Enlightenment philosophy had some similar differences depending on the author, and yet we don't pretend it's not able to be broadly referred to. But I will grant Im not familiar with the specific differences. However, my unfamiliarity with the specifics doesn't prevent me from noticing what sort of behavior those who appeal to post-modernism engage in: Either identity politics or things which approximate it while denying the associated rabble. Something about knowing a tree by its fruit.
I'm not saying it's a more enlightened view on post-modern philosophy than post-modern philosophers. It is, if you are to be believed about the lack of intent, more enlightened about the outcomes. But I wouldn't even call it enlightened: It's not all that hard to put 2 and 2 together - in this case cognition and behavior; pattern recognition - for a clinical psychologist. It's the bulk of our work.
"Those who appeal to postmodernism" isn't a homogeneous group. You're referring to a very select group of people and extrapolating their behavior to a more diverse group.
If we've walked this back from Peterson's original condemnation of postmodernism (and it is a very specific condemnation) to "some people who study 'postmodernism' exhibit destructive tendencies," or something like that, then fine. But that's not Peterson's original argument; he's specifically attacking the academics themselves, and basically accusing them of clandestine insurrection. He's not being a psychologist in these remarks. He's trying to be a cultural critic, but he doesn't know his subject matter.
I didn't say that he doesn't know why they're conflated, I said he's confused as to why postmodernism/ists are so often on the side of or have goal overlaps with Marxists, when they're fundamentally different.
But according to him, he does know why--postmodernists are Marxists. That was the point of the Epoch piece that I linked, which included several direct remarks. He doesn't think they're fundamentally different; he thinks they're fundamentally the same.
Personally, I don't conflate the two myself because I understand that they're different but I have similarly noticed that, and lets be honest here because these are the main people he's referring to, social justice warriors very often hold both postmodern views as well as Marxist views and it seems to me that Peterson is trying to get at the root of why the crossover exists.
What exactly is a "postmodern" view? I'm serious. Part of my problem is that I don't think "postmodern" is specific enough to describe a particular view or political position.
For example, how can a movement such as the SJWs be extreme moralists fighting against an oppressive culture and system on one hand, and then be moral and cultural relativists on the other? Yet they hold both views more often than not.
It's bizarre to castigate one's own culture to such a radical degree and then point to foreign cultures and say "well all cultures are different, we have no right to condemn them."
You're right, that is a bizarre combination of attitudes. I can't speak to the simplicity of the masses, but I can speak to what an academic position might be.
Cultural relativism as absolution isn't an accurate description of any postmodernist position, at least as represented by the supposed postmodernist figures to whom we're referring (Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, etc.). None of these theorists would have said that other cultures are beyond critique just because they're different. Ethics can't be jettisoned purely because of difference.
What someone like Derrida would say is that ethics can never be absolute. So although we can condemn, say, the treatment of women in certain countries that doesn't mean we should jump to condemning the country itself. It also doesn't mean that the appropriate means of intervening in heinous practices is invasion or occupation. I think that academics are correct to criticize those who see specific acts posted on Twitter as indicative of habits or behaviors that afflict all members of that particular group (as our current president is wont to do), and appeal to those images as justification for general condemnation.
This strikes me as measured and perfectly acceptable, so again I don't get Peterson's outright attack on "postmodernism," and I still think he doesn't really understand what it is (since, once again, he's targeting the academics themselves--not those who "appeal to postmodernism").
