He's back: Jordan Peterson

The world needs Jordan Peterson. That may sound like the statement of a fan or a friend — and I am both — but it is also a fact illustrated by the sheer numbers who come to him seeking guidance and help. There has been no other public intellectual in recent years who has attracted the kind of following Peterson has. His book, 12 Rules for Life, sold by the millions; his speaking events drew thousands of attendees, night after night, in cities across the world, in what became a gruelling schedule for Peterson. And this was not some top-down publicity-led phenomenon: it was a grass-roots movement in which readers and viewers gravitated towards the Canadian academic.
But then, a year ago, the world lost Peterson. He disappeared from view and it was eventually announced that the professor had been checked into a rehabilitation facility after developing an addiction to benzodiazepines, an anti-anxiety drug which is widely available in the US and other countries. Speculation has been rife ever since about whether he would ever be back and exactly what happened to him during this dark and painful period.
This week we got some answers, with a video in which, speaking directly to camera for the first time in a year, the professor gave some details of what had happened since his last public appearance. As Peterson related, he became hooked on the medication after upping his dosage, apparently in the wake of his wife’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer last year.
He attempted to get off the medication himself, but found that no American facility would allow him to go full cold turkey on the drug, and so he ended up in a facility in Russia where he successfully freed himself from the drug but almost died in the process. Since then he has been in rehabilitation facilities in a number of other countries but — as he announced in his video — he is now finally back home in Toronto.
This and much more will doubtless be pored over by the professor’s friends and fans, and Peterson’s readers and audience members were more than that. They were people who gravitated towards him because they believed — knew — that here was a man who could help them make sense of some of the chaos in their own lives and in the world around them. Many authors have signing-queues in which readers tell them how much their books have meant to them; Peterson’s readers told them how he had changed their lives. I saw this first-hand, with people explaining how, since becoming acquainted with Peterson’s work, their lives had transformed. It would be easy to scoff at this — but it would also be wrong.
One of the strangest and most baffling aspects of the Peterson phenomenon has been the way in which his critics failed to contend with his points and arguments. And not just the specifics, but the fact that anybody with such a following must be onto something. Of course critics primarily on the ideological Left claimed that Peterson was some kind of fringe “alt-right” figure, against the evidence of any and all of his words. It was telling that they remained so incurious about the popularity of his work.
You would have thought that if any Canadian professor who had previously been obscure rose to prominence across the world, with audiences of thousands rising to their feet to welcome him every night, then whatever their ideological stance people — including critics — would try to work out what it was that he was onto. Yet Peterson’s critics, from Cathy Newman to the New York Times and the BBC, consistently failed to see any interest in the bigger story. They tried to bring him down, of course. They tried to portray him as some kind of monster, trip him up, laugh at him or otherwise reveal some underlying horror.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe