Taking on the Jeep part 2: on Marx, gender, ethnicity and me being an evil authoritarian-egalitarian

Okay, so this is a long one folks, but I have decided to combine two diverging topics for two reasons;

-number one- because they both relate to social identity categories (social class and gender and ethnicity)

-number two- because the Jeep switches between them very rapidly.

Some of this relates to a really not very useful interpretation of Marxism that Peterson favours and some to the idea that Left-wing identity politics is strangling individualism. I think the triumphantism with which Peterson makes all of these declarations and the fact that they are such common misconceptions justifies a long, at times personal and at times rambling blog.

This criticism like the rest of this series, is based off of Jordan B. Peterson’s 2016 lecture The Equality Authoritarians Must Be STOPPED NOW!- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7HPbjsYYGg

Why the Jeep needs to familiarise himself with Marx

According to the Jeep, the Marxist theory of inequality implies that ‘property is theft and that rich people have taken their money from poor people’ and that their is a 'fixed pot of money, - (Marxists) don’t realise that wealth expands as you produce it'. What this illustrates really clearly is that Jordan Peterson does not understand the relationship between the proletariat and bourgeoise in Marxism.

Now whatever way you look at capitalist labour relations, it is quite rare that you would see anyone arguing that economic growth does not occur. There is a huge question mark over how indefinite economic growth can continue on a finite planet, or even due to the accumulation of the dividends of that growth by the rich, but Marxists do not argue that there is a ‘fixed pot of money’.

What Marxists argue is that capitalism is exploitative because a few individuals own all of the private property, or the means of production (such as land, factories). Because of forced clearances of land, the majority of people, like the 19th century workers of the UK, have to sell their labour to a capitalist to live. Marxists call this group of people the proletariat. The forced clearances of land and the violence involved in this, supported by the British state and law are actually examples of theft and the ‘might is right' principle and is not a very just or rational way of doing things. Within capitalist society, some people might be able to work for themselves in as craftspeople, the efficiency of industrial production means that commodities produced through the industrial model are cheaper, and the subsistence wage paid to most workers means that they have to buy the cheaper versions of products.

Over time, this leads to proletarianisation, where more and more people are drawn into the factory work, which is mechanised, poorly compensated and can be mind-numbingly boring. Workers cannot really demand better pay or conditions within this system at least as individuals, because what they are trained in is so narrow, and they are easily replaced with unemployed workers.

Marx describes this alienation of people from their labour in Capital - ‘Just as he is thus depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine, and from being a man becomes an abstract activity and a belly.'

This is also why collective bargaining and unions are also so important in the fight against further capitalist exploitation- because capitalism attempts to narrow our roles to the extent that a capitalist can easily replace any worker.

Why talking about 'the rich’ is not just hateful, politics of ENVY

At the same time, a capitalist class grown rich out of exploitation, as the workers are not compensated for the full value of their labour and a rent is extracted from them called surplus value. For instance, a worker may only need to work 3-4 hours to have produced enough for their daily wage, but will be made to work 8 hours for a living wage because an additional value must be extracted from the worker for the capitalist to profit from this situation. The class who are in this privileged position are called the bourgeoise. Because of the system of private property and concentrated ownership of production, this profit is said to be legitimate and can compensate bosses far beyond the value that their management of the factory brings to the organisation. In this way there is also a very real sense of theft within the class structure.

Marxists also believe that over time, this situation deteriorates, leading to two increasingly divergent and antagonistic classes within society, and that the ‘dominant material force in society is the dominant intellectual force’. In this way, institutions outside of the workplace, politics, even common sense is shaped by the capitalist class. So Peterson’s argument here is very misleading, especially because when there is an economic crisis, the proletariat class who have literally created all of the wealth within society are now vulnerable to losing even their substance level jobs. The same is true if bosses decide to purchase new technology and automate parts of the production process.

While Peterson seems to like to imply that Leftists ‘hate the rich’, it is not the most useful understanding of the Marxist position. Marxists take issue with the class structure and the exploitation by the rich, but also believe that such a system is deeply dehumanising for everyone involved. The rich definitely have more opportunity to be creative and develop their passions than the proletariat, but the form of society which we are living with is not humanistic- people are taught to value themselves in relation to what they have and this warps values and relationships. Marxists like Paulo Friere believe that the revolution by the proletariats is a necessary condition for the humanisation of both the oppressed and the oppressor.

Why Capitalism isn’t as freeing and individual focused as the Jeep might think

I think the Jeep is working on a faulty idea that capitalism is really freeing and liberating- of a wave man in a suit flashing some coin in a department shop full of choice and luxury, but this is really incomplete- it takes no account of the class structure and oppression.

In this way, capitalist society can be seen as one of the most authoritarian, controlling and restrictive types of social organisation possible; as stated in chapter one of Paulo Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed;

-'The "fear of freedom" which afflicts the oppressed, a fear which may equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role of oppressed, should be examined. One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual's choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the preservers consciousness. Thus, the behavior of the oppressed is a prescribed behavior, following as it does the guidelines of the oppressor.

The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion.'

Now that is a 2 minute run through the cliff notes of the Marxist critique of capitalism and Freire on oppression, but any reading of the Manifesto of the Communist Party would reveal that Peterson is not talking about the same Marxism as any Leftist.

On why the Left uses collective terms and how this really doesn’t make them far right!!!!

'Anti-individualism left- with affirmative action or positive discrimination insist that race and sex are exactly what people should be judged on- same as radical right? '

Well, no and this is one of the more concerning points that Peterson makes, especially as I have heard similar things from centrists. Even if one incident of ‘reverse’ discrimination or a joke about white fragility is made, this doesn’t mean the positions are switched and white men are now a targeted minority in society. As a middle class white guy, you can pretty much move through the world feeling like it is designed for you, that you are judged on your choices and achievements.

For many women this would be unfathomable and for people of colour too, as the whole way that society reacts to and relates to femme and ‘racialised’ bodies makes people acutely aware of characteristics of their identity. A lot of this is because in our cultures (US/UK/Western European), white men are viewed as the default. I do experience this to some extent too, as the way I present is (and was especially in the past) quite androgynous and there is a whole dance regarding gender and categorisation before certain people will relate to you as a person. I think that this is what Peterson is forgetting- that we cannot easily assess the biological sex of other people in social situations, as we have no access to information about their chromosomes or hormone levels or genitals, and we are making judgements about their dress, speech, bodies and behaviour based on socially created gender roles. I don’t mind occasionally being mistaken for a women but it does make you aware that you are not an empty vessel for ideas and abilities. You can really feel the spectre of the gender binary in the air in such moments- people don't know if you are a man or woman, but also maybe they sense those concepts are limited and limiting too.

What we are is self-directed bodies in socio-historical space and time who are bumping or brushing against the structures of power. This bumping is to the advantage or some and the harm of others. This is something which is clear in the work of Judith Butler (1988), who believes that gender is performative;

'Regardless of the pervasive character of patriarchy and the prevalence of sexual difference as an operative cultural distinction, there is nothing about a binary gender system that is given. As a corporeal field of cultural play, gender is a basically innovative affair, although it is quite clear that there are strict punishments for contesting the script by performing out of turn or through unwarranted improvisations. Gender is not passively scripted on the body, and neither is it determined by nature, language, the symbolic, or the overwhelming history of patriarchy. Gender is what is put on, invariably, under constraint, daily and incessantly, with anxiety and pleasure, but if this continuous act is mistaken for a natural or linguistic given, power is relinquished to expand the cultural field bodily through subversive performances of various kinds.'

I really like this idea of gender because it doesn’t reinforce biological determinism or gender as a total social straight-jacket. It also shows the small ways in which we chose to participate in that system and how our ideas of what is normal for ‘men’ or ‘women’ change all of the time. Cat calling is not something I have to deal with, nor comments on my weight, nor racial profiling or stops by police. I might feel hella awkward in a suit, but to the extent that I can carry it off, it gives me privileges which other people just don’t have access to. I also don’t get called a 'rabid harpee' by bestselling authors/psychology professors.

I think the other really common delusion that Peterson toys with is the idea that discussions about oppression are the only things driving stereotypes, biases and oppression. When we don’t talk about race, gender, sexuality or disability, we do not become blind to social characteristics, we just reinforce the current social order and there is no counter-force to push against structures that paint us in the solid lines of stereotypes.

The depressing situation is that even people who do not think of themselves as prejudice, demonstrate high levels of 'implicit bias' in a range of situations. These are biases based on negative social stereotypes which are not self-reported but appear in a situation where they are primed, or when having to make snap second pairings between gender and ethnic categories and stereotypical attributes (Fazio and Olson, 2003). This is a significant chunk of psychological theory and legal scholarship, which shows that people who are white, straight and young are more likely to pair those categories to positive attributes and associate oldness, blackness and gayness with negative traits. Even more alarming, even those within social groups appear to internalise these stereotypes (Kang and Lane, 2010).

The far/radical right already have their way in this respect, as hardened, concealed prejudice seems to be nurtured from an early age in our socieities, ready to be awoken at any moment. We have to deal with that situation rather than pretending that colour-blindness or equality are the starting point of most of society already.

A point on Language and Labels x

One other thing that really concerned me in this lecture was that the Jeep continually referred to sexual ‘proclivity’ - This is a really minor point, but an important one. I don’t know what the Jeep would use this word, which by has such a negative connotation when there are widely recognised terms in the scientific community (of which Peterson is meant to be a member) for sexual minorities. Anything from LGB to sexual orientation to sexual preference. ‘Proclivity’ seems to be trying to imply that any concession which society makes to the gay, bi, pan and lesbian community is really about indulging a bad habit. Whether intentional or not, this sounds moralistic, reactionary and shamey. It is almost like the Jeep is trying to give a coded nod to people who make equivalences between queer love and marrying a pink highlighter pen or a houseplant. Why do people think he’s alt-right again? It just sounds Victorian and judgy and I don’t like it.

Sources

Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre journal, 40(4), 519-531.

Engles, F. (1880). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific- chapters averrable on Marxists.com- section on Dialectics (chapter 2) very useful.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 297-327.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, available on History is a Weapon- http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/pedagogy/pedagogychapter1.html

Gauntlett, D. (2012) Making is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY to knitting to Youtube and Web 2.0, London:policy Press- especially chapter 2 The Meaning of Making: Philosophies.

Kang, J., & Lane, K. (2010). Seeing through colorblindness: Implicit bias and the law. UCLA L. Rev., 58, 465.

Marx, Karl and Engles, Frederick (1848), The Manifesto Of the Communist Party, available at <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf>