Jordan Peterson and Postmodernism: Unpacking the Similarities and Discrepancies

By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0

Jordan Peterson is one of today’s most polarizing thinkers.

Whether you admire his sharp takes on psychology and culture or find his views frustratingly convoluted, it’s undeniable that his work sparks intense debate.

One recurring question is whether Peterson’s philosophy shares unexpected similarities with the postmodernism he so fiercely critiques.

Postmodernism

Before diving into a comparison, it is essential to establish what postmodernism actually is.

At its core, postmodernism is a broad and complex movement that emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction against modernist ideas.

It challenges the grand narratives and universal truths that modernism embraced, proposing instead that knowledge and reality are subjective, socially constructed, and fragmented.

Thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-François Lyotard argued that truth is not objective or absolute but is instead shaped by power dynamics, historical contexts, and cultural influences.

Jordan Peterson, in contrast, positions himself as a defender of traditional values, hierarchy, and objective truths, often framed through religious and archetypal lenses.

In his public discourse, Peterson frequently critiques what he sees as the dangers of postmodernism, especially in relation to its influence on political correctness, identity politics, and cultural relativism.

According to Peterson, postmodernists deny the existence of objective truth, which he sees as a moral and intellectual fallacy.

But here’s the catch: Many of Peterson’s critics argue that, in some respects, Peterson’s approach mirrors aspects of postmodern thought—whether he recognizes it or not.

Hermeneutics and Symbolism

One of the most frequently noted similarities between Peterson and postmodernism lies in his approach to interpretation.

Postmodernism is known for its skepticism towards grand narratives and its embrace of the idea that meaning is not fixed but fluid.

This is evident in the works of Derrida, who argued that meaning is always deferred, and that words can never fully capture the essence of what they refer to.

Peterson, on the other hand, often reads texts—especially religious ones—through a symbolic and psychological lens.

He interprets biblical stories, for example, not as literal truths but as complex allegories that reveal universal human truths about suffering, morality, and meaning.

While Peterson’s readings are grounded in psychological archetypes rather than linguistic theory, the underlying approach of interpreting texts as layered, symbolic constructs is reminiscent of postmodern methods.

Just as Derrida sees texts as endlessly open to reinterpretation, Peterson treats ancient stories as timeless reflections of the human experience, but always seen through the lens of individual psychological growth.

The Discrepancies

Despite these similarities, the contrast between Peterson and postmodernism is striking, particularly when it comes to their treatment of objective truth.

Postmodernists argue that “truth” is always contingent on historical and social contexts—there is no ultimate, unchanging truth that transcends human perspectives.

This is exemplified in Foucault’s work on power and knowledge, where he argues that what we consider to be “true” is a product of power structures and discursive practices.

Peterson, however, defends the idea of objective truth, particularly in moral and existential matters.

He frequently invokes the concept of natural hierarchies, biological imperatives, and the necessity of meaning, which he believes must be rooted in some form of objective reality.

His focus on the individual’s need for personal responsibility, the importance of traditional structures (like family), and the universal lessons embedded in myths and religious texts all point to a worldview where certain truths about human nature and morality are universal and unchanging.

Peterson stands in opposition to the relativism of postmodernism.

While he acknowledges the complexity of human experience, he insists that meaning and order can be derived from a higher, often metaphysical, truth—something that postmodern thinkers would challenge or even outright reject.

A Stylistic Comparison: Word-Salad or Rich Symbolism?

Another point of comparison is the style of discourse used by both Peterson and postmodern theorists.

Critics often describe Peterson’s speeches as “word-salad,” a critique not too dissimilar to the accusations leveled at postmodernists like Derrida or Foucault.

Both figures are often seen as engaging in dense, performatively complex language that can obscure the core message, leading some to dismiss their work as unintelligible or pretentious.

While Peterson does indeed indulge in a highly stylized form of speech—full of references to Jungian psychology, mythology, and biblical narratives—it’s worth noting that he claims to be offering practical solutions to the modern existential crisis.

His speeches are geared toward individuals seeking clarity on how to navigate life’s meaning through responsibility, discipline, and structure.

Postmodern theorists, on the other hand, often have a more abstract aim: to deconstruct the very frameworks that allow us to understand the world, challenging the very foundations of knowledge and truth.

In this way, Peterson’s style may seem performatively “postmodern” at times, but his ultimate goals—grounding truth in individual responsibility and objective order—stand in stark contrast to the destabilizing effects of postmodern thought.

A Comparison Table: Key Concepts in Peterson vs. Postmodernism

ConceptJordan PetersonPostmodernism
Objective TruthBelieves in universal, objective truths, especially in relation to morality and meaning.Denies objective truth, emphasizing that truth is contingent and socially constructed.
InterpretationUses a symbolic, psychological approach to interpret texts, especially religious ones.Focuses on deconstructing texts and meanings, often emphasizing the fluidity of interpretation.
Role of PowerAcknowledges societal hierarchies but sees them as natural and necessary.Argues that power structures shape our understanding of knowledge and truth.
Metaphysical BeliefsAdvocates for a higher, often religious or archetypal, understanding of meaning.Skeptical of metaphysical claims, viewing them as constructions or illusions.
Political ViewAdvocates for conservative, traditional values and social structures.Critiques capitalism, patriarchy, and other power structures, often promoting progressive causes.

Ultra-Simplified Explanation

Imagine you’re building a puzzle, and you’re told there’s only one way to put it together.

The pieces are all the same, and the picture is clear from the start.

This is how people used to think about the world: there were set rules, one “truth,” and one way to understand everything.

But then, postmodernism came along and said, “Hold on a minute! What if there are many ways to put the puzzle together? And what if there isn’t just one picture, but a bunch of different ones depending on how you look at it?”

Postmodernism is like questioning everything you’ve been told about the puzzle. It’s not about saying there’s no truth at all but asking, “Whose truth are we talking about?” It looks at how stories, power, and personal views shape the way we see the world.

Now, Jordan Peterson comes in like someone saying, “Enough with this questioning! There is a right way to put the puzzle together, and if we don’t follow it, things will fall apart.”

That’s why he criticizes postmodernism—it challenges the stable truths he believes society depends on.

But here’s the twist: some of Peterson’s methods, like interpreting symbols and asking big questions, are a bit like postmodernism themselves.

Final Thoughts

As a writer, I find myself drawn to the heart of Jordan Peterson’s arguments,despite his annoying verbosity.

Honestly, his speeches resemble labyrinths—filled with echoes, layers of symbolism, and tangents that leave one searching for a single coherent thread.

Yet beneath the excess lies a simple, striking conviction that I agree with: that there is one truth.

It is not splintered into infinite interpretations or bound by cultural whims but instead pulses at the core of existence, a universal rhythm that we instinctively recognize.

This is where I find myself aligned with Peterson.

While postmodernism’s probing of “truths” is fascinating, it often feels like mistaking the shadows on the wall for the fire behind them.

Many truths, as they are called, may indeed be real to some extent, but they are not the Truth. They are fragments, misunderstandings, or at best, nuances that orbit a deeper reality.

I often return to a principle echoed in Eastern philosophies like Zen Buddhism or Taoism: the importance of intuition, of a quiet inner knowing that transcends logic and language.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the sages say, reminding us that truth is often felt before it is named.

Peterson’s best moments, to me, are not when he explains but when he strikes a chord, awakening that intuitive sense of alignment with something greater.

In the end, clarity matters, but so does the courage to trust one’s instincts in the pursuit of truth.

Perhaps, then, the most vital thing we can do is listen—past the noise, past the words, and into the silence where the deepest truths always reside.

Comments

Leave a Reply