Hi Jason,
One of the talks at the TOK Conference, by Dr. Steve Keffer, explored some of these issues. It was on how hunter-gatherer societies suppress dominance and hierarchies and inequality and work to foster mutual relational value across members by fostering both autonomy and community centeredness.
Then, agriculture happened, then resource accumulation, then inequality and patriarchy (in the vast majority of social arrangements). As I have said, I think that Peterson’s archetype view of humanity is too centered on Western Christian Male versions. There are broader views. But I will say what you write here is a sophisticated angle on the conversation. I believe it is one that Peterson is trying to grapple with (again, from what I think it a partial view of human psychology).
What are the kinds of societies that we can foster that enables health and justice, from the levels of the individual into the family into the group into the community into the state and then globally? For me, the one key variable is Relational Value/Social Influence (the black line on the Matrix). That is the primary psychosocial need that we need to cultivate.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
Gregg: "Unmarried males at the bottom of the hierarchy create social instability. It is almost certainly why monogamy has emerged."
~ That's one way of looking at it. But then, one could also look at hierarchy itself, and consider the possibility that that is the root problem of social instability.
From an evolutionary perspective, mating systems have a lot to do with access to and control over resources. So in a patriarchal system --- a particular type of hierarchical system where men dominate --- there emerges disparities in control over resources among men. So polygyny often emerges at the top of the hierarchy, leaving unmarried males at the bottom, followed by social instability.
Pretty much the history of ancient civilization in a nutshell.
So social monogamy emerges, and every male gets one female (like some object to own), and maintains dominance in a little mini-hierarchy in the household, along with all those large-scale justification systems that go along with it.
So some of that social instability is managed. But it still doesn't address the disparities in regards to access to and control over resources, (e.g., systems like feudalism or capitalism), which has historically been in favor of men.
So how would things be different if women had more equal control of an access to resources? It's not without precedent.
Consider the Musuo, where only women own the land, (and strive to keep that ownership equal). Men and women (along with the daughter's children) stay in the mother's household, have "walking marriages", (sometimes lifelong, often times not), share no material resources, and don't even share parental responsibilities, (i.e., the men direct their resources towards their maternal sisters' offspring).
Or some cultures have scarce resources whereby it's not even worth males competing over, leading to a system with high paternity uncertainty where males bequeath their resources to their maternal sisters' sons in their inheritance systems?
The general point here is that the system and context matter, which the likes of Peterson would seem to ignore. And hence other perspectives on social systems have emerged over time --- other possibilities --- such as anarchism and socialism, (both of which, in their intellectual traditions, often went hand-in-hand). People like Peterson take the system as a given (it would seem) and just want to manage the symptoms of what ultimately amounts to a diseased system, instead of getting to the root problem...the system itself.
~ Jason Bessey
On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 10:08:00 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Sure, if you read that article, you will not find him impressive. To me, that article was a great example of how he is a shiny object that gets folks bent out of shape trying to tar him. The point Peterson is making is one of the key points of civilization and war. Unmarried males at the bottom of the hierarchy create social instability. It is almost certainly why monogamy has emerged. Check out Robert Wright’s Nonzero<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_dp_0679758941_-3Ftag-3Dmh0b-2D20-26hvadid-3D78065371311761-26hvqmt-3De-26hvbmt-3Dbe-26hvdev-3Dc-26ref-3Dpd-5Fsl-5F2aqvktnpi3-5Fe&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=caDsBkH-OMiY318FGpqb4OV1mQq_XqU4iksGDHvHOaw&s=DBSI7zDaoaCpf7oM0o2omvsboPCPx6ZQJZy6IAmPf2c&e=> for an analysis of that.
I have no idea what he really believes about “enforced monogamy”. I don’t trust that the snippets from that piece get at his thinking. But, if he really is claiming that this should be a governmental solution, then I agree completely that he has gone off the deep end. That would shift my opinion of him greatly. I strongly suspect that he is talking about society creating norms that support monogamy rather than legal actions. That quote was placed there so that he looks like an ass. That was the clear point of the article.
But, I will say I don’t know him personally. And I definitely don’t share his ultimate worldview. My point, which I stand by as of now, is that he is a serious intellectual who is creating waves which I am glad to witness.
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
I just did a quick Google search of the guy, and here's another article about him from yesterday. Yeah, he doesn't strike me as impressive. (The social media responses at the bottom are hilarious, though!)
Right-wing thought leader Jordan Peterson endorses “enforced monogamy”<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.salon.com_2018_05_19_right-2Dwing-2Dthought-2Dleader-2Djordan-2Dpeterson-2Dendorses-2Denforced-2Dmonogamy-2Dto-2Dappease&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qNHoYX8HYLH4G7vkkX5cPGgmoY32I-6-KioTeplAO5o&s=UZXUhDAIOJUjahmefC8K7dsWj3lo4Fm7GuQt7C7ID2U&e=>
~ Jason Bessey
[cid:image001.jpg@01D3F034.94A2A8D0]
[Text Box:]
[https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/23/logos/salon.png]
Right-wing thought leader Jordan Peterson endorses “enforced monogamy”
In a profile published in the New York Times, Peterson reveals his sad agenda yet his defenders call it a "hit job"
On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 9:42:50 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Thanks, Jason.
Jordan Peterson is a “shiny object” for the academic/identity politic left. He challenges some of their sacred cows, and thus a consequence is that he becomes a hero of the alt right. And that is a reason to be concerned, as anything that energizes the alt right should be concerning.
However, it is crucial to recognize that this framing this is largely function of political polarization rather than what he is actually preaching. I don’t think that Peterson is really any closer to the “real” alt right (i.e., White male supremacy sympathizers) than I am. However, he does believe in the animus and anima archetypes. And he believes that the mythologies of our past were central to human psychology and how we function in the world (i.e., they revealed deep things about our deep natures).
And, he believes that if we are to be healthy in our living, we must realign our psychologies with archetypal mythologies, at least in some way. (Sound somewhat familiar 😊? He is very Jungian). And he thinks that the postmodern view has completely unmoored us in our quest for meaning making.
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
Gregg,
I want to emphasize the word "suspected". I'm not saying anything with a tremendous amount of certainty. I haven't looked too deeply into Peterson's thought. He doesn't really seem that interesting. But I keep hearing his name pop up from time-to-time, and (with the exception of this list serve), it's never positive.
He seems too obsessed with the Soviet Union and a "Red Scare" mentality. He appears to hold great appeal to the alt-right. I get the impression he wants to go back to the "good ol' days" of the 1950s. And dresses it all up in a scholarly-sounding manner that makes him appear to be legitimate and hence appealing (to some).
The link to that series of Tweets that Steve provided just seems to confirm what I've **suspected** about Peterson from what little I've heard of him.
~ Jason
On Sunday, May 20, 2018, 8:03:53 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
This is a fascinating rant against Peterson. I look forward to reading more about “metamodernism”.
Of course, the ToK/UTUA framework is offered as a “post post-modern grand meta-narrative”. I agree with Chance here that any such approach had better integrate archetypal and evolutionary thinking. Will see if metamodernism does that with any degree of sophistication.
Fun stuff, all of it.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chance McDermott
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 11:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Jordan Peterson (again)
Hi Steve, thank you for sharing.
This is my first contact with Abramson. When Abramson explained Peterson as a dangerous demagogue, I found myself wanting him to explain it in clear terms rather than imply it was obvious. I do agree with him that Peterson is winning, and will continue to win, the intellectual and social battleground. My parting initial thought on Abramson is: "Good luck defining a stable post-post modern reality without understanding and accepting evolutionary and analytic psychology."
-Chance
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 10:25 PM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Steve,
I love it! It pretty much confirms what I suspected about Peterson....that he's an intellectual fraud. And probably an awful human being, as well.
~ Jason Bessey
On Saturday, May 19, 2018, 10:03:06 PM EDT, Steven Quackenbush <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Those ToK list serve members with an interest in Jordan Peterson might enjoy Seth Abramson's recent twitter thread exploring the cultural significance of the "Jordan Peterson" phenomenon: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/997980968886644736<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_SethAbramson_status_997980968886644736&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yfn0_vJxE90Rt5MYGKSZx5sY4KG9gsdAWdFfncSexjQ&s=RDe8OWAZXA618jEZAf3GsrVplYxeKxDC2JgC5uSV8u4&e=>
At the time of my writing, Seth is still constructing his thread. Here are a few excerpts (from the most recent tweets):
* Tweet 62: "...Peterson offers a dead end that lives more in 1318 than 2018..."
* Tweet 64: "...I fear the choice in America over the next few years will be between embracing a multiversal, five-dimensional post-postmodernism or being stuck—forced to eat—tired, one-dimensional, fundamentally fascist pap that looked new for a second."
* Tweet 69: "My advice (and view): it's okay to agree with Peterson on the first 1% of his worldview—that postmodernism must eventually be supplanted. But the key is to note that what Peterson wants to supplant it with would already have seemed passé by 1690. It's a *total joke* in 2018."
~ Steve Q.
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
