This is an interesting essay. Ranging from an exploration of two very different French thinkers, to an expose of Jordan Peterson, his writing and his reliance upon a flawed and common interpretation of the two Frenchmen. Along the way you in introduce and explore both the French academy, of which the above two are a part, and a common American mis-perception of that realm.
Along the way you ponder how these two, Derrida and Foucault came to be seen as the fathers of the “post-modern”, and likewise the destructors of our Universities and colleges over here. You look at Peterson’s writing in relation to that project. He is not the only one that offers up such nonsense, but he is one of the more successful and easily recognizable authors offering up such. Here, he is sadly not original.
In the beginning you hint at other ailments of the American Academy and its challenges. Quickly offering one or two alternative takes on these institutions. That was a tease. Mainly, you illustrate the disconnect between American popular culture, one of our public intellectuals, and the French Academy. Also in the essay are references to YouTube. Peterson is there, so it must be considered. Everyone is there.
What an amazing cross section of the contemporary. And we are reading it here. In the end you ask that we bring back some of the scholarly traditions that would be found in both French and American universities. You ask that we simply know something about the text of which we speak or write. It use to not be a lot to ask. In reading the responses, however, it seems that today it is. From basic academic tradition to YouTube. And somewhere in there is also structuralism.
For my money it all reminds me of Jackson Pollock or at least his work. I think that is Petersen’s appeal. He offers a view. He offers instead a simple 12 rules of life — a way of framing it all. There is no need of a University, much less a French Academy. I grossly simplify.
There is a problem here, a challenge, and Peterson’s work though maybe interesting, is not the answer. Rather it is just another ad hominem?
