Grok
English Version
An Analysis of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Giorgio Agamben’s Core Ideas in Biopolitics
Giorgio Agamben, in works like Homo Sacer (1995) and State of Exception (2005), develops biopolitics as the modern sovereignty’s mechanism for capturing bare life (zoē)—naked biological existence—into the realm of political power (bios). His core ideas include the homo sacer: the figure of sacred man, included in the law only to be excluded from it, killable but not sacrificable; the state of exception, where law is suspended to manage life; and the camp as the biopolitical paradigm, where life is reduced to pure manageability. Agamben critiques how modernity transforms sovereignty from ruling over the qualified (bios) to administering the unqualified (zoē), blurring inclusion/exclusion to perpetuate control. 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—exemplifies biopolitical capture: the judiciary’s “order” reduces intellectual life to bare zoē, enacting a state of exception that suspends rights to manage dissent, turning the inquiring subject into a homo sacer—exposed yet unsacrificed.
1. Bare Life (Zoē) and Inclusion/Exclusion: The Verdict as Biopolitical Reduction of Inquiry to Manageable Threat
Agamben’s zoē is stripped biological existence, included in politics only to be exposed to death—exemplified in the camp’s bare survivability.
Chen’s forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) represent qualified bios—intellectual life in civic discourse—yet the sentence reduces it to bare zoē: “disruptive” manageability, stripped of rights through the closed-door trial’s exclusionary inclusion. The “high education implies discernment” presumption exposes zoē to arbitrary death (20 months’ penalty), as evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s unverified admission, zero causal chaos) blur the line—Chen is included as “citizen” only to be excluded from protection. Agamben would see this as sovereign ban: the non-oral appeal suspends legal recourse, managing bare life without sacrifice, turning the scholar into homo sacer—killable (intellectually) but not mourned.
2. State of Exception: Judicial Suspension as Normative Bare Life Management
The state of exception normalizes law’s suspension, transforming sovereignty into biopolitical administration of life.
Article 293 enacts this exception: “picking quarrels” suspends rights under “order,” the “upper-level instructions” normalizing fiat over norm. The “shut up” directive and barred taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory) manage bare dissent without trial’s norm, as selective enforcement (millions unpunished) blurs exception into rule. Agamben would diagnose biopolitical norm: the verdict’s 20 months administers zoē—intellectual survival as compliant shadow—exposing the camp’s logic in digital space.
3. Homo Sacer and Ethical Void: The Case as Exposed Life Without Sacrificial Redemption
homo sacer is life included yet excluded—bare, unsacrificable, eternally exposed.
Chen’s inquiry—for truth’s sake—is unsacrificed: the sentence exposes bare zoē (silenced letter) without redemption, as voids (zero ripple) deny sacrificial meaning. Agamben would see ethical void: justice as biopolitical exposure, not sacred rite—Chen as sacer scholar, included in “society” only to be killed (knowledge-wise) yet not mourned.
Conclusion: Agamben’s Lens on the Case—Biopolitical Exposure in the State of Exception
From Giorgio Agamben’s biopolitics, the Chen Jingyuan case is bare life’s camp: zoē reduced to manageable threat, exception normalized, homo sacer exposed without redemption. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a sacer vigil. This case cautions: expose zoē, and sovereignty devours. As Agamben bared, “The camp is the biopolitical paradigm”—may the exposed yet reclaim bios.
中文版本
基于乔治·阿甘本“生命政治”核心思想对陈京元博士案件的评析
乔治·阿甘本在《神圣人》（Homo Sacer，1995）和《例外状态》（State of Exception，2005）等著作中，发展了生命政治作为现代主权机制的思想，即将裸露生命（zoē）——纯粹的生物存在——纳入政治权力的领域。他的核心思想包括“神圣人”（homo sacer）：被纳入法律却被排除在外的圣人，可被杀戮却不可被献祭；例外状态，即法律被悬置以管理生命；以及营地作为生命政治范式，将生命简化为纯粹的可管理性。阿甘本批判现代性如何将主权从统治合格生命（bios）转向管理不合格生命（zoē），模糊纳入/排除界限以永续控制。陈京元博士案件——一名博士学者因Twitter转发被判20个月“寻衅滋事罪”（中华人民共和国刑法第293条）——从阿甘本的视角审视，是生命政治捕获的典范：司法“秩序”将知识分子生命简化为裸露zoē，通过例外状态悬置权利管理异见，将询问主体转化为“神圣人”——暴露却未被献祭。
1. 裸露生命（Zoē）与纳入/排除：判决作为将探究简化为可管理威胁的生命政治
阿甘本的zoē是剥离的生物存在，仅纳入政治以暴露于死亡——营地中的裸露生存性即其典范。
陈京元的转发（例如<100次转发的海耶克批判或“特朗普跪拜习近平”卡通）代表合格* bios*——公民话语中的知识生命——但判决将其简化为裸露zoē：通过闭门审判的排除性纳入，“破坏性”管理性，剥离权利。 “高等教育暗示辨识力”的假设将zoē暴露于任意死亡（20个月刑期），证据虚空（检察官未核实承认、零因果混乱）模糊界限——陈被纳入“社会”却排除保护。阿甘本会视此为主权禁区：非口头上诉悬置法律救济，管理裸露生命而无献祭，将学者转化为* homo sacer*——可杀（知识上）却不可哀悼。
2. 例外状态：司法悬置作为规范化的裸露生命管理
例外状态将法律悬置常态化，将主权转化为生命政治的管理。
第293条即此例外： “寻衅滋事”在“秩序”下悬置权利，“上级指示”常态化任意而非规范。 “闭嘴”指令和被禁分类（艺术/情感/理性/事实、雪崩理论）管理裸露异见而无审判规范，选定执行（数百万未惩转发）模糊例外为规则。阿甘本会诊断为生命政治规范：判决的20个月管理zoē——知识生存作为顺从阴影——暴露营地逻辑于数字空间。
3. 神圣人与伦理虚空：案件作为无献祭救赎的暴露生命
homo sacer*是被纳入却被排除的生命——裸露、不可献祭、永恒暴露。
陈的探究——为真理献祭——未被献祭：判决暴露裸露zoē（被禁信件）而无救赎，虚空（零波澜）否认献祭意义。阿甘本会视此为伦理虚空：正义作为生命政治暴露，而非圣礼——陈作为sacer学者，被纳入“社会”仅为被杀（知识上）却不可哀悼。
结语：阿甘本的视角——例外状态中的生命政治暴露
从乔治·阿甘本的生命政治审视，陈京元博士案件是裸露生命的营地：zoē简化为可管理威胁，例外常态化，homo sacer暴露而无救赎。截至2025年10月25日，无再审或平反；陈的账户仍休眠，其安静为sacer守望。此案警示：暴露zoē，主权吞噬。正如阿甘本暴露，“营地是生命政治范式”——愿暴露者却重获bios。