I just watched the video on YouTube of this seemingly controversial interview, and a couple of thoughts came to mind.
Firstly, on the right to say something that might offend, Cathy Newman was put on the back foot for a moment by Jordan Peterson’s comparison between a difficult interview and causing offence by refusing to follow a particular law around transgender labels. His comparison was slightly disingenuous in my view because there is a difference between the discomfort and temporary effects of being offended by a difficult situation (or disagreeable individual) and the long term psychological harm that may be caused by having one’s entire identity questioned, even if only by inference.
If there is research evidence to suggest that the comparison is in fact a valid one, I would expect a) that an eminent Psychologist would know about it and make reference to it when making the comparison and b) that it would have made quite a few headlines. If there is such evidence though, I’d be interested to read it.
Secondly, a lot of Jordan Peterson’s argument seemed to revolve around the idea that where we are as a society is a result of evolutionary pressures and outcomes. He seemed to take particular issue with the concept of an organised patriarchy influencing society. These for me are not mutually exclusive ideas.
The structure of our current society is almost certainly a reflection of evolution, but what he failed to mention is that evolution produces outcomes based upon chance, that these outcomes have no inherent merit, are often inefficient (the human eye for example), and can be overturned in a surprisingly short time (in evolutionary terms) given appropriate pressures.
It is therefore entirely possible that organised male dominance of females within humanity could have an evolutionary source, that this evolutionary source could in turn have led to the creation of societies that entrench male dominance (patriarchy) and also that these evolutionary pressures could have expanded to include (or already encompassed) a tendency towards domination of, and discrimination against, any group that is unlucky enough to be born into a society where they are not part of the currently dominant grouping.
It is also entirely possible that the job market in its current form could be structured to favour characteristics that are currently more often associated with one particular gender, be it due to socialisation or genetic outcomes. It is furthermore highly likely that groups within society might be socialised to fulfil particular roles and behave in particular ways that reflect past evolutionary pressures or current societal ones (or both).
It is not, however, the case that these outcomes are made “right” or desirable simply by their very existence, or the fact that they may be the result of evolution. All of these outcomes are the results of glorified chance, pure luck. They have no proven efficacy. Indeed any measure of efficacy we produce will itself be based upon (and biased by) the consequences of chance evolutionary and societal factors.
These outcomes and structures are also not inevitable. Just as evolution can influence the behaviour of individuals, so can the structure of a society influence evolution in turn. In fact, positive discrimination, a concept that seems often to be hated by those who experience it as much as those who feel disadvantaged by it, is perhaps an example of this very concept in action.
There is no reason, therefore, not to reform (or even overturn) a system that we perceive as leaving a majority of individuals in a society feeling unfulfilled, under valued and unhappy if we deem it to be necessary. Indeed, a simple drive to experiment alone should result in such change, not least because we are far less subject to the whims of evolution than we were in the past, giving us the time and space to plot our own course should we wish to.
Fuller's Thoughts 