The Crisis of the Symbolic Order and Relational Being (2nd Discussion)
In the process of seeking self-subjectivity, humanity often requires the presence of an Other. The human being is an animal that witnesses its own subjectivity in the Other and witnesses its own existence in interaction with the Other.
We need to distinguish here between two concepts: “presence” and “being.” “Being” here represents metaphysical reality, while “presence” refers to the present manifestation of some metaphysical entity or its proxy.
Among all Others, there exists a special Other—the big Other. The big Other is the symbolic structure through which we confirm our own existence: perhaps the gaze of God, the objectivity of science, or the authority of law.
In the first period, this big Other was occupied by symbols such as the supreme deity. I believe this period can be called the “Period of Transcendent Divinity.”
After the Enlightenment, the transcendent God was gradually replaced by symbolic rationality. The symbolic rationality of natural and social sciences gradually came to occupy the position of the big Other.
The power of symbolic rationality is formidable—we cannot deny its force. Through symbolic rationality, humanity creates the order of the world, practices, creates, and comes to understand this world.
This is the second period, which I call the “Divinity of Symbolic Rationality.”
Symbolic rationality has long occupied the position of humanity’s big Other. It seemed that through symbols, humanity could achieve perfect order, access perfect knowledge, fully understand the subject itself, and create infinitely. The power of symbols has long caused people to overlook their inherent limitations—that they too are flawed and can never reach the Real.
Recent events such as those concerning Greenland have revealed the fragility of the symbolic order: when the will to power no longer respects symbols (such as international law), law becomes merely words on paper. This shows us that law is essentially just a symbol. For symbols to function, people must at minimum possess the will to respect and obey them, along with corresponding enforcement mechanisms. Otherwise, they are merely text, incapable of producing any effective mediation of order.
On the other hand, with the development of AI, humanity increasingly questions what the subject itself is. When AI’s subjectivity replaces human subjectivity in relational structures, where will human subjectivity go? Moreover, with AI’s development, the creation of symbols becomes easier—symbols become increasingly cheap. Capital’s attempts to produce and reproduce desire through symbols also become increasingly difficult.
Human development is facing the impact of contemporary problems on symbolic systems. Specific manifestations include: symbolic inflation, hollowing out of meaning, normative failure, and subjective anxiety.
Faced with such impacts, perhaps one way forward is for humanity to become the structure itself—to move toward a structural, relational mode of being.
Perhaps, as “the human being is the totality of all social relations,” it already possesses relational existence—moving toward relational being is merely allowing humanity to return to itself. The difference in relational structure is also an important point distinguishing human subjectivity from AI subjectivity. Humans depend on complex social relations; in their families, social labor relations, and other relationships, human subjectivity is witnessed. This distinction gives humans uniqueness in relational capacities such as ethics, morality, empathy, co-creation, and co-being—capacities that distinguish them from AI. In the recognition of relational ontology, in the generativity based on relational ontology—that is, in creativity based on relationality—humans also possess a unique creativity distinct from AI. The profound creativity possessed by artists often comes from the inspiration, joy, or pain given to them by social relational structures.
Beyond law, we need relational capacities such as ethics, morality, empathy, and compassion. In creativity, we need the profound creativity based on relationality.
Perhaps we are moving toward a third period: “A Period of Relational Divinity.” Here, divinity is no longer some supreme being, but rather a “from the masses, to the masses” divinity of relational being.
In this period, humanity no longer seeks the witnessing of subjectivity from external transcendent beings or abstract symbolic systems, but generates itself in concrete, present relational practices. Ethics is no longer external law, but the internal requirement of relations themselves. Creativity is no longer the recombination of symbols, but the generative force that emerges from the tensions, conflicts, and reconciliations of relations.