A short review of the Peterson- Žižek debate

Many have been dubbing it “the debate of the century”. But is the label warranted?

Photo from the Toronto Star

Disappointed with the boring Žižek-Peterson circlejerk. Definitely not the Foucault-Chomsky debate of our time.

Some thoughts:

1. Do not give Žižek a fucking time limit.
2. The problem with Peterson’s notion of Postmodernism is that he thinks it is not a monolithic system of thought where he can shoehorn the ideas of thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, et al. Most of these thinkers even rejected the label (which I’m also guilty of using).
3. Peterson calling Foucault (and other “postmodern” thinkers) a marxist and then Žižek bursting his bubble by blurting out: “Are you aware that Foucault’s main target was Marxism?” — is one of the highlights of the… I’m going to go ahead and call it a “debate”.
4. What does Žižek even mean when he said Foucault relished being in the margins? If he meant Foucault the philosopher enjoyed being marginalized, then perhaps being the center of attention was not something he actively sought out. If he meant his ideas, then the very point of the Foucauldian process is to put something from the margins to a more centralized position through genealogy. Also, I wouldn’t call the influence of his method marginal in this day and age.
5. Žižek mollycoddled Peterson all throughout, so he won’t appear a total ignoramus. Props to Žižek for that.
6. Peterson may have destroyed classical Marxism, but Žižek destroyed Peterson.