Post Modernism in higher education.

[wat]

Is this the same spposed free-speech advocate Jordan Peterson who claims to deal out harsh truths... but often threatens libel lawsuits when someone critiques his ideas?

Because that spells "snowflake."

Spreading false info, especially accusations (singling out students with the intention of making them targets for abuse, specifically) that could damage someone's career warrants some recourse. Hence, defamation laws. Hardly a free speech issue or a contradiction.

 

[wat]

Double post

 

[diagrammatiks]

That’s not what I was getting at. Peterson argues that postmodernism is effectively cultural nihilism, and that its critique on western culture has bloomed into full blown identity politics, which is predictable. He talks about how Marxism and postmodernism should be at odds with each other, but are somehow hand-in-hand on college campuses anyway. My point is that Peterson isn’t misidentifying whatever cultural force is spreading through academia - he’s identifying its absurdity. He’s a frighteningly intelligent guy, and I find that most of critics either aren’t understanding or aren’t trying to understand him, which is maybe even reasonable, since he often takes 3 hours to explain his point. Give him an honest chance if you find the time.

As been stated before this argument makes no sense. There are no casual links between any of this stuff. He’s taking a small but very vocal group and equating that to a whole field of study.

I studied post modernism for years in grad school and not one of the authors I worked on would ever advocate for identity politics.

Also Peterson makes the problem a lot more pervasive then it appears. I went to college 10 years ago. My sister just graduated 3 years ago. I have a degree in political science. My sisters is in international relations and finance.

I had one class where I was assigned anything remotely post modern. My sister read one book by Foucault the entire time she was at school.

If you don’t like post modernism or your conservative or whatever that’s fine.

But the way that Peterson works is that he attracts people who don’t actually want to engage with certain ideas and he makes those ideas seem terrible so you feel great for not wanting to engage with them in the first place.

But that’s how most teachers teach now anyway.

 

[diagrammatiks]

That’s not what I was getting at. Peterson argues that postmodernism is effectively cultural nihilism, and that its critique on western culture has bloomed into full blown identity politics, which is predictable. He talks about how Marxism and postmodernism should be at odds with each other, but are somehow hand-in-hand on college campuses anyway. My point is that Peterson isn’t misidentifying whatever cultural force is spreading through academia - he’s identifying its absurdity. He’s a frighteningly intelligent guy, and I find that most of critics either aren’t understanding or aren’t trying to understand him, which is maybe even reasonable, since he often takes 3 hours to explain his point. Give him an honest chance if you find the time.

As been stated before this argument makes no sense. There are no casual links between any of this stuff. He’s taking a small but very vocal group and equating that to a whole field of study.

I studied post modernism for years in grad school and not one of the authors I worked on would ever advocate for identity politics.

Also Peterson makes the problem a lot more pervasive then it appears. I went to college 10 years ago. My sister just graduated 3 years ago. I have a degree in political science. My sisters is in international relations and finance.

I had one class where I was assigned anything remotely post modern. My sister read one book by Foucault the entire time she was at school.

If you don’t like post modernism or your conservative or whatever that’s fine.

But the way that Peterson works is that he attracts people who don’t actually want to engage with certain ideas and he makes those ideas seem terrible so you feel great for not wanting to engage with them in the first place.

But that’s how most teachers teach now anyway.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

The way Peterson “works” is that he has spent decades painstakingly working out his arguments before the world outside of his classroom took an interest in them. He’s incredibly thorough and open to improvement and criticism, and consequently quick to point out the peculiarities of his arguments, like, for example, for the 4th time, the marriage of postmodernism and cultural Marxism, despite their apparent incompatibility. I already gave an abridged explanation as to how these ideas play out together. For starters, postmodernism is ill-defined as a rule, and it’s easy enough to make the case that it’s nothing more than an intellectual expression of nihilism. It’s also easy to argue that Marxism is a fundamentally nihilistic philosophy. Resentment and nihilism is the “causal link” between the two, and if you ask Peterson, the only substance in both philosophies. And its actually a compelling argument.

All you have to do is spend any amount of time on social media where millennials are discussing social and political issues to see the traction these ideas are gaining, and it’s really just not controversial to say that the universities have played a meaningful role to that end. My girlfriend, for example, while in college, heard the phrase “dead white European male” so often that she became numb to it. You might not see a pattern or a problem, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

Edit: for the record, I think of myself as left-leaning, and for that matter, I think Peterson sits closer to Left-Center than not. Not sure this matters, but intuitively seems like a relevant bit of context.

 

[diagrammatiks]

That’s like saying medicine is defined by a specific speciality or philosophy means what one guy thought.

Post modernism isn’t ill defined. It’s a school of thought that’s very broadly defined. Whatever gave root to identity politics is a very very very small part of it.

Peterson’s attacks on identity politics are fine. His arguments against post modernism are non sense.

I don’t think the posters here could be any more clear on that.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

Postmodernism is nihilistic. I don’t see any way around that.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

Or, better yet, there’s virtually no difference between postmodernism and nihilism as philosophical forces in society - whether you’re dismantling social hierarchies as a postmodernist or a nihilist, you’re doing so because you are convinced that they lack actual value. Again, I don’t see anyway around that. The argument is that any postmodernist claiming to be without nihilistic sentiments is ill-informed, confused, or in denial, because that’s what sits at the bottom.

 

[diagrammatiks]

sure why not.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

I don’t know - you tell me.

 

[Drew]

The solution is to dethrone the dominant group and evenly distribute/diffuse power (here you have your Marxism)...

...but, again, that doesn't sound at all like Marxism to me, or at least is a super generalized, generic reading wherein you throw the economic classes of proletariat and bourgeois out the window, and instead apply Marx's economic structuralist model to ANY (economic or otherwise) power structure, which, hey, is a totally valid postmodern move even if it ignores most of what makes Marxism Marxism, but then it's hard to turn around after deconstructing Marxism into pure structuralism and say, "no, but really, this IS actually Marxism."

 

[Drew]

Or, better yet, there’s virtually no difference between postmodernism and nihilism as philosophical forces in society - whether you’re dismantling social hierarchies as a postmodernist or a nihilist, you’re doing so because you are convinced that they lack actual value. Again, I don’t see anyway around that. The argument is that any postmodernist claiming to be without nihilistic sentiments is ill-informed, confused, or in denial, because that’s what sits at the bottom.

Disagree - intrinsic in postmodernism isnt just the sure-let's-call-it-nihilistic deconstructionist viewpoint, but also the concept of play, and that a world with no structural identity frees you to reassemble the pieces as you personally see fit.

Which, per my previous post, is actually a very postmodernist thing to do... But then you can't turn around and pretend that it's NOT happening, and that a deconstructed Marxism is actually Marxism.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

But the world does have a “structural identity” - this is where Peterson invokes the lobster and points out that the dominance hierarchy is 350 million years old. “It’s in there, man.” Your entire dopaminergic system is constantly involved in “play” with respect to the dominance hierarchy (that is, put crudely, all of your motivations come from your perceived social status, and what you believe your potential is) and so the person who wishes to dismantle the entire thing is nihilistic and resentful under the surface, whether they know it or not. This is very Jungian stuff, actually.

And, yes, Marx was concerned with classism, whereas these postmodern cultural marxists are very much concerned with group identity, which is honestly not terribly different in essence, and in some sense is exactly the same. You identify your socioeconomic oppressors, build the case that they’re responsible for the senseless suffering all around you, and then attempt to redistribute the power they hold. Why? Because you care about the disenfranchised and believe in equality, of course, and are enlightened enough to understand the social mechanisms that have resulted in a disproportionate distribution of wealth and power, Right? It definitely has nothing to do with resentment for those who outrank you on the dominance hierarchy, because you’ve done the hard work of analyzing your underground motivations and desires and are certain of who you are and what you believe, right? Not likely, says Peterson.

 

[Drew]

I'm sorry.

1) If Peterson claims to be a post-modernist, but in the same breath makes arguments like "the world does have a structural identity," then he's a modernist an d structuralist masquerading as a post-modernist.
2) Use of phrases like "cultural marxist" is probably one of the reasons Peterson runs afoul of people who suspect he has alt-right affinities, but moving past that, he's basically trying to say Marxism and neo-Marxism are the same thing, which they aren't.
3) Arguing that doing "...the hard work of analyzing your underground motivations and desires and are certain of who you are and what you believe the hard work of analyzing your underground motivations and desires and are certain of who you are and what you believe..." doesn't protect you from claims of being motivated by resentment, in turn, doesn't absolve the person making the argument against this from claims they themselves are motivated by resentment and a desire to keep the existing power structure in place, which unless I'm greatly mistaken is a criticism, I'm sure you'd say unfairly, often lobbed at Peterson, no?

To me this really sounds like Peterson is getting kind of loosey-goosey with a whole bunch of definitions in order to bend them enough to hang an argument together, and I don't buy it.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

...Peterson doesn’t identify as a post-modernist. I don’t think you’re following, Drew, because I thought that was abundantly clear. He doesn’t claim that the current power structures are without corruption, or that they’re perfect as is. It’s not as if there’s no middle ground between status-quo and complete deconstruction. Going with the Jungian/archetype thing, much of his lectures are about how cultural structures are inherent, but subject to absolute corruption. That a system is corrupt doesn’t make it inherently bad (which is what the postmodernists in question might tell you, and what virtually any Marxist would tell you of western culture/economy), and indeed can be renewed. This a painfully crude abbreviation, and you might actually enjoy his lectures about it. Likewise, a painfully crude interpretation is that Jordan is an advocate of the corrupt system, but that’s just not true.

Edit: I don’t want to put words in his mouth and say that he’s equating neo-Marxism with Marxism (to memory, he more often uses the term neo-Marxism). But, the theme of redistributing the power unfairly wielded by the elite group is consistent in both, and that’s all that really matters, because he’s addressing the motivations behind these and similar ideologies. He’s describing cultural/social phenomena whether or not you agree with his language (and I’m not at all convinced that you’re understanding his language well enough to disagree with it, nor am I claiming to relay his ideas to you verbatim). Again, the guy is brutally sharp and thorough, and it’s better to get it from him.

 

[TedEH]

brutally good job at explaining

It's very possible that I'm just an idiot, and without knowing ahead of time what postmodernism is, and being entirely "uneducated" in the world of identity politics (or really any politics), this all goes over my head - but I don't think anyone has done any good job of explaining anything.

It all sounds like nonsense to me. Like people trying to sound smarter than everyone around them. Like people trying very hard to deconstruct the world around them in terms that justify their politics. But what's the practical value of any of this if nobody is communicating on the same level, or defining things the same way, etc?

I mean it's all great if a handful of Very Smart People have decided they've figured the world out, but it means nothing to the average idiot like me who just wants to go about his day without being called a sexist for no reason or something like that.

I have nothing clever to contribute, I just think it's all ridiculous. All the philosophy and politics and identity stuff is, as far as is meaningful to me, ridiculous.

Feel free to "educate me" on how wrong I am to undervalue these things, but I challenge you to put such a thing into practical terms for an average person rather than diving down some academic rabbit hole.

 

[narad]

It all sounds like nonsense to me. Like people trying to sound smarter than everyone around them. Like people trying very hard to deconstruct the world around them in terms that justify their politics. But what's the practical value of any of this if nobody is communicating on the same level, or defining things the same way, etc?

Kinda in the same boat. Can anyone just rephrase in like 5 sentences, using everyday words, what/why to care? People could waffle for 3 pages regarding whether or not they're both using the same definition of postmodernism, or you could just _not use that term_.

 

[Andrew Lloyd Webber]

Did you just make a thread reducing the question of whether or not equality-of-outcome can be imposed without tyranny to a dichotomy of left vs right, and then invite the great political minds of sevenstring.org to explain it?

 

[Drew]

...Peterson doesn’t identify as a post-modernist. I don’t think you’re following, Drew, because I thought that was abundantly clear. He doesn’t claim that the current power structures are without corruption, or that they’re perfect as is. It’s not as if there’s no middle ground between status-quo and complete deconstruction. Going with the Jungian/archetype thing, much of his lectures are about how cultural structures are inherent, but subject to absolute corruption. That a system is corrupt doesn’t make it inherently bad (which is what the postmodernists in question might tell you, and what virtually any Marxist would tell you of western culture/economy), and indeed can be renewed. This a painfully crude abbreviation, and you might actually enjoy his lectures about it. Likewise, a painfully crude interpretation is that Jordan is an advocate of the corrupt system, but that’s just not true.

Edit: I don’t want to put words in his mouth and say that he’s equating neo-Marxism with Marxism (to memory, he more often uses the term neo-Marxism). But, the theme of redistributing the power unfairly wielded by the elite group is consistent in both, and that’s all that really matters, because he’s addressing the motivations behind these and similar ideologies. He’s describing cultural/social phenomena whether or not you agree with his language (and I’m not at all convinced that you’re understanding his language well enough to disagree with it, nor am I claiming to relay his ideas to you verbatim). Again, the guy is brutally sharp and thorough, and it’s better to get it from him.

Ok, then strike point one - Peterson is probably a modernist/structuralist, but that still leaves point 2 - that Marxism and neo-Marxism are different things that Peterson seems to be conflating, and point 3, that accusing the other side of being driven by resentment doesn't prove that you yourself aren't driven by a desire to keep what you have.

Idunno. This is besides the point. The whole idea that there's some sort of postmodernist twist in higher ed, because identity politics, is nonsensical.

 

[Drew]

Feel free to "educate me" on how wrong I am to undervalue these things, but I challenge you to put such a thing into practical terms for an average person rather than diving down some academic rabbit hole.

I mean, at the most literal level, this is the politics and current events forum, so of COURSE we're going down a nonsensical rabbit hole.

Structuralism and post-modernism are the sort of things that are kind of tough to put into plain english, because fundamentally they're attempts to describe the way we know things. But basically on one hand you have a structuralist/modernist way of seeing the world where things like identity exist, for example, whereas post-modernism is the belief that things like iidentity are just constructed human conventions and sort of intellectual shorthand but there isn't actually any fundamental truth to them and they're really just artificial human constructions, and as such you're perfectly free to tear them apart and reassemble them however you see fit.