The "social contract" is a religious non-proven abstraction. There was never any social contract anywhere. And even if there was, it does not bind you or me in any way. And even if it could, we could impose our own versions of a social contract on each other making it irrelevant.
The consensus on social norms is not a consensus if it's enforced by some group on another - that's just bullying, not agreement. If our ideas of how society should function differ, we can either reach some compromise to mutual satisfaction (==consensus) or start fighting and guy with 51% of power will win. But that wouldn't be a "contract", "consensus" or "morality" in it. It'll be just an outcome of a brutal conflict.
Yes, the "social contract" is a very vague term indeed, & has been applied in bad ways in the past.
Here, I'm applying that there is social give & take & expectations/norms throughout our society. Yes, any social norm/contract/expectation is, by definition, constraining/conservative & thus counter to any progress/disruption.
These are not absolutes, as any difficult moral argument is usually balancing competing, legitimate concerns.
We do have an American social "contract" that is eroding: Things like "If you're born poor, and good in school, study hard, work hard your whole life, stay clean, then you have a great chance of getting out of poverty".
The consensus on social norms is not a consensus if it's enforced by some group on another - that's just bullying, not agreement. If our ideas of how society should function differ, we can either reach some compromise to mutual satisfaction (==consensus) or start fighting and guy with 51% of power will win. But that wouldn't be a "contract", "consensus" or "morality" in it. It'll be just an outcome of a brutal conflict.