Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Han Feizi’s Core Ideas in Legalist Philosophy

Han Feizi (c. 280-233 BCE), the preeminent synthesizer of Legalism (Fajia), articulated a philosophy of statecraft in his eponymous text Han Feizi, emphasizing three pillars: fa (law as impersonal, codified rules enforced without exception), shu (administrative techniques or “art of ruling” to manipulate officials and subjects), and shi (positional power or sovereign authority to ensure compliance). Legalism prioritizes a strong, centralized state through harsh penalties, merit-based rewards, and the ruler’s cunning control, viewing human nature as self-interested and thus requiring coercive mechanisms to maintain order (zhi). Han Feizi advocated weakening the people (ruo min) to consolidate power, rejecting Confucian virtue in favor of pragmatic, amoral governance. 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 Han Feizi’s lens, exemplifies Legalist ideals in execution: a codified fa swiftly punishes perceived disruption, backed by sovereign shi, yet reveals flaws in shu’s application, where selective enforcement undermines the system’s impartiality and risks instability.

1. Fa (Law) as Impersonal Enforcement: The Verdict as Exemplary Codified Penalty

Han Feizi’s fa demands uniform, predictable laws as the state’s “net,” applied without favoritism to deter chaos, with swift sanctions to instill fear and order.

Article 293 functions as such a net: the “disruption of social order” from unverified forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) is penalized impersonally, aligning with Legalist deterrence—Chen’s 20-month term serves as a general warning against “rumors.” The closed-door trial and non-oral appeal embody fa’s efficiency: no moral deliberation (e.g., free inquiry), just codified application, echoing Han Feizi’s dictum that “law does not favor the noble.” Han Feizi would approve this as pragmatic: the sentence weakens potential “troublemakers” (ruo min), consolidating state control. However, evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s unverified admission) subtly flout fa’s uniformity, risking perceptions of caprice over impartiality.

2. Shu (Techniques) in Administrative Manipulation: Selective Enforcement as Flawed Art of Ruling

Shu involves the sovereign’s cunning techniques to monitor and manipulate subordinates, ensuring loyalty through opacity and reward-punishment balance.

The judiciary employs shu subtly: “high education implies discernment” manipulates intent as a hidden lever, turning Chen’s scholarly profile against him, while selective enforcement (millions of similar forwards unpunished) allows controlled deterrence—punish exemplars to cow the masses without overreach. The “shut up” directive and barred defense exemplify opaque control, preventing leaks that could undermine authority. Han Feizi, who praised the ruler’s “unseen hand,” might commend this as artful: the prison letter’s taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) is neutralized, maintaining the facade of justice. Yet flaws emerge—ad hoc “upper-level instructions” risk exposing shu’s strings, eroding the technique’s subtlety and inviting resistance, contrary to Legalist balance.

3. Shi (Positional Power) and Sovereign Consolidation: The Case as Strengthening the Unseen Ruler

Shi is the sovereign’s unassailable position, amplified by law and techniques to render the state omnipotent, with the people as passive instruments.

The PRC’s sovereign shi shines here: Article 293’s application asserts absolute command, with the sentence reinforcing the center’s unchallenged might—Chen’s forwards, as micro-rebellions, are crushed to exemplify obedience. The non-public proceedings veil power, aligning with Han Feizi’s “clear mirror”: subjects see only the sanction’s shadow, not its machinery. This consolidates shi: the case deters intellectual “trouble,” weakening the populace (ruo min) without overt force. Han Feizi would hail it as ideal: the verdict’s efficiency bolsters the ruler’s position, turning potential dissent into loyalty. Subtly, though, anomalies like evidentiary gaps (no causal “disorder”) hint at shi’s brittleness—overreach could fracture the mirror, inviting the very chaos Legalism abhors.

Conclusion: Han Feizi’s Lens on the Case—A Legalist Triumph Tinged with Perilous Excess

From Han Feizi’s Legalist philosophy, the Chen Jingyuan case is a near-perfect triad: fa’s impersonal net snares disruption, shu’s cunning veils manipulation, and shi’s might ensures submission, fortifying the sovereign’s unseen throne. As of October 22, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has emerged; Chen’s account remains dormant, its silence a silent testament to Legalist efficacy. This case cautions, even in Han Feizi’s terms: flawless execution risks overextension—fa must remain uniform, shu subtle, shi balanced—or the net frays. Legalism endures, but at the edge of its own sharpened blade.