Is enlightenment (like gender) socially constructed?

Socially constructed enlightenment, like socially constructed genders, has it purveyors who haven’t proven what they wish to prove although they believe otherwise (this is taken up by Robert K. C. Forman in his book, The Innate Capacity: Mysticism, Psychology, and Philosophy). 

The idea of something ‘socially constructed’ can only begin as a social phenomenon, that is, it stems from an interaction between at least two communicating people which could be thought of as a kind of primitive, limited sharing (but not everything is sharable [asocial] even between two like minded people). 

This is also meant to suggest that our cultural training which includes education, social status, economic circumstances, serve to shape our personal experiences, feelings, choices and, ultimately, who we really believe we are.

Contrary to this, in the example of biological gender, it is not socially constructed, it is set during conception.  The difference between biological sexes includes different chromosomes, for example, female XX, male XY, different reproductive organs (ovaries, testes), etc.  A human being is born as an organic whole which then develops to its potential which could be argued is part of Darwinian fitness.    

Turning to Buddhism, all sentient beings have the enlightened or Buddha nature, potentially.  This means that this nature is inherent in all living creatures but is ever hidden by the biological entity, itself, the life of which revolves around material shape, feeling, perception, volitional formations (choices) and consciousness which are the five grasping aggregates.  One could even argue that it is further hidden by any and all social constructions which are the result of social interactions.

All this falls under the category of ‘constructivism’.  Whether we are arguing about gender being socially constructed or Siddhartha’s enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, such experiences according to the constructivists are in large part built up through language, concepts, beliefs, and expectations (all acquired by social interactions).

But when a student  leaves their religious culture which could be a Zen monastery or a university class on Buddhism and elects to go into a self-imposed retreat looking for their true nature, the  social world is left behind.  There is no interaction with another in the example of even the teacher-student dyad. 

Over time, solitude washes away and lessens the impact of past social interactions which are outside the subject who is in retreat.  If anything, there is a shift from social interaction to personal intra-action.  In the latter, the gap between observer-observed or subject-object duality which makes up consciousness (vijñāna) is closed through meditation (dhyāna) until the original one is reached or in Sanskrit, ekatva, this being enlightenment which transcends even the biological domain.

Comments

[n. yeti]

To support MStrinado's comment, there is a kind of unwritten law among mystic traditions of virtually every variety I am aware of, which understands that the spiritual penetrations through mysticism depend on the level of development of the mystic. By definition then, what is known or experienced by the mystic is not generally known to others, and certainly cannot fall under the category of a social construct even though the "traditions" through which the mystic emerges or is involved may well be nothing other than societal conventions.

[MStrinado]

Once again you share a marvelous resource with us. Most excellent and a pivotal point that it shares, "mysticism is the expression of an innate capacity", not a social construct. Thank-you!