This is the second time I've read 12 Rules for Life, and I still love it. Yes, Peterson could have probably written it better and made his thoughts more succinct. Considering this is Peterson's first mainstream book, I think he did pretty well condensing his thoughts. I've tried to read Maps of Meaning, but it's incredibly dense and I've found it a struggle to follow. This one is definitely easier to read and I'm grateful Peterson has simplified his thoughts to make them more accessible to more people. Overall, I find this book helpful. There are those readers who criticize this book based on several reservations and I'd like to address some of those points, since I've spent some time thinking about them and kept my eyes open while reading this time round to see through the lense of these criticisms.
1. The message is unclear. What's the point of this book?
To me, that's pretty clear in the title. There are 12 "rules" to live your life by, that will help provide an "antidote to chaos", if you are willing to do the work of applying these rules in your life. As a transformational life coach, who supports people in achieving their dreams and overcoming the limitations of their circumstances and brave the adversity life hurls at them, I can confirm that I guide my clients through a differently-phrased version of these rules in a 12-week course. The principles are the same, they're just presented slightly differently by Peterson.
However, if you look at the writings of Henry David Thoreau, Bob Proctor, Napoleon Hill, Mary Morrissey and many more, you'll find the "rules" or "principles" required to live a good life are essentially the same. How they are phrased may differ, but the underlying idea is the same. They are not a coherent set of steps you can take in a particular order. You can work on one and it will spill over into another. Life is not coherent, although Peterson makes an effort to break things down into bite-sized pieces. If you want a "coherent" one-thought-leads-to-the-next-idea type of read, this is not it. I like considering each chapter on its own, as a representation of the particular principle being spoken of. You could read this book in pretty much any order, because these chapters are more like essays. Each one with its own topic and purpose.
2. The rules are obvious and you don't need to understand the evolution of the lobster (for example) to understand those points, making his writing "pseudo-profound" (to paraphrase one negative review)
The lobster is not only fun and lends humour to the chapter, it also helps me understand how my brain functions because the dopamine and serotonin structure of my brain chemistry evolved from a common ancestor with the lobster. That helps me understand that certain feelings I have are related to my brain functioning, and can be counteracted with a conscious decision to use the way that system functions to change how I feel.
I have suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts. I've been at the lowest of lows. I find it useful to know why it happens. I also find it highly helpful that I don't need to chemically bypass my depression with Prozac, because I can consciously do the same thing the SSRIs do by simply standing straight with my shoulders back, tricking the ancient part of my brain to produce more happy brain chemicals and override the depressing chemicals.
Sure, this might not work for everyone, but it has worked for me, far far better than any antidepressants. Also, it fits with the "law of attraction" idea of Be-Do-Have. Many of us go through life looking at what we have, lamenting what we can't do because we don't have enough of "x" and feeling that we can never "be" good/strong/happy/lucky enough.
Peterson and proponents of the law of attraction show us this is not the case. We have to Be who we want to be. Strive to be out best selves first, and then we will act in accordance with that vision and achieve the goals and dreams we aim for. You cannot achieve anything if you're lying in bed too depressed to get up and do anything. However, you can make a conscious decision to be your best self, face the world, stand up straight with your shoulders back, and face what is coming to the best of your current ability. Take a step, one action today and then another tomorrow. I have wallowed. It never got me anywhere, but after standing straight with my shoulders back (and treating my lobster-brain to the vision of me as the victor), moving purposefully towards something, I achieved things I'd formerly believed impossible, like publishing a book I wrote when I was 19 (and becoming a USA Today Bestseller within two years of that first publication). I think that is worth taking into consideration. And if Peterson wants to use lobsters as his example to help me propel myself from dismal to radiant, who am I to criticize him?
3. The Bible is represented out of proportion and shows a lack of insight in global religious and mythical thought and a lack of representation of other cultures.
I know Peterson hasn't stated it in this book, but he has, in many lectures and interviews stated that he draws connections between psychological processes and religious wisdom based on his own sphere of knowledge. He uses the stories he grew up with as a springboard to illustrate what he has encountered in his life and practice. He uses the stories the ancients put together to show these are concerns the human race has been dealing with for generations, and that they are so important, they have found their way into religious thought.
I personally consider the fact he doesn't draw on religious texts he is less familiar with a testimony of his respect for other cultures, and dare I say humility. A person who refrains from making commentary on a subject they are not familiar with is honest, and shows a level of integrity worthy of admiration. Additionally, Peterson has invited two Muslim scholars to enlighten him on their viewpoints based on their cultural and religious perspective. I found it a very enlightening and interesting discussion. I also liked that Peterson was open to doing that and even did it. In my personal experience, I have not found many people that open to cross-cultural sharing of ideas.
4. Peterson is a chauvinist pig because he refers to the dichotomy male/culture vs female/nature as a symbolic representation of the human psyche.
I have never once felt Peterson's content was demeaning or irreverent towards me as a woman. I've listened to most of his lectures, viewed his interviews and read his books and nothing of what he says about archetypes riled me up. That might be because I'm familiar with his source material in Jungian theory. I'm also familiar with Campbell's work on The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
What these and other authors highlight is our human tendency (corroborated through psychological research) to dichotomize the world we live in. Our brains work in opposites. We love to categorize: good/evil, masculine/feminine, nature/culture, order/chaos, perpetrator/victim, fascist/liberal etc. It is something we do. When we are aware of it, conscious of the tendency, we can possibly work on reducing the power the dichotomies have on our thinking. However, that doesn't stop our brians from working best when categorizing. It also doesn't change the fact that we have been categorizing in this way for millennia, which has influenced the stories we tell. In this context, Peterson is very clear that he's drawing on the symbolic representation of masculine and feminine. He is not uttering thoughts on men and women. He's working within the framework of stories humans have been telling for a very long time and he teases out the psychological impact these stories have at a subconscious level because they're talking to the basic dichotomy we inherently expect because that's how our brains understand the world to work.
Empirically, neither Manchester United nor Chelsea are always the best team, nor is one inherently better than the other. On a rational level, we know this. But fans of both teams will undyingly declare the superiority of their team, even though they rationally know this cannot be true always. ManU is the best sometimes, and sometimes it's Chelsea, and other times it's neither.
The symbolic representation of the masculine and feminine in stories, particularly mythological tales, is more subtle, but it follows a similar way of dividing the world, of simplifying lived experiences and observations and transforming them into something that has a grain of truth in it, but is not THE ultimate truth. Peterson enjoys teasing out the grain of truth, but to do that, he has to dissect the story on its own terms. If the story is using the symbolic representation of nature and chaos as feminine, he acknowledges that categorisation because it has value since it has been used in that way throughout the stories we humans have passed on from generation to generation.
The dichotomy in representing the masculine and feminine in particular ways through stories doesn't say anything about male and female sex, nor does it in any way refer to modern ideas about gender equality. If you pay attention to Peterson and what he says, it's clear he has immeasurable respect for women and is unbelievably supportive of both his children. If he were a chauvinist, he would have supported his son and married off his daughter at the first possible opportunity. He would also not respect his wife or support her career. I don't see any of that being the case in his private life or what he's said or written.
He talks about stories and deconstructs them on the basis of the intrinsic system that underlies their construction. It is not his fault that previous generations of humans have told stories (and let's accept that we honestly still do this with our stories even today) that symbolically represent masculinity and femininity in particular ways. He shows a level of integrity and a respect for women I can recognize.
Peterson's ideas highlight the difficulties many women face with balancing modern life in its intricacies where the biological predetermination to reproduce and the cultural impetus to have a career and to meet men on an equal footing come together in a quicksand-like state of confusion. He also acknowledges the difficulties faced by men in modern society, which I find helpful as I'm raising both a son and a daughter and they are different, by temperament and behaviour. Peterson's rules and ideas imparted in lectures and interviews have helped me manage those differences and have shown me how I can adapt my parenting style to be sensitive to my children's differences and to respect each one and adapt my way of being to be in greater harmony with their personalities and traits.
Humans are plagued by considerations of difference and the desire to categorize, which highlights differences over similarities. We are unique, but we are also all part of the same species. Additionally, we share certain physiological systems with other living organisms even though we look, sound and smell nothing like them. We make sense of all that uniqueness by observing, finding similarities within groupings and labelling those. Knowing that this is what we do and how that influences the stories our ancestors have passed on to us is helpful. It also allows us to consider from new perspectives the situations we find ourselves in and the stories we tell our children. It doesn't say anything about the lived experiences of any given individual.
Comments