Re Peterson’s statement (I admit to not having read his works): And I think that’s because we evolved those categories as our fundamental representational archetypes and then we try to fit the world into those categories because that’s the categories that we evolved first, and we have to look at the world through those categories. We’re cognitively prisoners of our evolutionary history — or beneficiaries of it, that’s another way of thinking about it.
Our perception of the world predates our evolving categories as representational archetypes.If we use those archetypes (like artifacts in an archaeological dig) to help us understand that original perception, then we absolutely have to factor in historical context. Otherwise we are creating a new perception rather than uncovering the original. And when we claim that this newly minted perception is identical to the original, we are even further from self-awareness than if we had done nothing.
If, as Peterson does, one sees the evolution (more accurately, what one considers an evolution) of our archetypes as an agonistic process, then one valorizes agonism. One proclaims agonistic myths as proof of the primacy of conflict (patriarchy overthrows matriarchy). Thus, seeing chaos as primal and feminine, and order as evolved (“civilized”) and masculine promotes maleness and domination over femaleness and partnership. If Peterson believes that the binary “male/female” has nothing to do humans, only with archetypes, then he should use a different set of terms. Apparently he wants to evoke gender stereotypes (associating the feminine with dark, primitive instincts and the masculine with noble, civilizing advances) while denying responsibility for doing so.
Peterson’s statement “ “women are nature for men because they are the force that selects for reproduction” reveals the roots of his prejudgment. Why are women nature for men? If the “force that selects for reproduction” is a universal phenomenon, then shouldn’t women be nature for women as well? By saying “nature for men” Peterson gives men the authority of determining what is (and isn’t) nature.
But for me, the central question is “What is the historical context of Peterson’s ahistoricism and the appeal to his followers?” I’m not claiming to interpret Peterson, but it’s pretty clear that since the early 20th Century there has been a backlash against the growing cultural trend toward partnership over domination. Jung’s writings are marbled with sexist and Eurocentrist assumptions. (I think he’s the symptom, not the cause of this backlash). The old order (domination) responds the only way it knows: unleashing conflict and chaos while wearing the sheep’s clothing of civilization.
