On April 19, 2019, prominent Canadian psychologist and self-help author Jordan Peterson and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek met to debate Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism at Toronto’s Sony Centre. Fans of both Žižek and Peterson eagerly awaited this match between intellectual titans, each side hoping to see its contender deliver the intellectual blow that would knock the other’s ideas out of the realm of influence. A friend had mentioned the debate to me, so I found myself tuning in for the match with everyone else when it came up as a recommendation on YouTube.
Many of those who were separated along these ideological lines found themselves disappointed when neither opponent delivered that blow and the event became more of a discussion than a debate. Even so, don’t be fooled by some people’s disappointment, the agreeable nature of the debate is exactly the reason you should watch it for yourself. In a context when ideology can be weaponized against us—when we are either “bigots” or “social justice warriors”—should we not try to transcend the tribalism of our time to achieve a civil discourse? To better understand this in the context of the debate, let us look into the intellectual opponents, the drama that has enfolded them and a few highlights of the debate itself.
In the interest of being transparent about my biases, I have some concerns about Jordan Peterson and his personal politics, but now that I’ve disclosed them, let me put these concerns aside. I do not want to inoculate you against Peterson or de-platform him to silence his ideas. He rose to fame through his objections to Bill C-16, which proposed adding trans people and trans expressions to the listed prohibited grounds for discrimination. Peterson claimed that passing this bill would lead to a form of compelled speech, as it would force people to use trans people’s preferred pronouns even if average people objected to doing so on the basis of their personal beliefs. Peterson’s vocal concern echoed by some of his supporters prompted René J. Basque, president of the Canadian Bar Association, to write:
This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crime legislation… Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most “extreme manifestations” with the intention of promoting the “level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection” that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.
Comments