I don't see any reason though to assume that he meant forced marriage.
All we can ever do is assume what someone means, and in this case I wasn't aware of the obscure anthropological meaning that he supposedly "intended."
My point is that, based on what you've linked, I'm convinced that he didn't clarify what "enforced monogamy" meant because he expected his opponents to jump all over it. And granted, this is what I was talking about by "putting his foot in his mouth." Now he reveals that he was referencing an obscure idea in anthropology and/or evolutionary biology (and some of his supporters are calling it "well-established" language, which is ridiculous).
The entire situation reeks of a public figure drawing out his opponents in order to smack them with knowledge they shouldn't have been expected to have in the first place. He's weaponizing information.
I want to chime in on this briefly. I am someone who was helped immensely by Peterson's lectures. Roughly a year ago I started watching his "Maps of Meaning" lecture series and they have been more beneficial to me than any therapist I've been able to see in person. That particular lecture series was fairly apolitical, aside from the occasional ranting about marxism, so I feel that I was introduced to him as a psychologist first and a political pundit second. Maybe that has made his more political output more palatable to me as I don't exactly align with him politically. Later on, I watched many of his other lectures and interviews including many of a more political nature, basically up until I reached a point of saturation where I felt that his every talking point was something I've heard him go over before.
My point is, I think I know his views fairly well at this point and I largely see him mischaracterized in media. I think there are legitimate grievances to be had with him; as far as I can tell, his understanding of marxism/post-modernism (and by extension, his conspiratorial ravings about an all-pervasive "post-modern marxist" agenda) is really derived entirely from one old obscure book on the subject no one considers authoritative. His calling for marxist professors to be censored is terribly dissonant with his advocacy for free speech. There are other things, too. But his critics usually seem to call him out on the wrong points. For instance, a common mistake is that they think he's being prescriptive when he's not. So they'll accuse him of being against the birth-control pill for simply discussing its societal impact, or of promoting outdated hierarchical structures ("So you're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?") just for trying to explain hierarchies through something other than a lens of marxist theory. I'm not accusing you or anyone else on this site of making this mistake, I just think this is the line of thinking many journalists follow when they go on to characterize him as some radical traditionalist.
This nytimes article reads to me like a hit piece. What little of it is quoted directly from Peterson seems to have been handpicked to portray him as either an extremist, or a lunatic (such as the parts where he talks about witches and dragons being real) and most of the article just describes the author's own interpretation of Peterson's character and views. She clearly wants to portray him as the patron saint of alt-righters, men's rights activists and other deplorables. I don't think it's grounded in reality, and I don't think Peterson should be discredited as an intellectual because of how he is presented in an article this slanted.
I appreciate this. I'm sure I link to unfair pieces about Peterson, and the NYT is likely no different. I felt that since the NYT was an interview, it was at least a bit more of Peterson's own voice coming through; and I feel like he could have been more eloquent or transparent about some of his claims. This is often my objection to him, and I know that Peterson doesn't care about being linguistically conscious. I have difficulty with that position. I don't want to attack any one person's individual response to Peterson's ideas, especially if those ideas were helpful in the past. Mostly, I just need to stop posting things about Peterson; I disagree with him, and that's that.
The following is a lengthy attempt to clarify my disputes so that no one's under the impression that I'm simply lashing out at Peterson for political reasons (because it goes well beyond politics):
When Peterson argues that hierarchies are found in nature, I balk because the very language/construction is completely contradictory to me. What we mean when we talk about hierarchies isn't--and can't be--found in nature. Hierarchies are our ways of organizing and systematizing the patterns we observe, and in human societies they also become ways of perpetuating particular behaviors and values. Hierarchies, in the sense that humans institute them, don't appear in nonhuman species because such species don't appeal to the existence of hierarchies as justification for their existence (this is part and parcel of hierarchical meaning in human societies; it's basically the linchpin of conservatism). Gazelles don't rise up in revolt against lions, beta chimps don't rebel against the alpha chimps (by which I mean, they don't organize collectively--obviously beta males do challenge alpha males individually).
I understand the point Peterson wants to make:
that nonhuman species exhibit particular kinds of organized behavior, and that these behaviors have emerged in hierarchical form in human societies as well. The fact that we can trace these systems back to nonhuman species justifies their existence in human society, and their longevity throughout human history is further evidence that we shouldn't change them. I do grasp the common sense behind this claim; I just don't find it convincing on an intellectual level. It appeals to the nonhuman, or natural, as the ground (i.e. basis) for human behavior and social organization. Such an argument assumes "the human" to be largely unnatural, or descended from nature, and that we need to get back to nature, so to speak (for Peterson, this is his claim that we need to look back to ancient myths, which are somehow closer to nature). This argument assumes a myth of origins--that there's some primeval truth of natural existence that humanity has lost because we're so far from it.
The way I see it, there's nothing less natural about the way we behave today than the way dinosaurs behaved millions of years ago. There is no secret formula in ancient myths or in the behavior of nonhuman species. There are only patterns of behavior--alternatives and variations, repetitions and mutations. When we impose a hierarchical structure onto the way other animals behave, we project some natural or pre-given reason for that behavior into the distant past, as though it existed prior to the emergence of that behavior. But there are no reasons that predate behavior in any intentional or directed sense. The universe didn't have a plan for all living things when it came into existence. That's what I think, anyway. That's my (non-)myth.
If there's one positive thing I can say about Peterson, it's that he's an entertaining literary critic; but he mistakes hermeneutics (i.e. meaning-making, interpretation, a la "maps of meaning") for a code that unlocks reality. Interpretation doesn't unlock hidden meanings. It produces new meanings.
" we would have some 100 op-eds about the oppression of sexual minorities. I'll agree with you that Peterson has been operating outside of his lane on a number of things, but that's par for the course for almost all public intellectuals unfortunately. What he needs to do is find partners in other relevant disciplines. However, the likelihood of other professionals even of like mind wanting to take on the risk probably approaches zero. There's only enough tenure privilege and patreon dollars to go around.
