The fact is that almost NO philosopher defends these strong foundationalist epistemologies. But almost NO philosopher denies that both everyday and scientific discourse are guided by reasonably reliably, pragmatic, effective standards. Both philosophical positions these days are found somewhere in the middle.

What distinguishes so-called postmodernism from other forms of anti-foundationalist epistemology is:

A deeper appreciation for the way in which interpretations and perspectives are rooted in power relations. (Does this mean that ALL knowledge is transparently reducible to power? Such claims are implausible. But there are certain disciplines of knowledge, such as those which Foucault focused on, that do have a manifestly political dimension... )

A deeper appreciation for how anti-foundationalist, anti-metaphysical epistemologies open up the potential for a new, liberating politics and ethics.

By misrepresenting postmodernist epistemology, Peterson also misrepresents postmodernist politics: he makes it sound as if post-modernism were merely the “old wine” of Marxism in a “new bottle.”

Now, there is a certain filiation between postmodernism, and indeed almost all continental philosophy, and Marxian thought —- not because postmodernists are dogmatic Marxists, but because they 1) took seriously many aspects of Marxist critique 2) challenged many aspects of prevailing Marxism, such as the “vulgar-Marxist” conception of the relation of superstructure and substructure, the Statist tendencies revealed in Stalinism, engaging in a provocative and interesting dialogue with Marxism and Marx’s writings.

To understand these filiations, and judge them in the proper light, you would have to look closely at Althusserl, Foucault, Baudrillard, and Derrida.

Instead, what Peterson gives us are platitudes.

Which leads us to the second point...

On the other hand... Following this utterly banal, completely incorrect definition of postmodernism, a pretense of cautiousness, detail...

It’s not as if I personally think that postmodernism and Marxism are commensurate. It’s obvious to me that the much-vaunted “skepticism toward grand narratives” that is part and parcel of the postmodern viewpoint makes any such alliance logically impossible. Postmodernists should be as skeptical toward Marxism as toward any other canonical belief system.

So the formal postmodern claim, such as it is, is radical skepticism. But that’s not at all how it has played out in theory or in practice. Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s. Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derrida’s hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don’t really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.

Yes, postmodernism should be skeptical of Marxism ... Indeed, it is! This is why it is often at odds with Marxism, and why it has offered a valuable engagement with Marxism. It has been able to engage with Marxism because it appreciates core values of Marxism and its critical power—- it takes these seriously... It is this tension that makes post-war Continental philosophy so interesting!

But Peterson, pretending here to be subtle and deep, again gives us a platudinous caricature... So-called postmodernism took seriously the Marxist critique of capitalism, and its vision of human liberation... But it questioned not only the statist tendencies of Stalinism, but the philosophical unsubtlety of Marxism-Leninism, its metaphysical entanglements... All that JP sees, however, are “unrepentant Marxists” who are pretending to be something they aren’t...A snake sloughing off one skin and growing another...

This is not philosophy... It’s paranoia.

And, by the way: where do you find “identity politics” in Derrida!

And for Marx, class warfare is not “eternal” — it is historical!

Does Jordan Peterson understand post-modernism?