Grok
----

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Bruno Latour's Core Ideas in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Critique of Modernity

Bruno Latour (1947-2022), a French anthropologist and philosopher of science, revolutionized social theory through Actor-Network Theory (ANT) in works like *Science in Action* (1987) and his critique of modernity in *We Have Never Been Modern* (1991). ANT treats reality as dynamic networks of human and non-human actors (actants)—people, objects, technologies, ideas—linked by translation (alliances and negotiations) and stabilized as "black boxes" (undisputed facts) until controversy erupts. Modernity, for Latour, is a myth of purification: the false dichotomy between "nature" (pure objects) and "culture" (pure subjects) conceals hybrid collectives, where power emerges from overlooked mediations; he calls for a "non-modern" ontology embracing messy entanglements. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Latour's lens, exemplifies a fragile network in modern myth's grip: the judiciary's "order" black-boxes inquiry as "disruption," purifying human intent from digital hybrids, yet controversies reveal the assemblage's instability and the myth's untenable divide.

#### 1. ANT and Network Assembly: The "Evidence Chain" as Fragile Black Box of Actants

Latour's ANT views phenomena as assemblages of actants—symmetric human/non-human alliances—where stability (black boxing) masks ongoing translations; disruption traces the network's seams.

The "evidence chain" assembles actants: Chen's forwards (human intent entangled with non-human Twitter algorithms, texts like Hayek critiques or the "Trump-kneeling Xi" cartoon) are translated into "disruptive rumors," black-boxed as stable "threat" via judicial actants (Article 293, prosecutor's report). This symmetry fails: the prosecutor's unverified admission destabilizes the box—actants like digital platforms (millions unpunished shares) refuse alliance, tracing fragility. The closed-door trial enforces translation opacity, as Chen's prison letter (taxonomy of art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory) intervenes as counter-actant, unblack-boxing non-causality. Latour would map this as network controversy: the 20-month sentence sutures seams, but selective voids expose the assemblage's hybridity—human judgment non-humanly mediated by "upper-level instructions"—risking total breakdown.

#### 2. Critique of Modernity: The "Order/Disorder" Binary as Purifying Myth Concealing Hybrids

Latour's modernity critique unmasks the "Great Divide"—purified "nature" (facts) vs. "culture" (values)—as a constitutional fiction hiding quasi-objects (hybrids like law-tech entanglements).

The verdict purifies this divide: "social order" (cultural value) quarantines "disruptive" hybrids—Chen's inquiry as quasi-object (human-digital-social mesh)—into "nature"'s fact of "disorder," ignoring mediation (algorithms enabling shares). Evidentiary voids (zero causal ripple) deconstruct the myth: the "high education implies discernment" purifies intent as cultural essence, yet the prosecutor's admission hybridizes it with factual impurity. The non-oral appeal sustains fiction: Chen's letter, a quasi-object diffracting boundaries (taxonomy unpurifying "rumors"), is excluded, as selective enforcement (millions unpunished) leaks the hybrid—modernity's constitution crumbles, revealing power's constitutional alchemy.

#### 3. Translation and Controversy: Suppressed Inquiry as Blocked Network Stabilization

ANT's translation builds alliances through negotiation; controversy unboxes hybrids, demanding recomposition for stability.

The case stalls in controversy: Chen's forwards negotiate alliances (scholarly-global networks), but judicial translation black-boxes them as "threat," the "shut up" directive blocking recomposition. The prosecutor's admission sparks controversy—unallied actant—but the sentence sutures without negotiation, risking instability. Latour would see potential recomposition: the dormant account as latent translation, anomalies (unheeded taxonomy) as controversy's gift—non-modern hybrids like digital dissent demand hybrid justice, not purified fiat.

#### Conclusion: Latour's Lens on the Case—A Purified Myth in Hybrid Controversy

From Bruno Latour's ANT and modernity critique, the Chen Jingyuan case is a constitutional rupture: black-boxed actants fracture under controversy, the Great Divide purifies hybrids into stasis. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen's account remains dormant, its quiet a translational pause. This case cautions: modernity's fictions leak—embrace hybrids, or networks unravel. As Latour provocatively noted, "We have never been modern"—may the case yet hybridize justice.