Jordan Peterson and Cultural Capitalism
- Bahar Almasi
- Oct 28
- 3 min read
From Leftist Activist to a Sponsored Voice of the Cultural Right
Jordan Peterson is now widely recognized as a central voice of the contemporary cultural right: a defender of “traditional values,” a critic of feminism, and a commentator on the “crisis of masculinity.” Yet this public identity was not where he began. Peterson’s early political roots were unmistakably leftist. As a young man, he was active in Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP) and surrounded himself with imagery from revolutionary and socialist movements. Accounts from those close to him describe his home walls decorated with posters of leaders associated with the Soviet Union and international leftist struggle. His intellectual concerns were shaped by questions of inequality, suffering, and the human condition under systems of power.
This foundation eventually led Peterson to Jungian psychology and to an interest in myth as a framework for meaning-making. His early lectures, including his first wave of YouTube content, centered on the psychological struggle of being human: how individuals confront chaos, build individuality, and cultivate moral responsibility. These lectures resonated deeply, particularly among young men searching for direction in an increasingly disoriented and fragmented world. For a time, Peterson’s influence was grounded in meaning, not ideology.
But meaning in the 21st century does not exist outside of the marketplace. In the era of cultural capitalism, meaning is not simply discovered—it is produced, distributed, branded, and monetized. A public intellectual is no longer only a thinker; he is a media entity, and all media entities require audiences, distribution networks, and funding.
The turning point in Peterson’s public trajectory came with his outspoken opposition to Canada’s Bill C-16, which required institutions to respect individuals’ chosen gender pronouns. Peterson framed his stance as a defense of “freedom of speech,” claiming that compelled language was a form of state overreach. The controversy was immediate and intense. Protests erupted, institutional backlash followed, and calls for his removal from the University of Toronto circulated. Ironically, the same public attempt to silence him catapulted him to global fame. The controversy turned Peterson into a symbol of defiance against what was framed as “authoritarian political correctness.”
This was the moment when Peterson’s audience changed—and with that, his funding networks and ideological alignment began to shift. Conservative media organizations, religious foundations, and right-wing donor networks began to financially and strategically elevate his profile. He went from being a psychologist speaking about myth and meaning to a champion in a cultural war.
His bestselling book, 12 Rules for Life, emerged from this new phase. While the book’s language presents itself as a guide to achieving order and purpose, its conceptual foundation reinforces hierarchical and traditional gender structures as natural and morally necessary. This shift was not accidental—it was shaped by the demands and expectations of his new audience market within cultural capitalism.
The final stage of Peterson’s ideological transformation took place when he joined The Daily Wire, a media company built explicitly to counter progressive cultural narratives. The Daily Wire operates not merely as a news platform but as a machine of ideological production, shaping how meaning, identity, morality, and politics are framed for its audience. Under this institutional alignment, Peterson’s rhetoric shifted further: he began defending conservative geopolitical narratives, including firm support for Israel’s military actions and foreign policy positions aligned with the American right.
This stance did not develop organically from his earlier intellectual work. It was a function of affiliation. When a public figure becomes embedded within a funded ideological network, the boundaries of what can be said—and what must be said—shift accordingly. Peterson’s voice, once concerned with the universal and existential, became woven into the messaging strategies of a media ecosystem deeply invested in shaping Western cultural power.
The lesson here is not about Peterson as an individual. It is about how meaning itself is produced under cultural capitalism. The marketplace does not just influence which ideas succeed—it transforms the ideas themselves. Meaning becomes a commodity. The self becomes a brand. Belief becomes alignment.
Peterson’s journey from leftist activist to conservative cultural emblem is not simply a story of personal change—it is a story of how power funds, directs, and repurposes meaning. He did not just shift audiences; the audience reshaped him. He did not simply adopt new political commitments; his platform required them.
In an age where cultural identity is currency, the struggle over meaning is inseparable from the struggle over capital. Peterson’s trajectory is a case study in how intellectual life becomes political performance, and how political performance becomes ideological infrastructure.
Meaning is never neutral.
Meaning exists inside systems of power.
And power always leaves its signature.
Comments