It’s not a shock to discover that Quillette — the house organ of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web — has given Jordan Peterson’s Beyond Order, his sequel to his bafflingly popular 12 Rules: An Antidote to Chaos, a rave review.
And I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the review is as muddled and rambling as Peterson’s own prose. I just wish the 2400-word appreciation had been a little shorter. Life itself is short, and I’ve already wasted more that enough time contemplating the big blob of prickly nothingness that is Jordan Peterson.
So how much does Quillette’s reviewer — London journalist Hannah Gal — love Peterson? Enough to call his book “an astonishingly illuminating look at the human condition” that “could positively impact society as a whole.” In other words, it’s much better than CATS; she’s going to read it again and again.
All this despite the fact that Peterson’s alleged insights into the human condition have always been a mixture of “tough love” cliches and muddled pronouncements about the profound insights supposedly contained in certain Disney movies.Gal praises one of his insights as being wonderously “mind-boggling” but, judging from the extended exegesis of his arguments she provides in her rambling review-manifesto, every point iillustrated with a quote or three from the man himself, Peterson is at least as boggled as he is boggling.
As is Gal’s review, which bounces from topic to topic with a kind of manic energy that disguises her and Peterson’s fundamental incoherence.
As expected, Beyond Order draws on literature, poetry, mythology, classic fairy tales, Nietzsche, Freud, and the New and Old Testaments—the 10 commandments are listed in full. There are moving references to Peterson’s family members, including his wife, his father-in-law, and his little granddaughter.
None of whom, I should mention, are ever mentioned again in the piece.
Another sample:
His many eclectic references and eccentric observations awaken the mind, inviting the reader on a path of contemplation and discovery, at the end of which awaits deeper understanding of the human condition. Elsewhere in the book, he explains why Thomas the Tank Engine has a face and a smile … .
She never bothers to explain what exactly Peterson’s point is with regard to Tank Engine Thomas, so I can only imagine that the reason he has a smiling face is that TRAINS ARE ALIVE and probably biding their time until they rise up and overturn human civilization.
Though the title of Peterson’s book is “Beyond Order,” and though there is very little order in Gal’s review, the main lesson she draws from her reading of Peterson is that rules are good.
His conclusions point to an urgent need for individuals and society to adopt traditional values—constructive discipline, responsibility, competence, hard work, apprenticeship, competition, acceptance of hierarchy, and respect for the past and basic order.
Then why, again, is the book called Beyond Order?
I guess I’ll never know, because based on her review I have less than zero inclination to actually read the book.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
Wasn’t Petersen supposed to have brain damage after that coma he went into?
Oh gawd, please not another polemic on the politics of Thomas the Tank Engine. You can’t move for them here.
And anyway, everyone knows the best commentary on Capital versus Labour is Bagpuss.
Hey, ranting about the politics of Thomas is what got my husband and I through literal years of our kids’ obsessions with the show! Don’t take our grim cackling joy in spotting some of the nastier elements (what exactly happens to engines who aren’t Really Useful?! Will Donald and Douglas really be executed for scamming the Fat Conductor?!) away from us! We had too much fun snickering behind our children’s backs! Oh damn, now the theme song is stuck in my head. ?
Hey, ranting about the politics of Thomas is what got my husband and I through literal years of our kids’ obsessions with the show! Don’t take our grim cackling joy in spotting some of the nastier elements (what exactly happens to engines who aren’t Really Useful?! Will Donald and Douglas really be executed for scamming the Fat Conductor?!) away from us! We had too much fun snickering behind our children’s backs! Oh damn, now the theme song is stuck in my head. ?
Acceptance that you women are property of your husbands and gay people should be forced to be in straight relationships.
This feels appropriate
https://uproxx.com/movies/jordan-peterson-red-skull-captain-america-ta-nehisi-coates/
Is one of the rules “Don’t acquire a benzo addiction that sends you into a coma in Russia?”
Because it ought to be.
Also, God, Creator of All That Is, only had 10 rules. Why’s JP need more than twice as many?
Is the Thomas thing meant to be amazing? Because prepare to have your minds blown, all conservatives and mushy centrists: it is because Thomas is a character on a kids’ show and if he just looked like a train it would be difficult to empathise with him. Bang! I should be the one making a hundred thousand dollars a month on Patreon and eating nothing but salty beef!
Hey JP, I think all of us went through a phase in high school where we stayed up late to ramble with our friends about our Vast Unifying Oh-So-Awesome Philosophies Of Life. I’m sure we all thought, at the wise ages of, say, 14 to 17, that we were absolute geniuses .
Most of us were self-aware eno8gh to grow out of that phase.
And we sure as hell didn’t turn our pretentious monologues into terrible books.
Relevant. Maybe.
https://www.cbr.com/jordan-peterson-red-skull-te-nehisi-coates-captain-america/
Yeah, when you see the Red Skull and automatically think “it me”, maybe you’ve gone wrong somewhere?
And, I mean, grandiose much there, Jord? Like other people didn’t come up with 10 Rules For Life before you?
YHWH called, He wants His number back. Smiting is always an option with that One.
Peterson would be fine if he’d stay in his lane. Even then, his takes are very dated, He needs to stay out of politics and keep his opinion on women to himself, given his sexist and disgusting audience. He makes excuses for their bad behavior which is in direct violation of his “clean your room” pull yourself up by the bootstraps bull crap. He’s a weird man who chooses to share his dream about his grandmother’s bush. Did no one on his editorial team say “Bro, wtf?”
@Annonymous I was going to say that the coma may have explained a lot about him but that doesn’t explain everything before. The dude is a wacko.
@Alan R, wait until he gets a load of WAP.
Well, at first, maybe. He wrote a lot of sequels and was up to 613 before He even got to the Golden one.
On other topics…
I’m not willing to read JP to be sure, but he strikes me as someone who practices a form of virtue ethics that is all too common, even if it’s not what virtue ethics was originally about under Aristotle.
For JP, as near as I can tell, virtue is redemptive. If one has the core virtues of a particular community, one is a good and ethical person regardless of behavior. That in itself isn’t TOO far from Aristotle, But for people of the type I’m discussing (probably including JP, but I can’t be sure so leave him aside for now) people who aren’t part of that community are viewed with “out group” suspicion, and the rules imposed on outgroup individuals are there so that those persons can simulate the values of the in group.
But because of the strong in-group/outgroup dichotomy, people in the outgroup can never be judged sufficiently good and moral without becoming part of the in-group. And if you’re in the in-group, then it’s trusted that even if you do a bad thing™, you’re still essentially god.
This creates an asymmetry: there are good (in-group) people who can relax, confident that they are moral and that their actions are moral because the actions of a moral person are moral actions – by definitions. Then there are the always suspect out-group people who must live up to the rules as imposed on them or be judged.
His books, then, are an opportunity for in-group persons to tell each other how much they agree with his values, even if they don’t intend to follow his rules. And his books – from the reviews I’ve read, I’ve never cracked the spine on one of his actual books – invite this by specifying rules that are metaphors. “Clean your room” was, famously, mocked. But the Petersonian response was not that, yes, this is a rule for juveniles but some people haven’t learned it even after becoming adults so it’s fair to include. The response to the mockery was that this was a metaphor for…whatever the fuck.
in this way, the in-crowd can always be confident in themselves that they are “cleaning their room” because the metaphor only means as much as they want it to mean, and only restricts their lives as much as they wish. Their in-group membership absolves them of any need to obey the letter of the law. In judging members of the out-group, however, the in-group arrogates to themselves the same authority to interpret the rules that they showed when interpreting how the rules related to their own behavior. This is not a contradiction to them: they do not believe that since they judged their own behavior that this means that individuals, broadly, should be the judges of their own behavior.
Rather, they judged themselves and now they’re judging you: who gets to judge is entirely consistent in their reading because who did the judging never changed (even if the perspective and the role of any conflicts of interest certainly did).
But, of course, since they are virtue ethicists, it doesn’t even matter if you uphold the rules better than they themselves do: if you don’t share the values of the in-group, if you don’t venerate the same virtues as the in-group, you can never be judged as moral as the in-group.
The rules, such as they are, are inchoate by design, because as much as people like this, people very much like JP, simulate deontologies, they are ultimately virtue ethicists to the core.
And you, my friends, don’t have the virtues that they value.
The entire ten commandments? Not a partial list, but the whole thing!? That’s amazing! Who ever heard of such a thing!?
How would you tell?
Oh, fuck. With that whole long thing above, I forgot to circle back to why I was writing all that in the first place: it’s because I’m trying to answer this question by David.
It’s “Beyond Order” yet still has rules, because for Jordan (I think), the out-group people need the rules, but the in-group people can simply clap themselves on the back for having good values. They are “beyond” the need for order, even if the rules are necessary to impose on others for the good of the in-group (which is made synonymous with the good of the society).
They’re beyond order. You’re stuck following the rules. Suck it up, Sunshine, that’s how the Lobster God intended it to be.
@GSS ex-noob
Right? I thought one of the selling points of the first one was that by following 12 and only 12 rules the reader could live well, but apparently, woops, he missed half of them, so we’d all better shell out for the sequel.
@Crip Dyke: Since I have yet to do a deep dive into Petersonology, I’m mildly curious as to what position he’s ultimately supporting. Pure tribalism where one group is immune to out-group treatment as the goal in itself, or as a pathway to universal conformance?
I did see one review of Peterson’s latest book that was interesting in that it was by someone who wasn’t invested one way or the other, so sort of didn’t see what the fuss was about one way or the other, and apparently had never come across Peterson’s online pronouncements, and so was just basing his review on the book itself. The main thing I found intriguing was the reviewer pointing out that it was refreshing to see a self-help book that wasn’t all “You can get out of this! You just have to believe in yourself!” but instead openly said “Yeah, life sucks. You’re going to have to deal with that.” Which… if it wasn’t Peterson, would seem a possibly valid viewpoint.
@snowberry
That’s a good question.
Elaine kind of beat me to it, but “acceptance of hierarchy, and respect for the past and basic order”?
In other words, shut up, don’t question anything, do what I say, and maintain the status quo.
Echoing WWTH to say, Wow!
Does he include the commandment not to be a sanctimonious, grifting asshole? Okay, that’s not actually a commandment — but it should be.
His little granddaugher? Even my cold, dead feminist heart is melted by the mention of a little granddaughter. This Jordan Peterson must be a great guy.
Constructive discipline, responsibility, competence, hard work, and apprenticeship? Sounds good to me. Competition? Why. Acceptance of hierarchy? Nope. Respect for the past? Not for the bad old days. Respect for basic order? You seem to be implying that your critics love chaos. Hahaha, no, that’s Donald Trump you’re thinking of.
This picture accompanies the review. Jordan Peterson smiles! And it looks as though he doesn’t quite have the hang of it.