Weekly Top Five Articles

Jordan Peterson Drivel, Christian Nationalism Exposed, Border Battles Decoded, and Why Posture Still Matters

Here’s what stood out this week:

(1) Jordan Peterson’s prophecies The Canadian thinker’s self-made deity is a symptom of the modern Western malady, by John Gray, The New Statesman (November 19, 2024)

Outside of psychology, why does anyone care what Jordan Peterson thinks? (especially about Christianity)

In his review of We Who Wrestle with God, John Gray critiques Jordan Peterson’s ambitious attempt to confront the cultural and spiritual crisis of modern Western civilization. According to Gray, Peterson sees the collapse of meaning in the West—what Nietzsche called nihilism—as the root of the malaise afflicting contemporary society. Peterson’s proposed solution, rooted in reflections on Judeo-Christian scripture, aims to reestablish truth and purpose through an “a priori cosmic order.” However, Gray argues that Peterson’s remedy ultimately reflects the same subjective tendencies that underpin the crisis he seeks to resolve.

Gray notes that We Who Wrestle with God, the first of two planned volumes, offers extensive commentaries on biblical texts such as Genesis, Moses, and Jonah. These commentaries explore themes of sacrifice, the fall, and divine law. Peterson interprets these narratives as foundational to Western civilization’s stability and freedom, positioning them as a defense against what he sees as the nihilistic tendencies of hyper-liberalism. For Peterson, the cultural relativism of “woke” ideologies represents a secularized form of Christianity, distorted into a subjective affirmation of personal autonomy and disconnected from its transcendental roots.

However, Gray critiques Peterson’s approach to transcendence, arguing that his conception of God is not the biblical creator of Abrahamic religions but a metaphorical construct shaped by his personal struggles. Gray points out that Peterson’s idea of a “self-made deity” risks falling into the same relativistic subjectivism he attributes to modern hyper-liberalism. By reducing Christianity to a cultural foundation for societal values, Peterson, according to Gray, fails to address the universal truths needed to counter nihilism.

Gray also contextualizes Peterson’s philosophy within his tumultuous personal history. Peterson’s rise to fame in 2016, following his opposition to Canadian pronoun legislation, made him a cultural icon but at great personal cost. Struggling with depression, addiction, and health crises, Peterson’s life reflects the existential wrestling he describes in his work. Yet Gray sees these struggles as symptomatic of a larger modern condition, where individuals, disconnected from any transcendent reality, must fashion their own meaning to combat despair.

In Gray’s view, Peterson’s confrontation with nihilism is admirable but incomplete. While he respects Peterson’s courage and intellectual depth, Gray contends that Peterson’s self-made approach to transcendence is more a reflection of his own inner turmoil than a solution to the existential crisis of the West. Like Nietzsche before him, Peterson grapples with the void left by the absence of God, only to replace it with a subjective vision that cannot fully escape the nihilism it seeks to overcome.

For Gray, We Who Wrestle with God is a deeply personal and intellectually ambitious work, but one that falls short of providing a compelling response to the cultural and spiritual challenges of the age. Still, Gray acknowledges that Peterson’s willingness to engage with life’s deepest questions, even at great personal cost, is worthy of admiration, even if his answers remain incomplete.

(2) “Why Americans Are Obsessed With Poor Posture” by Zoe Adam, The Nation (November 20, 2024)

In her review of Beth Linker’s Slouch: Posture Panic in Modern America, Zoe Adams explores the cultural and political forces that have turned posture into an enduring fixation in American society. According to Adams, Linker’s history reveals that the obsession with uprightness is less about health and more about class, race, and moral anxieties shaped by industrialization and nationalism.

Linker traces the roots of the "posture panic" to the late 19th century, when evolutionary science elevated posture as a marker of human progress. Figures like Charles Darwin argued that standing upright was central to what separated humans from apes, an idea that resonated deeply in an industrializing society. By the early 20th century, concerns about posture had become widespread, with schools, the military, and even public health campaigns targeting posture as a key to health and social order.

The American Posture League (APL), founded in 1914, played a pivotal role in medicalizing posture. Adams highlights how the APL tied physical alignment to American nationalism, using posture to "mold" immigrant bodies into ideal citizens. Schools adopted rudimentary tools like vertical-line tests, and even prestigious institutions like Stanford used technologies like the schematograph to grade students’ posture. The stakes were high—Smith College required at least a B- in posture for graduation into the 1950s.

Adams underscores how Linker reveals posture science as a tool of social control. The APL linked poor posture to everything from tuberculosis to moral decline, ignoring the real structural health determinants like poverty, unsafe working conditions, and systemic inequality. Instead, posture was used to enforce societal hierarchies, marginalizing immigrants and the working class while promoting white, middle-class ideals. Black Americans, particularly women, faced additional scrutiny, with proper posture presented as a prerequisite for respectability and economic security.

Adams notes that Linker carefully examines how posture science evolved but avoids addressing whether concerns about poor posture have any scientific validity. While Linker calls posture science “fake news,” Adams critiques her reluctance to engage with its connection to chronic back pain—a legitimate and widespread health issue. The book overlooks the rise of ergonomic interventions like the MIT “work chair,” which emerged from workers’ advocacy and was proven to reduce fatigue and discomfort.

Despite its omissions, Adams finds Slouch a compelling exploration of how a seemingly mundane concern like posture became a cultural obsession. Linker’s work shows how the posture panic reflects deeper anxieties about class, race, and identity, exposing how medicine and science are often co-opted to reinforce social norms. However, Adams suggests that Linker could have more thoroughly explored the nuances of posture’s link to health, leaving readers with questions about whether its benefits are purely placebo or something more tangible.

Ultimately, Adams portrays Slouch as a thought-provoking account of how posture’s moral and cultural significance has overshadowed its potential health implications, revealing the enduring tensions between public health, individual responsibility, and societal control.

(3) Fiona Harrigan’s article, How Did Immigration Politics Get So Toxic?, unpacks the historical, political, and systemic factors that have made U.S. border management one of the most divisive issues in modern politics. Harrigan argues that outdated policies, shifting migration patterns, and an overreliance on executive power have transformed immigration into a battlefield of toxic rhetoric and ineffective solutions.

In the 1980s, immigration debates were marked by bipartisan collaboration. Leaders like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush framed unauthorized migration as a solvable issue, advocating for work permits and mutual cooperation with Mexico. This era culminated in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which combined enforcement measures with amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, IRCA's mixed results fueled controversy, particularly over its failure to achieve "border control" and its perceived encouragement of future unauthorized migration.

By the 1990s, migration was still primarily composed of single Mexican men seeking work, making enforcement more straightforward. Policies focused on deportation, border security, and workplace enforcement were seen as sufficient. However, the events of 9/11 radically shifted the conversation. Border security became a national security issue, leading to militarization and expansive surveillance measures. This period also saw bipartisan agreements, such as the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which aimed to achieve “operational control” of the border.

The 2010s ushered in a new era of migration patterns and political polarization. Migrants increasingly came from Central America, often as families or unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. These groups were harder to process under the existing border enforcement apparatus, designed for different demographics. Meanwhile, legislative efforts, like the 2013 bipartisan Gang of Eight bill, failed due to growing partisanship and the fear of political backlash.

The rise of Donald Trump escalated immigration rhetoric to new extremes. Harrigan describes how Trump’s harsh policies, like family separations and the “zero-tolerance” approach, aimed to project strength but ultimately failed to reduce migration pressures. Instead, they normalized the use of executive power to bypass Congress, further entrenching the idea that the border could be “shut down” by presidential will alone.

Under Joe Biden, the legacy of Trump’s border policies persisted. Despite his initial promises of humane reforms, Biden kept many restrictive measures in place, including Title 42 expulsions and parts of Trump’s asylum bans. Harrigan argues that Biden’s reliance on outdated enforcement strategies reflects Congress’s failure to address the root causes of migration or modernize immigration tools.

The bipartisan effort to pass a 2023 border bill, which proposed strict asylum restrictions alongside authority for the Department of Homeland Security to “shut down” the border, was emblematic of today’s political paralysis. Democrats supported the bill to appear tough on immigration, while Republicans, led by Trump’s rhetoric, opposed it for not going far enough.

Harrigan concludes that the U.S. border crisis stems from decades of mismatched policy responses to evolving migration trends. As Congress abdicates its role, executive actions dominate, further polarizing the debate and leaving the border vulnerable to mismanagement and political manipulation. Without systemic reform, immigration politics will only grow more toxic, and the border will remain a flashpoint for unresolved national anxieties.

(3) How Did Immigration Politics Get So Toxic?: Changing migration patterns, outdated policy tools, and growing presidential power made it inevitable, by Fiona Harrigan, Reason Magazine (November 2024).

Fiona Harrigan’s article, How Did Immigration Politics Get So Toxic?, unpacks the historical, political, and systemic factors that have made U.S. border management one of the most divisive issues in modern politics. Harrigan argues that outdated policies, shifting migration patterns, and an overreliance on executive power have transformed immigration into a battlefield of toxic rhetoric and ineffective solutions.

In the 1980s, immigration debates were marked by bipartisan collaboration. Leaders like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush framed unauthorized migration as a solvable issue, advocating for work permits and mutual cooperation with Mexico. This era culminated in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which combined enforcement measures with amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, IRCA's mixed results fueled controversy, particularly over its failure to achieve "border control" and its perceived encouragement of future unauthorized migration.

By the 1990s, migration was still primarily composed of single Mexican men seeking work, making enforcement more straightforward. Policies focused on deportation, border security, and workplace enforcement were seen as sufficient. However, the events of 9/11 radically shifted the conversation. Border security became a national security issue, leading to militarization and expansive surveillance measures. This period also saw bipartisan agreements, such as the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which aimed to achieve “operational control” of the border.

The 2010s ushered in a new era of migration patterns and political polarization. Migrants increasingly came from Central America, often as families or unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. These groups were harder to process under the existing border enforcement apparatus, designed for different demographics. Meanwhile, legislative efforts, like the 2013 bipartisan Gang of Eight bill, failed due to growing partisanship and the fear of political backlash.

The rise of Donald Trump escalated immigration rhetoric to new extremes. Harrigan describes how Trump’s harsh policies, like family separations and the “zero-tolerance” approach, aimed to project strength but ultimately failed to reduce migration pressures. Instead, they normalized the use of executive power to bypass Congress, further entrenching the idea that the border could be “shut down” by presidential will alone.

Under Joe Biden, the legacy of Trump’s border policies persisted. Despite his initial promises of humane reforms, Biden kept many restrictive measures in place, including Title 42 expulsions and parts of Trump’s asylum bans. Harrigan argues that Biden’s reliance on outdated enforcement strategies reflects Congress’s failure to address the root causes of migration or modernize immigration tools.

The bipartisan effort to pass a 2023 border bill, which proposed strict asylum restrictions alongside authority for the Department of Homeland Security to “shut down” the border, was emblematic of today’s political paralysis. Democrats supported the bill to appear tough on immigration, while Republicans, led by Trump’s rhetoric, opposed it for not going far enough.

Harrigan concludes that the U.S. border crisis stems from decades of mismatched policy responses to evolving migration trends. As Congress abdicates its role, executive actions dominate, further polarizing the debate and leaving the border vulnerable to mismanagement and political manipulation. Without systemic reform, immigration politics will only grow more toxic, and the border will remain a flashpoint for unresolved national anxieties.

(4) New research uncovers the moral foundations underlying support for Christian nationalism by Eric W. Dolan, Psypost (November 19, 2024)

In Sociology of Religion, new research sheds light on the moral values underpinning support for and opposition to Christian nationalism, challenging common assumptions about its motivations. The study, led by Kerby Goff and colleagues, reveals that loyalty and sanctity are the driving moral foundations for supporters, while fairness motivates critics. Surprisingly, authority—a value often associated with nationalism—and care play minimal roles in shaping views on this divisive ideology.

Christian nationalism, the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation with a divine mission, blends religious and patriotic symbols to promote policies favoring traditional Christian values. While its supporters view it as a safeguard for national identity, opponents argue it undermines equality and pluralism, privileging one religious tradition at the expense of others.

Using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which identifies six core moral values—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty—the researchers analyzed survey data from 1,125 adults. Participants rated their agreement with statements like “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation.” The results highlight significant moral divides:

• Supporters of Christian nationalism emphasize loyalty and sanctity, valuing group cohesion and the sacredness of Christian identity. However, contrary to assumptions, authority was not a significant factor.

• Opponents of Christian nationalism prioritize fairness, focusing on justice and equality rather than the harm caused by privileging one faith over others. Care, often associated with concern for others' well-being, was also not a strong predictor of opposition.

The study challenges stereotypes about Christian nationalism, suggesting its appeal stems more from a desire to protect Christian identity and sacred values than a quest for authoritarian control. Similarly, critics are more concerned with the perceived inequities of Christian nationalism than its potential harms.

Goff notes that bridging divides may require emphasizing shared moral concerns, such as loyalty to the nation and liberty in religious expression, to foster compromise. However, the study acknowledges limitations, including its cross-sectional design, which leaves questions about causation, and small sample sizes for certain demographic groups, restricting generalizability.

The findings provide a nuanced understanding of Christian nationalism’s moral dimensions, reframing it as a conflict between competing values of group identity and pluralistic fairness. As debates over religion and state continue, this research offers a foundation for dialogue rooted in moral understanding.

(5) “Mindful-gratitude practices reduce prejudice, studies finds” by Vladimir Hedrih PsyPost, November 19, 2024

A recent study in Psychological Science reveals that a six-week, app-supported mindful-gratitude practice significantly reduces prejudice—including anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment—particularly among individuals with high levels of collective narcissism. Collective narcissism, the belief in the superiority of one’s social group and its insufficient recognition, often fuels hostility and prejudice toward other groups.

The study found that while a single 10-minute session of mindful-gratitude practice had little effect, sustained daily sessions over six weeks not only reduced prejudice but also reversed the link between collective narcissism and antagonistic attitudes. The researchers attribute these effects to gratitude’s ability to lower defensiveness and foster greater openness to others.

For Christianity, these findings highlight the transformative potential of gratitude, a cornerstone of prayer and worship, particularly in the Psalms. Practices of thanksgiving, as seen in Psalm 100:4 and Psalm 9:1, encourage reflection on God’s goodness, fostering humility and a sense of shared humanity. Churches might consider integrating structured gratitude practices into worship or small groups to address divisions and embody Christ’s call to love one’s neighbor.

This research reinforces the idea that gratitude, whether through mindfulness or prayer, has the power to heal not only individual hearts but also fractured communities. For Christians, it’s a reminder of the social and spiritual impact of cultivating a life rooted in thanksgiving.