C HR ISTOPHER H E ATHCOTE Jordan Peterson, George Orwell and the Ramsay Centre A cademics at the Australian National University and the University of Sydney have put their monikers on petitions hostile to a proposed degree on Western civilisation. There are said to be over a hundred signatures. All has been played out much as in Malcolm Bradbury’s 1975 novel of university life The History Man, where a sociology lecturer plants a false rumour about his university’s annual guest lecture. He then engineers a crisis by manipulating the gullible and the incautious among scholars, students and administrators. Likewise hot-headed academics in Canberra and Sydney have performed with comic vigour in a striking instance of life imitating fiction. But about those signatures on the two petitions. Were any coerced? Several times in my own academic career I and my co-tutors were placed in the invidious position of being compelled to sign petitions. Anyone who has been casually employed as a sessional tutor or lecturer knows that unsettling sense of vulnerability experienced when a senior academic says you must support something. You are told to sign this, or in a meeting vote against that. How do you refuse? Will you be re-employed next semester if you don’t comply? Might your job be on the line? After all, they have power over you. On this occasion it’s not as if you can go to the union for advice, because the National Tertiary Education Union instigated both petitions against the Ramsay Centre. There it was, for the entire nation to see. NTEU organisers had academics fall in line and do what they wanted—just like the works shop steward Mr Kite in the feature film I’m All Right Jack. The annoying thing is that the NTEU, of which I am a member, is forever carping about a loss of academic jobs and the casualisation of university teaching. Here was the chance of solid positions for academics like me. The proposed programs were to provide employment for scholars. Real jobs. Besides, the Ramsay Centre would have served as the base 30 for solid research work. At the least it could have hosted conferences that attracted scholars from around the world. The networking opportunities for Australian academics would have been a godsend. I would have probably been among those delivering conference papers. But union branch presidents, who themselves probably enjoy tenure and generous university salaries along with the 17.5 per cent academic superannuation, have spoiled a chance of jobs for others. One is put in mind of George Orwell’s observations in The Road to Wigan Pier about tweedy, pipesmoking, cushion-class lefties. It’s invariably other people’s lives that are harmed by these bossy, selfrighteous busybodies. W orkplace harassment of lower-level academics is endemic in the modern university. I have witnessed this—and myself been on the receiving end—several times. However, education unions are loath to act if it’s lefty lecturers who boss junior staff about. This appears the same around the Western world. Take the instance in Ontario, Canada, last year when Lindsay Shepherd, a young sessional lecturer at Wilfrid Laurier University, introduced Jordan Peterson’s work in her seminars. In early November 2017, Ms Shepherd’s supervisor asked her to see him. He did not foreshadow what he wished to discuss, just advising that other members of the faculty hierarchy would be present. It looked innocent enough, although Ms Shepherd’s mother suggested her daughter carry a small tape recorder. This was astute advice. The audio recording of that meeting became evidence in a successful bullying complaint made against the university by the young academic. It has since been posted on YouTube, having triggered a commotion throughout higher education in Canada, America and Europe. Not knowing he was being recorded, we hear on the tape Ms Shepherd’s supervisor accuse her of running classes that are “threatening” and create a “toxic climate for some of the students”. The Quadrant November 2018 Jordan Peterson, George Orwell and the Ramsay Centre scholar is told how complaints by “one or more” by a desire to help the underprivileged, from others students have been made against her (which was who have a strong hatred of the rich. These motives untrue), although due to confidentiality she cannot affect actions. Altruists will take a co-operative, be told who they were. Her supervisor likens Jordan non-confrontational way, trying to get agreement Peterson to Adolf Hitler, and says the material dis- and understanding from all parties. But aggressors cussed in Ms Shepherd’s seminars was “counter cause disruption, adopting a combative and overtly to the Canadian Human Rights Code” (likewise hostile manner. They “weaponise” compassion, untrue). using a worthy goal to justify deplorable behaviour: Ms Shepherd explains what she did, and her noble ends are said to excuse bad means. purpose in introducing students to these matters. Similarly, Peterson sees the problems caused by Her explanation is lucid, convincing and sound. political correctness as arising from its use in an She appears a diligent, efficient, conscientious tutor. aggressive manner by individuals who purposely But the gentle harrying does not stop. The course seek to distress, even oppress. He observes that PC supervisor keeps pressing, accusing her of gender- has been embraced by public administration as a oriented harassment of students. means of harassment. After some minutes of this Ms Here in Australia we see this Shepherd, who is sounding strained each Christmas when certain offiggressors cause and anxious, starts weeping. The cials will try to spoil the season of meeting does not halt. Instead, disruption, adopting good will. Nativity settings will be a combative and the supervisor keeps on, with the banned, carol singing forbidden, humiliated girl now apologising to overtly hostile manner. staff reprimanded for using the the senior academics for her tears. word Christmas in greetings. None They “weaponise” Listening to the tape is heartof this is in response to complaints, rending. The three men in positions compassion, using a Christmas having been embraced of power say little while this disas a joyous family festival by the tressed scholar defends her teach- worthy goal to justify broad community. Instead bureauing, repeatedly saying sorry as she deplorable behaviour: crats pounce on Christmas as an sobs. The faculty members never to adopt a bossy, intrunoble ends are said to opportunity raise their voices, never abuse; yet sive manner. What they do is harexcuse bad means. assment, a clear instance of abusive in a civil, bureaucratic way, they harass her relentlessly. Many lisadministration. teners will squirm as the recording As a psychologist, Peterson sees runs, feeling upset at the ordeal they are overhear- political correctness as state-licensed bullying. He ing. And it doesn’t seem to stop. This inquisition is disturbed by emerging patterns of behaviour continues for forty minutes. where individuals and issues will be attacked withWhen I first heard Lindsay Shepherd’s record- out restraint. Situations are polarised due to PC ing, the hairs at the back of my neck were prick- advocates insisting there can be no middle ground. ling. It brought up memories of experiences during They will be most forceful in trying to shut down my time as a sessional tutor. The tone used by your debate and silence opposition: you must agree or academic superiors is always calm, the language you are demonised. And despite much cant about administrative, and they can spring on you accusa- promoting “respect”, those who champion political tions of you nursing appalling prejudices. No matter correctness behave disrespectfully towards those how you defend yourself, you get nowhere because they target. Toxic name-calling is common, with they hold the power. the phrases “neo-fascist” and “hard right” being bandied about. ordan Peterson’s ideas directly bear on the Ramsay Members of the public are cowed by this behavCentre rumpus. This distinguished Harvard iour, especially if the harasser is an official. People alumnus has become academia’s bête noire due to his grasp that this represents an abuse of authority, but analysis of political correctness. Now a psychology they do not know how to respond. lecturer in Canada, Professor Peterson has probed At the hub of Peterson’s argument has been the motivations of individuals who support this Canadian legislation over courtesy. Terms of broad trend in Western societies. address—like Miss, Mrs, Ms, Ma’am—are a matter He has found that, as in many social move- of courtesy. They arise from politeness and social ments, we must discriminate between compas- etiquette. One does not prosecute individuals for sion and aggression. For instance, when discussing using a socially inappropriate form of address. But socialism we can loosely distinguish those driven within Western bureaucracies moves are afoot to A J Quadrant November 2018 31 Jordan Peterson, George Orwell and the Ramsay Centre do just this over how we address non-heterosexuals; and in Canada, courtesy has become a flashpoint legal issue. Peterson has objected to this, arguing it is inconsistent with the Westminster system of government. You cannot make it an actionable offence to use a wrong title. Echoing Voltaire’s remark on free speech—“I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it”—he insists one cannot legally forbid words, especially terms of address. To do so is preposterous. What would have ensued if, say, in the 1960s, that beatnik putdown fink had been outlawed? Professor Peterson has come under sustained attack for this position. Many in the media and academia vilify him as “alt-right” and “neo-fascist”. These critics do not grasp that their knee-jerk hostility against him proves his points. They are adopting the narrow-minded harassing manner he highlights. T owards the end of the only work he published in his lifetime, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein set down a proposition of probable genius: “The limits of my language means the limits of my world.” Even as the reader is digesting the implications of this profundity, the author moves logically to a sub-proposition: “We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.” It is usual to tie Wittgenstein’s breakthroughs to early shifts in twentieth-century philosophy, particularly to the Viennese linguistic circle, to A.J. Ayer’s work, and through him the formation of Logical Positivism. But parts of the Tractatus were surely connected with modern literature. Published in 1922, that same transformative year as James Joyce’s Ulysses and T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, this difficult, sometimes fascinating book at moments grappled with questions of expression and language which intersected with the aspirations of streamof-consciousness writers wanting to represent characters as they think. So if Wittgenstein’s ideas are rarely cited in studies of progressive fiction by figures like Woolf, Mansfield and Bowen, they did know of him. Besides, no less than Bertrand Russell penned the introduction to the English edition of the watershed book. The most telling use of Wittgenstein’s ideas in fiction does not occur in a modernist novel. When he penned his bleak last novel, George Orwell had for nearly a decade chewed over how bureaucracies employ language to manipulate thought, delivering sage asides throughout his wartime writings, as well as his pithy essay “Politics and the English Language”. Exactly how and when Orwell came 32 upon those decisive sections in the Tractatus may never be sorted out, although their influence upon Nineteen Eighty-Four is unmistakable. This dystopian story sees Wittgenstein’s subproposition “what we cannot think we cannot say either” inverted by Orwell into “what we cannot say we cannot think either” and an entire political theory of authoritarian language. Coining terms like double-think and Newspeak, Orwell shows how by limiting language authoritarian regimes aspire to constrain thought and control society. It was the aim of Russian behavioural scientists to shape a new Soviet man whose individual drives would be channelled to the needs of society, and dissent in any form would cease to ruffle the state. How to achieve it? Moving from a Wittgensteinian first principle, the limits of my language means the limits of my world, Orwell’s discussion of Newspeak explains how a Soviet-style regime represses by limiting expression and reducing vocabulary. In this formulation, if your language options are curtailed, thinking is constrained and your world becomes pretty small. So dissent is near impossible. George Orwell f igures highly in Jordan Peterson’s analyses of new bureaucratic behaviour, especially on political correctness. Peterson points to how proponents of PC are chiefly trying to change language along lines discussed in Orwell’s writings. In the process they endeavour to limit or close down thought, imposing narrowing options for thinking. Under the guise of “inclusiveness”, many levels of government in Western democracies have introduced internal policies regulating the language staff may and may not use. Some, like Victoria’s state government, have enforcement officers whose task it is to police what staff write or say when dealing with the public or each other. In Canada, as Peterson highlights, moves have commenced to make the use of certain words an offence under civil law. This ought to be anathema to higher education, which relies upon freedom of expression and broad unrestricted vocabularies. But far from rejecting this shift, self-styled academic progressives have weaponised language and are imposing an initial form of Newspeak in universities. One must talk inside the prescribed language box. T he signatories of the academic petitions in Canberra and Sydney demand that a sweeping field of traditional scholarship be forbidden from future study. They assert that students need to be protected from the great texts of Western civilisation, as if the works of Ovid, Dante and others are dangerous! This is hardly a new argument. It used to be pushed by militant Marxists during the Cold War. Quadrant November 2018 Jordan Peterson, George Orwell and the Ramsay Centre Those who attended university in those decades of metaphysics. Deconstruction focused on phrases in will remember a continual rant against liberal key historic texts where literature and metaphysics democracies and their histories articulated by seemingly intersected. For example, Derrida campus activists who claimed life would be better scrutinised a roll-call of philosophers from Plato under Leonid Brezhnev or Mao Zedong, Fidel and Aristotle to Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Castro, even Pol Pot. The stirrers would conduct Husserl and Heidegger. His watershed book Margins tirades against various strands of the humanities, of Philosophy (1972) jarred the discipline by showing dismissing coursework as “Western imperialist how leading thinkers kept resorting to figural language and allegory. However, the work which propaganda” and “bourgeois brain washing”. Matters became frenetic during the lead-up to launched the movement across literary studies was the collapse of the USSR and its satellite states. the Yale circle’s Deconstruction & Criticism (1979), a Even as Mikhail Gorbachev was shaping a Russian set of influential essays on Shelley, Wordsworth and policy of liberal “glasnost”, it was de rigueur for transcendentally inclined poetry. Far from wanting to eject esteemed works by campus radicals to slander major books passed down through history as written by repressive “dead dead white men from university syllabuses, the white men”. Nearly everything from Plato’s Timaeus deconstruction group offered fresh insights into to Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist was derided as the texts so maligned by radicals. Indeed, the Yale “deconstructors” were forceful vehicle for constrictive ideologies. advocates for studying historic Still, academic revolutionists were works, continuing to teach such selective in their condemnation. ar from wanting to material in their own courses. At Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin were dead white men, for instance, eject esteemed works by a conference in the 1990s I heard but their inherently Western dead white men from Derrida press this point, referring theories of gravity and evolution university syllabuses, to what he called the “intrinsic value” of major poems; while in were not to be consigned to the the Yale deconstruction 1994 Harold Bloom published a pyre with the same zealous fury. This was the intellectual context group offered fresh polemic, The Western Canon, in which he argued for the centrality in which the contentious book insights into texts so to intellectual endeavour of twentyThe Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed maligned by radicals. four great writers. His book scathingly dismissed detractors of Democracy and Impoverished the the classics as small-minded “forces Souls of Today’s Students (1987) was published by an American academic, Allan Bloom. of resentment”. This all occurred nearly a generation ago. The It was an instant best-seller, prompting a hot debate in institutions on lingering Marxist agendas and dust ought to have settled, but the rise of identity the value of the humanities. Radicals were incensed politics—and the eagerness of public bureaux to when several scholars associated with the progressive embrace political correctness—is seeing old battles “deconstruction” movement weighed in on the side re-fought. The bossy new ubergangsters exhibit a cloying ignorance of scholarly debates thirty of great texts. The word deconstruction nowadays sets me years back. They advocate a Soviet-style textual shuddering. The word is used so recklessly in censorship, pushing hackneyed arguments that Australia it seems shorn of meaning. Customs were then soundly discredited, some claiming to be officers on television programs about border security adherents of deconstruction. Clearly they have not claim to be doing it when they dismantle boxes read the texts that launched the movement. Worse looking for concealed narcotics. The term will be still, this time timid vice-chancellors in Canberra used by cooking-show contestants to excuse a mess and Sydney have caved in. Surveying the present muddle, one is put in on a plate. Last year I even watched a football coach breezily tell a television reporter he was going to mind of the opening remark made by another dead “deconstruct” his team to improve their performance white male in his mocking political commentary The Eighteenth Brumaire of Luis Napoleon: “All the on the field. Back in the 1970s and 1980s you only heard of great events of history occur, so to speak, twice,” deconstruction if you were reading for a degree in Karl Marx sneered. “The first time as tragedy, the philosophy or literature. Developed by a circle based second as farce.” at Yale University—Jacques Derrida, Harold Bloom, J. Hillis Miller, Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman— Christopher Heathcote, a regular contributor, lives in it then referred to what is best described as a poetics Melbourne. F Quadrant November 2018 33