interesting in this age of Trump, is how this model is turned on its head. We have Trump conservatives attacking the hierarchy (deep state paranoia, distrust in intel agencies, the press is the enemy of the people, draining the swamp), while liberals find themselves defending the hierarchy from Trump's attacks.

Nice summary, DarkHelmet.

And this comment above is a great point. In some ways, it feels difficult to pin down what conservatives believe are the bare essentials to having a functioning society, in my opinion.

[_Some Schmo]

In some ways, it feels difficult to pin down what conservatives believe are the bare essentials to having a functioning society, in my opinion.

I think it's largely because most people don't think through what works and what doesn't. They live in a fantasy of their own making rather than observe what's actually happened.

I get the idea that the government currently seems dysfunctional, but to think the cure to that dysfunction is to send in a guy who actively generates more dysfunction is the dumbest idea I can think of. It's almost as if they resent Democrats for having a better governing track record.

[_honorentheos]

In some ways, it feels difficult to pin down what conservatives believe are the bare essentials to having a functioning society, in my opinion.

I think it's largely because most people don't think through what works and what doesn't. They live in a fantasy of their own making rather than observe what's actually happened.

I get the idea that the government currently seems dysfunctional, but to think the cure to that dysfunction is to send in a guy who actively generates more dysfunction is the dumbest idea I can think of. It's almost as if they resent Democrats for having a better governing track record.

While I think Peterson is on to something when he argues we are still figuring out when the left has overreached, the conversation fails to address the new reality of the right. That being, while we all recognize there is a line that is crossed that includes nationalism, sexism, and racism we haven't figured out how to deal with the center mass of the right moving hard in that direction if not actually crossing that line. There are people today considered rational conservatives who were thought of as pretty far to the right a mere three years ago. And they're not saying anything any different other than calling out Trump here or there.

[_Some Schmo]

There are people today considered rational conservatives who were thought of as pretty far to the right a mere three years ago. And they're not saying anything any different other than calling out Trump here or there.

The GOP is not a political party any more, but a cult, and like any cult that expects to last, it must be more outrageous than the last one.

So yeah, the longer the GOP cannibalizes itself, the more normal insanity will seem. That phenomenon is not as remarkable to me as the base actually going along with it and keeping up with the outrageous narratives. They're damned sheep (meaning they are sheep, not actually having sex with sheep... although in that crowd...)