Is Jordan Peterson Correct About Postmodern Neo-Marxism?

This is a video addressing whether Postmodern Neo Marxism actually exists in academia today.

[lovaaaa]

It's great to see an american christian who really knows this stuff. I used to be deep into this stuff (now catholic trying to be humble) and read alot of Althusser, Deleuze and so on. I love to see that you can for instance just namedrop Gramsci here, I really appreciate the depth and real understanding. God bless

[theodosios]

Would be so great for Dr. Cooper to have JBP on the show. Let's make it happen!

[justicebjorke]

Peterson seems well aware that:

*1.* Postmodernism rejects grand narratives

And,

*2.* (Neo-)Marxism is a grand narrative.

He’s addressed this many times: the folks he’s referring to don’t care about coherence.

[epicphailure]

My favorite part of Peterson is that he basically admitted he has never read Marx and thus he has to invent new words like Neo-marxism. Peterson himself might be a post modernist.

[Outrider]

Reminds me of what Tony Soprano said in The Sopranos, “There is no mafia!”

[jimh]

I studied critical theory at UC San Diego. I was on the Dean’s list and I was allowed to enroll in a few graduate level courses in my junior year. At the time I was retired US Navy Master Chief in my mid-40s. I felt like I was on probation even though I was getting high marks. I did a research project for one of my professors which was a Marxist critique of Moby Dick. The project was quite a lot of fun and I learned that Marxist literary theory is a fantastic approach to writing interesting and engaging stories. Hollywood is full of them, of course. I still think that is true. The Marxist social critique, or the Marxist “system “ is definitely not one that I can agree with. In fact, I think it would be hard for anyone to agree with because they couldn’t possibly know what they are agreeing with. What is the clear conclusion of Marxist social revolution ? I don’t think that has ever been clearly explained. Hence Post-Modernism with the whole “we don’t know what words mean”.

[Mr.MattSim]

I like Deely's reformulation of Postmodernism: What is commonly called "postmodern" is more suitably named Hypermodern, because it has pushed modernism to it's inevitable extreme. The name Postmodern, then, is instead given to the advent of semiotics*, which repairs the mind-body dualistic schism by constructing an ontological bridge between brute realism and constructivist nominalism. (take that, jargon algorithm, lol)

* ie: Peircean semiotics; over-and-above Saussurean semiology

[yuy]

I think some good points are mad here. I wonder though if we may be falling into the trap of seeing our opponents as more similar than they are. I think about how people will paint all protestants with the same brush. Although certainly among pop-culture leftism you will get a mishmash of ideas.

[nihilistic]

I would like to applaud you with actually reading the works that you comment on, something Peterson has failed to do. I agree in the sense that these ideas are very influential in academia, across the intellectual spectrum and disciplines. But I disagree with some of your understanding of Foucault and also the relationship between Marxism and the discourse of power. To be a very nerdy and stingey person, what you are wrong about is that Foucault does indeed focus a lot on power and is well known for his theory of power. But, Foucault's main interest and topic of study is not on Power alone. He was interested in the Subject and how locations of power can interpellates Subjects. One way Foucault's theory on power can contradict Marxist and even Neo-Marxist thinkers is that for Foucault power is a web that one cannot hold for themselves. This contradicts the oppressed/oppression binary that Peterson would group with Foucault.

To begin, I think the fundamental question that we are dealing with is whether or not we can ascribe people terminologies based on their influences. Should we call Marxism, Hegelian because of its influences on Marxist theory? Or gender performance Hegelian based on its influence on Judith Butler. What about Foucault and Kant? Postmodern thinkers and Neo-Marxists thinkers derive their ideas from modernity. The same issue exists when the we think about what does it mean for people to be influenced by postmodern and neo-marxist thinkers. As you correctly claim, many are influenced by these thinkers. But does that mean they are post-modern neo-marxists. We must examine critically what it means to use those terms, because very rarely do you see people call themselves post-modern neo-marxist. We can make these claims on their influence, which is not wrong, but it can obscure the nuances and diversity of thoughts that stemed from the influences from these ideas.

In your conversation about gender, Foucault finds what some may call "strategic essentialism" as a possibility to use taxonomical and oppressive frameworks to change the world aroudn you. Butler would reject the nature of what some may call gender politics. Peterson would group these thinkers with "gender politics" when they are very skeptical of it.

One side note is that you mention that there are contradictions between postmodernist claims. Well, Derrida and Foucault hated each other so much and disparaged each others ideas. Post-modernists tend to reject the term itself, and we must also consider how Postmodernism is not a concrete idea. Foucault influenced a lot of people and many have considered and cited his ideas to later critique or modify. Orthodox Marxists subscribe to the basic ideas of Marx, but could reject and expand on his claims. In the end this could be a question of semantics, but these categories means things to many people, and can even scare them.

I must also say, I understood your references to which thinkers, but I think it would be helpful for the audience to make clear who's ideas are you refering to. Your command of these diverse views are commendable once again. I am glad you actually read the works of these authors.

As for the main thing, what Peterson is saying. One. I would appreciate a little more specific examples of where Peterson fails in his analysis. Two. I think it would be neat to ask that question, so what? Why does it matter? For Peterson, it matters because the universitise are tainted with woke identity politics (post-modern and neo-marxist thinkers alike) despite how strongly Foucault and Butler would reject identity politics. He rests upon an unduly geneaology of the ideas of Foucault and postmodern thinkers, where Marxism's alleged decline (which is factually untrue) replaces this old marxist regime so continue justifying its existence. Do you agree with Peterson here? What are your thoughts on this discipline? If you do find yourself influenced by these modes of thinking and analysis, much like Peterson's unconscious use of Derridean deconstruction in an interview, then are you a post-modernist? What are your thoughts on Peterson's cultural marxism and its relationship with cultural bolshevism?

Since I am not predisposed to disparaged these views just by the very name of it, I may not be able to fully understand Peterson's understanding of academia. From my experience, it is true that you read works of post-modern and neo-marxist thinkers, but the relationship they have with popular discourse is much limited than one may presume and much less strictly post-modern or strictly neo-marxist. Since I cannot find a place to put this, Peterson does not treat neo-marxism as drastically distinct from orthodox marxism. He sees it as a rebranding and articulates its differences rather superficially and incorrectly. Though again, even neo-marxist thoughts like postmodernism is a very very broad field.

[keaton]

That lit candle is awfully close to those books.

[robertgutierrez]

Jordan peterson misrepresents post modernism which has nothing to do with marxist communism.

[zzzaaayyynnn]

I've been in academia for 40 years. The "postmodern" as event and definition has shapeshifted so many times that I don't know how to wrestle the protean mess down now. "I've changed my hairstyle so many times, I don't know what I look like."

[FRSRR]

My one sentence understanding of postmodern neo-Marxism:
The way to distrupt bourgeoisie haegemony is through posztmodern deconstruction.

[dimetronome]

In the social sciences, we usually distinguish between gender (a social construct) and gender identity (inwardly defined) in order to avoid that kind of contradiction you mention.

All of the leftist academics I know think that post-modernism is a joke (especially the ones who are Marxists), so what JP says doesn't seem even remotely true. Of course, this is just based on my own experiences studying and teaching in the humanities/social science departments at several schools, so this might not be representative of the typical college/university. Excellent video!

[scythermantis]

This is a great lecture; I think though that in the middle of this, you ignore the fact that many of these Postmodernists actually CELEBRATE contradiction itself, for example Lyotard with his ideal of a variety of discourses, or Derrida with the differAnce, or even Paul de Man, his friend, with the idea that 'error is the source of truth' (which I am also drawn to, to be honest, trained in mathematics to search for 'proof by contradiction'!) ...
What if it is the case that 'existence is a contradiction'???
And furthermore... what if as a Christian, you can see that this 'centre without a centre' that Derrida demands, might leave a place for the LOGOS?
I think that at least as an 'anchor' to brace ourselves against and help us get past the 'smothering' and 'flattening' of modernity, we must USE postmodernity; read Baudrillard for example on the commodification and systems of value towards the symbolic exchange and without using any use, and how RELEVANT this is for the ALIENATION of today...

[mariog]

I think philosophers can’t understand something like postmodernism. Philosophers can often be to propositional. But postmodernism is meant to slip and slide. To show how definitions can’t capture margins. I think someone like Jonathan pageau perfectly understands postmodernism and sees it’s connection to Marxism.

[sigmanocopyrightmusic]

The YouTube channel wisecrack claims Jordan Peterson misunderstands Marxism. Can you review it

[christopherk]

In your Makers series, will you also cover, Derrida, Foucault - maybe even Eco ?? 🙂 Hope to talk with you sometime !

[SojournerDidimus]

Might this thinking in powers also be what gave rise to the Evangelical "powers in the sky" thinking about the heavenly?

[studioofgreatness]

can you provide examples of these post modernist neo marxist thinkers in our modern day? yes this is their vague understanding in popular culture. But he also advocates that thier is this whole movement in academia that is brain washing college kids about it. what are your examples of that?