Couldn't you also say that corporate capitalists have a stake in distracting their workers by having them focus on things like sensitivity training instead of giving them better material resources for living? I don't think it's a phenomenon seen only in academia. In the United States, Starbucks workers had to undergo racial sensitivity training years before they were even able to unionize. Good video
The whole point of the video is to show that acedemics turns into an industry, is corporatized. It is presumed from the beginning, that things like wokeism are used formost in companies (to create a profile of moral goodness) and that these developments are now also taking place in academics.
He HAS said that already. This video is about academia, but he's given plenty of examples of business doing this in other industries as well in the course of his other videos. The CIA example mentioned in the first comment for instance, was extensively covered by this channel in their previous videos on wokeism.
The sensitivity training was so bad and the managers were absolutely not qualified to teach it (legit one manager complained about being a red head). We got all this “3rd place” training while they casually cut labor hours and decreased benefits.
Divide and conquer is a tries and true strategy to subdue a population. The frantics obsession with diversity and inclusion is no doubt a strategy to drive wedges between workers, so that they don't question the power of their employees.
This reminds me of Zizek's rant against Starbuck's Ethos water programme, a water bottle where when you buy it, part goes to helping thirsty children all around the world. This programme is of course not about helping children, but selling 'good conscience'. A good moral conscience has become part of the profile that companies use to sell products. As universities become corporatized, as you correctly point out, 'being progressive' becomes another part of the profile a university must sell. I think you could have added that universities especially must chose this particular branding, because their targeted demographic are young and progressive - if your target demographic are rural, non-educated and older, your profiling must of course be different.
this is true, but elsewhere i have heard Zizek more or less cynically praising/endorsing the starbucks approach as more realistic than naïve dreams of leftist revolution. so idk our boy Slavoj is all over the place on that one lol
I'm always extremely pleased to see more activity on this channel and wish you all the very best! For whatever reason, even though you might seem to keep a bit of reserved distance from the audience, you are one of the most "close" and "real" seeming UA-cam presenters and content creators around, and I appreciate so much all the effort made to make you and your work and expression available online and accessible worldwide, it is a tremendous gift! I like to check in on here to see how you are doing!
yes, this professor has an authentic and sincere profile on youtube as he analyzes profiles for authenticity and sincerity. There's a Gödel joke in there somewhere, probably; proof left to reader.
In Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher pointed all this out over a decade ago. Peterson’s experiencing how neoliberalism will subsume anything it can in pursuit of profits. He can’t find it in himself to lament the process, he’s just angry that Wokeism is more profitable than neoconservativism. Too bad, so sad, get back on pills, Peterson.
I won't defend Neo conservatives, but you miss his point and pretend that you can read people's minds. The implicit belief that these values are arbitrary or in constant flux is the problem. A "disintegration of categories" is Peterson's words. i.g. nominalism.
@@bradspitt3896 Disintegration of categories has, contrary to what Peterson states, nothing to do with marxism. In fact, it has everything to do with commodification of profilicity. If categories are being deconstructed, it is either for the pursuit of profit or for virtue-signaling - all in lieu with the current state of capitalism. Capitalism profits tremendously from postmodernism as postmodernism opens up the possibility of deconstructing an idea to basically mean everything - branding is an example of a true postmodern construct that is dynamic and shifts over time. Marxism would be directly opposed to deconstruction of categories - Marxism has it's historical narrative and thus every argument and thesis is teleologically derived from the idea of class struggle. Marxist thought ends when class struggle ends; thus in the realm of ideas there is an end. Postmodernism never ends, and promises a dream of eternal deconstruction, and thus, eternal growth of new exciting brandings, identities and profilicity to fuel the economic machine. The funniest thing about He Who Shall Not Be Named (JP) is that he's both extremely postmodern in his sophistry, and categorical as he actually has an historical narrative - a sort of Hegelianism i guess? Biblical?. Nevertheless, he's way less capitalist and more allike marxism in his methods (teleological derivation from his narrative of western thought as the be all - end all). Much less openminded than he'd like, as he's very eager to muddle his reasoning with his arbitrary ethics.
@@brorium Marxism isn't the problem, nominalism precedes Marxism, the belief itself goes back to antiquity but the name itself comes later. Marxism is a product of that, evidenced by the materialist metaphysic.
if that was the case he would be selling 1500 dollar carpets with woke slogans. dude is a ruthless capitalist but this is a matter of principles to him.
I want you to understand the profound irony of what you are saying. Mark Fisher literally committed suicide because (on top of his personal struggles) he saw how easily wokeism ate his field and consumed Academic-Marxism to the point where Professors in his area who were able to think critically and challenge Capital were outnumbered 20:1 by wokeists using Critical Theory and Marxist Dialectic to push Wokeism.
this analysis nails it. i've been looking for a good breakdown of how "wokeness" - in academia as well as culture and media - is less what peterson calls an insurgent leftism and more "rainbow capitalism", or as you say corporate neoliberalism simply responding to market forces. well done and thank you sir 🙏
Rainbow Capitalism! Have you heard about the REI Union Busting meeting that begins with everyone introducing themselves with their pronouns and then also acknowledging the First Nations peoples land they are speaking from?
@@toddthing i have not but i work at a health clinic ( in the united states ) and I have recently been accepted to participate in our "IDEA Council" standing for inclusion, diversity, equity, antiracism. my suspicion was that the council likely consists of mostly upper middle class white ladies talking to each other on zoom about how terrible racism is without actually doing anything about it. after our first meeting as a cohort, my suspicions have been more or less confirmed, however i'm trying to keep an open mind. it's a wonderful synchronicity tho bc shortly after the meeting i watched this video and learned that jordan peterson quit his tenured position like a baby in reaction to an insurgent leftism that does not exist, and that "woke" ppl should "DIE" or something. subtle, mate. real subtle... 😒
Insurgent leftism + rainbow capitalism = the current state of matters? A dove tail of interests? I dont know if the synthesis of the two would be more or less to worry about. I dont even really know the depth of the problems becuse the clamour of the culture war.
As someone who recently toyed with getting into the academic industry with a lot of post graduate study, the more and more I experienced it the more abysmal it became. The professor is right, universities aren't really about teaching anyone anymore, they are about selling products (degrees). Whether anybody learns anything along the way is secondary to the neoliberal university. If the product is purchased, they are really happy. Also the general appreciation of research by university administrators has declined so greatly over the last 30 years. Working in a university is about output output output. It is not about taking a lot of time to find great outcomes in your relevant field or pursuit. Plus new academic staff can expect to be only casually employed for year after year, with their contracts only being renewed for each teaching period, with no long term job stability at all. In some universities (in Australia), a lot more courses are being pushed online (with the initial pandemic being used as an excuse), with no return to face to face, with no lecturers being used for the course, just people who write the course and casual markers used. Of course, someone can still enjoy a good academic career amongst all of this, but it is becoming harder and harder to enjoy an academic career for learning and academias sake itself. Desperately need to bring back reform to view learning as a public good. Also trust Peterson to observe phenomena and radically misattribute the cause. It's basically his hallmark. But yeah, I wouldn't totally recommend a career in the academic industry at this stage.
@@priapulida let me guess, you're not involved with academia or research? neoliberalization and the 'publish or perish' mindset are by far the leading causes of the degradation in research by a long shot. that's not even going into the whole issue of private companies pushing fundamental research to the academic sector to maximize profit
Boys can be girls, education quality is nonexistent, degrees are pumped out indroves and required for jobs that shouldn't even require a 4 year degree despite that... sure, no problems to see, here.
@@priapulida maybe the reason why universities are - and always have been - so 'woke' is because they are places where critical thought and evidence-based positions are praised, and in doing so the majority of tenets of conservative ideology and its associated stunted social understandings are left in the dust
Sometimes just one thumb up is not enough. I was a student of philosophy in Berlin in when this hostile takeover of European academic culture took place, and it was absolutely disgusting. Some professors rebelled, some became depressed, but most of them just adapted and tried to find out how they could improve their market value as fast as possible. But all felt clearly that this secluded garden where free thought could grow for centuries was being bulldozed and turned into some parking lot.
I definitely empathize. But it didn't use to be better. Universities may undergo a qualitative transition from traditionalist or authenticity based identity production to profilicity based identity production (if we are to believe Moeller). That doesn't mean things were better centuries ago. The secluded garden of free thought was never provided by any university. Free thought depends on free speech and protection from violence. Watching this video and commenting on it is the secluded garden.
What rock did you live under? Why was schelling appointed as councillor, because schelling was religious and the young hegelians are scary. Why was husserl thrown out like a mad dog and Heidegger magically assigned a rector( a special event that happened in 1933).Why was Maurice blondel unemployed for the first couple of years of his life? Stop crying about the “woke mob” that ruined the everlasting and ever thinking western civilization and it’s totally unbiased thinking in universities.
@@massacreee3028 still,it reveals who holds the lock and key for today's university, if it was conservatives back then it is capital today. i wonder if it could ever be truly unbiased?
I many times find myself in a tricky position in these debates. Because on one hand i see many of the issues symbolic "wokeness" in academia causes, how it manifests itself in classes, structures debates and publications, on the other hand most of the critique that comes from namely figures like Peterson completely ignores many of the actual issues and historical structural wrong doings that are addressed and tackeled by "wokeism". I don't want to be in a position where I find myself defending superficial neoliberal social media ideology, (especially since european racism is a lot more complex and multilayered than it's american counterpart that drives the western discourse) but neither should modern christian capitalist conservatism ala Peterson be the driving force in any public institution or academia. I think "wokeness" is a arbitrary symptom of neoliberalism. Just like outlined in the video the underlying problems are profiling, brand building, faux-moralism, the job market, established industries and people actually buying into things like "nike being the good guys" because they have a POC as a spokesperson. "Wokeism" is indirectly reproducing the economic system with it's superficial symbolism but Peterson style conservatism just openly doesn't want it to change anyways, he just doesn't like it being diverse, inclusive or even attempting to be critical, because of 'brilliant' arguments like "that's against human nature and western values". Why not focus on the bigger picture without letting yourself get radicalised by conservatives?
People are impatient for change. The correct solution is to invest heavily in early years education in deprived neighbourhoods, which will yield results a generation later. Trouble is, this is too long term for it to be meaningful in an election cycle.
I don't think wokism does tackle those problems, what it does is take legitimate class issues and obscures them with race, effectively squashing any progress.
I think that the legal dimension also destroys wokeism in a sense that demanding things like "diversity declarations" when it should be completely natural to accept other groups in academia and in other social departments. For me it's like a simple human decency. But the world is unfortunately different.
Peterson is so mired into his own conservative prism that he often rambles nonsense, even admitting he never really read Marx but is all the more qualified to say it's all worthless because... lobsters I guess? But taking his rant as a starting point of critiqur should not be ridiculed, sometimes it's the extreme, the outlandish, the local buffoon, jester, that holds the key to start discussing things. Saying "Kermit Lobster bad, ERGO any reference to his nonsense makes your whole point invalid" is actually making him seem right because that's what he expects of you. But then again I just studied philosophy and learned how a serious critical debate should examine all the standpoints, not just the ones that serve your side...
When I went to high school, we had a somewhat novel track team. Anybody who wanted to join could join, and they could participate in any event they wanted to. The result was an ongoing spring fitness party where everyone got together and trained after school. There were many great achievers on that team, but everyone got to become a better athlete. This is the vision we need to fix our education systems, everyone can learn and grow, and a good educational system is one that provides as much education as it can to everyone it can. No need to convince the world you are worthy, just show up and do your best.
If we manage to see the Neoliberal endgame, then we would get there is no society and there are no people, just capital worth. As nice as it is, what you say still assumes that we are people.
Colleges partially or maybe even mostly exist to let job seekers advertise that they're good enough for potential employers. This was what I found and why I went back to school. After getting the right degree magically employers were ready to take me in. Despite all this, I will be sure to point out the waste that is college. You learn most things on the job
It’s not a new argument, it’s common conception for Marxists even outside traditional academia. I’m sure the same could be said for some other movements/practices who act as adversaries to neoliberalism.
As others have said, he is far from the only one who says this. You can find a lot of people exploring this connection in different ways on Jacobin's UA-cam channel, for instance.
He isn't. Slavoj Žižek did it to Peterson's face, and Mueller and Žižek are friends I think. What is also not new is a complete failure to understand the problem Marx was responding to in the first place: it's not poverty! It's clear that Marx's primary concern was desocialization, and alienation, a systemic relocation of the human being away from being centered in community, to being a lone operator in the endless cycle of meaningless production. And that is precisely what we have today. Worst yet, neoliberalism has become adept at mimicking the inclusion of its critics voices by a seeming concession in the realm of culture - they're happy to embrace woke everything as just another stakeholder consumer whose niche tastes the markets can accommodate as long as the actual power firmly rests in the hands of the global capital elite and no concessions are made in the realm where they actually matter - no, not money - give the trade unions their pathetic 2% annual raise, hell, that's less than inflation in recent years, as long as you deprive them of the means of organization, since our corporate overlords now control it all - from this medium, to Facebook which is banning people for the very opposite of what they say, to their incessant buying up of public infrastructure for their terrible projects. Anyways, Angela Nagel was the first on this, even before Žižek. Glenn Greenwald, Prof. Wolfgang Streeck predicted this 25 years ago with his edition of "How will capitalism end." In it, he coined the now famous phrase so characteristic of our lives today: "coping, hoping, doping and shopping."
@@vucko2885 as a marxist myself i already knew that wokism have a deep root with Liberal idealism rather than maxism, but rarely people point that out (even in the academia level)
The university doesn't just sell the diploma, it also sells the experience of college. If it only sold the diploma it could save a lot on those buildings, gyms, sports teams, and soda machines.
i live in a third world country and we are living this process between old university and new university. Very good insight in how commodification permeates everything
Professor Moeller as usual, brilliantly explaining the nightmare zeitgeist that we live. It is not that we can't see this BS but the transparent and simple way he explains in the way even a child can understand.
@@carlocporosus JP is financially incentivised to be blind. Like every conservative, every bit of intelligence that he has, he invests into indoctrinating people into his absolute dogmas.
@Stratos I I remember when JP was becoming famous it was because people were complaining that they can't find a job after their studies. JP made his career by telling those students to shut up and man up. Now that he's famous and has followers, these followers are telling him the same. But this time it's not their fault, it's those other guys that were complaining before. They are the bad guys now who are stripping the good guys (his fans) out of their jobs.... Don't you think that this is a bit... Nuts? The guy is the same Exact carbon copy conservative moron, as every conservative moron before him. He had no connection to reality, just his own biases.
This all intersects with the students' internalisation of themselves as commodities (you need to "sell yourself", don't ya?), pursuing degrees solely for the purpose of boosting their own marketability, with no desire for intellectual development, no awareness of the value of critical thinking. Their only goal is to pass exams, there's minimal participation (and the teachers don't encourage it, lectures are top-down practices, and they never alternate with engagement-oriented symposiums). Outside of the class, one hears nothing but juvenile frivolities, the subject of study is only ever raised when confirming what is needed to learn to pass the next exam. Homogeneity is near-absolute, no one dares to take risks, to challenge professors out of conceptual curiosity, all too disaffected, shallow, and subconsciously afraid they'll compromise their chances to get a job in an ever more precarious world. Fear, hopelesness and habituation are behind this sham. Oh, and greed, of course. Greed started it all.
I remember being astonished by the culture in cognitive science at my university. Older professors were fantastic teachers, delivering their lectures with passion, but seemed distraught by the students fighting for higher grades but less work. If you asked questions about the material itself, if you were curious to understand, they seemed thrilled. I was almost put off by their shock and excitement. As an older and engaged student, this seemed insane to me. Not only was it easy to get good grades, but it was extremely enriching so it was very easy to dedicate time to these papers and projects. Many of the younger professors seemed put off by these same questions. Many seemed intellectually unqualified to me. It was hard to take them seriously. Some clearly got by with BS, copying slides or simply indulging politics in classes that allowed for that sort of flexibility (a minority of the philosophy classes I took). Something was very very strange. It seemed like there were 2 worlds. The old school which is now dealing with the new dynamics, the administration and the student culture, and clearly frustrated. And then the new school, which seemed intellectually inadequate and generally underinformed, but fit to be good controllable workers. I remember a professor giving me advice when I asked her what to do if I'm writing an essay in philosophy but would like to say what I believe, and what I believe is that her own understanding of the concepts being taught was faulty... and she told me straight up, "you're very smart and educated on these topics, but you need to take the scientist hat off and put the salesman cap on"... there were social standards she seemed to imply had to be met to make it. Years after leaving academia, I maintained my own studies of philosophy of mind on my own, and continued writing in private. I attended a free weekly seminar during the pandemic, one organized by a professor and some graduate students (one being an old friend). She invited me knowing my background, having gone out of my way to study all theories of consciousness in depth. My experience was again quite shocking. Graduate students who were working under these particular paradigms, presumably writing papers pushing the theories of their advisors, did not know much at all about their own ideas. They were mathematically inept, and seemingly incapable of engaging on their own subjects of interest. It seemed like I had interrupted an organized meeting where different people took turns reading the slides they had prepared. People would simply give compliments "very interesting, thank you" and clap. It was very strange and honestly shamefully useless. For those who play music, you might understand this analogy. The students today, and presumably the professors, have a product to sell, themselves. And so, what I think we have is a commodifiction of intellectual work, but this ends up giving us "instagram guitarists" instead of actual guitarists. They give you something seemingly impressive to non-musicians, a quick 1 minute lick with a bunch of bells and whistles (guitar tricks, fast playing, sweeping, tapping, etc) but might never be able to play productively with other musicians, or take the time to write something more substantive. The social/economic incentives have changed the game. Academic philosophy struck me as a show. It had become theatrical. Many of the participants, and the one's getting positions, didn't seem to think about the subjects they studied on their freetime. My hope is that this is a problem contained to the Humanities. It would make a lot of sense. But surely there must be bleed over into the STEM fields via social/cultural osmosis.
I have loved learning about cognitive science in my time at university, especially from a philosophic viewpoint. I've taken quite a few philosophy classes from the old school teachers that you describe, whereas other humanities classes from the "new school" professors are usually complete garbage and lack any demanding engagement whatsoever. I don't believe the harder STEM fields are nearly affected as much, but I think the social sciences have been noticeably affected by the academic equivalent of "instagram guitarists" (I like that analogy by the way).
I feel the same problem in Europe (Portugal) secondary school but differently. I have an interest in many subjects related to the class but when I ask the teachers about something in-depth most of them don't know how to answer, they are not used to students having a humanistic side and curiosity. They are used to teaching what is on the curricula and for the exams. This is very frustrating when you are trying to actually learn and not just pass the exam. This is the reverse of what happens in university. Old teachers get excited about students asking stuff while secondary school teachers have such bad work conditions and are so used to the "customer" student that they no longer care about humanistic education. This is not what education in my country is supposed to be, our education is inspired by Edgar Mori...
Although we can't compare the USA to Portugal. In Portugal, this is an issue is due to other factors such as disinvestment in public schools and teachers... But also the commodification of education is growing, we are starting to see "universities" that work as a company and "wokism" in some public universities.
@@miguelramiro3326 I'm Canadian and so I attended McGill in Montreal. I remember students searching for the easiest courses. They even had a nickname for these... If I remember correctly, "bird courses". I had read so much before ever applying to the program, I simply was using the courses as a way to learn, regardless of my grades. I couldn't stand repetition. Meanwhile most students around me took classes with overlapping material on purpose, to save time. To be honest, that's totally understandable if you're not confident already that you'll always do fine. But there were extreme versions of this I witnessed which really put me off. I was an older student in my late 20s. I had returned after initially doing 2 years of Physics and taking a long break between working and reading on subjects I thought could interest me. It turned out to be philosophy of mind and neuropsychology. Either way, the whole experience stifled my commitment to higher ed. There were a few aspects that really scared me off. I was not impressed by the level of understanding. I felt as though it was implied I couldn't get away with being so critical of dominant philosophical camps. Heck, the philosophical issue I was working on clarifying involved me exposing half the field as charlatans and people seemed to think that was innappropriate. As if I had to wait to play my cards only once I was secure in a position. I'm not exactly surprised by this, again, understandable, but it wasn't for me. I enjoyed confrontation and getting to the bottom of things regardless of the social taboos. I think I could have stomached it all and held my tongue when convenient had it not been for the insane wokeness. Even highly intelligent students I respected were two faced about political issues, or simply feigned ignorance or played dumb to serve some delusional narrative. It was often quite mean and cold-hearted. That really drove me away. Staying and biding my time before I could speak honestly felt like self-betrayal, a disregard for my own principles. I'm glad to simply have others to relate to on this because it really killed me at the time. My idealism died a painful death.
This reply made me view my own approach to studying differently, and so thank you for that. :) Years ago I got into reading about psychology, Kahnemann, Ariely, Ekmann, that sort of stuff. What left a deep impression was this differentiation between *symbol* versus *substance* . Symbol being the markers that other people could see and infer the substance was there (degrees, jargon, references, etc.) and substance being the Qualia, or the actual meat of the matter. It's hard to put it into words but if you're familiar with physics, it's one thing to talk about "enthalpy" and "increase in entropy" and "kinetic energy of the particles" versus what those fingers pointing to the moon actually point towards. Feynman shows this fantastically, so here's a clip ua-cam.com/video/v3pYRn5j7oI/v-deo.html. Your reply rings a bell that, with the younger generations, they've accrued the right *symbols* to make people view them a certain way. In Moeller's words, curated a profile of themselves as ambitious, intelligent and top-class individuals, and yet when you engage them beyond those symbols, you find a lack of substance - an actual interest in the matter and a curiosity to peer beyond the requirements of established degree track materials. There could be many, many reasons for that, for example the inflation of academic degrees, the increased pressures to curate a profile of yourself as an A-class student (which leads to less risk-taking and branching out - in a word, loss or degradation of academic freedom), and a bloating infrastructure of academic administration. I guess, when so much emphasis is put on profile markers, something is lost along the way that's much harder to qualify. Something that only becomes apparent with time.
Jordan Peterson-related content might get more engagement, but I would prefer to see your online brand gain more independence from his. Also, not that it particularly matters, but my favorite content of yours is the Philosophy in Motion channel, and I’d love to see more of that
Do you remember the story of Peter Higgs? He took two different pieces of physics worked on by others and put them together and postulated the Higgs boson must exist. The maths he tried to publish was the proof. The paper he submitted was a few equations which occupied 3/4 of a sheet of A4. It was probably one of the most important things ever to be refused publication. In today's idiot world he would have been thrown out for not producing enough work. Sometimes the shortest of writings are the most profound of the lot. In another time long ago lawyers were also paid by the number of words they wrote. This was revised for good reason!
This is so accurated!!!. Im a teacher in a private university here in Bolivia and all that was expoused happens. The idea of "commodification of education/instruction" is so brillant and terrible at the same time. Thaks for the video l..l,!!!
From listening to your analysis, It seems as if Dr Peterson's ire is not with the neoliberal university paradigm per se but instead to do with the clash between his own profile and that of his university. As being the most famous anti-woke intellectual, Dr Peterson's profile is not compatible with Harvard University which maintains a so-called "woke" profile. If the University's profile hadn't changed to be irreconcilable with his own, then he would probably be quite satisfied with it. I don't really see how Dr Peterson's white male students are objectively at a real disadvantage in their future career prospects though, studying under such a famous yet divisive figure can be leveraged both ways under profilicity. If they happen to agree with the ideology of woke universities they would just need to curate their woke profile astutely to counter the presumption of being anti-woke. On the other hand If they happen to be ideological disciples of Dr Peterson they can find prospects in conservative media and think-tanks.
if they signed up with the expectation of this cynical game it would be a different story but they did not. all of the work world and especially the academic work world is about 1 or 2 people deciding whether you are in or out. its the structure of the pyramid. if you want up you need to pass gate keepers. gate keepers that are Petersons enemies.
I think there's some confusion here. Peterson has not been employed at Harvard since 1998. The university he resigned from was the University of Toronto in 2021.
This is what the late Mark Fisher had to say (among other things) on the subject of "Academic Industry": "The idealized market was supposed to deliver 'friction free' exchanges, in which the desires of consumers would be met directly, without the need for intervention or mediation by regulatory agencies. Yet the drive to assess the performance of workers and measure forms of labour which, by their nature, are resistant to quantification, has inevitably required additional layers of management and bureaucracy. What we have is not a direct comparison of workers' performance or output, but a comparison between the audited representation of that performance and output. Inevitably, a short-circuiting occurs, and work becomes geared towards the generation and massaging of representations rather than to the official goals of the work itself. Indeed, an anthropological study of local government in Britain argues that 'More effort goes into ensuring that a local authority's services are represented correctly than goes into actually improving those services'. This reversal of priorities is one of the hallmarks of a system which can be characterized without hyperbole as 'market Stalinism'." From chapter 6 (Titled "All that is solid melts into PR: Market Stalinism and bureaucratic anti-production") of Capitalist Realism
I recommend the last part of Erwin Panofsky's essay collection, Meaning in the Visual Arts. In it he discusses the differences between the German universities he knew from 30s pre-war Germany and the American universities he came to teach in during the 60s, after his emigration. It confirms and covers a lot of this stuff and is a grim glimpse into how long this stuff was in the making, wrt the commodification of academia. Panofsky was a complete humanist to the end, and he remained optimistic about the future, our present, but we all know how well that's turned out.
I think that with regards to the development of compliance, there is an element of risk management for universities as well. There are genuinely bigots and those who abuse their power over students within academia, and they pose a risk to the brand of the university. The recent case of sexual harassment and its fallout at harvard come to mind, but there are numerous cases of professors creating environments hostile to certain students where bildung cannot take place. What's more, the ubiquity of social media means that cases of bigotry or harassment are far more likely to go viral, thus hurting the university's profile within the aesthetic economy. Here in the US, the legacy of segregation is still poignant. The (neo)liberal integrationist ethos in the wake of the civil rights era means that schools must plaster their landing pages and pamphlets with non-white skin in order to present the façade of this ethos. Here, an increasing demand for higher education coincides with both the industrialization of the university with the increasing necessity for a degree in the job market, as well as a further democratization of the types of people welcomed to the university. The top-down enforcement of the egalitarian aesthetic through things such as DIE statements often clashes with the human reality of professors causing conflict through their position of power over students. Any perceived fracture in the façade means resources have to be spent on damage control, because in the end, it's hard to believe that universities as institutions really care about bigotry outside of how it affects the bottom line. There is a pernicious double-action at play here. There are people within universities who truly care about combatting our social ills, and may really believe in developing an inclusive pedagogy. A lot of these people would have no issue with openly committing as such, at least at face value. It also seems reasonable to screen professors for views which may prevent them from treating students equally and thus preventing them from being a good teacher. You wouldn't want a transphobic professor at an institution which allows trans students to attend. However, the way by which modern universities realize this is through more bureaucratic hoops to jump through on the part of the professors. Any passion that a professor may have for social change is parasitized by the profit motive and marketing. So at once, the real energy and care that people have for the ideals of education is used by the ambivalent university as a selling point, while the risks and work are off-loaded onto the faculty, not all of whom actually care about such pursuits. While I mentioned the power that professors have in the classroom, it must be said that that environment is no longer as insular in the era of social media. Students increasingly function in a role of surveillance, much in the same way a customer surveils a retail worker. I've definitely seen viral posts of students with misplaced indignation, leading to the unfair targeting of professors for innocuous or institutional decisions. The real neoliberal rub is the blurring of the lines between a good product and a rewarding education. A petulant consumer and a marginalized student are formally identical within this paradigm. This allows for intractable argumentation about which of these moralized categories is correct in any given situation, and a PR strategy by institutions to wipe away both cases with the exact same procedure for each. No real justice for those who deserve it, and plenty of ammunition for conservatives to lambast the shallowness of university branding strategies. Though I bemoan the nihilism and superficiality of "woke" discourse, I appreciate this channel's approach to searching for the materiality of this discourse. Cheers!
Lots of good points in here, but I disagree with you about pre-screening professors for any wrong opinions that "may" affect their teaching. Imagine a professor who says, "I don't think trans women should compete in women-only sports." Is he banned? I know at least a dozen progressives who would declare this opinion transphobic and its speaker a "bigot." But the professor may well treat all of his students equally, regardless of their gender, assigning them grades on the basis of their work and participation, without prejudice. Assuming he's not teaching gym, the belief about women's sports has nothing to do with what happens in the classroom or with fairness toward his students. Should this professor be passed over, even if he is a good teacher without any animus toward his trans students? What about other situations where someone cries "bigot! bigot!" but the supposedly "bigoted" opinion has no effect on the professor's teaching? There is a huge swath of moderate, liberal, and even progressive opinion that the University considers verboten.
@@ceruchi2084 I appreciate that you want to nuance this discussion, and I think it's valuable to consider by what criteria we evaluate a professor's ability to teach. I'm a recent college drop-out, so I don't have much skin in the game at this point, but my perspective is largely that of a student, and not that of an administrator or faculty member. I cannot speak for what is most desirable out of a new hire from the perspective a university or department. I do not assume by default any question that a screening process may ask, as those questions are driven primarily by profit within our current society. From my perspective, I have no knowledge as to the specificity of interview questions that any given applicant may have to answer for any given institution. My (admittedly naïve) assumption is that questions asked would be relevant to the position, and so someone exclusively teaching economics would not be asked about trans identity in relation to sports. This may seem to be a cop-out, but I wish to make the limitations of my perspective clear. I think that any institution asking about trans athletics for a position which has nothing to do with athletics would be a performative waste of time which has more to do with risk management than any genuine concern about transphobia. It sounds just as silly as asking a potential astronomy professor about who art grants should be given to. I never claimed any one position on trans people competing in sports was bigoted, as I figured dissecting the nuances of transphobia for each hypothetical applicant would become intractable. My main concern is that the bureaucratic deployment of ideological screening processes is more to do with the development of a compliant faculty than a real adherence to the beliefs implied by such screening processes. Anyone can talk the woke talk if they need to in order to get hired, and so a shallow screening process which polls for ideological purity ultimately doesn't guarantee that transphobes won't make it in. In my original comment, I suggested that true bigotry within a classroom is impossible to determine in our given paradigm. I don't like the industrial model of education which enforces market-oriented wokeness, and I also pointed out that professors very well may be unjustly called bigoted for innocuous or institutional decisions. The second-order observation of a belief as bigoted is given priority over the content of said belief, truly bigoted or not. Whether or not a professor's beliefs on trans students in athletics comes from a transphobic position is ultimately subsumed by the desire of an institution to build a certain profile in line with its profit motive. To directly address your first comment: if a professor said that about trans women while in the classroom environment, current-day students would call that professor bigoted, and any trans woman athlete in his class would feel like their identity was not respected. If a trans woman student athlete heard this, then they would not feel comfortable enough in that class to full express themself in a way that is in accordance with the learning process implied by bildung. If we're striving for bildung, then this situation is untenable. Whether or not this belief is transphobic is irrelevant compared to its perception as such, at least in the eyes of the university and in the eyes of students who feel like the university is a space to fully develop themselves as humans. Even if such a professor were to somehow separate their beliefs about trans people in sports from their beliefs about trans people in academia, contemporary students would not believe that the professor could do so. Also, as a student, my personal relationship with professors has had an outstanding impact on my grades, so much so that I have to belief that if a professor was bigoted against me I would have not gotten the good graces that have been given to me. So I don't really believe that within the real world the grading process isn't deeply subjectable to personal bias, and I believe that this understanding of grading as deeply subjective is held by many students today. The idea that a professor has animus towards trans women in some respects but not others is hard to swallow, inductively speaking. Like I said, no real arbitration of justice can take place for those who deserve it, whether they be student or professor. Screening for bigotry is contaminated by prolificity, and thus can't be taken to say anything about the true quality of a candidate. My point about not having a transphobic professor was directly to do with the classroom environment they created, not about the perceptions of this environment. A professor's teaching capability is in part determined by their ability to facilitate free discourse within a classroom. If a professor were to say "rap music has no real artistic value", then many black students would take that as a sign that the professor is close-minded in a way which suggests that their experience of rap as a rich genre of human expression would be denied. Thus, the humanistic element of bildung cannot be fully achieved. To be clear, I don't think universities should ask every professor about their opinions on music, but for an increasingly democratized/diversified student body (i.e. customers), the types of environments that universities must cultivate in order to appease their customer base coincides with whatever boundaries of inclusiveness the market demands. The *performance* of not being a bigot for the sake of selling a product is not distinguished from *actually* not being a bigot for the sake of good teaching. The whole hiring process is a wash from jump because of the industrialized model. To conclude, what is verboten by the university cannot be taken seriously until profit and prolificity is removed from the hiring process. To do so is to miss the forest for the trees.
Im an Aboriginal Australian. I love academia as in the pursuit of knowledge, warts and all. I freelance as a community researcher. Have worked short term for two Universities and two NGO's on projects. We don't do enough of it in our community. I have been lucky in that my work is focused on Aboriginal communities particularly the one I belong to and live within. My areas of inquiry as a researcher so far is in Family Violence and Mental Health. What is maybe surprising to those outside of truth seeking is that many members of the community I have engaged with are sick of the glossing of issues that are affecting them. In the course of my work, all have seen the sources around these issues to be internally manifested, intergenerational and damaging. They seek to have a more honest acknowledgement of its source and manifestation within our communities. What has let our community down is this broad spectrum framework that State agencies develop priorities and fund which has no bearing on the lived realities of communities now. This 'wokeness' permeates all policy priorities with no tangible local application for communities desperate to take on their issues in an honest way.
Fall of the Faculty is a great text on point A), the commodification of the universities, in the United States at the very least. Edit: the point about distraction @22:00 or so is very well taken also. I remember being in college back in 2011 and some of the activists on campus really wanting to devote this huge push to making the bathrooms gender neutral. The anarchist / left-political population on campus that hung around the Infoshop got kind of dormant and this was their big comeback. It really puzzled me as to why they weren't fighting about the incredibly unaffordable cost of the institution we attended, instead, which made it inaccessible to virtually anyone from the working class. Or even the excessive presence of campus security that was getting ramped up more and more, and created an increasingly tense, oppressive environment.
not to detract really from your point, but I gotta ask: was the increased cost of tuition or campus security something you were trying to do something about when there? and if not, why? full disclosure: I did not do anything about any of these issues when in college. I'm just curious whenever seeing people speculate about what *others* might have done differently.
@@dawaltco I tried to do something about campus security, which was speaking out against their actions at a meeting, after they had the police come and taze a student. Also emailed them, challenging their policies, etc. Also briefly, vocally protested to my fellow students about actions the college took that would raise tuition for students. But it was hard to know what else to do. And at 20 years old, I had no organizing experience as yet. So some things, but could have done much more in retrospect. But I don't really think you should need to justify yourself before criticizing activists' priorities. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
I dont think we should pit these things against each other, though I can imagine that students (being one myself) rarely concern themselves with material interests of themselves, professors or staff if at all. I kind of caught myself there, though I have to admit that I just didnt know the state universities are in right now, especially in the country I am studying in, Germany. I only know the state of affairs as a student, with the little time I was in uni taken into consideration.
@@caesurios949 Students did concern themselves with those. That is in fact the basis of campus student politics insofar as it ties in with the larger national political scene i.e. student politicians associated with (or even part of) national political groups. But nowadays the youth in many places are so politically disinclined and apathetic that these campus societies have been sidelined, in favor of supposedly 'neutral' student tickets whose reach is limited to just the campus in question. Basically the young doesn't want to have anything to do with politics or politicians, including aspiring politicians. But its those institutions that effectively tied the university scene to that of the larger national (or even international!) scene. With their sidelining, these larger issues have also fallen away, replaced with only the minor causes that're the only things student association on campus can actually deliver (since larger socio-economic changes require a larger and more comprehensive movement behind them).
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I'd disagree when it comes to my own experience. As students in the social sciences, we generally are not apathetic to politics, and mostly advocate for the safety of poc, queer, or otherwise marginalized people while largely dismissing class and therefore the capitalist realities we and professors exist in, because theres always this liberal tint to our critique of capitalism. Even I am guilty of it, which this video made me realize very clearly.
Thank you so much for all of your videos. Everytime I watch one of them I feel like I'm being exposed to a fresh perspective. It helps me a lot to think about my own studies and I have even used your academic material on some of my graduate papers. I wish you all the best! :)
Academic bloat has been a huge issue from the 1990's onward, and the manufacture of positions for otherwise unemployable "acad elites" is one of the major erosion factors of quality higher education this century. Thank you for releasing this vid.
Look up Eric Weinstein on what he calls the Embedded Growth Obligation (EGO), which came about after the Second World War. He puts the tipping point at about 1972, but the results only started to be overwhelmingly obvious a couple decades later.
well, the Professors are also being evaluated by people (administrators) who are not qualified to evaluate the Academic work, so they change the focus to quantification on a seemingly trivial basis.
Prof. Moeller, thank you very much! I am still watching this video, but your point about neoliberalism pervading the academia, struck me because I had myself some intuitions towards that direction. I will actually admit that it arose by listening to John Gray (uk philosopher) talking about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.
I can't argue with the points you make here and elsewhere that adopting a woke profile has been beneficial for universities and other corporations. But I don't think this is the full story, and it's missing the part of the narrative that Peterson seems most focused on. Virtually every large American corporation (and presumably most western companies) has DEI training and other woke profiling, regardless of any characteristics of its market - even to its own detriment (cf. the Bud Light boycott). I agree these economic forces are part of the explanation for woke universities. But to assume this explains everything is to assume that people are fundamentally 100% rational utilitarian actors (as corporations are made of people, maybe analogous to ships piloted and rowed and generally operated by people). So there is a large component of corporate wokeism that is _not_ rational. It has much of the character of a religious revival - just like the university's "young and progressive" target customer, who can be seen as the vanguard of wokeism. As I'm sure you'd agree, not _everything_ people do is about maximizing value. Some of the other comments mentioned religion as a similar kind of semiotic performance to elevate one's moral reputation, fittedness for society, and ultimately material gain. People certainly participate in religion to pursue material/social gain, but a religion can only help you in this way once it is already part of a culture's social glue. Yet the religion has to get there somehow, from very humble roots in most cases. If everything was purely instrumental, if everything was adopted for purely economic reasons, then nothing would ever change, as nothing could ever get off the ground. We would just continuously reproduce a single culture, ad infinitum. More realistically, the culture never would have formed in the first place, since even the most basic components of culture were at one point _not_ prestigious. At one point in time there were no Christians. Then there were 12, then 500, and so on. It was extremely subversive. In those days, being caught practicing Christianity could get you burned alive or fed to lions. There was nothing rational whatsoever about practicing Christianity in the first to third centuries AD, except insofar as you believed its _supernatural_ claims. Conventional wokeism-at least the kind practiced by your average university administrator or corporate manager-doesn't make supernatural claims, but it does propose (and aggressively enforce) _moral_ claims, and it has the emotional/cathartic tenor of a spiritual revival movement. What people get out of it is not purely material or social value, they also seem to derive some spiritual value. The satisfaction and meaning of knowing you're on the right side of history, even if it costs you something in the moment. It's like LARPing as a 19th century abolitionist. And if you want that kind of satisfaction and meaning today, there are lots of varieties on offer, but I suppose they all have in common that saccharine, manufactured taste of wokeism. Everyone's engaged in some kind of LARP today, perhaps because most social roles are no longer tightly coupled with our institutions. Without institutional backing, they lost their social value. Even familial roles are in decline. Soon, the only roles remaining will be occupational/industrial: those few roles that have material value to our institutions. They'll never do anything to threaten the sense of satisfaction you get from working 9 to 5. But everything else is disposable, and indeed disposed. But what you get from your occupation and (if you're lucky) your family is not enough to sustain you spiritually, so of course you seek meaning elsewhere. In place of individual social roles that one can easily mix and match, you have to take your pick from a number of prepackaged and trademarked identities. And of course you're going to pick whichever identity speaks to you loudest and most eloquently, but most people aren't all that special and are inclined to pick the identity with the greatest cosmic significance. Membership in a glorious moral crusade is pretty high on the totem pole, so it naturally attracts a lot of takers. And if the meaning of someone's life is tied up in such grand identities, it's easy to see how she could make irrational decisions. Such decisions are not materially rational, but they are always _value_ rational, to the extent that she understands the precepts of her new identity. Such people pursue consistency with the tenets of their cosmic crusade, often at the expense of more urgent, mundane concerns, as we are not solely or even primarily rational actors. Or you might say we are rational agents, but what I mean by rational agent here is someone who is strictly concerned with utilitarian value, i.e. the propagataion of one's genes. If you widen the umbrella of rationality, then humans can fit within it, but the point stands that sacred values are _higher_ than profane/mundane values; that's what makes them sacred. So people (and by extension, the organizations they serve and control) don't need instrumental value to promote wokeism in the workplace. It certainly helps. But wokeism hasn't always made for a "positive profile," because it hasn't always been a prestige identity or a culturally ascendant movement. And yet it still _became_ culturally ascendant, not because of its instrumental value, but because of the infectious sincerity of its adherents. And those sincere adherents work all over the place now, not only at companies that sell goods & services to "young and progressive" customers. There are true believers working at companies (e.g. Bud Light, Fox News, etc.) that sell to precisely the kind of customer who will respond most negatively to the woke profile, especially the higher you look on the ladder. Universities themselves have played a large part in the formation of middle management and HR staff. Institutional forces have applied pressure to _all_ companies to create woke positions like diversity officers, whose sole responsibility is the administration of programs to fulfill a woke policy agenda at the smaller scale of a company. So there is always an influential place for the woke at any large corporation. One's belief system has consequences for everything they do. My neomedieval belief system is expressed in my work. So is the woke belief system of my colleagues expressed in their work. So we arrive at kind of a near-tautology, a positive feedback loop: wokeism is dominant in corporations because it is culturally ascendant. Eventually it may plateau and crater, as nothing can remain ascendant forever. Eventually the movement will have reached its destination and that which it now seeks to sanctify will be so dominant as to become mundane again. But the more interesting question is _why_ wokeism is culturally ascendant in the first place. Because there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unique about wokeism that necessarily makes it more socially valuable to universities than other hypothetical ideologies it might have branded itself with. Even the institutional advantages wokeism has had are not exactly unique. Laws and government policies that make non-wokeism effectively illegal or prohibitively costly - think for example of the liability a company takes on by _not_ pursuing DEI policies, or by _not_ having an HR department. Although this environment massively favors wokeism in the workplace, we can imagine how, given different initial conditions (a different cultural ascendancy, or as you called it "leftist insurgency"), some other ideology could have been similarly favored. The question, then, is not why universities adopted the prestige ideology favored by the environment, since that question, so phrased, answers itself. Rather, the question is how that ideology became the prestige ideology in the first place. And that _does_ have something to do with "leftist insurgency," since wokeism is manifestly a leftist ideology. This is a much more complicated question, so I understand why you wouldn't cover it in a 30-minute video. But my point here is that you and Jordan Peterson seem to be approaching this question from two different angles. You've given a mechanistic explanation of the proximate cause of the woke university. But Jordan Peterson seems to be more focused on the ultimate cause in explaining his departure from academia. Not focusing on why the universities started wearing the skin of the culturally ascendant ideology, but on how that skinsuit is toxic and on identifying its composition and its maker. Wokeism is easy to identify as a development of liberalism and a synthesis of leftist ideas and advocacy. So the story of how we got woke universities must also include some treatment of the replacement of Christianity with the American civic religion; of its quest for liberation from the depredations of tradition, obscurantism, and superstition; of how that novel spiritual tradition spread to the rest of the western world; of the dialectic and imperfect synthesis of liberalism and the Marxist tradition; of the increasing value of individual identity in a global culture increasingly deprived of social roles and supernatural belief; and so much more. Otherwise all we have is a story about how prestige ideas become reflected everywhere. The role industry plays in constructing the woke "hall of mirrors" is certainly interesting and worth contemplating, but I'm not sure it's contrary to Peterson's thesis, which does not seem to deny the economic forces involved in institutional capture. So, I suppose I'm wondering if Peterson's conservatism motivates you to search for disagreement with him where it doesn't need to exist.
What's the incentive to run universities on a cost/revenue basis, when universities don't make profit? As far as I know, coming from the UK, there are no shareholders or CEOs of a university - excess revenue is simply re-invested into the facilities or put into funds for pensions future reinvestment etc. So I don't understand what binds universities and other corporations which are, it seems, engaged in woke capitalism.
Every time Jordan Peterson glimpses his shadow, he takes to the internet to project it on others. His platform makes him a fascinating man, but for all the wrong reasons.
He explains how institutions will commodify wokeness or virtue (which is unfalsifiable), but he never explains why wokeness is in the zeitgeist in the first place. His profilicity framework can't answer that. Nominalism is the problem.
Great video! It’s amazing how people fail to see high level changes around them and instead attribute these changes to mystical/fantastical explanations. Professors are no different
What you need to understand is that the accademia operates as a parasitic monopolistic system within the greater parasitic monopolistic system of the world. Therefore it cannot reveal the origins of most all human-generated misery on the planet as it itself is operating as one of those mechanisms that is contributing to the overall misery of humanity. Monopoly over economy and monetary unit are the main ingredients we used to determine the misery index and this is so despite the fact that the actual misery index is calculated factoring and the unemployment rate and rate of inflation as these two mechanisms are more deeply embedded in Monopoly over economy and monetary unit. It is the opposite thereof that you require which is economic freedom and a sound monetary unit to represent a store of your labour that allows you to demonstrate your ability to be free. Naturally this is something that your professors cannot and will not tell you as you will then have the answer to most all social problems, but rather what you got from them is the symptom what's wrong with society and not the root cause of what ails Society I'm afraid the facts don't care about your feelings on this matter if your opinion differs from this actual fact of our reality and how this world actually operates. You do not require a tinfoil hat to understand that all monetary systems in the world are in the hands of private family is they force every government to borrow from them and that an interest for which the people who ultimately become indebted to this massive ever-growing debt find themselves unable to pay it back and ultimately find themselves back at square one starting all over again or back to the actual Plantation one huge massive superfreakonomics Cycles complete their process. All throughout history we can see every economic boom bust cycle what's caused by government policy with the convenient effect of transferring most all wealth from the majority to the minority from time to time. That which we used to store the value of our past labour is simply just a coupon backed by nothing and subject to massive inflation and ultimately reduce to the purchasing power of zero in due time just like all currencies throughout history that were backed by nothing and that their intrinsic value of 0. This would have the effect of wiping out massive amounts of collective wealth from the majority stealthily transferring it to the very few anointed and privileged I'm sorry I have to be the one to burst your bubble on your perspective and perception of reality, but somebody's got to do it because the only thing your professors are going to do is help you remain at the mentality of a child by giving you colouring books and teddy bears, and this will not help you in the long run. Feel free to give me a thumbs down or thumbs up so that I know I was not censored. Also feel free to reply with genuine comments. You're welcome
I only have anecdotal experience of this, but my experience in academia at an elite research university is that aspiring academics appeal to their identity to climb the ranks, receive funding, and unburden themselves of responsibilities that might otherwise be required of them. I'm very cynical at this point of certain iterations of identity politics as little more than middle-class social climbing.
Hi Professor, I was wondering if you could provide me with some advice/suggestions. I am a US history high school teacher. I recently made a casual suggestion that I would start a philosophy club, without expecting any students to press me on this. Well, a couple of students have, and now here I am...asking for some suggestions of where I should begin as I don't want to negatively present philosophy with a bad first impression, turning them off. With this club I'm hoping to sincerely spark interest in philosophy. At this point I'm thinking of introducing existential philosophy, but even with that I'm not sure how to go about it. Any thoughts? Thank you.
Thanks for writing. The philosophy club sounds like a very good idea-and existentialism is a great topic. You might want to do some Nietzsche and could use Walter Kaufmann’s “classical” edition “The Portable Nietzsche.” If you want to read something much shorter, a good text to start is Sartre’s essay “Existentialism is a Humanism” --hgm
Start with Plato. It has been said that all philosophy is but commentary on Plato, and that is more or less correct. Also, Plato is direct and to the point, whereas most modern philosophers deliberately obfuscate what they are saying in order to appear more intelligent and relevant than they really are. For something more relevant to the modern world, Robert Nozick is good.
One thing i find frustrating about the uni set up at the moment is the way classes are structured. With the ammount of units you take on to do full time and the assignements neccesary in those units, i find that the classes become secondary, if not irreleavant. By the latter half of the semester not that many people are keeping up with class content, they are just trying to get there assignments done. This is not a problem of laziness but of structuring. Surely, there is a better way to do it. However, saying that my experience with humanities and the teachers has been overall really good, even though everything said in this video is true. There is still some really amazing things going on in the humanities and i am so happy to have been studying this stuff, and to have a spot to study it.
Currently involved in labour disputes as the colleges in Ontario, Canada negotiate our collective contract and what's unfortunate is, as aware of how much the neoliberal agenda has our system in its grip on the one hand, the wokeness is seen by many faculty as a way to counter that agenda and not a result of it. I could never show my colleagues this video and have them take it seriously as it references Peterson but thanks Prof. Moeller for the cogent arguments. Perhaps I can effect things through conversations. Hearts and minds.
I would like to point out that need for compliance training in academia isn't inherent to commodified education as it happened in communist countries in europe where praising marxism lenninism was necesary part of every scientific paper at least in social sciences.
Compliance training preceeded the current "woke" generation in the US as well. It was far more present during the 1980s Reaganomics era. And even more present during the previous McCarthyism years. It was certainly present during the segregated all male, all white, all christian university system in the US for the past 150 years. It of course strongly present in the church schooling system that preceeded the modern day system and during the European enlightenment era academies as well. I'm sure the pharoahs also had their version. Professor Moeller is not upset that this the idea of compliance training is unprecedented, he's merely upset that he is no longer the pharoah. His demographic has been so historically privileged that he mistakes the loss of absolute power over campus culture as oppression. He is used to being the only voice in the room. Now that he's been marginally downgraded to only the loudest of many voices he perceives this as some fundamental shift in the very nature of the universe. This is white fragility at its finest.
@@yessum15 are you going to even pretend you can substantiate this sort of thing you are claiming. The idea that we had these sorts of mandated compliance trainings which are so focused on projecting the "group dynamics" into the individual (the whole point of DEI) is completely out of line with the actual history of academia/corporate HR.
@@RyanOManchester You're joking right? Virtually every era of history has seen some form of compliance training to support specific values and group relationships in the individual. How do you think we got here today? Typically these sorts of trainings were provided through specialized workshops, classes with ambiguous titles like "civics" or "personal development" or by going through mass produced propaganda material. Segregation ideology & practices were taught in schools, patriotism training, Catholic schools often teach a whole host of behavioral indoctrination training in line with their values, anti-communist teaching & loyalty oaths, abstinence education, homophobic education, and so on. Given that contemporary diversity, sensitivity, and anti-harassment training tends to teach relatively benign and pretty much universally agreed upon values, these represent far less of an incursion on freedom than what we've seen historically. These trainings can be more reasonably compared to basic "workplace safety" videos than the earlier eras' straight up indoctrination efforts.
9:30 you say the university was the product of the Enlightenment. No doubt that was a big part of it, but don't forget that they grew out of Christian institutions
Jordan Pee Peeterson: radicals left wing want to enforce their genders theories on us! Me, a left wing radical: genders sucks, cis gender sucks, trans gender sucks. Let's abolish it all. 12:15 Yeah, right into the bin.
@@fakenamerealchungus9851 You read me right, the whole gender categorisation, both traditional binary and liberal non-binary are trash. Both are brain dead and oppressive ideologies trying to push people in boxes and control their life. Creating more genders won't change it, the only solution is abolition.
Thank you for your enlightening content, as a "minority" it's a strange thing to reconcile when you agree with those who say there are issues but the same people you are in agreement with view YOU as the problem. There is something definitely wrong with education- it doesn't feel like its about learning or "bildung" , to call it left-wing and anti-white seems insincere because education these days seems to benefit no one
Take a look at the late John Taylor Gatto's book "The Underground History of American Education". The dumbing down is deliberate - but it seems to have far exceeded what those who initiated it even thought possible.
Only problem with that though, what so many people think is making money currently is kind of starting to plummet. They’re essentially diluting them selves into continuing to pander to something that’s getting less and less interested in those things. Most people are sick of this and there’s very few people with this mindset left.
Indeed. The problem is not the business model of a university - universities have _always_ been a business. The problem is that the business model itself is falling apart, dominated by idiocy and short-term thinking, which itself may be a function of our monetary system with its built in inflation which favors the present over the future. Perhaps the Peter principle has been too much at play - too many useless people promoted to get them out of the way of the people who were actually getting things done, instead of being fired as they should have been. Eventually they came to dominate the decision-making process. Ultimately, in the pursuit of short term profits they devour the business itself and piss off all the customers they depend on, until they wake up one day to find the company or university bankrupt (though the administrators themselves are likely to come out well). Heh, Bernie Sanders's wife _did_ bankrupt Burlington College in Vermont. I'm sure she cries about it when she's at one of their three homes.
Excellent analysis. Nowadays universities are no different from brands such as cocacola or apple, and "wokeism" is the easiest way to increase their ESG score and become more appealing for investors
The problem with the universities today is the same as with business today: they do not think in the long term, preferring instead instant gratification such as quarterly results. The result is that they do not invest in the future. It's not a failure of the profit motive, it's just plain stupidity. I think some have called it the MBA-ization of business. Administration by "experts" who have neither depth nor breadth of knowledge, much less knowledge that pertains to business.
Your content is always really interesting! :) I must say, though, that I really thought, from all the readings that I had gathered, that there was already a symbiotic symbolism implied in the notion of brand, even before the brand 2.0 (or profile). How could the brand not be impacted by the public or the persons who associate with it? That seems to be the reason why the director of the clothing brand "Abercrombie & Fitch" wouldn't provide clothes in XL or XXL sizes for women, because people they deemed ''uncool'' would otherwise ''tarnish'' their brand. The people who associate with a brand (like rappers wearing Timberland boots that were initially designed for workers) change what we think of a brand, and therefore change the brand. Or at least that's what I thought! 😅
I agree with what you're saying, but for me all examples you are giving are after brand 2.0, not before. I think you're thinking "profile" in terms of social media profiles? Which [I think] is not what is meant. It's about the brand selling a "profile", which is a phenomenon that [I think] is enabled mainly by mass media. Social media is just a more pervasive form of mass media that has made this even bigger. One example that I see cited quite often is the mac vs windows campaign, which was largely responsible for the apple/mac rebranding that made what it is today (one can say the product became a profile/lifestyle, not just a computer anymore), that was way before social media. My understanding is that before brands were focused on selling a specific product, the branding would be around "this is a good product". It gradually shifted towards selling a profile ("you are good if you use this product"), this shift happening faster and faster as media becomes more pervasive.
Professor Moeller, I'm very interested in your work and would like to buy some of your books. Most of them are a bit expensive though. When it comes to social theory as you discuss in your videos, which of your books would you recommend someone start with? I'm leaning towards "You and Your Profile," but also interested in Luhmann and don't know where to start with him either? Thanks!
Many thanks for your interest in my books. “You and Your Profile” may be the best one to start. If you buy it from the Columbia University Press website and use the promo code CUP20 , you should get a 20% discount. I also strongly recommend Luhmann’s book “Introduction to Systems Theory.” As an introduction to Luhmann, I recommend Michael King’s book on him which you can download for free here: www.holcombepublishing.com/products/systems-not-people-make-society-happen --hgm
Peterson's need to perform "moral outrage" and "righteous anger" as if he's Moses come down from the mountain to chastise us latter-day Israelites for worshipping false idols is one of the most insufferable things about him.
Really awesome video, Professor. I do have some critical points though: 1. Universities, as a historical project have always carried a utopian function - campuses have been always engaged in knowledge, in discussion, in seeking, an institution independent of the government and the governmnet agenda. Thus, I believe that this embrace of wokism - but more likely, this exercise in care about the political inside the university but also outside of it is something that has a huge history and not one or two revolutional movements have their roots in the political energy of the students. Which leads me to the second observation: 2. The Universities are a joint effort or in your language a joint profile - its a collaboration between students and professors. Add the more and more increasing tuition fees, the working students that somehow find time for university as well, and I believe that the outcome is that the students themselves feel more responsible about the university they are studying in. Thus, I don't believe its that strange to see students rejecting professors because of they are paradigm of teaching. If you are a known missogenist as Peterson, its only obvious that students working 30 hours a week to be able to afford the university would want you out of it. They will strive in enjoying what they are paying for.
In response to your first point (which is a great observation about the historical role of universities): I think utopian ideologies can be split into two categories: those which are based on the exercise and observance of inviolable principles (i.e. which focus on the means rather than the end) and those which tend to justify any means in the pursuit of their ends, as we can see wokeism does. Like other past cults & movements which have gone the same route, wokeism is bound to produce bad outcomes and reproduce the same kind of structural pathologies that we have seen before - the logical contradictions within wokeism are neverending and eventually either lead to staunch resistance or placid submission to the dogma of the group - neither of which are beneficial to society for obvious reasons. I think wokeism is in the course of setting back progress, as those holding the reins appear to take delight in aggravating social tensions, ostracizing massive segments of the population for no good reason, and shutting down the free and open sharing of ideas and information. These are not the moves of a faction which intends to assume a legitimate role within society by consensus, but rather by censoring and othering those who pose any kind of threat to it. With regard to your second point, all this desire for "value for money" on the part of students demonstrates is the already-complete ultra-commodification of education. If students think that forming witch hunts against professors whose views they disagree with is somehow going to get them more "bang for their buck" then... fine. That's not an education in thinking for yourself, though. You learn to think for yourself by engaging with the views of those you disagree with - given some fundamental shared assumptions and rules of inference, and basic rules of civility, otherwise the whole exercise is futile - an education cannot be purchased or attained by cancelling or hounding people who hurt your feelings by challenging your views out of a job. That is what cults do - silence and exile dissenting voices. Now, if people want to pay thousands of dollars or euros a year to go to the modern equivalent of a church for civil religion, fine. But I would urge them to consider the possibility that attending lectures and taking exams for 4 years doesn't give you some ultimate moral authority to lord over others, and that it may be possible for you, and others who think like you (as this is a belief system, not an empirical or deductive science) to be just as racist, hateful, and regressive as the people you claim to hate... as Feynman said, you are the easiest person to fool.
@@paulcassidy4559 I don't agree with what you are saying at all. So lets start from the first point. Wokism is a reaction of adaptation towards the particular utopia that the university provides, its not the utopia itself. Wokism is a set of rules and set of rules (checklists, compliance and so on) are things that rulling parties in a particular social sphere wants to imply, because then they know what to expect, they know how to behave to reach a particular form of purity (of professionalism), student utopias don't. Now, the reason why I pointed that out was because most of the time someone points something is changing, most of the time it was ALWAYS changing and the particular person just happen to live in a transition period. And if you think about colleague campuses and "College" culture, you would see that for a while this utopia, I'm talking about especially in America was for a while male dominance and literal abuse over other students, the so called "frat" culture. And even then we didn't had this "open sharing of ideas" - it was simply the rulling thoughts which you should accept and that would lead to your acceptance from the professional society. Meaning it was probably never a "open sharing of ideas", except in someone's wet dreams. About my second argument it is not "value for money" at all. This is not what I meant. It is participation because you know that being in an university is not free and because of that you are no longer an obedient brat, whos university tuition would be paid by his incoming job in less than 10 years - you are someone seeking knowledge, looking to participate in a dynamic environment and take whatever he can from it. The authority of professors is no longer a given. They need to prove, they need to persuade their public that what their saying means something, that it matters. And this is a point which Peterson especially detests, because (if you have noticed) he relies heavily on his title for his bullshit to proliferate. The moment you don't take his title seriously (and you shouldn't since what he is saying is mostly out of his studies), then he crumbles in bullshit. And this is a huge topic, the topic that people won't accept some "strange" "quirky" and most of the time heavilly abusive professors without any form of protest. For example in one of the elite universities locally, there was a guy who had 20 years of teaching experience and was clearly telling racist slurs in his lectures for sociology and at times even using words directly from the book of Hittler. And just because here its not a norm to protest about such things and you just accept it and move on, the guy was dethroned just 2 years ago. And that's quite common. So its absolutely normal to expect that the person teaching you, should be able to persuade you why they are right.
@@priapulida The fact that Peterson helped many women and men as a therapist or through his self-help books etc. is not what most people have a problem with. The problem is his politics. The misinformation he spreads, building walls instead of bridges, seeing enemies everywhere. Whether he is a misogynist is questionable. I do not think that is the right label. However, I can certainly understand why Peterson is a controversial figure and not everyone is a fan of his, even if he did a lot of good as a therapist, which I do not doubt.
@@priapulida he literally said that the problem with women is that you cannot hit them. His quote was something like - "if you have a man in front of you, you know your boundary, you can hit him if he goes weird. And if its a woman you cannot. And there are so many crazy women out there." Mr. Feminist Icon himself.
Selling degrees... Interesting idea. Reminds of the economic model of signaling. Meaning we essentially provide a marker of how much time we can afford to put in something to reflect our value. This always seemed weird to me, but now I think I get it.
I wonder how much of relationships work in this neoliberal logic. "You are toxic because you say something I dont believe in", * ghost * ... if you somehow try to break the ghosting, then you are a stalker, a creep or some other derogatory term of their choosing. In fact, even discussing this dynamic may place the stigma on you as being a creep.
super)I added this to my thesis, as did the promotional video of my university, where my professor promote that at this univercity they teach to select right simbols :)
I agree in some points, but the main problem for me with your lecture is the notion of suffering. I think that capitalistic energy in the case of "wokeism" is trying to use it to cover real economical difficulties, but also trying to make it homogenous as possible - once again use it with instrumental rationality. I think "wokeism" springs from real pain and suffering of many students and also people around the world, from racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia. Its main goal was to open the world and society to particular, to heterogenous, without categories. To see Otherness and radically feel different. (On the other hand - there is Fear of loosing oneself in this Other - threat to rational categories and known which causes strict racist/homophobic reaction.) Opening heterogenity is also threat to capitalism so it is trying to tie it into categories and, as you suggested, in profiling. It would be interesting if you could also include the concept of suffering in your next analysis of wokeism (I missed it in previous videos as well), because now it looks that there are no real social problems from which "wokeism" emerged and those people who are suffering are just making it up for branding.
I do truly enjoy the way you break down the component parts of what is also a complex living system, or symbiotic relationship between enterprises and the people who attach themselves to them. Just now when you ended this talk I laughed at the Warning symbol about the fact that this platform, UA-cam, is constructed to be addictive and to promote this channel. And it was extremely funny then because one could say that similar elements for profiling exist here as well, in the subscribers, likes, and views...as well as comments ;). I think you are aware of this already though, I just found it funny that at the end of this video you also said, "you are a part of this too." Please continue to create material. Another professor who creates material on youtube is Wes Cecil - Humane Arts is what he calls his channel. I find him also very insightful. He has also commented on Education and historical classification systems.
Excellent analysis. I think JBP gets so caught up in his 'post-modern neo-marxist' rhetoric he misses the problem right in front of him. The profile building that's part of the modern university experience is certainly part of the neo-liberal tale over of the universities, but I think people often overlook an equally important aspect in the network building. Universities are more and more the gatekeeper to the middle class job market. Having a strong profile is nessecary to accessing this job market, but the environment is so competitive now that it's no longer enough to have a strong CV, you need to know people. It creates a kind of nepotistic job market that makes it easier for companies tofilter for these DIE compliant workers.
Recommendation: Turn off your camera auto focusing and just focus it once for your distance. Your hand movements will cause it to refocus and sometimes take awhile to focus back on your face.
The entire video begs the question of why "wokism"? "Corporatization" and "brand building" by themselves don't necessitate "wokism". Indeed, that is no explanation as to why state run organizations and institutions in general would be "wokified", since those escape this simplistic account of capitalist incentive structures. The legal dimension has been left out of the picture entirely as well. Since brands weren't always concerned, nor has status always been signaled, with "wokism", those are clearly surface level phenomena contingent on systemic changes and perturbations beneath the surface. This isn't to say that "wokism" is a superficial phemonenon, merely that market incentivization, branding and status-signaling are. To understand the structural funtion of "wokism", or progressivism in general, one has to actually perform a meaningful systematic and structural analysis.
I agree. I think part of underlying explanation is that in the US, the Republican party has become the anti-science party. It started with pandering to creationists, then climate skepticism, general trashing of experts, Trump suggesting bleach as a covid treatment. This stuff is very objectionable to STEM students and STEM employees (and others). For universities and high-tech businesses, anti-science is a bad look. It's no longer enough for them to be pro-science, all shiny new discoveries saving lives, they have to have an anti-anti-science, or anti-rightwing populism stance too. And DIE/wokism is one way of signalling that. Google's hiring process makes a better comparison than Nike ads: "Google’s hiring process is an important part of our culture. Googlers care deeply about their teams and the people who make them up. We also care about building a more representative and inclusive workplace, and that begins with hiring. In order to truly build for everyone, we know that we need a diversity of perspectives and experiences, and a fair hiring process is the first step in getting there."
@@grahamjones25 Admittedly my original comment was rather obscure and general, but my opinion is that all social changes in the modern era serve the purpose of maximazing efficiency. I think "wokeness" is merely another social restructuring geared for the same purpose. I disagree with this video's contention that "wokeness" is fundamentally market driven, though I do think it is driven by systematic, technocratic, economistic concerns. I hold the same thing to have been true in socialist countries until the 80s or 90s and the fall of the USSR at the latest. It is fundamentally state driven. By "state" I refer to the permanent bureaucracy and the intelligence apparatus, with whom the private, corporate, sector works in tandem. Thus, "wokeness" is in my opinion the "official" ideology of the American regime and empire. This is quite clear when contrasting America with rival empires, sovereign actors, such as Russia and China. Geopolitical alignment predicts the degree of "wokification".
I suspect because capitalists on both sides don't want us to question the system and values underlying the system. Besides its far easier to digest that wokeism is the enemy and if we just got rid of that, everything would be just fine. Complete nonsense of course.
It's actually so richly ironic and hilarious that all of this is the natural ideological byproduct of the neo-liberalism Peterson so staunchly defends. It's just that, underneath it all, he's an idealist who is dismayed by the reality. Being a very clever little weasel though, which he certainly is, he has also figured out how to monetize it.
As a european med student I'm incredibly glad that we are too busy to deal with bs like that. There is still a number of issues but at least they are not political.
I taught at an Indiana, USA “university” for 6 years. I was a contract faculty member. University hired me with the promise of a tenured position eventually, because what I was hired to teach (web) no one on the faculty had any knowledge or idea in this domain. The place where I taught used to have solid middle class jobs. NAFTA guttted the small city. All the factories closed or moved abroad. My former university became the largest employer in the region, fulfilling the neo-liberal status quo of our time. Second largest employer became the hospital. It is not a coincidence the two largest sources of inflation in the USA since the 90s in the USA has been college and healthcare. Academia is a lie. I felt unethical being a part of this system. Your analysis is spot-on. My university cares more about its brand and marketing than anything else. It’s a business. Students graduate as debt slaves with limited prospects. Academia has become a scam. Capitalism has turned academia into a parody of itself. It’s a dying institution in this country, and only going to degrade further.
I think it would be interesting for you to make a follow up video analyzing the boot camp trend that has really been taking off. Training people for short term jobs, promising them a prosperous career in return for the student going into a large sum of debt with the boot camp when in reality it would be better to just go to a university and get a degree.
Hello professor. At 0:55 you mention a term _'reverse racism'_ and do not define it. Can you define this term and differentiate it from standard _'racism'_ ?
This is a nice argument, but it is unsatisfying because incomplete. It makes sense that wokeism has taken root in academia because A) it was already thriving in the wider culture, B) it functions as a form of corporate conditioning/compliance training, and C) it is an easy way to enhance the profiles/brands of academic institutions. But, why wokeism in the first place? Why is wokeism already thriving in the culture prior to academia latching onto it?
This issue, as with so many others in our increasingly globalizing society, seems to have one problem at its root: capitalism. When he’s talking about how schools need to become more powerful as brands, then use these profile building metrics (disregard for the quality of the teaching, hyper focus on the quantity of output), all I see is a system of legitimation for the reproduction of power. Why is there no social mobility? The colleges are just a shell game. Then when we get to “ok, well how do we have schools that produce master’s graduates working at a department store?”, and I think it’s because these people just weren’t born into the right caste, and no amount of education will fix that. Only getting organized will fix these problems.
Capitalism as in using capital? As in, exchanging goods and services? Try being more specific with your delineation of "the root cause" if you are serious about fixing it.
Thanks for this analysis, which makes a lot of sense to me. Now the follow up question would be for me: why is wokeness so popular in the first place and is therefore perceived as desirable by the customer? According to your analysis, if the customer did actually not request wokeness, the corporation would not provide it. Is it actually good. This question remains unanswered for me so far
My advisor told me that the ability to attract grant money was more important than publications in seeking a tenured position and more easily quanitified since it was already in the unit used for comparison.
2016 to 2018. I worked in Jeffersonvill Indiana and had time to visit Louisville Kentucky university. I was asked to help with there network set up which they assumed, I was Asian, Hawaii, or indian. They were shocked when I told them I was Mexicano. Why? Their way of seeing California. Downey California
Dear carefree wandering. I would like to hear your analytical view on psychology as a science and also the way it affects society in terms of the mentallity. What do you think is the symptom of the such wide spread usage of the psychological therapy? Is it creating more problems than solving them? And is it just an exstension of a selfhelp culture totally out of control? Thanks alot
As a psychologist/psychotherapist I would like to hear his opinion, too. I would agree with the self-help culture and blame CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.) for it. They capitalise on the "Evidence-Based model" which isn't evidence-based at all - It is a marketing tool. Also, it isn't strange at all that CBT became the dominant modality in the USA in the 80s with neo-liberalism, and more recently in UK. CBT is not as popular in other European countries that don't have a neo-liberal market. If really look at the studies, it isn't working. I can go on-and-on about it but I will stop there.
I was under the impression self-help culture came from schools. I’ll have to find my notes later, but the culture doesn’t really inspire CBT with the “everyone gets a medal” or “we’re all equally amazing”. Some people in the field, that I’ve spoke to so admit my limits, don’t really care for the self-help industry and critique it more than anything. Wouldn’t mind being proven incorrect, I just take it that second wave therapy just so happened to coincide with self help without it being intimately related.
@@kboci88 Also a psychologist/Psychotherapist but just started recieving my first patients in training right now. Ofcourse CBT will be "evidence based" as the whole method is designed to be measureable. The issue isn't that CBT has better evidence, but it's that other methods aren't accurately measureable, and thus it's meaningless to compare the methods. That's my understanding on the situation. And totally agree with you; I find behavioralism very interesting (partly because of the patient group i work with) but i would never for the love of my life discredit the effectiveness of psychoanalytically derived therapies.
@@brorium Congratulations on your first patient!! I wish you all the best because it will be a great learning journey. I agree - maybe my message was confusing. What I meant was that in the 80s when neo-liberalism was rising, CBT was the most suitable psychological modality for neo-liberal policies and insurance companies preferred it as it suited them better with the 12-20 sessions. This gave an advantage to CBT academics and they had more resources to conduct more studies, and they entered in conversation with policymakers as the therapy that works -at least more than other modalities, hence the 'evidence-based'. CBT grew both in research and reputation as the most effective model of psychological therapy. This is not to say that CBT is not effective. It is more to say that neo-liberalism commodified mental health through CBT, and unfortunately, CBT academics have played their part in commodifying mental health. Hope this clarifies my previous comment.
The commodification of the university space is no joke really happening. But Moeller's continued use of the nonstandard jargon 'wokeism' creates a jarring juxtaposition that can't help but make one ask, "who are you talking to" and "what are you trying to say?" Perhaps I am overfocused on word choice. Philosophers do tend to make odd word choices.
Infinite repeats, infinite complaints, infinite decline. And it makes sense, as why would anyone get rid of a paying customer? Moral hazard in the most serious sense.
Your work is always extremely interesting and, to me, unexpected. I feel there is some kind of conceptual convergence between your work and the work of French philosopher Frédéric Lordon that attempts to reframe social sciences through Spinozian concepts. Your concept of profile feels like the concept of affective complexion publicized while retaining all its properties (e.g obsequium as joyful obedience).
Speaking of how universities don't differ from Nike, I know of quite a few individuals at the University of Oregon (i.e., Nike's Nest) and it is all one and the same, as it has always been
I've been searching for an analysis of "Bert Is Evil", and whether this was a turning point in the concept of profilicity. Sadly, there is no mention of it in Moeller and D'Ambrosio's book, "You and Your Profile". This could be archaeology.
Peterson fanboys:Liberals are such snowflakes triggered by anything. Peterson fanboys: stop! There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. My western civilization built on slavery is under attack
First you need to carefully and thoroughly define woke, and this "wokism". Also, y'all need to get out more. A lot of this is complete BS, most companies have diversity and equality mission statements on their web site, and very few could be called left-wing, liberal. I work in the insurance sector we absolutely have diversity training - lots of companies do. It's absolutely not something specific to higher and further education. But I can see if you are a homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, racist, etc., you might think you can just say what you want, as a professor or tutor, and you may have been doing that in previous decades, and now you are getting called out - and probably what is really getting your goat (Peterson) is being called out by students (who you probably consider to be lower lifeforms to you).
One could add a further parallel between wokeism and neoliberalism. Just like wokeism, neoliberalism supports a hyper-individualist culture. This is the reason why the neoliberal economy can integrate feminist and even woke themes with relative ease. Minority subjects or women are ideal neoliberal subjects. There is something like corporate wokeness. The ‘feel good’ and positive messages of female empowerment, LGBTIQ pride, racial diversity, etc. (and also environmental awareness) adds to the positive thinking mentality of neoliberal culture. So, in the end wokeism reflects pragmatism and a conservative ideology.
I think its important to note the radical/liberatory potential (and origin)of the calls to making universities more diverse institutions. It makes explicit how the co-option of said ideas, say identity politics moving from the claim of a communist collective(Combahee River) to the capitalist market, are a reactionary move typical of neoliberal institutions that are designed to empty and subsume any ideology, dressing in their shells for the institutions own continuation without meaningful change.
As always, great content and presentation. I'm learning more about Luhmann by reading some of your articles. I had a question about the following statement: ‘Humans cannot communicate; not even their brains can communicate; not even their conscious minds can communicate. Only communication can communicate’ (Luhmann). I've gone over this several times, and I find it really thought provoking, almost irritatingly so. By suggesting that "only communication can communicate", is Luhmann saying that society evolves independently of human thought and reason? Anyway, I'm not sure if you have a video on Luhmann specifically, but I'm really enjoying the journal articles you wrote on the subject.
Couldn't you also say that corporate capitalists have a stake in distracting their workers by having them focus on things like sensitivity training instead of giving them better material resources for living? I don't think it's a phenomenon seen only in academia. In the United States, Starbucks workers had to undergo racial sensitivity training years before they were even able to unionize. Good video
@Jo Jo
Wokeism is a product of neoliberal capitalism....it is cultural neoliberalism
The whole point of the video is to show that acedemics turns into an industry, is corporatized. It is presumed from the beginning, that things like wokeism are used formost in companies (to create a profile of moral goodness) and that these developments are now also taking place in academics.
He HAS said that already. This video is about academia, but he's given plenty of examples of business doing this in other industries as well in the course of his other videos. The CIA example mentioned in the first comment for instance, was extensively covered by this channel in their previous videos on wokeism.
The sensitivity training was so bad and the managers were absolutely not qualified to teach it (legit one manager complained about being a red head).
We got all this “3rd place” training while they casually cut labor hours and decreased benefits.
Divide and conquer is a tries and true strategy to subdue a population. The frantics obsession with diversity and inclusion is no doubt a strategy to drive wedges between workers, so that they don't question the power of their employees.
If students are paying customers. I want my money back. The service was horrible lol
Once you have eaten the bag of chips you cannot return it to the store.
This reminds me of Zizek's rant against Starbuck's Ethos water programme, a water bottle where when you buy it, part goes to helping thirsty children all around the world. This programme is of course not about helping children, but selling 'good conscience'. A good moral conscience has become part of the profile that companies use to sell products.
As universities become corporatized, as you correctly point out, 'being progressive' becomes another part of the profile a university must sell. I think you could have added that universities especially must chose this particular branding, because their targeted demographic are young and progressive - if your target demographic are rural, non-educated and older, your profiling must of course be different.
this is true, but elsewhere i have heard Zizek more or less cynically praising/endorsing the starbucks approach as more realistic than naïve dreams of leftist revolution. so idk our boy Slavoj is all over the place on that one lol
I'm always extremely pleased to see more activity on this channel and wish you all the very best! For whatever reason, even though you might seem to keep a bit of reserved distance from the audience, you are one of the most "close" and "real" seeming UA-cam presenters and content creators around, and I appreciate so much all the effort made to make you and your work and expression available online and accessible worldwide, it is a tremendous gift! I like to check in on here to see how you are doing!
@@priapulida stop spamming.
@@priapulida Im gonna have that quote on a shirt one day
@@priapulida What falsehoods is he peddling? I missed them.
I Like GUMMO
yes, this professor has an authentic and sincere profile on youtube as he analyzes profiles for authenticity and sincerity. There's a Gödel joke in there somewhere, probably; proof left to reader.
In Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher pointed all this out over a decade ago. Peterson’s experiencing how neoliberalism will subsume anything it can in pursuit of profits. He can’t find it in himself to lament the process, he’s just angry that Wokeism is more profitable than neoconservativism. Too bad, so sad, get back on pills, Peterson.
I won't defend Neo conservatives, but you miss his point and pretend that you can read people's minds.
The implicit belief that these values are arbitrary or in constant flux is the problem. A "disintegration of categories" is Peterson's words. i.g. nominalism.
@@bradspitt3896 Disintegration of categories has, contrary to what Peterson states, nothing to do with marxism. In fact, it has everything to do with commodification of profilicity. If categories are being deconstructed, it is either for the pursuit of profit or for virtue-signaling - all in lieu with the current state of capitalism. Capitalism profits tremendously from postmodernism as postmodernism opens up the possibility of deconstructing an idea to basically mean everything - branding is an example of a true postmodern construct that is dynamic and shifts over time.
Marxism would be directly opposed to deconstruction of categories - Marxism has it's historical narrative and thus every argument and thesis is teleologically derived from the idea of class struggle.
Marxist thought ends when class struggle ends; thus in the realm of ideas there is an end.
Postmodernism never ends, and promises a dream of eternal deconstruction, and thus, eternal growth of new exciting brandings, identities and profilicity to fuel the economic machine.
The funniest thing about He Who Shall Not Be Named (JP) is that he's both extremely postmodern in his sophistry, and categorical as he actually has an historical narrative - a sort of Hegelianism i guess? Biblical?. Nevertheless, he's way less capitalist and more allike marxism in his methods (teleological derivation from his narrative of western thought as the be all - end all). Much less openminded than he'd like, as he's very eager to muddle his reasoning with his arbitrary ethics.
@@brorium Marxism isn't the problem, nominalism precedes Marxism, the belief itself goes back to antiquity but the name itself comes later. Marxism is a product of that, evidenced by the materialist metaphysic.
if that was the case he would be selling 1500 dollar carpets with woke slogans. dude is a ruthless capitalist but this is a matter of principles to him.
I want you to understand the profound irony of what you are saying. Mark Fisher literally committed suicide because (on top of his personal struggles) he saw how easily wokeism ate his field and consumed Academic-Marxism to the point where Professors in his area who were able to think critically and challenge Capital were outnumbered 20:1 by wokeists using Critical Theory and Marxist Dialectic to push Wokeism.
this analysis nails it. i've been looking for a good breakdown of how "wokeness" - in academia as well as culture and media - is less what peterson calls an insurgent leftism and more "rainbow capitalism", or as you say corporate neoliberalism simply responding to market forces. well done and thank you sir 🙏
Rainbow Capitalism! Have you heard about the REI Union Busting meeting that begins with everyone introducing themselves with their pronouns and then also acknowledging the First Nations peoples land they are speaking from?
@@toddthing i have not but i work at a health clinic ( in the united states ) and I have recently been accepted to participate in our "IDEA Council" standing for inclusion, diversity, equity, antiracism. my suspicion was that the council likely consists of mostly upper middle class white ladies talking to each other on zoom about how terrible racism is without actually doing anything about it. after our first meeting as a cohort, my suspicions have been more or less confirmed, however i'm trying to keep an open mind. it's a wonderful synchronicity tho bc shortly after the meeting i watched this video and learned that jordan peterson quit his tenured position like a baby in reaction to an insurgent leftism that does not exist, and that "woke" ppl should "DIE" or something. subtle, mate. real subtle... 😒
@@toddthing that sucks a lot. especially bc REI is supposedly a co-op. nothing is sacred.
Insurgent leftism + rainbow capitalism = the current state of matters? A dove tail of interests?
I dont know if the synthesis of the two would be more or less to worry about. I dont even really know the depth of the problems becuse the clamour of the culture war.
Sure, but why is the market woke, and demanding wokeism?
As someone who recently toyed with getting into the academic industry with a lot of post graduate study, the more and more I experienced it the more abysmal it became. The professor is right, universities aren't really about teaching anyone anymore, they are about selling products (degrees). Whether anybody learns anything along the way is secondary to the neoliberal university. If the product is purchased, they are really happy. Also the general appreciation of research by university administrators has declined so greatly over the last 30 years. Working in a university is about output output output. It is not about taking a lot of time to find great outcomes in your relevant field or pursuit. Plus new academic staff can expect to be only casually employed for year after year, with their contracts only being renewed for each teaching period, with no long term job stability at all. In some universities (in Australia), a lot more courses are being pushed online (with the initial pandemic being used as an excuse), with no return to face to face, with no lecturers being used for the course, just people who write the course and casual markers used. Of course, someone can still enjoy a good academic career amongst all of this, but it is becoming harder and harder to enjoy an academic career for learning and academias sake itself. Desperately need to bring back reform to view learning as a public good. Also trust Peterson to observe phenomena and radically misattribute the cause. It's basically his hallmark. But yeah, I wouldn't totally recommend a career in the academic industry at this stage.
@@priapulida "The woke rot" is non-existant boogeyman you made up instead of worrying about things that actually matter.
@@priapulida This is very funny to read. Go on I wanna see more.
@@priapulida let me guess, you're not involved with academia or research? neoliberalization and the 'publish or perish' mindset are by far the leading causes of the degradation in research by a long shot. that's not even going into the whole issue of private companies pushing fundamental research to the academic sector to maximize profit
Boys can be girls, education quality is nonexistent, degrees are pumped out indroves and required for jobs that shouldn't even require a 4 year degree despite that... sure, no problems to see, here.
@@priapulida maybe the reason why universities are - and always have been - so 'woke' is because they are places where critical thought and evidence-based positions are praised, and in doing so the majority of tenets of conservative ideology and its associated stunted social understandings are left in the dust
Sometimes just one thumb up is not enough. I was a student of philosophy in Berlin in when this hostile takeover of European academic culture took place, and it was absolutely disgusting. Some professors rebelled, some became depressed, but most of them just adapted and tried to find out how they could improve their market value as fast as possible. But all felt clearly that this secluded garden where free thought could grow for centuries was being bulldozed and turned into some parking lot.
I definitely empathize. But it didn't use to be better. Universities may undergo a qualitative transition from traditionalist or authenticity based identity production to profilicity based identity production (if we are to believe Moeller). That doesn't mean things were better centuries ago. The secluded garden of free thought was never provided by any university. Free thought depends on free speech and protection from violence. Watching this video and commenting on it is the secluded garden.
If I've learned anything from Joni Mitchell, all things are deemed to be parking lots.
What rock did you live under? Why was schelling appointed as councillor, because schelling was religious and the young hegelians are scary. Why was husserl thrown out like a mad dog and Heidegger magically assigned a rector( a special event that happened in 1933).Why was Maurice blondel unemployed for the first couple of years of his life? Stop crying about the “woke mob” that ruined the everlasting and ever thinking western civilization and it’s totally unbiased thinking in universities.
@@massacreee3028 Here Here
@@massacreee3028 still,it reveals who holds the lock and key for today's university, if it was conservatives back then it is capital today. i wonder if it could ever be truly unbiased?
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Only discrimination.
I many times find myself in a tricky position in these debates. Because on one hand i see many of the issues symbolic "wokeness" in academia causes, how it manifests itself in classes, structures debates and publications, on the other hand most of the critique that comes from namely figures like Peterson completely ignores many of the actual issues and historical structural wrong doings that are addressed and tackeled by "wokeism". I don't want to be in a position where I find myself defending superficial neoliberal social media ideology, (especially since european racism is a lot more complex and multilayered than it's american counterpart that drives the western discourse) but neither should modern christian capitalist conservatism ala Peterson be the driving force in any public institution or academia.
I think "wokeness" is a arbitrary symptom of neoliberalism. Just like outlined in the video the underlying problems are profiling, brand building, faux-moralism, the job market, established industries and people actually buying into things like "nike being the good guys" because they have a POC as a spokesperson. "Wokeism" is indirectly reproducing the economic system with it's superficial symbolism but Peterson style conservatism just openly doesn't want it to change anyways, he just doesn't like it being diverse, inclusive or even attempting to be critical, because of 'brilliant' arguments like "that's against human nature and western values". Why not focus on the bigger picture without letting yourself get radicalised by conservatives?
People are impatient for change. The correct solution is to invest heavily in early years education in deprived neighbourhoods, which will yield results a generation later. Trouble is, this is too long term for it to be meaningful in an election cycle.
I don't think wokism does tackle those problems, what it does is take legitimate class issues and obscures them with race, effectively squashing any progress.
Well said, Franco! (See my comment above) Fraternal greetings from UK. 🙂
I think that the legal dimension also destroys wokeism in a sense that demanding things like "diversity declarations" when it should be completely natural to accept other groups in academia and in other social departments. For me it's like a simple human decency. But the world is unfortunately different.
Peterson is so mired into his own conservative prism that he often rambles nonsense, even admitting he never really read Marx but is all the more qualified to say it's all worthless because... lobsters I guess?
But taking his rant as a starting point of critiqur should not be ridiculed, sometimes it's the extreme, the outlandish, the local buffoon, jester, that holds the key to start discussing things.
Saying "Kermit Lobster bad, ERGO any reference to his nonsense makes your whole point invalid" is actually making him seem right because that's what he expects of you.
But then again I just studied philosophy and learned how a serious critical debate should examine all the standpoints, not just the ones that serve your side...
When I went to high school, we had a somewhat novel track team. Anybody who wanted to join could join, and they could participate in any event they wanted to. The result was an ongoing spring fitness party where everyone got together and trained after school. There were many great achievers on that team, but everyone got to become a better athlete.
This is the vision we need to fix our education systems, everyone can learn and grow, and a good educational system is one that provides as much education as it can to everyone it can.
No need to convince the world you are worthy, just show up and do your best.
If we manage to see the Neoliberal endgame, then we would get there is no society and there are no people, just capital worth. As nice as it is, what you say still assumes that we are people.
Colleges partially or maybe even mostly exist to let job seekers advertise that they're good enough for potential employers. This was what I found and why I went back to school. After getting the right degree magically employers were ready to take me in. Despite all this, I will be sure to point out the waste that is college. You learn most things on the job
how come you are the only person who correctly diagnose wokism as symptom of Neo-Liberalism? great job professor
It’s not a new argument, it’s common conception for Marxists even outside traditional academia. I’m sure the same could be said for some other movements/practices who act as adversaries to neoliberalism.
As others have said, he is far from the only one who says this. You can find a lot of people exploring this connection in different ways on Jacobin's UA-cam channel, for instance.
He isn't. Slavoj Žižek did it to Peterson's face, and Mueller and Žižek are friends I think. What is also not new is a complete failure to understand the problem Marx was responding to in the first place: it's not poverty! It's clear that Marx's primary concern was desocialization, and alienation, a systemic relocation of the human being away from being centered in community, to being a lone operator in the endless cycle of meaningless production. And that is precisely what we have today. Worst yet, neoliberalism has become adept at mimicking the inclusion of its critics voices by a seeming concession in the realm of culture - they're happy to embrace woke everything as just another stakeholder consumer whose niche tastes the markets can accommodate as long as the actual power firmly rests in the hands of the global capital elite and no concessions are made in the realm where they actually matter - no, not money - give the trade unions their pathetic 2% annual raise, hell, that's less than inflation in recent years, as long as you deprive them of the means of organization, since our corporate overlords now control it all - from this medium, to Facebook which is banning people for the very opposite of what they say, to their incessant buying up of public infrastructure for their terrible projects.
Anyways, Angela Nagel was the first on this, even before Žižek. Glenn Greenwald, Prof. Wolfgang Streeck predicted this 25 years ago with his edition of "How will capitalism end." In it, he coined the now famous phrase so characteristic of our lives today: "coping, hoping, doping and shopping."
@Quizzer i see, i rarely watch Jacobin Channel nowadays, back then people still call this Wokism as Liberal left
@@vucko2885 as a marxist myself i already knew that wokism have a deep root with Liberal idealism rather than maxism, but rarely people point that out (even in the academia level)
The university doesn't just sell the diploma, it also sells the experience of college. If it only sold the diploma it could save a lot on those buildings, gyms, sports teams, and soda machines.
i live in a third world country and we are living this process between old university and new university. Very good insight in how commodification permeates everything
Professor Moeller as usual, brilliantly explaining the nightmare zeitgeist that we live. It is not that we can't see this BS but the transparent and simple way he explains in the way even a child can understand.
Yet JP will still not get it
@@carlocporosus And doesn't follow his rule to "be precise in speech" himself
@@carlocporosus JP is financially incentivised to be blind. Like every conservative, every bit of intelligence that he has, he invests into indoctrinating people into his absolute dogmas.
@Stratos I I remember when JP was becoming famous it was because people were complaining that they can't find a job after their studies. JP made his career by telling those students to shut up and man up. Now that he's famous and has followers, these followers are telling him the same. But this time it's not their fault, it's those other guys that were complaining before. They are the bad guys now who are stripping the good guys (his fans) out of their jobs....
Don't you think that this is a bit... Nuts? The guy is the same Exact carbon copy conservative moron, as every conservative moron before him. He had no connection to reality, just his own biases.
@Stratos I it seems your bias clouds your thinking, you still belive there are only 2 genders...
This all intersects with the students' internalisation of themselves as commodities (you need to "sell yourself", don't ya?), pursuing degrees solely for the purpose of boosting their own marketability, with no desire for intellectual development, no awareness of the value of critical thinking. Their only goal is to pass exams, there's minimal participation (and the teachers don't encourage it, lectures are top-down practices, and they never alternate with engagement-oriented symposiums). Outside of the class, one hears nothing but juvenile frivolities, the subject of study is only ever raised when confirming what is needed to learn to pass the next exam. Homogeneity is near-absolute, no one dares to take risks, to challenge professors out of conceptual curiosity, all too disaffected, shallow, and subconsciously afraid they'll compromise their chances to get a job in an ever more precarious world. Fear, hopelesness and habituation are behind this sham. Oh, and greed, of course. Greed started it all.
I remember being astonished by the culture in cognitive science at my university. Older professors were fantastic teachers, delivering their lectures with passion, but seemed distraught by the students fighting for higher grades but less work. If you asked questions about the material itself, if you were curious to understand, they seemed thrilled. I was almost put off by their shock and excitement.
As an older and engaged student, this seemed insane to me. Not only was it easy to get good grades, but it was extremely enriching so it was very easy to dedicate time to these papers and projects. Many of the younger professors seemed put off by these same questions. Many seemed intellectually unqualified to me. It was hard to take them seriously. Some clearly got by with BS, copying slides or simply indulging politics in classes that allowed for that sort of flexibility (a minority of the philosophy classes I took). Something was very very strange.
It seemed like there were 2 worlds. The old school which is now dealing with the new dynamics, the administration and the student culture, and clearly frustrated. And then the new school, which seemed intellectually inadequate and generally underinformed, but fit to be good controllable workers. I remember a professor giving me advice when I asked her what to do if I'm writing an essay in philosophy but would like to say what I believe, and what I believe is that her own understanding of the concepts being taught was faulty... and she told me straight up, "you're very smart and educated on these topics, but you need to take the scientist hat off and put the salesman cap on"... there were social standards she seemed to imply had to be met to make it.
Years after leaving academia, I maintained my own studies of philosophy of mind on my own, and continued writing in private. I attended a free weekly seminar during the pandemic, one organized by a professor and some graduate students (one being an old friend). She invited me knowing my background, having gone out of my way to study all theories of consciousness in depth. My experience was again quite shocking. Graduate students who were working under these particular paradigms, presumably writing papers pushing the theories of their advisors, did not know much at all about their own ideas. They were mathematically inept, and seemingly incapable of engaging on their own subjects of interest. It seemed like I had interrupted an organized meeting where different people took turns reading the slides they had prepared. People would simply give compliments "very interesting, thank you" and clap. It was very strange and honestly shamefully useless.
For those who play music, you might understand this analogy. The students today, and presumably the professors, have a product to sell, themselves. And so, what I think we have is a commodifiction of intellectual work, but this ends up giving us "instagram guitarists" instead of actual guitarists. They give you something seemingly impressive to non-musicians, a quick 1 minute lick with a bunch of bells and whistles (guitar tricks, fast playing, sweeping, tapping, etc) but might never be able to play productively with other musicians, or take the time to write something more substantive. The social/economic incentives have changed the game. Academic philosophy struck me as a show. It had become theatrical. Many of the participants, and the one's getting positions, didn't seem to think about the subjects they studied on their freetime.
My hope is that this is a problem contained to the Humanities. It would make a lot of sense. But surely there must be bleed over into the STEM fields via social/cultural osmosis.
I have loved learning about cognitive science in my time at university, especially from a philosophic viewpoint. I've taken quite a few philosophy classes from the old school teachers that you describe, whereas other humanities classes from the "new school" professors are usually complete garbage and lack any demanding engagement whatsoever.
I don't believe the harder STEM fields are nearly affected as much, but I think the social sciences have been noticeably affected by the academic equivalent of "instagram guitarists" (I like that analogy by the way).
I feel the same problem in Europe (Portugal) secondary school but differently. I have an interest in many subjects related to the class but when I ask the teachers about something in-depth most of them don't know how to answer, they are not used to students having a humanistic side and curiosity. They are used to teaching what is on the curricula and for the exams. This is very frustrating when you are trying to actually learn and not just pass the exam. This is the reverse of what happens in university. Old teachers get excited about students asking stuff while secondary school teachers have such bad work conditions and are so used to the "customer" student that they no longer care about humanistic education. This is not what education in my country is supposed to be, our education is inspired by Edgar Mori...
Although we can't compare the USA to Portugal. In Portugal, this is an issue is due to other factors such as disinvestment in public schools and teachers... But also the commodification of education is growing, we are starting to see "universities" that work as a company and "wokism" in some public universities.
@@miguelramiro3326 I'm Canadian and so I attended McGill in Montreal. I remember students searching for the easiest courses. They even had a nickname for these... If I remember correctly, "bird courses". I had read so much before ever applying to the program, I simply was using the courses as a way to learn, regardless of my grades. I couldn't stand repetition. Meanwhile most students around me took classes with overlapping material on purpose, to save time. To be honest, that's totally understandable if you're not confident already that you'll always do fine. But there were extreme versions of this I witnessed which really put me off. I was an older student in my late 20s. I had returned after initially doing 2 years of Physics and taking a long break between working and reading on subjects I thought could interest me. It turned out to be philosophy of mind and neuropsychology. Either way, the whole experience stifled my commitment to higher ed. There were a few aspects that really scared me off. I was not impressed by the level of understanding. I felt as though it was implied I couldn't get away with being so critical of dominant philosophical camps. Heck, the philosophical issue I was working on clarifying involved me exposing half the field as charlatans and people seemed to think that was innappropriate. As if I had to wait to play my cards only once I was secure in a position. I'm not exactly surprised by this, again, understandable, but it wasn't for me. I enjoyed confrontation and getting to the bottom of things regardless of the social taboos. I think I could have stomached it all and held my tongue when convenient had it not been for the insane wokeness. Even highly intelligent students I respected were two faced about political issues, or simply feigned ignorance or played dumb to serve some delusional narrative. It was often quite mean and cold-hearted. That really drove me away. Staying and biding my time before I could speak honestly felt like self-betrayal, a disregard for my own principles. I'm glad to simply have others to relate to on this because it really killed me at the time. My idealism died a painful death.
This reply made me view my own approach to studying differently, and so thank you for that. :)
Years ago I got into reading about psychology, Kahnemann, Ariely, Ekmann, that sort of stuff. What left a deep impression was this differentiation between *symbol* versus *substance* . Symbol being the markers that other people could see and infer the substance was there (degrees, jargon, references, etc.) and substance being the Qualia, or the actual meat of the matter. It's hard to put it into words but if you're familiar with physics, it's one thing to talk about "enthalpy" and "increase in entropy" and "kinetic energy of the particles" versus what those fingers pointing to the moon actually point towards. Feynman shows this fantastically, so here's a clip ua-cam.com/video/v3pYRn5j7oI/v-deo.html.
Your reply rings a bell that, with the younger generations, they've accrued the right *symbols* to make people view them a certain way. In Moeller's words, curated a profile of themselves as ambitious, intelligent and top-class individuals, and yet when you engage them beyond those symbols, you find a lack of substance - an actual interest in the matter and a curiosity to peer beyond the requirements of established degree track materials. There could be many, many reasons for that, for example the inflation of academic degrees, the increased pressures to curate a profile of yourself as an A-class student (which leads to less risk-taking and branching out - in a word, loss or degradation of academic freedom), and a bloating infrastructure of academic administration.
I guess, when so much emphasis is put on profile markers, something is lost along the way that's much harder to qualify. Something that only becomes apparent with time.
Jordan Peterson-related content might get more engagement, but I would prefer to see your online brand gain more independence from his. Also, not that it particularly matters, but my favorite content of yours is the Philosophy in
Motion channel, and I’d love to see more of that
Do you remember the story of Peter Higgs? He took two different pieces of physics worked on by others and put them together and postulated the Higgs boson must exist. The maths he tried to publish was the proof. The paper he submitted was a few equations which occupied 3/4 of a sheet of A4. It was probably one of the most important things ever to be refused publication. In today's idiot world he would have been thrown out for not producing enough work. Sometimes the shortest of writings are the most profound of the lot. In another time long ago lawyers were also paid by the number of words they wrote. This was revised for good reason!
This is so accurated!!!. Im a teacher in a private university here in Bolivia and all that was expoused happens. The idea of "commodification of education/instruction" is so brillant and terrible at the same time. Thaks for the video l..l,!!!
An absolutely brilliant analysis!😊
From listening to your analysis, It seems as if Dr Peterson's ire is not with the neoliberal university paradigm per se but instead to do with the clash between his own profile and that of his university. As being the most famous anti-woke intellectual, Dr Peterson's profile is not compatible with Harvard University which maintains a so-called "woke" profile. If the University's profile hadn't changed to be irreconcilable with his own, then he would probably be quite satisfied with it.
I don't really see how Dr Peterson's white male students are objectively at a real disadvantage in their future career prospects though, studying under such a famous yet divisive figure can be leveraged both ways under profilicity. If they happen to agree with the ideology of woke universities they would just need to curate their woke profile astutely to counter the presumption of being anti-woke. On the other hand If they happen to be ideological disciples of Dr Peterson they can find prospects in conservative media and think-tanks.
if they signed up with the expectation of this cynical game it would be a different story but they did not.
all of the work world and especially the academic work world is about 1 or 2 people deciding whether you are in or out.
its the structure of the pyramid. if you want up you need to pass gate keepers. gate keepers that are Petersons enemies.
I think there's some confusion here. Peterson has not been employed at Harvard since 1998. The university he resigned from was the University of Toronto in 2021.
I think many of us simply do not want to be forced into promoting a one-sided worldview that confirms the biases of the consumers it sells itself to.
What's the alternative to neoliberal instiutions? I would say as far as you want to work in any institution this is par for the course.
This is what the late Mark Fisher had to say (among other things) on the subject of "Academic Industry":
"The idealized market was supposed to deliver 'friction free' exchanges, in which the desires of consumers would be met directly, without the need for intervention or mediation by regulatory agencies. Yet the drive to assess the performance of workers and measure forms of labour which, by their nature, are resistant to quantification, has inevitably required additional layers of management and bureaucracy. What we have is not a direct comparison of workers' performance or output, but a comparison between the audited representation of that performance and output.
Inevitably, a short-circuiting occurs, and work becomes geared towards the generation and massaging of representations rather than to the official goals of the work itself. Indeed, an anthropological study of local government in Britain argues that 'More effort goes into ensuring that a local authority's services are represented correctly than goes into actually improving those services'.
This reversal of priorities is one of the hallmarks of a system which can be characterized without hyperbole as 'market Stalinism'."
From chapter 6 (Titled "All that is solid melts into PR: Market Stalinism and bureaucratic anti-production") of Capitalist Realism
I recommend the last part of Erwin Panofsky's essay collection, Meaning in the Visual Arts. In it he discusses the differences between the German universities he knew from 30s pre-war Germany and the American universities he came to teach in during the 60s, after his emigration. It confirms and covers a lot of this stuff and is a grim glimpse into how long this stuff was in the making, wrt the commodification of academia. Panofsky was a complete humanist to the end, and he remained optimistic about the future, our present, but we all know how well that's turned out.
Always a treat. Thank you to you and your crew.
I think that with regards to the development of compliance, there is an element of risk management for universities as well. There are genuinely bigots and those who abuse their power over students within academia, and they pose a risk to the brand of the university. The recent case of sexual harassment and its fallout at harvard come to mind, but there are numerous cases of professors creating environments hostile to certain students where bildung cannot take place. What's more, the ubiquity of social media means that cases of bigotry or harassment are far more likely to go viral, thus hurting the university's profile within the aesthetic economy.
Here in the US, the legacy of segregation is still poignant. The (neo)liberal integrationist ethos in the wake of the civil rights era means that schools must plaster their landing pages and pamphlets with non-white skin in order to present the façade of this ethos. Here, an increasing demand for higher education coincides with both the industrialization of the university with the increasing necessity for a degree in the job market, as well as a further democratization of the types of people welcomed to the university. The top-down enforcement of the egalitarian aesthetic through things such as DIE statements often clashes with the human reality of professors causing conflict through their position of power over students. Any perceived fracture in the façade means resources have to be spent on damage control, because in the end, it's hard to believe that universities as institutions really care about bigotry outside of how it affects the bottom line.
There is a pernicious double-action at play here. There are people within universities who truly care about combatting our social ills, and may really believe in developing an inclusive pedagogy. A lot of these people would have no issue with openly committing as such, at least at face value. It also seems reasonable to screen professors for views which may prevent them from treating students equally and thus preventing them from being a good teacher. You wouldn't want a transphobic professor at an institution which allows trans students to attend. However, the way by which modern universities realize this is through more bureaucratic hoops to jump through on the part of the professors. Any passion that a professor may have for social change is parasitized by the profit motive and marketing. So at once, the real energy and care that people have for the ideals of education is used by the ambivalent university as a selling point, while the risks and work are off-loaded onto the faculty, not all of whom actually care about such pursuits.
While I mentioned the power that professors have in the classroom, it must be said that that environment is no longer as insular in the era of social media. Students increasingly function in a role of surveillance, much in the same way a customer surveils a retail worker. I've definitely seen viral posts of students with misplaced indignation, leading to the unfair targeting of professors for innocuous or institutional decisions. The real neoliberal rub is the blurring of the lines between a good product and a rewarding education. A petulant consumer and a marginalized student are formally identical within this paradigm. This allows for intractable argumentation about which of these moralized categories is correct in any given situation, and a PR strategy by institutions to wipe away both cases with the exact same procedure for each. No real justice for those who deserve it, and plenty of ammunition for conservatives to lambast the shallowness of university branding strategies.
Though I bemoan the nihilism and superficiality of "woke" discourse, I appreciate this channel's approach to searching for the materiality of this discourse. Cheers!
Really loved your comment. Thanks
Great points.
God Dame this comment is in point , are a professor or something
Lots of good points in here, but I disagree with you about pre-screening professors for any wrong opinions that "may" affect their teaching. Imagine a professor who says, "I don't think trans women should compete in women-only sports." Is he banned? I know at least a dozen progressives who would declare this opinion transphobic and its speaker a "bigot." But the professor may well treat all of his students equally, regardless of their gender, assigning them grades on the basis of their work and participation, without prejudice. Assuming he's not teaching gym, the belief about women's sports has nothing to do with what happens in the classroom or with fairness toward his students. Should this professor be passed over, even if he is a good teacher without any animus toward his trans students? What about other situations where someone cries "bigot! bigot!" but the supposedly "bigoted" opinion has no effect on the professor's teaching? There is a huge swath of moderate, liberal, and even progressive opinion that the University considers verboten.
@@ceruchi2084 I appreciate that you want to nuance this discussion, and I think it's valuable to consider by what criteria we evaluate a professor's ability to teach. I'm a recent college drop-out, so I don't have much skin in the game at this point, but my perspective is largely that of a student, and not that of an administrator or faculty member. I cannot speak for what is most desirable out of a new hire from the perspective a university or department. I do not assume by default any question that a screening process may ask, as those questions are driven primarily by profit within our current society. From my perspective, I have no knowledge as to the specificity of interview questions that any given applicant may have to answer for any given institution. My (admittedly naïve) assumption is that questions asked would be relevant to the position, and so someone exclusively teaching economics would not be asked about trans identity in relation to sports. This may seem to be a cop-out, but I wish to make the limitations of my perspective clear.
I think that any institution asking about trans athletics for a position which has nothing to do with athletics would be a performative waste of time which has more to do with risk management than any genuine concern about transphobia. It sounds just as silly as asking a potential astronomy professor about who art grants should be given to. I never claimed any one position on trans people competing in sports was bigoted, as I figured dissecting the nuances of transphobia for each hypothetical applicant would become intractable. My main concern is that the bureaucratic deployment of ideological screening processes is more to do with the development of a compliant faculty than a real adherence to the beliefs implied by such screening processes. Anyone can talk the woke talk if they need to in order to get hired, and so a shallow screening process which polls for ideological purity ultimately doesn't guarantee that transphobes won't make it in.
In my original comment, I suggested that true bigotry within a classroom is impossible to determine in our given paradigm. I don't like the industrial model of education which enforces market-oriented wokeness, and I also pointed out that professors very well may be unjustly called bigoted for innocuous or institutional decisions. The second-order observation of a belief as bigoted is given priority over the content of said belief, truly bigoted or not. Whether or not a professor's beliefs on trans students in athletics comes from a transphobic position is ultimately subsumed by the desire of an institution to build a certain profile in line with its profit motive.
To directly address your first comment: if a professor said that about trans women while in the classroom environment, current-day students would call that professor bigoted, and any trans woman athlete in his class would feel like their identity was not respected. If a trans woman student athlete heard this, then they would not feel comfortable enough in that class to full express themself in a way that is in accordance with the learning process implied by bildung. If we're striving for bildung, then this situation is untenable. Whether or not this belief is transphobic is irrelevant compared to its perception as such, at least in the eyes of the university and in the eyes of students who feel like the university is a space to fully develop themselves as humans. Even if such a professor were to somehow separate their beliefs about trans people in sports from their beliefs about trans people in academia, contemporary students would not believe that the professor could do so. Also, as a student, my personal relationship with professors has had an outstanding impact on my grades, so much so that I have to belief that if a professor was bigoted against me I would have not gotten the good graces that have been given to me. So I don't really believe that within the real world the grading process isn't deeply subjectable to personal bias, and I believe that this understanding of grading as deeply subjective is held by many students today. The idea that a professor has animus towards trans women in some respects but not others is hard to swallow, inductively speaking.
Like I said, no real arbitration of justice can take place for those who deserve it, whether they be student or professor. Screening for bigotry is contaminated by prolificity, and thus can't be taken to say anything about the true quality of a candidate. My point about not having a transphobic professor was directly to do with the classroom environment they created, not about the perceptions of this environment. A professor's teaching capability is in part determined by their ability to facilitate free discourse within a classroom. If a professor were to say "rap music has no real artistic value", then many black students would take that as a sign that the professor is close-minded in a way which suggests that their experience of rap as a rich genre of human expression would be denied. Thus, the humanistic element of bildung cannot be fully achieved. To be clear, I don't think universities should ask every professor about their opinions on music, but for an increasingly democratized/diversified student body (i.e. customers), the types of environments that universities must cultivate in order to appease their customer base coincides with whatever boundaries of inclusiveness the market demands. The *performance* of not being a bigot for the sake of selling a product is not distinguished from *actually* not being a bigot for the sake of good teaching. The whole hiring process is a wash from jump because of the industrialized model.
To conclude, what is verboten by the university cannot be taken seriously until profit and prolificity is removed from the hiring process. To do so is to miss the forest for the trees.
Im an Aboriginal Australian. I love academia as in the pursuit of knowledge, warts and all. I freelance as a community researcher. Have worked short term for two Universities and two NGO's on projects. We don't do enough of it in our community. I have been lucky in that my work is focused on Aboriginal communities particularly the one I belong to and live within. My areas of inquiry as a researcher so far is in Family Violence and Mental Health. What is maybe surprising to those outside of truth seeking is that many members of the community I have engaged with are sick of the glossing of issues that are affecting them. In the course of my work, all have seen the sources around these issues to be internally manifested, intergenerational and damaging. They seek to have a more honest acknowledgement of its source and manifestation within our communities. What has let our community down is this broad spectrum framework that State agencies develop priorities and fund which has no bearing on the lived realities of communities now. This 'wokeness' permeates all policy priorities with no tangible local application for communities desperate to take on their issues in an honest way.
Fall of the Faculty is a great text on point A), the commodification of the universities, in the United States at the very least.
Edit: the point about distraction @22:00 or so is very well taken also. I remember being in college back in 2011 and some of the activists on campus really wanting to devote this huge push to making the bathrooms gender neutral. The anarchist / left-political population on campus that hung around the Infoshop got kind of dormant and this was their big comeback. It really puzzled me as to why they weren't fighting about the incredibly unaffordable cost of the institution we attended, instead, which made it inaccessible to virtually anyone from the working class. Or even the excessive presence of campus security that was getting ramped up more and more, and created an increasingly tense, oppressive environment.
not to detract really from your point, but I gotta ask: was the increased cost of tuition or campus security something you were trying to do something about when there? and if not, why?
full disclosure: I did not do anything about any of these issues when in college. I'm just curious whenever seeing people speculate about what *others* might have done differently.
@@dawaltco I tried to do something about campus security, which was speaking out against their actions at a meeting, after they had the police come and taze a student. Also emailed them, challenging their policies, etc. Also briefly, vocally protested to my fellow students about actions the college took that would raise tuition for students. But it was hard to know what else to do. And at 20 years old, I had no organizing experience as yet. So some things, but could have done much more in retrospect.
But I don't really think you should need to justify yourself before criticizing activists' priorities. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
I dont think we should pit these things against each other, though I can imagine that students (being one myself) rarely concern themselves with material interests of themselves, professors or staff if at all. I kind of caught myself there, though I have to admit that I just didnt know the state universities are in right now, especially in the country I am studying in, Germany. I only know the state of affairs as a student, with the little time I was in uni taken into consideration.
@@caesurios949 Students did concern themselves with those. That is in fact the basis of campus student politics insofar as it ties in with the larger national political scene i.e. student politicians associated with (or even part of) national political groups. But nowadays the youth in many places are so politically disinclined and apathetic that these campus societies have been sidelined, in favor of supposedly 'neutral' student tickets whose reach is limited to just the campus in question. Basically the young doesn't want to have anything to do with politics or politicians, including aspiring politicians. But its those institutions that effectively tied the university scene to that of the larger national (or even international!) scene. With their sidelining, these larger issues have also fallen away, replaced with only the minor causes that're the only things student association on campus can actually deliver (since larger socio-economic changes require a larger and more comprehensive movement behind them).
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I'd disagree when it comes to my own experience. As students in the social sciences, we generally are not apathetic to politics, and mostly advocate for the safety of poc, queer, or otherwise marginalized people while largely dismissing class and therefore the capitalist realities we and professors exist in, because theres always this liberal tint to our critique of capitalism. Even I am guilty of it, which this video made me realize very clearly.
Thank you so much for all of your videos. Everytime I watch one of them I feel like I'm being exposed to a fresh perspective. It helps me a lot to think about my own studies and I have even used your academic material on some of my graduate papers. I wish you all the best! :)
Academic bloat has been a huge issue from the 1990's onward, and the manufacture of positions for otherwise unemployable "acad elites" is one of the major erosion factors of quality higher education this century. Thank you for releasing this vid.
Look up Eric Weinstein on what he calls the Embedded Growth Obligation (EGO), which came about after the Second World War. He puts the tipping point at about 1972, but the results only started to be overwhelmingly obvious a couple decades later.
@@alanlight7740 Thanks for the info!
well, the Professors are also being evaluated by people (administrators) who are not qualified to evaluate the Academic work, so they change the focus to quantification on a seemingly trivial basis.
Thank You for your thoughts Professor!
Prof. Moeller, thank you very much! I am still watching this video, but your point about neoliberalism pervading the academia, struck me because I had myself some intuitions towards that direction. I will actually admit that it arose by listening to John Gray (uk philosopher) talking about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.
I can't argue with the points you make here and elsewhere that adopting a woke profile has been beneficial for universities and other corporations. But I don't think this is the full story, and it's missing the part of the narrative that Peterson seems most focused on. Virtually every large American corporation (and presumably most western companies) has DEI training and other woke profiling, regardless of any characteristics of its market - even to its own detriment (cf. the Bud Light boycott). I agree these economic forces are part of the explanation for woke universities. But to assume this explains everything is to assume that people are fundamentally 100% rational utilitarian actors (as corporations are made of people, maybe analogous to ships piloted and rowed and generally operated by people). So there is a large component of corporate wokeism that is _not_ rational. It has much of the character of a religious revival - just like the university's "young and progressive" target customer, who can be seen as the vanguard of wokeism.
As I'm sure you'd agree, not _everything_ people do is about maximizing value. Some of the other comments mentioned religion as a similar kind of semiotic performance to elevate one's moral reputation, fittedness for society, and ultimately material gain. People certainly participate in religion to pursue material/social gain, but a religion can only help you in this way once it is already part of a culture's social glue. Yet the religion has to get there somehow, from very humble roots in most cases. If everything was purely instrumental, if everything was adopted for purely economic reasons, then nothing would ever change, as nothing could ever get off the ground. We would just continuously reproduce a single culture, ad infinitum. More realistically, the culture never would have formed in the first place, since even the most basic components of culture were at one point _not_ prestigious. At one point in time there were no Christians. Then there were 12, then 500, and so on. It was extremely subversive. In those days, being caught practicing Christianity could get you burned alive or fed to lions. There was nothing rational whatsoever about practicing Christianity in the first to third centuries AD, except insofar as you believed its _supernatural_ claims.
Conventional wokeism-at least the kind practiced by your average university administrator or corporate manager-doesn't make supernatural claims, but it does propose (and aggressively enforce) _moral_ claims, and it has the emotional/cathartic tenor of a spiritual revival movement. What people get out of it is not purely material or social value, they also seem to derive some spiritual value. The satisfaction and meaning of knowing you're on the right side of history, even if it costs you something in the moment. It's like LARPing as a 19th century abolitionist. And if you want that kind of satisfaction and meaning today, there are lots of varieties on offer, but I suppose they all have in common that saccharine, manufactured taste of wokeism. Everyone's engaged in some kind of LARP today, perhaps because most social roles are no longer tightly coupled with our institutions. Without institutional backing, they lost their social value. Even familial roles are in decline. Soon, the only roles remaining will be occupational/industrial: those few roles that have material value to our institutions. They'll never do anything to threaten the sense of satisfaction you get from working 9 to 5. But everything else is disposable, and indeed disposed.
But what you get from your occupation and (if you're lucky) your family is not enough to sustain you spiritually, so of course you seek meaning elsewhere. In place of individual social roles that one can easily mix and match, you have to take your pick from a number of prepackaged and trademarked identities. And of course you're going to pick whichever identity speaks to you loudest and most eloquently, but most people aren't all that special and are inclined to pick the identity with the greatest cosmic significance. Membership in a glorious moral crusade is pretty high on the totem pole, so it naturally attracts a lot of takers. And if the meaning of someone's life is tied up in such grand identities, it's easy to see how she could make irrational decisions. Such decisions are not materially rational, but they are always _value_ rational, to the extent that she understands the precepts of her new identity. Such people pursue consistency with the tenets of their cosmic crusade, often at the expense of more urgent, mundane concerns, as we are not solely or even primarily rational actors. Or you might say we are rational agents, but what I mean by rational agent here is someone who is strictly concerned with utilitarian value, i.e. the propagataion of one's genes. If you widen the umbrella of rationality, then humans can fit within it, but the point stands that sacred values are _higher_ than profane/mundane values; that's what makes them sacred.
So people (and by extension, the organizations they serve and control) don't need instrumental value to promote wokeism in the workplace. It certainly helps. But wokeism hasn't always made for a "positive profile," because it hasn't always been a prestige identity or a culturally ascendant movement. And yet it still _became_ culturally ascendant, not because of its instrumental value, but because of the infectious sincerity of its adherents. And those sincere adherents work all over the place now, not only at companies that sell goods & services to "young and progressive" customers. There are true believers working at companies (e.g. Bud Light, Fox News, etc.) that sell to precisely the kind of customer who will respond most negatively to the woke profile, especially the higher you look on the ladder. Universities themselves have played a large part in the formation of middle management and HR staff. Institutional forces have applied pressure to _all_ companies to create woke positions like diversity officers, whose sole responsibility is the administration of programs to fulfill a woke policy agenda at the smaller scale of a company. So there is always an influential place for the woke at any large corporation.
One's belief system has consequences for everything they do. My neomedieval belief system is expressed in my work. So is the woke belief system of my colleagues expressed in their work. So we arrive at kind of a near-tautology, a positive feedback loop: wokeism is dominant in corporations because it is culturally ascendant. Eventually it may plateau and crater, as nothing can remain ascendant forever. Eventually the movement will have reached its destination and that which it now seeks to sanctify will be so dominant as to become mundane again. But the more interesting question is _why_ wokeism is culturally ascendant in the first place. Because there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unique about wokeism that necessarily makes it more socially valuable to universities than other hypothetical ideologies it might have branded itself with. Even the institutional advantages wokeism has had are not exactly unique. Laws and government policies that make non-wokeism effectively illegal or prohibitively costly - think for example of the liability a company takes on by _not_ pursuing DEI policies, or by _not_ having an HR department. Although this environment massively favors wokeism in the workplace, we can imagine how, given different initial conditions (a different cultural ascendancy, or as you called it "leftist insurgency"), some other ideology could have been similarly favored.
The question, then, is not why universities adopted the prestige ideology favored by the environment, since that question, so phrased, answers itself. Rather, the question is how that ideology became the prestige ideology in the first place. And that _does_ have something to do with "leftist insurgency," since wokeism is manifestly a leftist ideology. This is a much more complicated question, so I understand why you wouldn't cover it in a 30-minute video. But my point here is that you and Jordan Peterson seem to be approaching this question from two different angles. You've given a mechanistic explanation of the proximate cause of the woke university. But Jordan Peterson seems to be more focused on the ultimate cause in explaining his departure from academia. Not focusing on why the universities started wearing the skin of the culturally ascendant ideology, but on how that skinsuit is toxic and on identifying its composition and its maker.
Wokeism is easy to identify as a development of liberalism and a synthesis of leftist ideas and advocacy. So the story of how we got woke universities must also include some treatment of the replacement of Christianity with the American civic religion; of its quest for liberation from the depredations of tradition, obscurantism, and superstition; of how that novel spiritual tradition spread to the rest of the western world; of the dialectic and imperfect synthesis of liberalism and the Marxist tradition; of the increasing value of individual identity in a global culture increasingly deprived of social roles and supernatural belief; and so much more. Otherwise all we have is a story about how prestige ideas become reflected everywhere. The role industry plays in constructing the woke "hall of mirrors" is certainly interesting and worth contemplating, but I'm not sure it's contrary to Peterson's thesis, which does not seem to deny the economic forces involved in institutional capture. So, I suppose I'm wondering if Peterson's conservatism motivates you to search for disagreement with him where it doesn't need to exist.
What's the incentive to run universities on a cost/revenue basis, when universities don't make profit? As far as I know, coming from the UK, there are no shareholders or CEOs of a university - excess revenue is simply re-invested into the facilities or put into funds for pensions future reinvestment etc. So I don't understand what binds universities and other corporations which are, it seems, engaged in woke capitalism.
Ditto NZ mate! We don't even seem to favour our minority Maori population...that's a "market"...
Every time Jordan Peterson glimpses his shadow, he takes to the internet to project it on others. His platform makes him a fascinating man, but for all the wrong reasons.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by virtue signalling.
He explains how institutions will commodify wokeness or virtue (which is unfalsifiable), but he never explains why wokeness is in the zeitgeist in the first place. His profilicity framework can't answer that. Nominalism is the problem.
Can you elaborate please
Great video! It’s amazing how people fail to see high level changes around them and instead attribute these changes to mystical/fantastical explanations. Professors are no different
What you need to understand is that the accademia operates as a parasitic monopolistic system within the greater parasitic monopolistic system of the world. Therefore it cannot reveal the origins of most all human-generated misery on the planet as it itself is operating as one of those mechanisms that is contributing to the overall misery of humanity. Monopoly over economy and monetary unit are the main ingredients we used to determine the misery index and this is so despite the fact that the actual misery index is calculated factoring and the unemployment rate and rate of inflation as these two mechanisms are more deeply embedded in Monopoly over economy and monetary unit. It is the opposite thereof that you require which is economic freedom and a sound monetary unit to represent a store of your labour that allows you to demonstrate your ability to be free. Naturally this is something that your professors cannot and will not tell you as you will then have the answer to most all social problems, but rather what you got from them is the symptom what's wrong with society and not the root cause of what ails Society I'm afraid the facts don't care about your feelings on this matter if your opinion differs from this actual fact of our reality and how this world actually operates. You do not require a tinfoil hat to understand that all monetary systems in the world are in the hands of private family is they force every government to borrow from them and that an interest for which the people who ultimately become indebted to this massive ever-growing debt find themselves unable to pay it back and ultimately find themselves back at square one starting all over again or back to the actual Plantation one huge massive superfreakonomics Cycles complete their process. All throughout history we can see every economic boom bust cycle what's caused by government policy with the convenient effect of transferring most all wealth from the majority to the minority from time to time. That which we used to store the value of our past labour is simply just a coupon backed by nothing and subject to massive inflation and ultimately reduce to the purchasing power of zero in due time just like all currencies throughout history that were backed by nothing and that their intrinsic value of 0. This would have the effect of wiping out massive amounts of collective wealth from the majority stealthily transferring it to the very few anointed and privileged I'm sorry I have to be the one to burst your bubble on your perspective and perception of reality, but somebody's got to do it because the only thing your professors are going to do is help you remain at the mentality of a child by giving you colouring books and teddy bears, and this will not help you in the long run. Feel free to give me a thumbs down or thumbs up so that I know I was not censored. Also feel free to reply with genuine comments. You're welcome
Peterson is a fanatic. He reaches so hard for the emotional impact that he shoots over his mark and comes across as hysterical.
I only have anecdotal experience of this, but my experience in academia at an elite research university is that aspiring academics appeal to their identity to climb the ranks, receive funding, and unburden themselves of responsibilities that might otherwise be required of them. I'm very cynical at this point of certain iterations of identity politics as little more than middle-class social climbing.
Amazing. I love having my perspective changed on a topic so radically and so compellingly.
Hi Professor,
I was wondering if you could provide me with some advice/suggestions. I am a US history high school teacher. I recently made a casual suggestion that I would start a philosophy club, without expecting any students to press me on this. Well, a couple of students have, and now here I am...asking for some suggestions of where I should begin as I don't want to negatively present philosophy with a bad first impression, turning them off. With this club I'm hoping to sincerely spark interest in philosophy. At this point I'm thinking of introducing existential philosophy, but even with that I'm not sure how to go about it. Any thoughts?
Thank you.
Thanks for writing.
The philosophy club sounds like a very good idea-and existentialism is a great topic.
You might want to do some Nietzsche and could use Walter Kaufmann’s “classical” edition “The Portable Nietzsche.”
If you want to read something much shorter, a good text to start is Sartre’s essay “Existentialism is a Humanism”
--hgm
@@carefreewandering Thank you very much. I have Sartre's essay and will now look into The Portable Nietzsche.
Start with Plato. It has been said that all philosophy is but commentary on Plato, and that is more or less correct.
Also, Plato is direct and to the point, whereas most modern philosophers deliberately obfuscate what they are saying in order to appear more intelligent and relevant than they really are.
For something more relevant to the modern world, Robert Nozick is good.
One thing i find frustrating about the uni set up at the moment is the way classes are structured. With the ammount of units you take on to do full time and the assignements neccesary in those units, i find that the classes become secondary, if not irreleavant. By the latter half of the semester not that many people are keeping up with class content, they are just trying to get there assignments done. This is not a problem of laziness but of structuring. Surely, there is a better way to do it. However, saying that my experience with humanities and the teachers has been overall really good, even though everything said in this video is true. There is still some really amazing things going on in the humanities and i am so happy to have been studying this stuff, and to have a spot to study it.
Currently involved in labour disputes as the colleges in Ontario, Canada negotiate our collective contract and what's unfortunate is, as aware of how much the neoliberal agenda has our system in its grip on the one hand, the wokeness is seen by many faculty as a way to counter that agenda and not a result of it. I could never show my colleagues this video and have them take it seriously as it references Peterson but thanks Prof. Moeller for the cogent arguments. Perhaps I can effect things through conversations. Hearts and minds.
I would like to point out that need for compliance training in academia isn't inherent to commodified education as it happened in communist countries in europe where praising marxism lenninism was necesary part of every scientific paper at least in social sciences.
Compliance training preceeded the current "woke" generation in the US as well. It was far more present during the 1980s Reaganomics era. And even more present during the previous McCarthyism years. It was certainly present during the segregated all male, all white, all christian university system in the US for the past 150 years. It of course strongly present in the church schooling system that preceeded the modern day system and during the European enlightenment era academies as well. I'm sure the pharoahs also had their version.
Professor Moeller is not upset that this the idea of compliance training is unprecedented, he's merely upset that he is no longer the pharoah.
His demographic has been so historically privileged that he mistakes the loss of absolute power over campus culture as oppression. He is used to being the only voice in the room. Now that he's been marginally downgraded to only the loudest of many voices he perceives this as some fundamental shift in the very nature of the universe.
This is white fragility at its finest.
Yeah, ideological tribalism exists under any sort of economic system.
@@yessum15 are you going to even pretend you can substantiate this sort of thing you are claiming. The idea that we had these sorts of mandated compliance trainings which are so focused on projecting the "group dynamics" into the individual (the whole point of DEI) is completely out of line with the actual history of academia/corporate HR.
Marxism-Leninism was abandoned after Kruschev, except maybe Albania.
@@RyanOManchester You're joking right? Virtually every era of history has seen some form of compliance training to support specific values and group relationships in the individual.
How do you think we got here today?
Typically these sorts of trainings were provided through specialized workshops, classes with ambiguous titles like "civics" or "personal development" or by going through mass produced propaganda material.
Segregation ideology & practices were taught in schools, patriotism training, Catholic schools often teach a whole host of behavioral indoctrination training in line with their values, anti-communist teaching & loyalty oaths, abstinence education, homophobic education, and so on.
Given that contemporary diversity, sensitivity, and anti-harassment training tends to teach relatively benign and pretty much universally agreed upon values, these represent far less of an incursion on freedom than what we've seen historically. These trainings can be more reasonably compared to basic "workplace safety" videos than the earlier eras' straight up indoctrination efforts.
9:30 you say the university was the product of the Enlightenment. No doubt that was a big part of it, but don't forget that they grew out of Christian institutions
He said *modern* university- you're not wrong, but universities now are very different from the pre-enlightenment ones
Jordan Pee Peeterson: radicals left wing want to enforce their genders theories on us!
Me, a left wing radical: genders sucks, cis gender sucks, trans gender sucks.
Let's abolish it all.
12:15
Yeah, right into the bin.
What
@@fakenamerealchungus9851
You read me right, the whole gender categorisation, both traditional binary and liberal non-binary are trash.
Both are brain dead and oppressive ideologies trying to push people in boxes and control their life.
Creating more genders won't change it, the only solution is abolition.
awful comment
@@john_smith_john
Lame comment
Thank you for your enlightening content, as a "minority" it's a strange thing to reconcile when you agree with those who say there are issues but the same people you are in agreement with view YOU as the problem. There is something definitely wrong with education- it doesn't feel like its about learning or "bildung" , to call it left-wing and anti-white seems insincere because education these days seems to benefit no one
Take a look at the late John Taylor Gatto's book "The Underground History of American Education".
The dumbing down is deliberate - but it seems to have far exceeded what those who initiated it even thought possible.
it benefits low IQ folks so you are wrong
Only problem with that though, what so many people think is making money currently is kind of starting to plummet. They’re essentially diluting them selves into continuing to pander to something that’s getting less and less interested in those things. Most people are sick of this and there’s very few people with this mindset left.
Indeed. The problem is not the business model of a university - universities have _always_ been a business. The problem is that the business model itself is falling apart, dominated by idiocy and short-term thinking, which itself may be a function of our monetary system with its built in inflation which favors the present over the future. Perhaps the Peter principle has been too much at play - too many useless people promoted to get them out of the way of the people who were actually getting things done, instead of being fired as they should have been. Eventually they came to dominate the decision-making process.
Ultimately, in the pursuit of short term profits they devour the business itself and piss off all the customers they depend on, until they wake up one day to find the company or university bankrupt (though the administrators themselves are likely to come out well). Heh, Bernie Sanders's wife _did_ bankrupt Burlington College in Vermont. I'm sure she cries about it when she's at one of their three homes.
Excellent analysis. Nowadays universities are no different from brands such as cocacola or apple, and "wokeism" is the easiest way to increase their ESG score and become more appealing for investors
I thought conservatives were supposed to like it when things are done for profit.
Which is why the problem addressed is not economic but cultural and merely uses the economic system like any memeplex would.
The problem with the universities today is the same as with business today: they do not think in the long term, preferring instead instant gratification such as quarterly results.
The result is that they do not invest in the future.
It's not a failure of the profit motive, it's just plain stupidity. I think some have called it the MBA-ization of business. Administration by "experts" who have neither depth nor breadth of knowledge, much less knowledge that pertains to business.
@@alanlight7740So profit seeking has led to widespread stupidity....
Short term profit is necessary to avoid bankruptcy
Your content is always really interesting! :)
I must say, though, that I really thought, from all the readings that I had gathered, that there was already a symbiotic symbolism implied in the notion of brand, even before the brand 2.0 (or profile). How could the brand not be impacted by the public or the persons who associate with it? That seems to be the reason why the director of the clothing brand "Abercrombie & Fitch" wouldn't provide clothes in XL or XXL sizes for women, because people they deemed ''uncool'' would otherwise ''tarnish'' their brand. The people who associate with a brand (like rappers wearing Timberland boots that were initially designed for workers) change what we think of a brand, and therefore change the brand. Or at least that's what I thought! 😅
I agree with what you're saying, but for me all examples you are giving are after brand 2.0, not before.
I think you're thinking "profile" in terms of social media profiles? Which [I think] is not what is meant. It's about the brand selling a "profile", which is a phenomenon that [I think] is enabled mainly by mass media. Social media is just a more pervasive form of mass media that has made this even bigger. One example that I see cited quite often is the mac vs windows campaign, which was largely responsible for the apple/mac rebranding that made what it is today (one can say the product became a profile/lifestyle, not just a computer anymore), that was way before social media.
My understanding is that before brands were focused on selling a specific product, the branding would be around "this is a good product". It gradually shifted towards selling a profile ("you are good if you use this product"), this shift happening faster and faster as media becomes more pervasive.
Professor Moeller,
I'm very interested in your work and would like to buy some of your books. Most of them are a bit expensive though. When it comes to social theory as you discuss in your videos, which of your books would you recommend someone start with? I'm leaning towards "You and Your Profile," but also interested in Luhmann and don't know where to start with him either? Thanks!
Many thanks for your interest in my books. “You and Your Profile” may be the best one to start.
If you buy it from the Columbia University Press website and use the promo code CUP20 , you should get a 20% discount.
I also strongly recommend Luhmann’s book “Introduction to Systems Theory.”
As an introduction to Luhmann, I recommend Michael King’s book on him which you can download for free here: www.holcombepublishing.com/products/systems-not-people-make-society-happen
--hgm
@@carefreewandering and your own book Luhmann Explained is 2006 but very readable 🤫😉
Peterson's need to perform "moral outrage" and "righteous anger" as if he's Moses come down from the mountain to chastise us latter-day Israelites for worshipping false idols is one of the most insufferable things about him.
How do you know it's a performance?
Really awesome video, Professor. I do have some critical points though:
1. Universities, as a historical project have always carried a utopian function - campuses have been always engaged in knowledge, in discussion, in seeking, an institution independent of the government and the governmnet agenda. Thus, I believe that this embrace of wokism - but more likely, this exercise in care about the political inside the university but also outside of it is something that has a huge history and not one or two revolutional movements have their roots in the political energy of the students. Which leads me to the second observation:
2. The Universities are a joint effort or in your language a joint profile - its a collaboration between students and professors. Add the more and more increasing tuition fees, the working students that somehow find time for university as well, and I believe that the outcome is that the students themselves feel more responsible about the university they are studying in. Thus, I don't believe its that strange to see students rejecting professors because of they are paradigm of teaching. If you are a known missogenist as Peterson, its only obvious that students working 30 hours a week to be able to afford the university would want you out of it. They will strive in enjoying what they are paying for.
Yes thank you for making these points, coming from a student worker :)
In response to your first point (which is a great observation about the historical role of universities): I think utopian ideologies can be split into two categories: those which are based on the exercise and observance of inviolable principles (i.e. which focus on the means rather than the end) and those which tend to justify any means in the pursuit of their ends, as we can see wokeism does. Like other past cults & movements which have gone the same route, wokeism is bound to produce bad outcomes and reproduce the same kind of structural pathologies that we have seen before - the logical contradictions within wokeism are neverending and eventually either lead to staunch resistance or placid submission to the dogma of the group - neither of which are beneficial to society for obvious reasons. I think wokeism is in the course of setting back progress, as those holding the reins appear to take delight in aggravating social tensions, ostracizing massive segments of the population for no good reason, and shutting down the free and open sharing of ideas and information. These are not the moves of a faction which intends to assume a legitimate role within society by consensus, but rather by censoring and othering those who pose any kind of threat to it.
With regard to your second point, all this desire for "value for money" on the part of students demonstrates is the already-complete ultra-commodification of education. If students think that forming witch hunts against professors whose views they disagree with is somehow going to get them more "bang for their buck" then... fine. That's not an education in thinking for yourself, though. You learn to think for yourself by engaging with the views of those you disagree with - given some fundamental shared assumptions and rules of inference, and basic rules of civility, otherwise the whole exercise is futile - an education cannot be purchased or attained by cancelling or hounding people who hurt your feelings by challenging your views out of a job. That is what cults do - silence and exile dissenting voices.
Now, if people want to pay thousands of dollars or euros a year to go to the modern equivalent of a church for civil religion, fine. But I would urge them to consider the possibility that attending lectures and taking exams for 4 years doesn't give you some ultimate moral authority to lord over others, and that it may be possible for you, and others who think like you (as this is a belief system, not an empirical or deductive science) to be just as racist, hateful, and regressive as the people you claim to hate... as Feynman said, you are the easiest person to fool.
@@paulcassidy4559 I don't agree with what you are saying at all. So lets start from the first point. Wokism is a reaction of adaptation towards the particular utopia that the university provides, its not the utopia itself. Wokism is a set of rules and set of rules (checklists, compliance and so on) are things that rulling parties in a particular social sphere wants to imply, because then they know what to expect, they know how to behave to reach a particular form of purity (of professionalism), student utopias don't. Now, the reason why I pointed that out was because most of the time someone points something is changing, most of the time it was ALWAYS changing and the particular person just happen to live in a transition period. And if you think about colleague campuses and "College" culture, you would see that for a while this utopia, I'm talking about especially in America was for a while male dominance and literal abuse over other students, the so called "frat" culture. And even then we didn't had this "open sharing of ideas" - it was simply the rulling thoughts which you should accept and that would lead to your acceptance from the professional society. Meaning it was probably never a "open sharing of ideas", except in someone's wet dreams.
About my second argument it is not "value for money" at all. This is not what I meant. It is participation because you know that being in an university is not free and because of that you are no longer an obedient brat, whos university tuition would be paid by his incoming job in less than 10 years - you are someone seeking knowledge, looking to participate in a dynamic environment and take whatever he can from it. The authority of professors is no longer a given. They need to prove, they need to persuade their public that what their saying means something, that it matters. And this is a point which Peterson especially detests, because (if you have noticed) he relies heavily on his title for his bullshit to proliferate. The moment you don't take his title seriously (and you shouldn't since what he is saying is mostly out of his studies), then he crumbles in bullshit. And this is a huge topic, the topic that people won't accept some "strange" "quirky" and most of the time heavilly abusive professors without any form of protest. For example in one of the elite universities locally, there was a guy who had 20 years of teaching experience and was clearly telling racist slurs in his lectures for sociology and at times even using words directly from the book of Hittler. And just because here its not a norm to protest about such things and you just accept it and move on, the guy was dethroned just 2 years ago. And that's quite common. So its absolutely normal to expect that the person teaching you, should be able to persuade you why they are right.
@@priapulida The fact that Peterson helped many women and men as a therapist or through his self-help books etc. is not what most people have a problem with. The problem is his politics. The misinformation he spreads, building walls instead of bridges, seeing enemies everywhere. Whether he is a misogynist is questionable. I do not think that is the right label. However, I can certainly understand why Peterson is a controversial figure and not everyone is a fan of his, even if he did a lot of good as a therapist, which I do not doubt.
@@priapulida he literally said that the problem with women is that you cannot hit them. His quote was something like - "if you have a man in front of you, you know your boundary, you can hit him if he goes weird. And if its a woman you cannot. And there are so many crazy women out there." Mr. Feminist Icon himself.
Selling degrees... Interesting idea. Reminds of the economic model of signaling. Meaning we essentially provide a marker of how much time we can afford to put in something to reflect our value. This always seemed weird to me, but now I think I get it.
"how it wants to be seen, or seen as being seen" i like that statement.
i am reading Genuine pretending, it is second book after Moral fool and despite complex narration I love it's ideas, Thank you!
I wonder how much of relationships work in this neoliberal logic. "You are toxic because you say something I dont believe in", * ghost * ... if you somehow try to break the ghosting, then you are a stalker, a creep or some other derogatory term of their choosing. In fact, even discussing this dynamic may place the stigma on you as being a creep.
Just a great analysis. Insightful and clear. Thank you.
Another great video. Thank you. Having spent some time in academia in New Zealand all of this stuff is sadly all too familiar.
super)I added this to my thesis, as did the promotional video of my university, where my professor promote that at this univercity they teach to select right simbols :)
I agree in some points, but the main problem for me with your lecture is the notion of suffering. I think that capitalistic energy in the case of "wokeism" is trying to use it to cover real economical difficulties, but also trying to make it homogenous as possible - once again use it with instrumental rationality. I think "wokeism" springs from real pain and suffering of many students and also people around the world, from racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia. Its main goal was to open the world and society to particular, to heterogenous, without categories. To see Otherness and radically feel different. (On the other hand - there is Fear of loosing oneself in this Other - threat to rational categories and known which causes strict racist/homophobic reaction.) Opening heterogenity is also threat to capitalism so it is trying to tie it into categories and, as you suggested, in profiling. It would be interesting if you could also include the concept of suffering in your next analysis of wokeism (I missed it in previous videos as well), because now it looks that there are no real social problems from which "wokeism" emerged and those people who are suffering are just making it up for branding.
Your last sentence is absolutely and completely SPOT ON.
Well said g
I do truly enjoy the way you break down the component parts of what is also a complex living system, or symbiotic relationship between enterprises and the people who attach themselves to them.
Just now when you ended this talk I laughed at the Warning symbol about the fact that this platform, UA-cam, is constructed to be addictive and to promote this channel. And it was extremely funny then because one could say that similar elements for profiling exist here as well, in the subscribers, likes, and views...as well as comments ;).
I think you are aware of this already though, I just found it funny that at the end of this video you also said, "you are a part of this too."
Please continue to create material.
Another professor who creates material on youtube is Wes Cecil - Humane Arts is what he calls his channel.
I find him also very insightful. He has also commented on Education and historical classification systems.
Excellent analysis. I think JBP gets so caught up in his 'post-modern neo-marxist' rhetoric he misses the problem right in front of him.
The profile building that's part of the modern university experience is certainly part of the neo-liberal tale over of the universities, but I think people often overlook an equally important aspect in the network building.
Universities are more and more the gatekeeper to the middle class job market. Having a strong profile is nessecary to accessing this job market, but the environment is so competitive now that it's no longer enough to have a strong CV, you need to know people. It creates a kind of nepotistic job market that makes it easier for companies tofilter for these DIE compliant workers.
Recommendation: Turn off your camera auto focusing and just focus it once for your distance. Your hand movements will cause it to refocus and sometimes take awhile to focus back on your face.
As always a great use of Luhmann and overall a very convincing interpretation! Thanks
Thank you for the warning at the end.
Is that the Blame! manga on the shelf behind you?
The entire video begs the question of why "wokism"? "Corporatization" and "brand building" by themselves don't necessitate "wokism". Indeed, that is no explanation as to why state run organizations and institutions in general would be "wokified", since those escape this simplistic account of capitalist incentive structures. The legal dimension has been left out of the picture entirely as well.
Since brands weren't always concerned, nor has status always been signaled, with "wokism", those are clearly surface level phenomena contingent on systemic changes and perturbations beneath the surface. This isn't to say that "wokism" is a superficial phemonenon, merely that market incentivization, branding and status-signaling are. To understand the structural funtion of "wokism", or progressivism in general, one has to actually perform a meaningful systematic and structural analysis.
I agree. I think part of underlying explanation is that in the US, the Republican party has become the anti-science party. It started with pandering to creationists, then climate skepticism, general trashing of experts, Trump suggesting bleach as a covid treatment. This stuff is very objectionable to STEM students and STEM employees (and others). For universities and high-tech businesses, anti-science is a bad look. It's no longer enough for them to be pro-science, all shiny new discoveries saving lives, they have to have an anti-anti-science, or anti-rightwing populism stance too. And DIE/wokism is one way of signalling that.
Google's hiring process makes a better comparison than Nike ads: "Google’s hiring process is an important part of our culture. Googlers care deeply about their teams and the people who make them up. We also care about building a more representative and inclusive workplace, and that begins with hiring. In order to truly build for everyone, we know that we need a diversity of perspectives and experiences, and a fair hiring process is the first step in getting there."
@@grahamjones25 Admittedly my original comment was rather obscure and general, but my opinion is that all social changes in the modern era serve the purpose of maximazing efficiency. I think "wokeness" is merely another social restructuring geared for the same purpose.
I disagree with this video's contention that "wokeness" is fundamentally market driven, though I do think it is driven by systematic, technocratic, economistic concerns. I hold the same thing to have been true in socialist countries until the 80s or 90s and the fall of the USSR at the latest.
It is fundamentally state driven. By "state" I refer to the permanent bureaucracy and the intelligence apparatus, with whom the private, corporate, sector works in tandem. Thus, "wokeness" is in my opinion the "official" ideology of the American regime and empire. This is quite clear when contrasting America with rival empires, sovereign actors, such as Russia and China. Geopolitical alignment predicts the degree of "wokification".
Simple-seeming answer to your initial question: slave-morality.
@@horouathos8199I'm curious: do you still see it this way? Have you refined your theory? I'm interested to hear about this topic
Why aren't we talking about capitalism and privatization more when talking about the rise of the academic industry?
I suspect because capitalists on both sides don't want us to question the system and values underlying the system. Besides its far easier to digest that wokeism is the enemy and if we just got rid of that, everything would be just fine. Complete nonsense of course.
@@bganonimouse2754 Exactly this.
It's actually so richly ironic and hilarious that all of this is the natural ideological byproduct of the neo-liberalism Peterson so staunchly defends. It's just that, underneath it all, he's an idealist who is dismayed by the reality. Being a very clever little weasel though, which he certainly is, he has also figured out how to monetize it.
Love your channel Prof. Always illuminating.
As a european med student I'm incredibly glad that we are too busy to deal with bs like that. There is still a number of issues but at least they are not political.
it is coming for you and all of us.
I taught at an Indiana, USA “university” for 6 years. I was a contract faculty member. University hired me with the promise of a tenured position eventually, because what I was hired to teach (web) no one on the faculty had any knowledge or idea in this domain.
The place where I taught used to have solid middle class jobs. NAFTA guttted the small city. All the factories closed or moved abroad. My former university became the largest employer in the region, fulfilling the neo-liberal status quo of our time. Second largest employer became the hospital.
It is not a coincidence the two largest sources of inflation in the USA since the 90s in the USA has been college and healthcare.
Academia is a lie. I felt unethical being a part of this system.
Your analysis is spot-on. My university cares more about its brand and marketing than anything else. It’s a business. Students graduate as debt slaves with limited prospects. Academia has become a scam.
Capitalism has turned academia into a parody of itself. It’s a dying institution in this country, and only going to degrade further.
Amazing channel. I just discovered it and am amazed. Thank you for making this type of content!
I think it would be interesting for you to make a follow up video analyzing the boot camp trend that has really been taking off. Training people for short term jobs, promising them a prosperous career in return for the student going into a large sum of debt with the boot camp when in reality it would be better to just go to a university and get a degree.
Hello professor.
At 0:55 you mention a term _'reverse racism'_ and do not define it.
Can you define this term and differentiate it from standard _'racism'_ ?
This is a nice argument, but it is unsatisfying because incomplete. It makes sense that wokeism has taken root in academia because A) it was already thriving in the wider culture, B) it functions as a form of corporate conditioning/compliance training, and C) it is an easy way to enhance the profiles/brands of academic institutions. But, why wokeism in the first place? Why is wokeism already thriving in the culture prior to academia latching onto it?
This issue, as with so many others in our increasingly globalizing society, seems to have one problem at its root: capitalism. When he’s talking about how schools need to become more powerful as brands, then use these profile building metrics (disregard for the quality of the teaching, hyper focus on the quantity of output), all I see is a system of legitimation for the reproduction of power. Why is there no social mobility? The colleges are just a shell game. Then when we get to “ok, well how do we have schools that produce master’s graduates working at a department store?”, and I think it’s because these people just weren’t born into the right caste, and no amount of education will fix that. Only getting organized will fix these problems.
Capitalism as in using capital? As in, exchanging goods and services? Try being more specific with your delineation of "the root cause" if you are serious about fixing it.
Thanks for this analysis, which makes a lot of sense to me. Now the follow up question would be for me: why is wokeness so popular in the first place and is therefore perceived as desirable by the customer? According to your analysis, if the customer did actually not request wokeness, the corporation would not provide it. Is it actually good. This question remains unanswered for me so far
The answer to your question: www.youtube.com/@newdiscourses/videos
My advisor told me that the ability to attract grant money was more important than publications in seeking a tenured position and more easily quanitified since it was already in the unit used for comparison.
2016 to 2018. I worked in Jeffersonvill Indiana and had time to visit Louisville Kentucky university. I was asked to help with there network set up which they assumed, I was Asian, Hawaii, or indian. They were shocked when I told them I was Mexicano. Why? Their way of seeing California. Downey California
Dear carefree wandering. I would like to hear your analytical view on psychology as a science and also the way it affects society in terms of the mentallity. What do you think is the symptom of the such wide spread usage of the psychological therapy? Is it creating more problems than solving them? And is it just an exstension of a selfhelp culture totally out of control? Thanks alot
As a psychologist/psychotherapist I would like to hear his opinion, too. I would agree with the self-help culture and blame CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.) for it. They capitalise on the "Evidence-Based model" which isn't evidence-based at all - It is a marketing tool. Also, it isn't strange at all that CBT became the dominant modality in the USA in the 80s with neo-liberalism, and more recently in UK. CBT is not as popular in other European countries that don't have a neo-liberal market. If really look at the studies, it isn't working. I can go on-and-on about it but I will stop there.
I was under the impression self-help culture came from schools. I’ll have to find my notes later, but the culture doesn’t really inspire CBT with the “everyone gets a medal” or “we’re all equally amazing”. Some people in the field, that I’ve spoke to so admit my limits, don’t really care for the self-help industry and critique it more than anything. Wouldn’t mind being proven incorrect, I just take it that second wave therapy just so happened to coincide with self help without it being intimately related.
@@kboci88 Also a psychologist/Psychotherapist but just started recieving my first patients in training right now. Ofcourse CBT will be "evidence based" as the whole method is designed to be measureable. The issue isn't that CBT has better evidence, but it's that other methods aren't accurately measureable, and thus it's meaningless to compare the methods. That's my understanding on the situation. And totally agree with you; I find behavioralism very interesting (partly because of the patient group i work with) but i would never for the love of my life discredit the effectiveness of psychoanalytically derived therapies.
@@brorium Congratulations on your first patient!! I wish you all the best because it will be a great learning journey.
I agree - maybe my message was confusing. What I meant was that in the 80s when neo-liberalism was rising, CBT was the most suitable psychological modality for neo-liberal policies and insurance companies preferred it as it suited them better with the 12-20 sessions. This gave an advantage to CBT academics and they had more resources to conduct more studies, and they entered in conversation with policymakers as the therapy that works -at least more than other modalities, hence the 'evidence-based'. CBT grew both in research and reputation as the most effective model of psychological therapy. This is not to say that CBT is not effective. It is more to say that neo-liberalism commodified mental health through CBT, and unfortunately, CBT academics have played their part in commodifying mental health. Hope this clarifies my previous comment.
The commodification of the university space is no joke really happening. But Moeller's continued use of the nonstandard jargon 'wokeism' creates a jarring juxtaposition that can't help but make one ask, "who are you talking to" and "what are you trying to say?" Perhaps I am overfocused on word choice. Philosophers do tend to make odd word choices.
Infinite repeats, infinite complaints, infinite decline. And it makes sense, as why would anyone get rid of a paying customer? Moral hazard in the most serious sense.
Your work is always extremely interesting and, to me, unexpected. I feel there is some kind of conceptual convergence between your work and the work of French philosopher Frédéric Lordon that attempts to reframe social sciences through Spinozian concepts. Your concept of profile feels like the concept of affective complexion publicized while retaining all its properties (e.g obsequium as joyful obedience).
Speaking of how universities don't differ from Nike, I know of quite a few individuals at the University of Oregon (i.e., Nike's Nest) and it is all one and the same, as it has always been
I've been searching for an analysis of "Bert Is Evil", and whether this was a turning point in the concept of profilicity. Sadly, there is no mention of it in Moeller and D'Ambrosio's book, "You and Your Profile". This could be archaeology.
_Reverse_ discrimination?
Peterson fanboys:Liberals are such snowflakes triggered by anything.
Peterson fanboys: stop! There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. My western civilization built on slavery is under attack
@@massacreee3028 Are these Peterson fanboys in the room with us right now?
@@massacreee3028 every civilization has had slavery...
@@mouwersor so western civilization is just like every civilization. Nothing special.
@@massacreee3028 What exactly were you trying to do with that comment? Do you expect disagreement?
First you need to carefully and thoroughly define woke, and this "wokism". Also, y'all need to get out more. A lot of this is complete BS, most companies have diversity and equality mission statements on their web site, and very few could be called left-wing, liberal. I work in the insurance sector we absolutely have diversity training - lots of companies do. It's absolutely not something specific to higher and further education. But I can see if you are a homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, racist, etc., you might think you can just say what you want, as a professor or tutor, and you may have been doing that in previous decades, and now you are getting called out - and probably what is really getting your goat (Peterson) is being called out by students (who you probably consider to be lower lifeforms to you).
I don't think you have even watched a minute of this video.
A gem of a channel, very real representation of today’s academic world
One could add a further parallel between wokeism and neoliberalism. Just like wokeism, neoliberalism supports a hyper-individualist culture. This is the reason why the neoliberal economy can integrate feminist and even woke themes with relative ease. Minority subjects or women are ideal neoliberal subjects. There is something like corporate wokeness. The ‘feel good’ and positive messages of female empowerment, LGBTIQ pride, racial diversity, etc. (and also environmental awareness) adds to the positive thinking mentality of neoliberal culture. So, in the end wokeism reflects pragmatism and a conservative ideology.
This is very good.
Excellent, this is exactly the point. Acquiring a degree is not important, but acquiring knowledge is. This is basically what he was saying.
Sadly that 'knowledge' is not often required in society: engineers only use 10% of their degree.
I think its important to note the radical/liberatory potential (and origin)of the calls to making universities more diverse institutions. It makes explicit how the co-option of said ideas, say identity politics moving from the claim of a communist collective(Combahee River) to the capitalist market, are a reactionary move typical of neoliberal institutions that are designed to empty and subsume any ideology, dressing in their shells for the institutions own continuation without meaningful change.
That potential does not exist anymore if it ever did. Would seem almost misleading to mention it.
I have anE book coming out in late 2024 "Myths of Universities: reassurance for managers" which addresses some of these issues!
As always, great content and presentation. I'm learning more about Luhmann by reading some of your articles. I had a question about the following statement: ‘Humans cannot communicate; not even their brains can communicate; not even their conscious minds can communicate. Only communication can communicate’ (Luhmann). I've gone over this several times, and I find it really thought provoking, almost irritatingly so. By suggesting that "only communication can communicate", is Luhmann saying that society evolves independently of human thought and reason? Anyway, I'm not sure if you have a video on Luhmann specifically, but I'm really enjoying the journal articles you wrote on the subject.