The decline of marriage in the United States has become a cause for hand wringing, especially among our ruling class of centrist pundits who man the battlestations of our nation’s indispensable middle-brow newspapers. The emerging conventional wisdom? The current, well documented and precipitous decline in marriage has been caused by a confluence of social and economic forces: the mainstreaming of the ‘60– well, really ‘70’s– free love ethos, currently manifesting itself in the form of “hookup culture,” declining male wages (thus making said males less marriageable in the so-called “sexual marketplace”), as well as the phenomenon of “extended adolescence.”

The popular conservative response to this, aside from the predictable moans of general moralistic disapproval, has consisted mostly of admonitions to young men to “Man up,” or a more general appeal to both sexes about the utilitarian benefits of marriage and family.

Though such talking points have been staples of center-right sociological analysis for decades, few have expressed the true essence of this line of thought in as succinent and popular a form as the (now) world-famous Canadian professor of psychology and YouTube self-help guru Jordan B. Peterson.

Peterson, though he also frequently hits many of the same talking points as, say, Ross Douthat and Charles Murray, goes a step further and takes a firm stand, not just against the decline of marriage, but against the very idea of romance itself:

Romance is a young person’s game, and the reason for that is, obviously, the precursor to having children…The purpose of romance isn’t lifetime happiness. First of all that’s insane, because you’re just not going to find a person that’s going to make you happy…The purpose of romance is to set up the preconditions for having children and doing it properly.

To many conservative sensibilities Peterson’s advice may seem like common sense, even an appropriate response to what has been perceived as a drift away from the “traditional values” of the stoic mid-century suburban lifestyle practiced by the Greatest Generation and toward the self-absorbed narcissism of the Baby Boomers during the latters’ half-century quest for self-actualization.

The problem with this analysis is that, for all their many flaws, the Boomers were generally quite fond of marriage (to the point that they frequently did it multiple times throughout their lives). The Boomers, whatever else they were, were romantics; they frequently did not let being married to others get in the way of their romances.

Millennials, on the other hand, increasingly don’t marry at all. Ever. But not, contra Peterson, because they are wild eyed dreamers looking for their soul mates. Rather, because many of them have already internalized the very therapeutic, utilitarian, and neoliberal values that Peterson himself preaches.

The term “neoliberalism” is often derided by those on the center right and left as a meaningless pejorative hurled against “serious” people by various political radicals and ne’er-do-wells. We should therefore explain exactly what we mean by the term and, in particular, examine how it relates to Peterson’s thought.

A useful elucidation of the term, for our purposes, can be found in an interview that Wendy Brown, the author of Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, gave to Dissent Magazine. Under neoliberalism, she said,

…human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person, business, or state) is governed as a firm.

Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending commodification and monetization everywhere—that’s the old Marxist depiction of capital’s transformation of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres—such as learning, dating, or exercising—in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value.”

This definition syncs up, almost exactly, with Peterson’s own method of analysis, which he has expressed in his hundreds of popular video lectures, in particular his meditations on the superiority and desirability of the vicious social hierarchies of lobsters. Hierarchies which, perhaps not coincidentally, in addition to being practiced by primitive, soulless arthropods that evolved millions of years before human beings, also perfectly reflect the ethos of modern neoliberal economists.

An ethos which Peterson eagerly applies to the romantic interactions of humans who operate in what he has called, fittingly, the “sexual marketplace.” As Peterson states, “women date across and up hierarchies, while men date across and down them.” Peterson argues that sexual hierarchies not only do exist, but should exist.

Reductionist and morally grotesque as Peterson’s “lobstertarian” vision of human interpersonal relationships is, it is not, contra the bloviations of his fans, in any way “counter-cultural.” Rather, in the context of our contemporary social hellscape of Tinder, meticulously manicured LinkedIn profiles, and personal brands which have been carefully designed to maximize the “human capital” (and thus, the “exchange value”) of their users, nothing could be more socially and economically orthodox.

In the traditional formulation, the classic barrier two young lovers faced to consummating their longing was usually the gaze of disapproving parents. But the lovers in question could always simply run away and elope to Las Vegas or Paris. A far easier task, in retrospect, than trying to escape the assessing gaze of thousands of Linkedin contacts and Instagram followers who surely notice that the object of your affection just doesn’t match very well with the personal brand you’ve worked so hard to cultivate– a brand upon which your livelihood and perceived social status depend. In this brave new world, a couple cannot afford romance, if it would lead them to a match that could compromise their market value. It is a reality to which the now largely empty wedding chapels of Vegas bear quiet witness.

Peterson’s goal was never to challenge the economic and social orthodoxy of the post-’68 world. Rather, it was always merely a project to attempt to reconcile alienated and disaffected young men, many of whom have now largely dropped out of modern society, to the neoliberal order itself. And the best way to do that, as Peterson has shown, is to construct an easily digestible mythological narrative structure that can adapt, plastically, to an individual’s role within the neoliberal order, without questioning it.

It is not, perhaps, a story designed to produce heroes: those who will lose their lives for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, those who will challenge the order itself as unjust and inhumane. But it will produce good managers.

Peterson has become a kind of anti-Tolstoy who has rewritten “The Death Of Ivan Ilych” but changed the ending. Instead of Ivan’s life of self-absorbed bourgeois tedium being revealed for the wasteful banality, the house built of straw which it was, it instead morphs into the glorious crescendo of a particular hero’s journey. Such is the alchemical wonderworking afforded to the practitioners of Jungian mysticism: the ability to transmute shit into gold.

It is appropriate that Peterson should be an acolyte of Carl Jung. He, like his teacher before him, has abandoned the transcendent truth claims which so long structured Christian civilization and has exchanged them for a strictly personal, psychological religion designed to reconcile modern man to a fate of meaninglessness by mining the corpses of ancient symbolic universes. As Philip Rieff once remarked, concerning Jung’s schema (and thus Peterson’s as well): “This is a religion of sorts— for spiritual dilettantes, who collect symbols and meanings as others collect paintings.”

Peterson’s brand is that of a warrior against the contemporary fantasy of sexual nominalism carried to its end in the demand that people be addressed by the pronoun of their choice, his refusal of which launched his meteoric rise. And his hard headed gender-dimorphic advice, which would as its logical conclusion posit that the optimized relationship for a man must be the fourth marriage of a plutocrat to a woman thirty years his junior, might seem far from the banal, neutered alliances of self-interested, egalitarian individuals who are the face of much of modern mating.

But look a little deeper, and his view suffers from the same parched, bland commitment to self-protection as those couplings. His language too can be justly subject to the criticism of Leon and Amy Kass, in a now-classic essay on sexual utilitarianism: “The prominent descriptions of pairing-off are neutered and unerotic: people have a relationship, not a romance, with a partner or a significant other, not a lover or a beloved.”

His “sexual marketplace” analysis may seem appealing, at first. But as you consider them, Peterson’s lobsters start to seem more and more like cold fish.

At the end of the day, as the formidable Eastern Orthodox Theologian David Bentley Hart recently observed, Peterson’s ideas are little more than “a pastiche of risiblely bad scholarship by a second rate mind.” Still they are ideas which have now become influential in the lives of millions of young men and women struggling to make sense of life and love under the neoliberal order.

Yet if these men and women truly desire to make sense of it all, to “straighten themselves out,” they would do best to disregard Peterson’s advice. They should instead embrace romance and throw themselves into love, of the truth and others, not out of some utility-maximizing scheme to climb the crustacean dominance hierarchy of neoliberalism, but for its own sake. Even if it costs them everything.

They should take their cues from Christ and Socrates, not Freud and Jung. Or, if they are less metaphysically inclined, they could simply take the advice of the Talking Heads: “Never for money, Always for Love. Cover up and say goodnight.”

Enjoy the article? Pay the writer.

Personal Info

Donation Total: $0

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Daniel DeCarlo

Daniel DeCarlo writes from Washington D.C.


  1. I think this is a very well thought out needling of the neoliberal rhetoric littered throughout Peterson’s teachings. I spent the previous year traversing Peterson’s content, and for a time, did experience this Peterson “high” of committing to building, improving, and fortifying myself in several different ways. But recently I hit a lull, and it’s dawned on me that there are several levels beyond Peterson I must traverse to satisfy my existential curiosities.

    Yet I am now faced with the old-new question of how can one move within a neoliberal system without embracing the neoliberal ideals? After all, neoliberalism has a way of sinking it’s teeth quite deep. How much neoliberal poison must I root out, what are all the pursuits I must forego to purify myself from all this striving in the name of the corporatized self?

    These are still open questions for me. I don’t think the answers are as poetic as stated at the end of the article: to “throw oneself into love and truth for its own sake”. I don’t understand what that means. Am I to do the same things I’ve been doing but for reasons different and other than for myself? Clearly more reflection time is needed. I appreciate the prodding.

  2. […] like him. I haven’t yet come across anything in Peterson’s words that I don’t care for, but this Mere Orthodoxy essay by Daniel De Carlo gives me a good idea of what conservative friends of mine don’t like about him. […]

  3. […] like him. I haven’t yet come across anything in Peterson’s words that I don’t care for, but this Mere Orthodoxy essay by Daniel De Carlo gives me a good idea of what conservative friends of mine don’t like about him. […]

  4. […] like him. I haven’t yet come across anything in Peterson’s words that I don’t care for, but this Mere Orthodoxy essay by Daniel De Carlo gives me a good idea of what conservative friends of mine don’t like about him. […]

  5. In the end, this criticism seems to be summed up in one sentence in the middle of the piece: “He, like his teacher before him, has abandoned the transcendent truth claims which so long structured Christian civilization….” The last time I checked, God reveals Himself both via general revelation and special revelation. The mere fact that Peterson and Jung fail to embrace the latter hardly disqualifies them as reliable interlocutors concerning the former.

    It’s precisely this kind of bible-thumper reasoning that makes most evangelical churches such unpleasant places to be. Too many evangelicals believe that, because they embrace certain claims of special revelation, they can forego the hard work of gaining wisdom concerning general revelation. So, in the end, an astute observer of the natural order, like Peterson, has far more wisdom to offer people than the typical evangelical pastor.

    Instead of criticizing Peterson for not being Christian, perhaps evangelical pastors should consider offering young men something more than the faux masculinity of the “biblical manhood” cult.

    1. I’d hardly say Peterson, someone who thinks Disney is popular because it grasps eternal truth, is someone who understands anything close to general revelation. And to contrast it with “faux masculinity”, when it’s basically a repackaged version of the same stuff? You’ve pointed out numerous times that this paradigm is 50s conservative Freudianism, something that Jung was also a proponent of, which is precisely the same kind of liberalism Peterson peddles (though it’s smarter, and more amenable to the urbane white collared). It seems like you’re just a broken record, and it doesn’t matter what song someone sings, it always leads back to the strawman of the evangelical pastor.

      1. Someone forgot his meds today.

        Given that most of your comment doesn’t relate to anything I wrote, I’ll take a pass on responding.

        As for Freud, you’re likely aware that Freud and Jung parted ways in 1913, following the publication of Psychology of the Unconscious. The two hewed different paths from that time forward, especially on questions of sexuality.

        I’m pointing to Christian pastors because those are the folks who are principally criticizing JP’s alleged unorthodoxy, although the present writer does not appear to be in the employ of an institution that has a vested financial interest in perpetuating the status quo in white evangelicalism.

        1. I only made one point, and you responded to it. Jung is still in the school of Freud, but took it in a different direction; sure. But Jungian psychotherapy, and its concomitant metaphysical conceptual framework, were still a huge part of the “Freudianization” of American pop-culture. But I didn’t know there was such a divergence over sexuality. If you’d care to fill that in, I’d be interested to know (or point me to someone who has discussed it).

          And besides my point addressed to you, my assertion that Peterson has a poor grasp of natural/general revelation still stands; it’s immaterial how many in “white evangelicalism” accidentally stumble into the right answer for maybe less than accurate reasons. Peterson is Oprah for bourgeois, generally white, dudes.

  6. […] like him. I haven’t yet come across anything in Peterson’s words that I don’t care for, but this Mere Orthodoxy essay by Daniel De Carlo gives me a good idea of what conservative friends of mine don’t like about him. […]

  7. Good grief, this is a bad misreading! There are real critiques to be made of Peterson, but this really isn’t one.

  8. I would not say that Peterson has abandoned transcendental truth claims, and neither did Jung. Both of them just found these to be empirically discernible in the flash of Human cultures, dreams, religions, bizarre and strange rites and taboos, etc. It’s almost an Aristotelian approach to the forms. Jung has a kind of mysticism about the archetypes, which heralds a kind of individualist transcendence up through the mist. Jung very much fits in with the pulp fiction of turn of the century, with an awareness that rationality is not itself the domain outside the bounds of civilizational fiction. There was primitive reality that had to be channeled or subdued, lest it overwhelm civilization. It’s the kind of stuff you see in Conan the Barbarian stories.

    If you’re going to criticize this, it’s due to the fact that this flattening out of Human civilization into the History of Religions approach ends up making all of Humanity appear in the visage of Victorian-era westerners. Peterson’s philosophy comports with Christianity the same way Theosophy did. But, in the flux of a kind of empty headed theological pluralism, this seems light years more stable and rational, even if it’s only a different set of emphases and a different tone from the current moment.

    A lot of young, college-educated, men want to have a sense that what they’re doing means more than collecting experiences and random material debris. Peterson is the WASP elitism of the gentleman adventurer-scholar for the masses, in a kind of make-your-own-myth approach. And while this seems flimsy, a doctrine of archetypes situates these otherwise individualist quests on an eternally churning sea of the phantom limit, the expression of the divine at the bottom of the metaphorical sea of being and experience. It’s neo-liberal only in the sense that it proclaims an agonistic individualism within a natural market society, but that’s basically it; I think you’re stretching the term too much here.

    PS. Also, I found it warmingly ironic that DB Hart’s criticism of Peterson is precisely what best characterizes Hart.

  9. […] Contrairement aux libertariens, nous avons une définition substantielle du bien vers lequel nous pensons que la société devrait tendre. Contrairement à l’alt-right, notre vision de la vie commune n’est pas en soi un rejet de siècles d’enseignement chrétien et un retour au paganisme. Contrairement au dark web intellectuel, notre vision s’attaque vraiment aux problèmes centraux auxquels notre pays est confronté, au lieu de paraître simplement s’y attaquer. […]

Comments are closed.