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.