Everything constructed can be deconstructed

It was a sweet and shiny summer afternoon when I had lunch with one of my professors in Belgium about ethics as part of my studies in philosophy. Our conversation turned to how to reframe potential considerations of the foundation of ethical principles in a world where “God is dead” (Nietzsche), “hell is other people” (Sartre), and “our technology has exceeded humanity” (Einstein) in “the age of anxiety” (W.H. Auden).

In considering the implications of these issues for our society, we examined whether ethical principles are universal or accidental—a social construct. We continued that the knowledge and ideas of the world are, by and large, socially constructed in a specific value-giving context by convention or agreement with no objective and inherent basis, and so are many of these principles.

For example, “love your neighbour,” an essential Christian virtue, is relevant only in a Christian context. It may potentially cease to appeal to any Christian if it loses its contextual basis of Christian teachings from the Bible to atheism or some other forms of irreligiosity.

The rapid rise of atheism in the West is a new challenge or a new “deed,” as Nietzsche’s madman decried that “God is dead. God remains dead. Moreover, we have killed him… What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?” Indeed, deicide is too great a deed to do as much as undo, leaving a frightening void where the absence of God allows for the appearance of many pseudo-gods, false idols, or cult personalities.

Our discussion led us to the following question: What happens if our traditional ethical values, taboos, and guidance are taken to their extreme? For example, incest is currently perceived as unacceptable, repulsive, and even evil in many religions, ethical teachings, and secular laws. However, suppose it is eventually accepted as a normal sexual preference when there is nothing left to define it as an abnormal, deviant, or perverted sexual practice. What about paedophilia—what stops it from changing from being a psychiatric disorder to a socially acceptable one? Currently, laws, ethical norms, and religious doctrines prohibit it, but what if lobbyists and activists or people in power with such paedophilic disorder keeps pushing the boundary to accept it as a normalised sexual preference in the future?

Social contract theory asserts that social agreements and cultural norms are foundational to societal norms, perceptions, and products. They are considered subjective and susceptible to change over time, differentiating in various cultures and societies. Beauty is an example of this. It is a social construct, and its standards have evolved throughout history, for there is nothing objectively and universally intricate about it. Other examples of social constructs include language, money, and even time.

For many, perceptions of race are also a social construct based on diverse subjective experiences, interpretations, and meanings ascribed over time, reflecting a particular social reality. Racism is built upon a form of hierarchical power structure in society, resulting in deep social injustices, discrimination, and crimes. Thus, eradicating racism must start with the destruction of this power structure, which has no inherent, rational, and justifiable foundation.  

At the core of our discussion lies a profound uncertainty: If most ethical norms are social constructs, how do we construct foundational ethical judgments as objectively and universally as possible? If our ethical judgments are primarily subjective, how do we navigate the growing aspects of moral relativism to reach an ethical consensus?

Social constructivism is very much a defining reality in our contemporary and post-truth world, where no common social values are upheld because they are believed to have no objective origin, validity, or status, and where my “truth” is as much valid as your “truth,” as there is no overarchingly guiding “Truth,” be it transcendental, divine, or universal. If every social value or practice is socially constructed, it is contingent, changeable, or replaceable. This potential for change includes family values, gender and personal identity, community, and nation. All these notions and social practices are no longer universally applicable and rationally valid as they are believed to be institutionalised and power-centric constructs with the potential to be deconstructed. What is deconstructed may further produce a new social construct to be deconstructed. Then, where should we stop all this?

Now, let us analyse deconstructionism.

Jacques Derrida’s critique of binary oppositions is central to his deconstructive philosophy.  He asserted that Western thought is structured around binary oppositions, pairs of concepts that are not natural but hierarchal, with one term favoured over the other. Examples of binary oppositions include presence/absence, speech/writing, nature/culture, and mind/body.

For example, family is a socially constructed concept. Intrinsic to the family structure is the traditional binary opposition of a husband and wife, the former ruling the latter and holding privilege over them, a system protected by social, religious, and cultural norms.

Many feminists consider this system oppressive, unfair, and even abnormal. They believe the nuclear family reflects patriarchalism, forming the basis for socialisation within the context of this hierarchal power structure, justifying the systematic oppression of women. Within this context, they further perceive the family as teaching children gender roles to perpetuate gender roles in broader society, delaying and harming the establishment of gender equality. Without deconstructing this structure, women’s emancipation and social justice are impossible.

Transgender activists take this deconstruction to the next level, propagating that gender identity is a self-perceptive, indeed subjective, “fact,” but not a biologically determined or determinable factor. Some further stipulate that no biological objectivity should be allowed to define gender identity as it sustains such a narrow, exclusive, and dangerous binary structure.

Is there anything left to define a human being objectively? Previously, we were defined by our psychological components, religion, culture, or nation. However, in social constructivism and deconstructivism, these notions are gradually being questioned and understood as inadequate and oppressive within overt and covert frameworks of social constructs. Our identity, in this context, is not a fixed point but a fluid reality, an endless simulation process, an expression of self-perception and self-definition. It is a self-liberating construct—it allows us to define ourselves not by traditional, social, or rational categories but by how we feel about ourselves: I am how I feel myself. I should not be presumptuously stereotyped into a previously socially accepted taxonomy as a definition of somebody.

Transhumanism takes this discussion to an extreme and perhaps ultimate level. It is a new philosophical and scientific movement advocating for advanced technologies to enhance our physical and cognitive abilities by creating a hybrid human species with a combination of AI and human body, i.e., human brains. While sounding like a science fiction novel, this is what Elon Musk is promoting and investing in, promoted as the future of humanity. This future defines humanity as a half-biological and half-artificial, i.e., a half-human and half-machine beast. The most worrisome aspect of this post-human condition is that all fundamental aspects of our human reality, emotions, desires, and idiosyncrasies as the basis of our highly subjective existence, may either be reconstructed or re-engineered into something new or unhuman.

We are heading toward a destination where what is historically constructed is socially de-constructible, and what is socially de-constructible is, in turn, technologically reconstructable. The aim is to create an unprecedented and revolutionary new human species for the “greater good.”  

In the future age of transhumanism, AI may make everything objectified, rationalised, and universalised. It may irreversibly synthesise all dichotomies that “bother” us. Furthermore, without or with engineered emotions, desires, and whims, we will all become homogeneously de-individualised, permanently imprisoned in a gigantic universal intelligence, and systematically remotely controlled as cyborgs by losing our humanness strangely and certainly.