Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, known for his critique of political correctness and offense-sensitivity in the context of higher education, has presented a formidable defence of his position in a recent interview with Cathy Newman.
In response to Ms Newman’s question why his right to freedom of speech should trump a person’s right not to be offended, Peterson said: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. (…) You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.” (Daily Wire) To Ms Newman’s credit she did not attempt to push the point, what was a wise thing to do as she would be committing what Jürgen Habermas called a ‘performative contradiction’. Peterson’s statement can be analysed as an affirmation of Discourse Ethics, a transcendental-pragmatic position developed by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel (see On What is Right: The Problem of Grounding in Ethics).
According to Apel (Selected Essays: Ethics and the Theory of Rationality. Humanities Press International, 1996), “Humanity is in essence linguistic, and therefore depends always already for its thinking on consensual communication.”(p211) “The logical justification for our thought” therefore commits us to “understand arguments critically” and to “mutually recognize each other as participants with equal rights in the discussion.”(p29) The claim of ‘right not to be offended’ is incompatible with these conditions, as it either monopolises the discussion (makes a subjective demand of another to limit expression) or precludes understanding (if both parties claim offence). In any case, subjective judgement about what is offensive cannot even hypothetically be the basis of a normative principle (Setiya, Kieran. Explaining Action. The Philosophical Review, 2003). Setiya shows that subjective judgement provides only explanation of our reasons, not their objective justification.
There is a deeper logical consequence to Apel’s premise that all meaning, and therefore all thinking, is a product of public deliberation. If we were limited only to discussing things we already agreed on then no new meaning could ever emerge, no evolution of rationality, language or consciousness would be possible, because the process of transition from meaninglessness to meaningfulness would be barred. Deliberation is possible only if there is a mutual capacity to tolerate disagreement, but its application transcends disagreement even if explicit resolution cannot be achieved. It makes us who we are for ourselves and for one another, being the basis of our existence as thinking, conscious agents: a necessary condition of everything we believe in and of everything we value.
If disagreement can be used as a justification of personal offence than this is not an indictment on the subject-matter, the truth-claims or the value-commitments we disagree about, but an indictment on the possibility of rational justification of being offended. By imposing limits on what can be publicly discussed, on what claims can be defended, on what words can or must be used, deliberation is shut down, and little by little our meaning and therefore our identity fade away… in the ‘safe space’ of non-contention. The ‘right not to be offended’ entails that we value our existence, or our identity, but it also entails active nihilism, a pursuit of non-existence and non-identity, therefore a contradiction. If we do value our existence then we are rationally committed to accept the necessary condition of our existence – tolerance of disagreement – even if we don’t like how disagreement sometimes makes us feel.
13782 views“I did not make holes in order to wreck the picture. On the contrary, I made holes in order to find something else.” Lucio Fontana. The Last Interview (19 July 1968). I interpret Lucio Fontana’s work as a symbolic representation of how meaning is constructed through a seemingly destructive act. In order to create meaning there must be a disturbance, a new boundary established in the undifferentiated continuity of the medium. Hence the hole in the whole is not something destructive but an act of creation, an act whereby even the medium is transcended and recreated.
Yes, indeed. Interesting new information there for me, thank you for writing.
I think Peterson’s recent interview will be a bench mark in calmly countering this particular mindset. “Performative contradiction” occurs it seems, all the time with persons who are unable – philosophically and psychologically – to accept “offence” since it is perceived as an attack against their identity. This is a desperately serious situation for millennials and generation Z alike since “public deliberation” has an almost impenetrable mix of ideology and normalised pathology to contend with – to which we are all subject, consciousy or unconsciously recognised – before an even half way objective analysis can be employed.
Newman is a text book case of the state of journalism, modern feminism and personality traits which encapsulate what is wrong with our culture. It was therefore, quite amusing when she was caught out. She gave a low-brow retort to bide some time then as she floundered she allowed a smile then a laugh a genuine moment of regression to her past. In Freudian terms and biologically- she was cornered by a “patriarch”/ father which was positively stimulating as it was deeply uncomfortable; where belief and reality clashed. She wanted it but also rejected it.
It was obvious that Peterson’s centered demeanor was “attractive” to her since for women generally who completely identify with these beliefs, the male “offence” and resistance he offered signalled strength, calm, friendliness and persistent logic that did not yield an inch to emotional manipulation a core feminine survival strategy – the very opposite of weakness and highly desirable at a core level to the feminine mind – even if unconscious. (I know women hate that evaluation but it’s always true to varying degrees).
Unfortunately, her exploration, about which Peterson was very gracious – wasn’t seeking “holes” but only to reinforce her own vested identity and belief – truth was utterly irrelevant, as per the remit of mainstream media and feminist discourse generally.
Very entertaining and instructive.
Thanks for adding another dimension to this analysis. I very much agree that it takes a lot of work on both sides of a discourse to begin Actually communicating, beyond defensive posturing and subconscious impulsiveness.
My reference to Lucio Fontana’s ‘holes’ was not directed at her, but rather a symbolic representation of how meaning is constructed through a seemingly destructive act. Without the holes (or better, discontinuities) the canvas is empty; without discontinuities there’s even no canvas. In order to create meaning there must be a disturbance, a new boundary established in the undifferentiated continuity of the medium. Hence the hole in the whole is not something destructive but an act of creation.
Thank you both…we need more people thinking in these ways these days.
I found Peterson’s decimation of Ms Newman fascinating [as with most things Peterson].
It occurs to me that the employment of ‘performative contradiction’ is exercised by post baby boomers everytime one utters the argument of “lets not dwell on the past [my negative behavior or action], lets move forward”… as a defense to avoid scrutiny and thus accountability for thier unacceptable actions…
Or, am I completly off base?
Performative contradiction is when your actions contradict what you are now saying or what you now believe.
So is “performative contradiction” just a pseudonym for “hypocrite”?
Not quite. Hypocrisy, as usually defined, always involves a performative contradiction, but performative contradiction does not always amount to hypocrisy. For example, I may say “I cannot speak”, but in saying so I would be contradicting that statement without being hypocritical.
Yes, I see. I suppose my reference to these symbolic holes in her case and others, is that this “disturbance” is routinely avoided since it is seen as a threat rather than creative, as you say. Maybe – if I have this correct – it is akin to rejecting the inherent chaos of systems in nature, the stability of which exists in states very far from equilibrium yet achieve a steady state and transformative potential despite this chaos.
In other words, disturbance, friction, oscillation of facts meeting opinions etc. sets up an increasing amplitude of engagement and in turn, depends on our own inner resonance in meeting that external force setting an open or closed system. Hence self-knowledge and humility is so important as is determines the integrity of our own “system” and the ability to share that integrity. Such a dynamic has to be drawn from a centre of cultivated strength and will (character built through suffering) something that is lost in much postmodernist thinking since there is no objective reality to speak of, thus no purpose or metaphysical component to life.
Strange times we live in.
Thank you for understanding and reiterating Peterson’s take on the necessity of ‘burning dead wood’.
Holding onto anything in an ever-changing reality is self-destructive. As the old saying goes: ‘wishing won’t make it so’. Why do we humans often allow our identities to blind us from reality?
Praise to Peterson for bringing these issues to light–and also to you, for translating these ideas for an even broader audience.
Well political correctness is just there to control the sheeple.
It has no value, on the contrary.