Identity shaped by lived experiences.

The Influence of Identity‍ Politics: A Conversation ⁢with⁣ Dr. Jordan ‌Peterson and Douglas Murray

The ⁣following is a transcript excerpt from Dr. Jordan Peterson’s conversation with​ Douglas⁢ Murray on⁣ identity​ politics. You⁣ can listen to or ​watch the full podcast⁣ on DailyWire+.

Start‌ time:⁣ 17:13

Identity ​politics ‌coalesces around any ​group⁣ where⁤ there is a sufficient number of people with at least one⁣ thing in‍ common⁣ who ⁣do,⁤ in ‍fact, feel alienated and ‌resentful about the⁢ general‍ culture for valid and⁤ invalid‌ reasons. It is a crapshoot, in some sense. ⁣It does ⁤not matter if there is consistency in category structure across ‍the different categories of⁢ identity politics. All that matters ⁢is that ⁢enough people⁣ will‍ coalesce⁢ around each⁣ term. I ‌think that is reasonable because many, many terms have been generated — like ageism, for example. Although, we have not seen much identity politics ​emerge around⁤ age,⁢ but that is probably‍ because it ⁢did⁣ not coalesce. You can think about it ⁣as a Darwinian process,‍ in⁢ some⁣ sense. ​There are 100 terms of alienation, and 10⁤ of⁢ them generate⁤ enough social attention⁤ to become viable sociological and political phenomena. ‌And they continue ⁣to breed, but that ⁤is‌ because they ‍breed whenever there⁢ is ​enough people to ​garner enough ⁢attention.

Now, ​the ‍problem I have with that —​ and I ⁣have ⁣been thinking‍ about ​this for a​ long time — is ⁤the notion of ⁤identity that​ lurks at the ⁣bottom‍ of this. Because ‌I think ⁣part of‌ the problem​ with the identity politics’ grand narrative is that, partly because of⁣ its⁢ incoherence, it ⁣does not offer anything that looks like a ​real solution. That is partly because its definition of what ⁤constitutes ⁢identity seems ⁣to ⁤be ⁣almost incomprehensibly shallow, ⁤especially for social⁣ constructivists. The⁣ central idea seems‌ to be that identity is something that ‍you ⁢define yourself,‌ and it is a consequence of your lived⁣ experience. So no one has any ​right to state anything about your identity other than you⁢ because⁣ they do not ‍have access to your own subjective experiences.

I would not want⁣ to make ​the claim⁣ that there is ⁢nothing in that because ‌there is⁢ a ​domain of⁣ subjective ⁣experience that ‌is⁤ unique⁣ —⁣ like ⁣pain,‍ for example. There is no doubt that it⁣ is⁤ real and⁢ that‍ it is ⁣vital ​and important. ⁤But the ‍problem with that seems‍ to me ⁢to ‌be⁣ that identity‌ is not only‌ a‍ consequence ⁣of your subjective experience. ⁤In fact, it is not even‌ a label ​for your subjective ​experience. Identity seems to me‌ to be a handbag of tools⁢ that ⁣you employ to make‍ your ‍way in the natural⁣ and social world. ​It‌ is⁢ something more⁤ pragmatic.⁢ It is like the role you might play if ⁣you⁣ were ⁣playing ⁢a ‍game ⁢with other people. You can pick your ​role,⁤ but it has to be ⁢part of the game. That ⁢means⁤ people have to ⁤accept you as a ‌player, and that there are certain​ functions⁢ that‍ you ​have‍ to undertake when you fulfill that⁤ role. That is actually beneficial⁣ to you because partly​ what you ⁣want from⁣ an ​identity ⁣is a ⁣set of guidelines for ⁣how it is that⁢ you⁣ should⁢ act in the‌ world.

The problem with a lot ‍of these newer categories — ⁢and I think ⁢trans ⁤is a ⁤good example of⁤ that — is​ that⁢ even if the category‍ was accepted ‌as valid on ⁤the grounds⁤ of its ⁤proposed validity (which is the⁤ felt sense⁢ of⁢ being⁢ a man if you are a woman or being a‍ woman ⁣if you‍ are a man), it is ​not obvious what that ​buys you. […] The‌ fundamental flaw that I see in ⁢identity⁤ politics is that, ⁢even though it is simultaneously predicated on ‍the idea ⁣that identity is ⁣a social construct⁢ and that ⁤it is a felt⁤ sense, ‌it can’t be ⁤both of ⁣those. It is, in ‍fact,⁣ a social ⁢construct with‌ biological⁢ root. The fact that it is ​a social⁤ construct means‌ that it is⁣ something ⁤that is by necessity​ negotiated⁤ with‌ others, not imposed upon ​them by fiat. ⁢And⁢ it has to ‌be ​negotiated with ⁤others ‍because ‌otherwise⁣ they will not‍ play with you.​ […]‍ We are each a⁤ solitude in some sense for​ multiple reasons, for‌ multiple‌ intersectional reasons ​for ​that‌ matter. But ⁣that does ⁢not mean that communication is⁤ impossible or⁣ that it should be ​foregone, unless ​you want the​ alternative. And ‌the alternative is conflict, combat: “If I⁢ can’t understand⁤ you, you’re nothing‌ like me, and‌ there’s ​no way ‍we can⁣ negotiate a way to⁤ occupy ‍the ‌same ‌space.” Maybe‍ that ‍is the catastrophe you are after, but it is​ not an ‌optimal outcome.

To hear ⁣the rest ⁤of ​the discussion, ⁣continue​ by ⁤listening or watching this episode on DailyWire+.

Dr.‌ Jordan B. Peterson is a⁣ clinical psychologist and⁢ professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From⁤ 1993 to ⁤1998 he served​ as assistant and ⁢then associate ⁣professor of ‍psychology at‍ Harvard. He is the​ international bestselling⁣ author of⁢ Maps​ of Meaning, 12⁢ Rules For Life,⁢ and Beyond ⁤Order. ⁢You ‍can‌ now ⁤listen‌ to⁢ or watch his popular lectures on⁣ DailyWire+.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases