>It's the priests and priestesses of postmodernism that gets people's backs up isn't it, not so much the concept(s) itself.
Yes, that. Especially since the concept itself was never meant to be something one can opt to follow or not follow -- just a description of the reality we're in.
It's not that we're "postmodernists" that is, but that we live in a "postmodern" world -- and so we can't be anything aside from that.
As for Peterson, I see him as something orthogonal from postmodernism.
He is someone that talks from a traditional values standpoint in an era where different norms are becoming the mainstream. He doesn't say anything outrageous, in the sense that what he says would be common acceptable wisdom 30 or 50 years ago (and for tons of people still is).
The whole outrage is not because he's saying something inherently outrageous, but because he dares to publicly stray from the mainstream while still being mainstream.
Somebody could say the same things in a 1950 classroom or the president could say them in 1970s and nobody would bat an eyelash -- even among the leftist and more progressives. Heck, the Monty Python made fun of "gender identities" for example in the late 70s, and those bunch was and is as progressive as they come: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
But haven't a lot of good things happened in those 30 or 50 years in terms of refining the social model? I feel he comes across as an apologist for regression.
That's why people are shocked by him, and worse still for people who uncritically swallow this stuff he's often right.
That's what makes him "post modern" in a post-modern world, and very much a spectacle.
I see Monty Python as questioning these ideas as a way of advancing the discussion. They're comedy though. They're not claiming "truth" status.
>But haven't a lot of good things happened in those 30 or 50 years in terms of refining the social model? I feel he comes across as an apologist for regression.
Not necessarily. A lot of good things, but perhaps a lot of excess as well.
(e.g. in my opinion end of segregation and women and gay rights obviously great. Non-binary bathrooms, "gender-neutral pronouns", "Safe zones" and other absurdities not so much).
Peterson plays between those two (condemns the bad developments but often some good developments too). But nowhere near the caricature he's made to look but those who he'd rather uncritically embrace everything.
It's like with the French revolution: a lot of good things, but a lot of zeal to cut heads and change things to absurdity. It's just the bias of the current advocates that make any change from the older norms seem great. In retrospect a different generation would laugh at some of our excesses. (Like the 80s and still on to day laugh with hippies, whereas in the sixties and early 70s those ideas -- heck, even those clothes -- where de rigueur for young people).
What's wrong with safe zones? I honestly don't see anything wrong with participation medals either ...
Non-binary bathrooms? I don't see why anyone would legislate for bathrooms at all.
I'll draw the line at gender-neutral pronouns since "they/their" is perfectly adequate and means I don't have to change how I use language overnight to accommodate a fringe group.
Excess, sure. I'm happy to see some exuberance among communities once oppressed.
I don't share the fear of some that these communities are becoming the oppressors, although clearly (as with the whole C-16 thing) some are getting carried away.
If you take Peterson seriously, I kind of feel like he's just throwing away everything that's happened in the last few years and acting like it didn't happen. It's as though his whole didactic is tone-deaf.
An enlightened approach would be to integrate the new ideas with the old.
Yes, that. Especially since the concept itself was never meant to be something one can opt to follow or not follow -- just a description of the reality we're in.
It's not that we're "postmodernists" that is, but that we live in a "postmodern" world -- and so we can't be anything aside from that.
As for Peterson, I see him as something orthogonal from postmodernism.
He is someone that talks from a traditional values standpoint in an era where different norms are becoming the mainstream. He doesn't say anything outrageous, in the sense that what he says would be common acceptable wisdom 30 or 50 years ago (and for tons of people still is).
The whole outrage is not because he's saying something inherently outrageous, but because he dares to publicly stray from the mainstream while still being mainstream.
Somebody could say the same things in a 1950 classroom or the president could say them in 1970s and nobody would bat an eyelash -- even among the leftist and more progressives. Heck, the Monty Python made fun of "gender identities" for example in the late 70s, and those bunch was and is as progressive as they come: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c