Hi Gregg,
I'd like to offer a personal response to your blog series. As you are aware, (a) I'm not very familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, (b) I am on the left edge of the political spectrum. So, I may be a good "trial audience" for your account of Peterson's worldview.
For starters, I can say that I found the blog series exceptionally clear and thought provoking. You present a strong case that his work should be taken seriously -- especially by liberals (inside and outside the Academy).
Regarding the second installment ("Identity Politics"), I have a story to share. One day (about 10 years ago), I returned to my office after delivering a lecture in my course entitled "Adulthood & Aging." An hour or two later, I received a call from a colleague in another department. She reported that she had just talked to a student who was rather upset by the language I was using in class. I thought to myself: "Dear God! What did I say?!? Did I accidentally insult a religious or ethnic minority group? If so, I would certainly by willing to apologize."
Well, it turns out that my offense was simply a failure to employ "person-first language" when discussing individuals with disabilities. "Person-first language?", I replied, "What on earth is that?" I was
informed that person-first language is the practice of putting the individual before the disability [e.g., rather than label someone as an "autistic person", I should refer to them as a "person with autism". I replied: "Is this really a good idea? After all, I don't refer to psychology majors as 'persons with a psychology major'. And, if I label someone as an 'autistic person', I don't mean to imply that they could not be characterized in other ways (as sports fans, etc.)."
After this conversation, I found myself pondering the ethics of person-first language. I discussed the issue with colleagues and perused the relevant literature. I can now offer the following comments (with the provision that my position may change at any moment):
- To this day, I am unable to embrace the "person-first" ethos. In addition to the fact that it makes for awkward scholarly writing, I find it both dishonest and patronizing. If a condition truly matters then it qualifies my very being. My personhood does not exist first, only to be qualified second. I am my qualifiers: I'm a psychology professor, a Democrat, a science-fiction fan, etc. None of these attributes exhaust what can be said about me. Still, any of them may be appropriate in certain contexts, without the need to remind the world that "I'm a person first!"
- The episode described above wasn't my final encounter with person-first language advocates. As the years passed, I was occasionally chastised by colleagues and students for my failure to conscientiously employ person-first language. "Its APA Style!", one colleague reminded me. I replied: "Well then, so much the worse for APA Style!...and besides, since when does the APA have a right to police our language (outside of APA-Style manuscripts)?"
- Person-first language is supposed to make the world a more accepting place for disabled individuals. I don't yet have reason to believe that this is true. Still, I'm wondering if there might not be ulterior motives for adopting this ethic.
- Consider direct-care providers (of any sort) who work with disabled individuals. Here's an account of what might be going on in the hearts of a few of them:
- "There but for the grace of God go I."
- "But I'm not supposed to see myself as somehow better than my patients! They are people, just like me!"
- "Still, I really am fortunate that I'm not in their predicament. I don't like to admit it, but there's a sense in which I feel as if I'm much better off than they are."
- "Does this suggest a lack of respect? hmmm... If only I could find a way to demonstrate -- indeed, to prove once and for all -- that I see my clients as psychosocial equals."
- "My mentors insist on person-first language. This may be the magic wand I was looking for! Person-first language perpetually reminds me that they are indeed equals."
- "My mission is clear: I will embrace person-first language, and demand that others do so as well."
- What we have here may well be a case of Freudian reaction formation. This is testable. For those familiar with the Implicit Association Test, I offer the following hypothesis: Those direct-care providers who are most passionate about the need to employ person-first language will demonstrate higher levels of implicit bias against individuals with disabilities.
I'm apprehensive about what I've just written. Perhaps someone will find it offensive. I think this is an important facet of Peterson's position (as I understand it from Gregg's blog series). I want to find ways to make our world better for individuals with disabilities. I certainly don't want to hurt anybody. But intellectual honesty requires that we critically evaluate every proposal, including claims regarding the substantive effects of word choice.
I look forward to continued engagement with Peterson's work.
Steve Q.