|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2018-01-28 02:29:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
The mirror defense: Jordan Peterson vs. an extreme left-wing feminist
Jordan Peterson's short interview on British TV has had unexpected resonance all around the English-speaking world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSTh
The consensus is that Peterson (a left-of-center classical liberal) was effective in debate against his opponent Cathy Newman, a modern extreme left-wing feminist. Why was he effective? Most people are citing the passage towards the end of the interview when Peterson said "I got you here" as Newman is unable to counterattack or to defend her position. Even the Wikipedia article on Newman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Newm
What happened at that point of the debate is what I call the "mirror defense".
Newman asks who gave Peterson the right to say things that offend some groups of people (in this case, trans-sexuals). Peterson responds with two things.
First, he defends his position by saying that in his view, honest thinking in search for truth in good faith requires being able to say things that may offend some people. Peterson emphatically rejects the view that there exists an absolute right of not being offended in any way by what other people say.
Second, Peterson asks Newman who gave her the right during this interview to say things that might offend him, and he states that Newman's questions have made him quite uncomfortable. In other words, Peterson accuses Newman of what she accuses him of (saying potentially offensive things). This is the "mirror defense": when you are accused of doing X, you say that it is actually your opponent who is doing X.
Why does the mirror defense work effectively here? In my view, it would not have worked if Newman wasn't espousing extreme left-wing views based on identity politics and Foucault's postmodern concept of "power". In short, this worldview says that all people are divided according to their group identity (race, sex, social group, etc.), and that some groups that "are in power" oppress all other groups by manipulating ("socially constructing") the perceived realities of life. The "oppressed" groups have therefore a permanent political victim status. The only way to fix the situation is to allow the "victim groups" to put forward any and all demands, to which the "oppressor groups" must unquestioningly agree. The victim status also absolves the "oppressed" groups of all responsibility for what they do: they can themselves make bad choices in life, behave as racist sexist homophobes, or even commit actual crimes, - all this is seen as "understandable" (i.e. forgivable) due to their "oppressed" status. Because of this, the actual behavior and actions of the "victim" groups is seen as completely unrelated to the prevalence of social problems in these groups (poverty, drug abuse, unemployment, crime, etc.) - these problems are considered to be forced on these groups by the "institutional oppression".
This worldview requires that its proponents routinely accuse other people of things they can be seen as doing themselves, such as discriminating on the basis of another person's group identity - or saying offensive things. Thus, anyone who holds these views is always vulnerable to the mirror defense.
For example, if an opponent says "you are against affirmative action for blacks because you are a white supremacist", the opponent is vulnerable to the mirror defense that consists of you saying two things, (1) affirmative action (in its usual form of racial quotas) has been empirically shown, over the past 40 years, to hurt black people's educational and career prospects, and so (2) whoever advocates for affirmative action must therefore want to hurt blacks and is therefore herself/himself behaving as an anti-black racist.
If the opponent is arguing in good faith (that is, looking for the truth), the opponent would most likely abandon identity politics and instead focus on the available empirical evidence. Does the evidence really point to actual harm to blacks, causally connected to affirmative action at universities or at workplace? The discussion would instantly become much more productive and useful for both sides.
Now, if Newman did not argue in good faith but had a more thorough training in the Foucault-style extreme left-wing ideology, how would she counter Peterson's question? Peterson accused her of saying things that are offensive to him. This is something she claims to be a bad thing to do. Now, within her chosen ideology, there is only one way in which she could have been absolved of responsibility for having done a bad thing: she needs to claim victim status due to her being a member of an "oppressed" group. The only way to do that (given that Newman is an affluent, professionally successful, Caucasian, non-gay, married woman) would be to claim victimhood status as a woman. She must say that Peterson attacks her because she is a woman; he is being sexist and misogynist, as is typical for a man. As a woman, she belongs to an "oppressed" group and therefore she has a right to voice her grievances, whether or not they offend Peterson or anyone else from the "oppressor" group.
Had she said that, Peterson would have two ways of responding. First, he could himself claim victim status of some kind (e.g. that he is gay, that he grew up in a poor family, or whatever), letting the debate degenerate into a victimhood competition. Peterson would not do that, of course, because he is opposed to the ideology of identity politics. His only real option is thus to reject the identity politics explicitly, and call attention to the fact that the opponent is engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issue on its merits. He could say something like "You must have misheard me; I never once mentioned your gender; and it's not the first time you put words in my mouth in order to avoid discussing an issue on its own merits". Newman would then have nothing more to say and would have to change the topic.
One other thing I wish Peterson said more clearly is that the personal traits conducive to career success (intelligence, conscientiousness, perseverance, diminished agreeableness, and diminished anxiousness) are not "male" traits as Newman said. Since Peterson's specialty is psychometrics, it would be easy for him to cite data about the prevalence of these traits in men and women. Both sexes have these traits to varying degrees, and whoever lacks these traits faces exactly the same career hurdles regardless of their sex. Peterson did allude to the idea that the importance of these traits for career success is not "socially constructed" by some evil and powerful white males, but is simply a consequence of hard work being necessary for success in life. He could have also cited data about the relative lack of success in businesses headed by women, as opposed to businesses headed by men; about the preferences of working women vs. working men for taking vacations, working overtime, and so on. There was perhaps too little time for Peterson to demolish his opponent more thoroughly by citing all that data.
Jordan Peterson's short interview on British TV has had unexpected resonance all around the English-speaking world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSTh
The consensus is that Peterson (a left-of-center classical liberal) was effective in debate against his opponent Cathy Newman, a modern extreme left-wing feminist. Why was he effective? Most people are citing the passage towards the end of the interview when Peterson said "I got you here" as Newman is unable to counterattack or to defend her position. Even the Wikipedia article on Newman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Newm
What happened at that point of the debate is what I call the "mirror defense".
Newman asks who gave Peterson the right to say things that offend some groups of people (in this case, trans-sexuals). Peterson responds with two things.
First, he defends his position by saying that in his view, honest thinking in search for truth in good faith requires being able to say things that may offend some people. Peterson emphatically rejects the view that there exists an absolute right of not being offended in any way by what other people say.
Second, Peterson asks Newman who gave her the right during this interview to say things that might offend him, and he states that Newman's questions have made him quite uncomfortable. In other words, Peterson accuses Newman of what she accuses him of (saying potentially offensive things). This is the "mirror defense": when you are accused of doing X, you say that it is actually your opponent who is doing X.
Why does the mirror defense work effectively here? In my view, it would not have worked if Newman wasn't espousing extreme left-wing views based on identity politics and Foucault's postmodern concept of "power". In short, this worldview says that all people are divided according to their group identity (race, sex, social group, etc.), and that some groups that "are in power" oppress all other groups by manipulating ("socially constructing") the perceived realities of life. The "oppressed" groups have therefore a permanent political victim status. The only way to fix the situation is to allow the "victim groups" to put forward any and all demands, to which the "oppressor groups" must unquestioningly agree. The victim status also absolves the "oppressed" groups of all responsibility for what they do: they can themselves make bad choices in life, behave as racist sexist homophobes, or even commit actual crimes, - all this is seen as "understandable" (i.e. forgivable) due to their "oppressed" status. Because of this, the actual behavior and actions of the "victim" groups is seen as completely unrelated to the prevalence of social problems in these groups (poverty, drug abuse, unemployment, crime, etc.) - these problems are considered to be forced on these groups by the "institutional oppression".
This worldview requires that its proponents routinely accuse other people of things they can be seen as doing themselves, such as discriminating on the basis of another person's group identity - or saying offensive things. Thus, anyone who holds these views is always vulnerable to the mirror defense.
For example, if an opponent says "you are against affirmative action for blacks because you are a white supremacist", the opponent is vulnerable to the mirror defense that consists of you saying two things, (1) affirmative action (in its usual form of racial quotas) has been empirically shown, over the past 40 years, to hurt black people's educational and career prospects, and so (2) whoever advocates for affirmative action must therefore want to hurt blacks and is therefore herself/himself behaving as an anti-black racist.
If the opponent is arguing in good faith (that is, looking for the truth), the opponent would most likely abandon identity politics and instead focus on the available empirical evidence. Does the evidence really point to actual harm to blacks, causally connected to affirmative action at universities or at workplace? The discussion would instantly become much more productive and useful for both sides.
Now, if Newman did not argue in good faith but had a more thorough training in the Foucault-style extreme left-wing ideology, how would she counter Peterson's question? Peterson accused her of saying things that are offensive to him. This is something she claims to be a bad thing to do. Now, within her chosen ideology, there is only one way in which she could have been absolved of responsibility for having done a bad thing: she needs to claim victim status due to her being a member of an "oppressed" group. The only way to do that (given that Newman is an affluent, professionally successful, Caucasian, non-gay, married woman) would be to claim victimhood status as a woman. She must say that Peterson attacks her because she is a woman; he is being sexist and misogynist, as is typical for a man. As a woman, she belongs to an "oppressed" group and therefore she has a right to voice her grievances, whether or not they offend Peterson or anyone else from the "oppressor" group.
Had she said that, Peterson would have two ways of responding. First, he could himself claim victim status of some kind (e.g. that he is gay, that he grew up in a poor family, or whatever), letting the debate degenerate into a victimhood competition. Peterson would not do that, of course, because he is opposed to the ideology of identity politics. His only real option is thus to reject the identity politics explicitly, and call attention to the fact that the opponent is engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issue on its merits. He could say something like "You must have misheard me; I never once mentioned your gender; and it's not the first time you put words in my mouth in order to avoid discussing an issue on its own merits". Newman would then have nothing more to say and would have to change the topic.
One other thing I wish Peterson said more clearly is that the personal traits conducive to career success (intelligence, conscientiousness, perseverance, diminished agreeableness, and diminished anxiousness) are not "male" traits as Newman said. Since Peterson's specialty is psychometrics, it would be easy for him to cite data about the prevalence of these traits in men and women. Both sexes have these traits to varying degrees, and whoever lacks these traits faces exactly the same career hurdles regardless of their sex. Peterson did allude to the idea that the importance of these traits for career success is not "socially constructed" by some evil and powerful white males, but is simply a consequence of hard work being necessary for success in life. He could have also cited data about the relative lack of success in businesses headed by women, as opposed to businesses headed by men; about the preferences of working women vs. working men for taking vacations, working overtime, and so on. There was perhaps too little time for Peterson to demolish his opponent more thoroughly by citing all that data.
