I think a reader with wider perspective on Jordan Peterson’s work might question the relevance of these rules given the various controversies that surround him. If his rules are so good, you might say, then why is he always knee-deep in various news stories generated by his own questionable judgment? Specifically, where were his rules when he linked the use of preferred pronouns to totalitarian thinking?
The controversy raises the question of how to think about public figures when their behavior dilutes, contradicts, or tarnishes their work. The first time I remember thinking deeply about this was in 2014 when my favorite Liverpool player at the time, Luis Suarez, was running around biting opponents. I was against cannibalism at the time (and remain so) but I didn’t join the chorus withdrawing their support of the player. I thought it was a simple matter – I watched soccer to watch soccer and watching Suarez play soccer made watching soccer more fun. The idea that supporting Suarez somehow made me a supporter of cannibalism was absurd; the suggestion that my support excused his actions was perhaps less so. I decided to see it another way. I felt that if he wanted to treat Ivanovic’s arm like corn on the cob then my only concern should be whether he dined when the referee wasn’t at the table. My thinking changed a few months later when he went off and chomped on Chiellini’s arm during the World Cup. At that point, his behavior and resulting suspension was hurting Liverpool and making it less fun for me as a supporter. When he was sold for a huge transfer fee, I was pleased, and would have driven him to Barcelona myself if it were necessary to complete the sale.
I look back now and realize that I didn’t properly consider whether my support for Suarez enabled his transgressions. His Liverpool incident wasn’t breaking news (prior to joining Liverpool he’d done the same thing in Holland). Should I have taken a broader view of his history and thought more about the consequences of my support? On the other hand, Suarez never leveraged his popularity to get away with the act. He seemed to consider it part of the game, not much unlike punching the ball clear while defending his open goal, and if he was caught he would accept the punishment. He proved during the World Cup that if he thought biting another opponent would help him in a future game, he would get his teeth out straightaway. It’s possible I didn’t make the right decision with my support but I don’t really see how it affected the situation in one way or the other. The key consideration in these situations is to understand the importance of support in terms of enabling certain behaviors. If a public figure uses the fame or fortune that we grant them through our support to take advantage of power dynamics in order to excuse immoral, reckless, or criminal behavior, it’s probably my responsibility to cut off any support so that repeat transgressions are less likely in the future.
This was where I was when I thought about Peterson and his remarks. Did reading his book and telling others that I thought it was good enable him to continue making public remarks that hurt people? I didn’t really know so as a starting point I dove deeper into what he said and tried to make some sense out of his comments. The big conclusion I drew from reading various articles was that although it was unclear whether he earned the magnitude of his controversy, he certainly earned the fact of it. His remarks were mostly in a hypothetical ‘slippery slope’ context about a law that might mean jail time for refusing to use preferred pronouns. I thought he made an error by burying his broad defense of personal freedom under the specifics of his examples, his sloppy delivery, and a convoluted connection that served his analogy more than his message. It’s a version of the Hitler defense I once highlighted on this space. People were upset, possibly rightfully so, but I can’t say I’m entirely sure if that’s the only reason. I think the more important reason is this: people were upset because he upset them. And since he couldn’t have reached so many people without his platform, this feels to me like a case of someone doing more harm with a platform than would be possible without it.
I was tempted to take a closer look at his twelve rules and consider them in the context of this controversy (1). I decided against it because I don’t necessarily think supporting Peterson means I feel he needs to follow his own rules. One of his rules suggests petting the cats you see in the street but it would be ridiculous if he were criticized for walking past a purring feline. His book is not a personal manifesto – it’s just a series of principles he thought would help other people guide themselves through life. Perhaps considering the man and his controversies separately from his twelve rules is a convenient oversimplification but I know that when it comes to my life and the rules I live by, the source of those rules has never mattered to me. One of my basic principles is ‘be bigger than you feel’. Do I know where that phrase came from? I don’t, and I don't care. I just know that I heard it one day, wrote it down, and have kept it in mind ever since. It isn’t worth worrying about where the idea came from if the idea makes sense, I can apply it in healthy way, and it doesn’t bring any harm to others.
Peterson’s 12 Rules For Life is a handbook for living a good life. The suggestion of such a work is that it should set an example but that’s merely my opinion. I understand why someone would feel that the author of such a book should be held to the lifestyle standard described in the work but again I sense this is more of a preference rather than a requirement. Ultimately, the reason I’m not a supporter of Peterson is that he’s demonstrated a recklessness with his public platform that hurts people in proportion to his support. It doesn’t matter if he’s an author, a pop singer, or the greatest striker I’ve seen play for Liverpool – the more support he has, the more people he will hurt, and therefore I can’t support him. This is a position I’ll change as I see his behavior change but for now all I’ll do is acknowledge that I enjoyed reading his book, admit that I learned quite a bit from it, and share as much of those insights as possible. It’s one of the hidden benefits of TOA – it’s a way to help others improve their own lives without going down the avenue of supporting an author who needs to demonstrate greater care with the power granted by his public platform.
Footnotes
1. Er, tempted…
OK, fine, I wasn’t just tempted, I went ahead and did this, but ultimately the couple paragraphs I generated from the exercise didn’t fit very well into this post. We’ll take a closer look at it in the coming days.
