Against Jordan Peterson

An 'Archetype' of Subversion and Confusion

Jordan Peterson is a complex topic, and to his credit he seems also to be quite the complex man. His reputation preceeds him, for better or worse, and I am certain that this piece will spark inflamed reactions from supporters and detractors alike. I do not want to dislike Jordan Peterson, and I did not want to have to write this article. We have decidedly reached a point, however, long overdue for our recognition; he must be stopped.

There are a variety of avenues open to this kind of critique, most of which have been trodden before by Peterson’s critics: one could object to the vision of ‘Conservatism’ offered in his Conservative Manifesto, his perceived intellectual stagnation since perhaps 2017, or his belligerent change in tone since his acquisition by the Daily Wire- or even his repeated call for people to stop eating vegetables. I think that these are valid critiques, and they’re sources of a frustration with Peterson that I’ve felt for some time now, perhaps two or three years now. But it was always easy for me to assuage these concerns with a common refrain to Peterson’s long history of reaching apolitical young men, and his skill at pointing them towards living more meaningful lives. This skill was real, and I’d go so far as to say he likely had a positive impact on millions of young men and hundreds of young women.

My contention is not that this movement around Peterson was not real or was not valuable, but instead that Peterson should be understood as an outsider whose ability to reach apolitical secular people is merely effectually helpful. Peterson must not be confused with a thought-leader of the conservative movement, or to Christians. This new frame of Peterson as an outsider is critical for us to spot Peterson where he diverges from both orthodox Christianity and conservatism as a political philosophy. This should not be a difficult position to be in, both religious Christians and political conservatives broadly have many figures who exist in these camps; the entire libertarian movement is an example, secular but right-wing thinkers like Paul Gottfried are another, and their contributions when rightful can be admirable.

Peterson is troublesome not because he fits into these categories but instead because he deliberately obfuscates his position inside of them, and attempts to define from the outside both Christianity and Conservatism as things they are not. Peterson believes he is like the sun, pulling both Christianity and Conservatism into his orbit and shaping them around his gravity into the smooth objects he would like them to be. But Peterson is actually a black hole, from which both concepts must be protected.

---

Tammy Peterson

Jordan Peterson’s wife, Tammy, made headlines with her public conversion to Catholicism after she began praying the Rosary, attributing to grace a miraculous recovery from a terminal cancer diagnosis. Her story is beautiful, and Jordan’s public support for her and his companionship to her on her journey to the Church was widely admired, and for good reason. I refuse to disparage either Jordan’s wife or him on this topic; to do so would be deeply wrong.

Following his wife’s conversion, however, Jordan has been questioned about his own relationship to Christianity and his belief or disbelief in God with a greater frequency than before. Peterson’s biblical lecture series was long a staple of his online brand, its opening episode has over 13 million views at the time of my writing, and a series on Exodus is actively advertised by the Daily Wire network. This makes Peterson, in the eyes of the public and deliberately via his own marketing and that of his employer, an authority on the meaning of Biblical text. These questions, to most people, appear simple; either one believes in God, or not.

But for someone who does not believe in God, and who has made a reputation out of refusing to lie, this kind of question is dangerous- especially considering that Peterson's fanbase is looking for one simple answer.

The Matt Fradd Interview

Throughout this interview, Peterson repeatedly says things like, “God is the deepest instinct” or “[If you] violate the moral order see what happens [you end up in hell].”¹ After these comments, though, he quickly pivots to a metaphorical and psychological reading of hell as a representation of disorder in ones life.

As the discussion continues, Peterson attempts to ‘concretize’ his idea of God for Matt, saying that all admirable men are participating in the ‘same spirit’ insofar as they are admirable - that spirit is God, but such a definition does not survive his very next sentence. “God is the benevolence that shines through the good father” or his next formulation, “God is the call to adventure”, or his next, “God is conscience.” Boldly, Peterson anticipates my very reply, mockingly saying, “Well that's not God!” Peterson’s retort? “Well, have it your way. You're playing games.”

No, Jordan, you're playing games.

After a long diversion, Fradd and Peterson find themselves on the topic of the afterlife. Jordan has just finished discussing God as a collection of biblical vignettes (and sounding rather orthodox while doing so) when he says that those deny the existence of hell don't know anything about history. This is yet another signal that Jordan’s ultimate understanding of these concepts is metaphorical and psychological, not literal.

Fradd, attempting to seek some clarity, asks Peterson if he believes in an afterlife. His reply? “Your actions echo in eternity.” Their discussion continues, and Peterson pivots to the idea that belief is lived and not spoken in creed and this is why no one should be suspicious at his refusal to answer in the affirmative when asked if he believes in God. Because, as he says, he believes “in the call to adventure,” or at least it's good to act like he does.

Jordan Peterson is not evil

When your employer is marketing you as a biblical expert, attempts to obfuscate your non-belief in the Christian faith through a twisting-turning of Jungian psychology moves from frustrating to problematic. Christians should recognize Peterson as, at best, a fellow traveller- not a guide. It is on these terms that engagement can be healthy, but it is on these terms that the engagement must be understood to take place. It is interesting to consider additional narrative implications of Scripture passages, but to understand them fundamentally in these terms is to turn the very foundations of our faith from the inspired Word of the Lord to mere watercolors.

I will conclude this essay with a short call to prayer on behalf of Peterson.

May he find his peace in the faith.

Thank you for reading Position & Decision,

Sanfedisti

1. “Atheism, Climate Change & Marriage Advice w/ Jordan Peterson” Matt Fradd, Pints With Aquinas. YouTube. May 13th 2024.

https://youtu.be/wy_c6lDQZEw?si=8SMv_6DowVgIVmh2