The Problem with... Deconstruction

The illiberal left is obsessed with deconstruction. For the illiberal left, every part of the status quo, every structure and every institution, is a product of oppressive power relations, and needs to be deconstructed to bring about liberation. The illiberal left is illiberal because they believe the freedoms guaranteed by liberalism are part of the oppressive structure to maintain the status quo, to prevent the dismantling of the status quo. I believe this view is illustrated most clearly in Herbert Marcuse's infamous essay Repressive Tolerance, where he essentially says that liberalism's universal tolerance leads to the upholding of the repressive and oppressive status quo, and that a truly liberating tolerance must be selectively intolerant to some ideas, i.e. illiberal at least some of the time. Hence, the basic logic of the illiberal left looks like this: the freedoms guaranteed by liberalism make the liberated utopia they desire impossible to achieve, so they must be knocked down.

Think about this: despite saying that it is for liberation, the ideology of deconstructionism actually doesn't even allow you the freedom to reject having your culture deconstructed! Once you say you want to keep your culture, or at least that there are some aspects of the status quo you want to keep, then you become a supporter of oppression and repression. Thus, while deconstructionism is supposed to be liberating, it is 'liberating' on its own terms, not your terms, nor the terms of any individual. Therefore, for those of us who see things from the individual freedom point of view, deconstructionism is not only not going to be liberating at all, it is going to be highly prescriptive, highly authoritarian, and yes, highly oppressive in practice. This is seen in the fact that the most ardent supporters of the deconstructionist agenda often don't respect basic free speech norms at all.

And then there is the problem of the objective truth. Objectively speaking, scientifically speaking, not everything is a social construct, and therefore not everything can be deconstructed. But for the most ardent supporters of deconstruction, just saying this out loud would be a rejection of deconstruction, and therefore in support of oppression and repression. Hence, at least when taken to the extreme, deconstructionism is basically anti-science! It seems clear to me that, when deconstruction comes into conflict with science, it is science that needs to give way. This, I think, can be seen in how, in the trans community, those who voice support for the traditional clinical medicine-based model of gender dysphoria, are often smeared as 'transmedicalist'. Another example is how, when discussing climate change, deconstructionists often want to focus on cultural phenomenon rather than the science itself. In both cases, they don't seem to be too interested in the actual science, or the objective truth.

Finally, I have this ongoing suspicion that deconstructionists want no less than 'liberation' from the objective truth. Which is to say, deconstructionism is simply a philosophically sophisticated way for some people to avoid the reality, by treating it as if it were not real. The ultimate intellectual form of escapism, one might say. The trouble is, many of us want to continue living in the real world. We don't need, or want, this kind of 'liberation' from reality.