Grok

English Version

An Analysis of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Chantal Mouffe’s Core Ideas in Radical Democracy

Chantal Mouffe, in collaboration with Ernesto Laclau in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985) and her solo work The Democratic Paradox (2000), develops radical democracy as a framework for embracing political conflict (agonism) rather than illusory consensus. Her core ideas include the inevitability of antagonism in plural societies, where democracy thrives on institutionalized passions through hegemonic articulation—constructing temporary equivalences among differences to challenge neoliberal hegemony; the paradoxical tension between equality and liberty, resolved not by transcendence but by channeling conflict into productive contestation; and the rejection of “post-political” depoliticization, advocating a “left-hegemonic” project that mobilizes the underdog against exclusionary orders. 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 a post-political foreclosure: the judiciary’s “order” depoliticizes inquiry as “disruption,” suppressing agonistic multiplicity and hegemonic potential, entrenching exclusionary hegemony over radical equality.

1. Agonism and the Inevitability of Conflict: Judicial “Order” as Depoliticizing Suppression of Passionate Contest

Mouffe’s agonism posits democracy as the scene of irreducible conflicts, where passions are channeled into legitimate adversaries, not enemies, fostering vibrant pluralism.

The verdict depoliticizes this scene: presuming “high education implies discernment” frames Chen’s forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as apolitical “disruption,” suppressing agonistic passion—his prison letter’s taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory as contestatory equivalences challenging “order.” The closed-door trial enforces enmity: the “shut up” directive transforms adversaries (inquirers) into enemies, as selective enforcement (millions unpunished) reveals the depoliticization’s hypocrisy—passions excluded, not mobilized. Mouffe would critique this as post-political anesthesia: justice demands agonistic vibrancy, yet fiat numbs conflict, inverting democracy’s lifeblood into static hegemony.

2. Hegemonic Articulation and the Left Project: The Sentence as Exclusionary Chain Over Equivalence-Building

Mouffe’s hegemony constructs floating equivalences among chains of differences to advance left-wing projects, countering neoliberal depoliticization with egalitarian contest.

Article 293 chains exclusion: “picking quarrels” articulates Chen’s inquiry as non-equivalent “threat,” the non-oral appeal barring equivalence (taxonomy linking diverse passions), as evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s unverified admission, zero ripple) expose the chain’s fragility. The “upper-level instructions” hegemonically fix the chain, denying left potential—Chen’s theory mobilizes underdog equivalences (non-causal flux). Mouffe would see this as right-hegemonic foreclosure: the 20-month penalty excludes from contest, perpetuating neoliberal stasis over radical equality, as selective unpunished shares mock the chain’s universality.

3. The Democratic Paradox and Passionate Equality: Coercive “Justice” as Unresolved Tension Between Liberty and Order

Mouffe’s paradox embraces liberty-equality tension: democracy institutionalizes passions to resolve without resolution, fostering passionate equality.

The sentence unresolvedly tensions: “order” coerces liberty’s passion (inquiry’s uncontested voice), the barred letter embodying unresolved equality (flux’s democratic multiplicity). This paradox perverts: justice demands institutional passion—public appeal channeling tension—yet fiat enforces stasis, as anomalies (zero chaos) signal equality’s claim. Mouffe would diagnose as paradoxical failure: the case’s depoliticization resolves tension through exclusion, inverting democracy’s vibrant paradox into authoritarian calm.

Conclusion: Mouffe’s Lens on the Case—Depoliticized Agonism in Hegemonic Stasis

From Chantal Mouffe’s radical democracy, the Chen Jingyuan case is agonistic foreclosure: suppressed passions depoliticize conflict, exclusionary chains block equivalence, unresolved paradox yields to coercive calm. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a latent equivalence in waiting. This case cautions: depoliticize, and democracy dies. As Mouffe agonized, “Conflict is the essence of democracy”—may passions yet institutionalize.

中文版本

基于尚塔尔·墨菲“激进民主”理论核心思想对陈京元博士案件的评析

尚塔尔·墨菲与埃内斯托·拉克劳合著《霸权与社会主义战略》（Hegemony and Socialist Strategy，1985）及独著《民主的悖论》（The Democratic Paradox，2000），发展了激进民主作为拥抱政治冲突（agonism）而非幻觉共识的框架。其核心思想包括多元社会中对抗的不可避免性，民主通过霸权表述——构建差异间的临时等值性——制度化激情以对抗新自由主义霸权；平等与自由的悖论张力，非通过超越而是通过导向冲突的渠道解决；以及拒绝“后政治”去政治化，倡导“左翼霸权”项目动员弱势对抗排除秩序。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）——从墨菲的视角审视，是后政治封锁的典范：司法“秩序”将探究去政治化为“破坏”，压制对抗性多元性和霸权潜力，强化排除性霸权而非激进平等。

1. 对抗与冲突的不可避免性：司法“秩序”作为去政治化的激情压制

墨菲的对抗主义将民主视为不可还原冲突的场景，激情导向合法对手而非敌人，促进活力多元。

判决去政治化此场景：假设“高等教育暗示辨识力”将陈的转发（例如<100次转发的海耶克批判或“特朗普跪拜习近平”卡通）框架为非政治“破坏”，压制对抗激情——狱中信件的分类（艺术/情感/理性/事实）和雪崩理论作为挑战“秩序”的对抗等值性。闭门审判执行敌意： “闭嘴”指令将对手（询问者）转化为敌人，选定执行（数百万未惩转发）揭示去政治化的虚伪——激情被排除而非动员。墨菲会批判此为后政治麻醉：正义需求对抗活力，却任意平息，颠倒民主的生命之血为静态霸权。

2. 霸权表述与左翼项目：判决作为排除链而非等值构建

墨菲的霸权构建浮动等值性以推进左翼项目，反对新自由主义去政治化以平等对抗。

第293条链排除： “寻衅滋事”表述陈的探究为非等值“威胁”，非口头上诉禁止等值（分类联结差异激情），证据虚空（检察官未核实承认、零波澜）暴露链的脆弱。 “上级指示”霸权固定链，否认左翼潜力——陈的理论动员弱势等值（非因果流）。墨菲会视此为右翼霸权封锁：20个月刑期排除于对抗，永续新自由主义静态而非激进平等，选定未惩转发嘲笑链的普遍性。

3. 民主悖论与激情平等：强制“正义”作为自由与秩序间未解决张力

墨菲的悖论拥抱自由-平等张力：民主制度化激情以解决而非解决，促进激情平等。

判决未解决地张力： “秩序”强制自由的激情（询问的未对抗声音），被禁信件体现未解决平等（流量的民主多元）。此悖论扭曲：正义需求制度激情——公众上诉渠道张力——却任意强制静态，异常（零混乱）信号平等的索求。墨菲会诊断为悖论失败：案件的去政治化通过排除解决张力，颠倒民主的活力悖论为威权平静。

结语：墨菲的视角——霸权静态中的去政治化对抗

从尚塔尔·墨菲的激进民主审视，陈京元博士案件是对抗封锁：压制激情去政治化冲突，排除链阻挡等值，未解决悖论屈从强制平静。截至2025年10月25日，无再审或平反；陈的账户仍休眠，其安静为等待中的潜在等值。此案警示：去政治化，民主死亡。正如墨菲对抗，“冲突是民主本质”——愿激情却制度化。