Jordan Peterson is everywhere just now, and I do not think he will soon stop being everywhere. (He was also referred to here in yesterday’s SQotD.) Was this what it was like when John Wesley got into his communicational stride? When interesting things happen now, you find yourself understanding similar events in the past much better, events which had formerly seemed almost unimaginable.
I spent the small hours of this morning, the end of my version of last night, listening to this conversation, that Peterson had with an Australian politician called John Anderson, who is a new face to me. It was the video equivalent of not being able to put the book down.
In this conversation, Peterson repeated one of his most characteristic ideas, to the effect that people should bear the most responsibility that they can possibly carry. This is not merely because others will appreciate this and benefit from it, although that is a likely consequence and a definite feature. It is also that when life turns bad, when tragedy strikes, when God is throwing custard pies around, the fact that you are living your life meaningfully, as opposed merely to living it pleasurably, will be a great solace, in a way that merely having lived pleasurably will not be. “We are beasts of burden.”
This is what Peterson means by the word responsibility. Responsibilities are things that we all need, to make and find meaning in our lives. The happiness you get from doing something meaningful, even if often rather painful and perhaps very painful, is far deeper than the happiness you get from some merely pleasurable pastime or addictive drug or hobby. We all need fun. But we all need for our lives to be more than just fun.
Sometimes, depending on his audience, Peterson expands upon the idea of responsibility by using the language of Christianity, of the sort that is being used a lot today, on Good Friday. (Interesting adjective, that.) Do as Christ did. Live your life by picking up the biggest cross you can carry. Whether Peterson is himself a Christian and will at some future time declare himself to be a Christian is now much discussed, I believe. (I am an atheist, by the way. Which is a species of thinker for whom Peterson has a lot of respect, because at least we tend to do a lot of thinking.)
I have always been deeply suspicious of the word “responsibility”. It has again and again sounded like someone else telling me that I must do what he wants me to do rather than what I want to do. If he is paying my wages, then fair enough. But if he is explaining why I should vote for him, and support everything he does once he has got the job he is seeking, not so fair.
The sort of thing I mean is when a British Conservative Party politician says, perhaps to a room full of people who, like me, take the idea of freedom very seriously: Yes, I believe, passionately, in freedom. The politician maybe then expands upon this idea, often with regard to how commercial life works far better if people engaged in commerce are able to make their own decisions about which projects they will undertake and which risks they will walk towards and which risks they will avoid. If business is all coerced, it won’t be nearly so beneficial. We will all get poorer. Yay freedom.
But.
But … “responsibility”. We should all have freedom, yes, but we also have, or should have, “responsibility”. Sometimes there then follows a list of things that we should do or should refrain from doing, for each of which alleged responsibility there is a law which he favours and which we must obey. At other times, such a list is merely implied. So, freedom, but not freedom.
The problem with politicians talking about responsibility is that their particular concern is and should be the law, law being organised compulsion. And too often, their talk of responsibility serves only to drag into prominence yet more laws about what people must and must not do with their lives. But because the word “responsibility” sounds so virtuous, this list of anti-freedom laws becomes hard to argue against, even inside one’s own head. Am I opposed to “responsibility”? Increasingly, I have found myself saying: To hell with it. Yes.
I have often been similarly resistant to the language of Christianity, of the sort that dominates what is being said in churches around the world today. How many times in history have acts of tyranny been justified by the tyrant saying something like: We must all bear our crosses in life, and here, this cross is yours. “God is on my side. Obey my orders.” The truth about the potential of life to inflict pain becomes the excuse to inflict further pain.
I suffered the final spasms of this way of thinking at the schools I went to, not long after the Second World War. “Life is cruel, Micklethwait, and I am now going to prove it to you by making it even more cruel. I am preparing you for life.” This kind of cruelty may now have been more or less replaced by over-protectiveness, by excessively shielding children from activities that might prove painful. Peterson has a lot to say about that also. Much modern law-making, of the you-must-not-eat-too-many-sticky-buns sort, is motivated partly by this sort of thinking.
But getting back to what Peterson says about “responsibility”, the deeply refreshing thing about how he uses this word is that, because he is not a politician, he separates the benefits to me of me choosing to live responsibly from the idea of him deciding what he thinks these responsibilities of mine should be, and then compelling me to accept them whether I judge them to be wise or appropriate or meaningful for me or not. The process he wants to set in motion in my mind is of me thinking about what my responsibilities should be. He is arguing that I should choose my own cross, as best I can, and then carry it as best I can, because this is what will be best for me. He is not telling me which cross it should be, in a way that he calculates will be advantageous for him.
It helps a lot that Peterson chose his moment to step upon the political stage by vehemently opposing a law that might compel him merely to speak in a certain way. As he himself says, you see what someone truly believes by watching what he does. Peterson really does believe in freedom, as well as in a great many other interesting things.
Maybe, sometimes, a politician may actually mean what Jordan Peterson means when he talks about responsibility. Trouble is, if he does not make himself crystal clear about what he is and is not saying, you are liable to mishear him as just wanting to boss you around. Jordan Peterson is not the boss of me, and he is not trying to be. He is simply presenting me, and all the other multitudes of people who are listening to him now, with an argument, an argument that I for one find very persuasive.
Another way of putting all this is that Peterson is not telling me anything I didn’t already know. (He gets this a lot, apparently.) What he is doing is reclaiming and cleansing an important word.
The ultimate resposibility is to lead an economic life, to be not a parasite on others, by living through the State or stealing. There are those not able to lead an economic existence, who depend on others to provide for them, be they infants, infirm or idiots. Thus by leading an economic life, you can provide for those whom you wish to assist.
Or you can abdicate responsibility and abstract that task of providing to ‘the State’, or simply disregard it.
That is the minimum, Peterson is talking about the maximum.
‘…that you are living your life meaningfully, as opposed merely to living it pleasurably, will be a great solace, in a way that merely having lived pleasurably will not be..’
Says who?
How very Epicurian. Epicurus believed one should live a full pleasing life. He was misrepresented by the religious folk, who said he meant a life of indulgence, but he meant expanding the mind, enquiry seeking out knowledge, but above all the individual doing what best suited and pleased him.
But what pleases us varies and who is to say a pleasurable llife is not meaningful?
When people start telling others they should not be so materialistic and concentrate on a ‘more important’ and ‘meaningful’ existence, it all sounds very judgemental and redolent of religious fanaticism, giving up worldly pleasures for a pure, natural life sitting cross-legged on the floor, chanting OM and communicating with the Great White Spirit.
I’ll decide what is ‘meaningful’ for, me nobody else; nor will it be according to standards decided by others.
Boy oh boy. John B, your entire comment makes points that are spot-on. Furthermore, it has implications and ramifications that are also spot-on.
–From an e-mail written as a tribute (!) by a Proud Progressive. Cf. this, from Timothy Kauffman’s review of Tim Keller’s book Every Good Endeavor (my boldface):
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=301
Please note that I do not mean to indict Dr. Peterson as a believer in this claptrap. But it goes to the issue of just what one means by “responsibility,” and I think it is a good illustration of a part of John B’s point.
.
Miss R. had the radical notion that if one looked after oneself economically, without force or fraud (or emotional manipulation), then, just as Mr Ed says above, one would certainly be acting responsibly. In fact, he would be a net contributor. I would expand on that a little: To the extent that one gets along by looking after himself, one does not take up resources of “the community” — meaning, the people in the community — that could otherwise be used by its members to help themselves or other people who need a hand of one sort or another.
(That is not to say that most people can or ought to try to get along solely on their own, without asking others to help. Often a bunch of people come together to help each other to complete some task that is difficult or impossible for a single person to accomplish. Just one example: Barn-raisings, where neighbors would help a man to build his barn, knowing that that same man would pitch in to help the other individuals at need. –Actually, building a business at some point requires a cooperative effort, where people trade their work for wages or salaries.)
Economists talk about “consumer surplus,” with the doings of Mr. Gates often cited as an example. They say that Bill Gates has contributed far more to the good of the people of the world in making the various products of Microsoft available and affordable to a very large number of people, thus improving their lives, than he has with his various philanthropic endeavours.
“When people start telling others they should not be so materialistic and concentrate on a ‘more important’ and ‘meaningful’ existence, it all sounds very judgemental and redolent of religious fanaticism, giving up worldly pleasures for a pure, natural life sitting cross-legged on the floor, chanting OM and communicating with the Great White Spirit.”
I’m guessing Peterson would answer something like this…
He’s not judging you, he’s basing his recommendation on what he’s found from his studies, backed up by experience. He does have a lot of experience in clinical psychology afterall. You may think a life of pleasure will do the trick and that you are unique and self-defining,but the chances are you will be wrong. And he’s not saying give up worldly pleasures and sit on the floor, he’s saying take on responsibility, which is not the same thing. In fact, the complete opposite.
John B is right, with two caveats: his comment has nothing to do with anything Peterson says; and what Peterson does say is not aimed at people like John B (i.e. people who are mature, comfortable with themselves, and have a purpose in life – whatever that may be, material and pleasurable, or otherwise). Rather, Peterson’s advice is aimed at people who seek such advice – primarily young men who for some reason feel that there must be more to life than another one-night stand and a new smartphone. You know, the privileged ones, although by no mean exclusively white (fancy that).
Alisa,
Absolutely agree. I bought Peterson’s book as a gesture of support, skimmed it, found nothing particularly interesting, (apart from the lobsters, obviously,) and put it back in my Kindle library.
BUT, I am a reasonably contented retiree, who life turned out better than feared, so I am not the target audience.
It seems to me that John B’s comment has everything to do with what Dr. Peterson says. He starts by quoting from Brian’s summary of Dr. Peterson on responsibility:
This causes the reader to think not only about what Jordan Peterson thinks, but also about what he, the reader, means by “living ‘pleasurably,'” and by living “meaningfully,” as well as what he means or understands by “responsibility.”
John’s response to this is to make the point implied implied by his question:
This is in direct response to Dr. Peterson’s idea (as it is explained by Brian). He’s exploring a couple of the issues the quote raises … and they are issues that each of us has to answer for himself.
And I responded to that with an example of what some people insist is “our” responsibility; namely, to live not only for ourselves but for others. News Flash: I think this is a dreadful doctrine. Our first responsibility is to take care of ourselves. (Properly understood, this includes looking after our psychological health, which requires that we live morally and ethically according to whatever code we have.)
But if I’ve misunderstood you, John, please correct me.
. . .
ETA: Actually, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Dr. P. making the same point himself, that one of the questions we have to answer for ourselves is exactly, “What is my responsibility?”
Some say that “words are all we have, so all we have are words.” Not so: Words echo spirits of the dead, forebye the living, and what forebears say is just “Remember me.”
We are born to learn, as flowers turn towards light. What do we learn?– all that there is, to love. And what is “love”?– to give of everything we have, bequeathing the legacy of Life and Light our ancestors bestowed on us.
Whatever form this takes, spiritual energy like the material/physical is manifestly conserved in forms most curious: Being exists in essence as Potential, for “nicht im Sein sondern im Werden”– not in Being but Becoming lies The Way.
Divinity is not an all-powerful old man with white whiskers, dwelling beyond Space and Time, stirring the quantum pot with a relativistic finger, but –as one might say– a mendicant announcing:
“I am Tom, and so say without saying, ‘The one and the many’s the same, / When you’ve learned No Knowledge of Nothing, / And your kingdom hasn’t a name.’ …
“Tom as first comes a-begging / Has neither to go nor to stay. / But what all winter’s winds won’t accomplish, / Kind words will wreak in a day.”
“To be” affirms Ulysses’ existential tropism: “To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield” (Tennyson). Tamam.
He does and it’s indicative of how many people miss his point. His entire thesis is based upon the premise that thousands of years of biological, social and religious evolution have codified certain “rules” (for want of a better word) that, if followed, will contribute to a life well lived.
To expect him to be an exception to his own thesis is absurd.
Julie, I don’t think that forming one’s idea about a person and his views on mere quotes is a good idea in general (even though at times I find myself doing just that, while I don’t even know if that’s what John B was doing).
Julie, I think that Peterson would agree with your final sentence. Indeed, one of the chapters in his bonk is titled “Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.” and another “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.”
To me, though (and, if I have not misunderstood him, to Peterson) to live also for others is to live for ourselves.
A parallel may be drawn between an expansive view of responsibility and charity. In both cases the act (whether it be taking responsibility for or giving to) enriches the person who performs it.
However, this is true if and only if the act arises organically out of the being of the performer. It seems to me that the beef is with others seeking to coerce the act, as it always is. Dr. Peterson and Miss Rand may not be as far apart as one might think.
Example:
That’s precisely Peterson’s point (among others): find what is meaningful for you and pursue it, while bearing the sole responsibility for your independent choice.
Mr Peterson is advocating self-reliance instead of dependence and victimhood.
That’s why his views are so shocking to many people.
Peterson’s demand that I take responsibility for myself, and Ayn Rand’s demand that I not be a ‘second hander’ but be the judge of myself, have at the least a considerable degree of overlap. This may be another way of making the point of the other rob (March 31, 2018 at 12:00 pm) and of Alisa (March 31, 2018 at 12:05 pm).
Ayn Rand’s heroes and heroines usually end up doing much that helps others, but they do not outsource their consciences to others. Her villains subscribe to an ideology of service to others. Some make it the mere means to their own power and profit, but the more tragic cases do outsource their consciences to it.
Peterson’s point of connection may resemble that of the joke told by the priest in Niven and Pournelle’s “The Mote in God’s Eye”. In heaven, a group of priests are boasting of their achievements: one converted a city, another a whole planet, another moved an entire galaxy to embrace the Christian faith. Eventually they ask a quiet guy at the edge of their group, “How many souls did you save?” “Just one”, he replies.
I must confess I never made the association between a politician talking about “responsibility” and his wanting an extension of state violence. I shall be on the look out for it should I find myself listening to a politician ever again.
As many have said, “responsibility” is usually something nasty imposed on us. Bringing with it sad childhood memories of being nagged by our parents.
Whereas (as an adult) one of the greatest personal liberations we can find is the realisation that “responsibility” can be spelt “response-ability”. That is, the ability to respond and take control of a situation, instead of waiting for “someone” to “do something about it”. This makes us much more emotionally resilient and able to cope with events.
Surely this is a libertarian attitude?
I believe this is a cornerstone of the best kinds of Personal Development Psychology.
One of Peterson’s most relevant points is that to change the world you should first demonstrate that you can change something about yourself. Because positive change is hard, and positive change in something as incredibly complex as society or the world is incomprehensibly complex.
It’s not an accident that the noisy, demanding activists among us usually have messy, inconsequential personal lives devoid of real achievements and dependent on transfers of wealth from others.
Of course the media fuels this nonsense. Protestors are always asked why they feel so strongly and not why aren’t you at work.
― Confucius
Peterson is Confucius reincarnated.
You choose your responsibilities. You own them. You own your own life. You own your children. (That is, you have a mutual belonging.) You ask for your responsibilities, explicitly and implicitly. You own the consequences of your own choices.
What the Politician means is that you have an unchosen duty to take care of other’s responsibilities that they’ve shirked and cast back to society. To which I say “hogwash”.
“Confucius”
Kung Fu Tzu.
Occultist A.E. Waite, designer of the Ryder-Smith-Waite Tarot deck, and member of the Golden Dawn pre-Crowley, considered the common definition of magick (using words, symbols and gestures to get the world to conform to your will) to be “Low minded”. The enlightened alternative is to transform oneself. ‘The spiritual alchemist’s Magnum Opus, the Great Work. And the path to perfection is “The Fool’s Journey” as mapped out in the tarot’s Trumps, or the Major Arcana. This self perfection ideal is also reflected in New Age, with the personal manifestation of The Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine.
John Anderson is a retired politician. He was National Party leader and Transport Minister in John Howard’s government for some years. Worse than useless at both jobs. Tried to stick Dick Smith with responsibility but no power (Anderson wanted that for himself)when Dick was chair of Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Dick told him to shove it and resigned, more’s the pity.
Subsequently some poor choices for CASA chair have wrecked the low end of Australian civil aviation.
孔子
So there.
😉
(Type “Kung Fu Tzu” into Google and you get the Wikipedia page for “Confucius.”)
Yup, Kung Fu actually means hard work and discipline. Tzu means teacher.
“Kung Fu actually means hard work and discipline.”
Thanks for that 1970’s American TV trivia 🙂
To emphasize Peterson’s point, here’s David Hogg, the media darling on gun control:
“I’m so happy to live in America, have free school, be sorounded by freedom loving people, peace and opertuinity. Just wanted to say that.”
Can’t spell or even bother to use spell check, but demands changes to the Constitution.
Fits Peterson nicely, doesn’t it? Work hard, discipline your thoughts . . .
The more I read, the more his twelve points correspond to various pithy Confucian quotes.
Truth is you can only tend your own garden.
Though many make great sport of trying to get others to tend a rigidly defined series of gardens.
Peterson points this out himself, saying that you already know his message, since he’s talking in the form of archetypical stories.
Roué le Jour, if you want a book of his that you can really sink your teeth into, his old one might do the trick. I have it sitting on my book-reader “shelf”, but I have no idea when I will have the time and the clarity of mind to do so myself.
I’d recommend reading Peterson’s own seventy-point summary of Maps of Meaning (found here) before embarking on the 550-page book itself.
It won’t detract from reading the book, and in fact might make it more penetrable.
Great tip Bobby – thanks.
I would highly recommend getting book on Audible. He reads it himself, and the way he rambles it’s far better to hear him than read him. Furthermore, there are so many personal anecdotes in the book that his honest, emotional reading of it is highly touching.
A lot of good points in the post – and in the comments.
Another of Peterson’s rules, not mentioned in this post is: Focus your vision, think, be precise in your speech… etc. Similarly AR said: be rational. It takes an effort to focus, to think, to be rational (as far as you can).
Peterson is preaching the same virtues, focused on the individual, not society, but he uses more “psychological” jargon and references.