Not only to ideas and thoughts can this drifting-apart, diverging, discursive contemplation be extended. Wherever artificial borders are erected by science, wherever they have to be erected, the respective subjects and areas of study flow into each other - physics, chemistry, biology may concentrate on specific areas but cannot be separated on closer inspection - it's like in an ecosystem: Even the tiniest constituent, be it a water flea, has its influence on the entire system as a whole. This extended view of things is even supported by more recent physical theories.
The discourse as a basis of scientific reflection may not necessarily allow instantaneous and immediate knowledge and experience, but it constitutes a more realistic view of reality, a self-reflexive form of thinking - becoming much more aware of one's means and limitations. For this, however, it needs a departure from terms like "tradition" or "evolution", yet alone because science itself is subject to change over time and cannot be considered a continuous, static object .
If we consider structures of society, of each society and each thinking, on closer inspection structures will be noticed that often were or are being denoted as being natural, and whose sustaining up to then would have always been guarded and sponsored by state or society; structures guarding the difference between man and woman, between races, between classes, between nations, between weltanschauungen, between religions. These structures far too often are based upon traditions, upon historical conditions which at a certain time might have made it necessary to draw certain borders, borders which often were determined politically or economically.
A separation into classes, into citizens, non-citizens and slaves existed already in antiquity and early history, a separation based on capital and political associations which was convenient and allowed the state's conscience be eased. The use of the "race" term in combination with slavery "progressed" in more modern times, making it even easier to enslave human beings - a "natural" opposition had been constructed. Equally, although by far indescribable, are the Holocaust and "ethnic cleansing" as well as "purges" based upon these constructions. Biologically more or less existing differences or special properties, or just the belonging to a different group, form the basis for organized discrimination, which not at all cannot be considered natural any more.
The separation of the sexes may not have manifested in such cruel chains of individual events, but nevertheless is it constructed from biological differences to which further, non-biological dissimilarities are ascribed. The separation is further perfected by canonization and sanctioning. Non-womanish occupations and functions are just being defined, but by whom? We have been made familiar with role types and -schemes in upbringing and education by the means of culture and the society we live in. But instead of overcoming this separation, it is being strengthened by underlining it through quotas and coercive measures.
And even the centuries-old usual presence of deliminations and constructivity is again by some considered evidence for its naturalness, of each kind of discrimination. And the language used for justification is often merely euphemistic and, just like the constructed recording of the events themselves, fictive and unreliable. Is there a context in which we could understand what really happened, what's really true? A new understanding for these constructions has also become necessary in literary history:
Two decades of unprecedented scholarship and criticism have excavated lost authors for our reconsideration, delineated literary traditions of which we had been previously unaware, and raised probing questions about the very processes by which we canonize, valorize, and select the texts to be remembered. In the wake of all the new information about the literary production of women, Blacks, Native Americans, ethnic minorities, and gays and lesbians; and with new ways of analyzing popular fiction, non-canonical genres, and working-class writings, all prior literary histories are rendered partial, inadequate, and obsolete.