Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Karen Barad’s Core Ideas in New Materialist Philosophy

Karen Barad (1956-), a theoretical physicist and feminist philosopher, is a pivotal voice in New Materialism, particularly through her agential realism in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007). Her core ideas emphasize intra-action—the co-constitutive entanglement of phenomena where entities emerge through mutual exclusions and inclusions—over isolated “inter-actions.” Agential cuts are performative boundaries enacted by apparatuses (human and non-human), producing “cuts” that mark what matters; diffraction refracts knowledge through differences, enabling ethical multiplicity and accountability; and onto-epistemology collapses ontology (what is) and epistemology (what we know) into material-discursive practices. Barad critiques representational thinking, advocating a “posthumanist performativity” where justice arises from entangled responsibilities. 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 Barad’s lens, exemplifies a coercive agential cut: the judiciary’s apparatus enacts an exclusionary boundary around “order,” diffracting neither inquiry’s multiplicities nor entangled responsibilities, rendering justice a flattened, non-accountable performance.

1. Intra-Action and Entanglement: The “Evidence Chain” as Exclusionary Cut in Relational Flux

Barad’s intra-action posits phenomena as emergent from entangled relations—observer and observed co-constitute each other—challenging atomistic individualism.

The “evidence chain” performs a violent cut: isolating Chen’s forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as discrete “disruptive” entities, excluding their intra-active flux—entangled with digital algorithms, global discourses, and scholarly curiosity. This apparatus (judicial “high education implies discernment”) enacts exclusion: Chen’s prison letter, intra-acting taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory’s non-linear entanglement, is severed from the chain, flattening relations into static “threat.” Barad would critique this as ethical erasure: the closed-door trial’s opacity diffracts no multiplicities—prosecutor’s unverified admission as entangled anomaly—reducing justice to non-relational fiat. The result is performative violence: selective enforcement (millions unpunished) reveals the cut’s arbitrariness, yet sustains a dis-entangled “order” devoid of accountability.

2. Agential Cuts and Posthumanist Performativity: The Verdict as Boundary-Enforcing Apparatus Without Diffraction

Agential cuts are not passive divisions but performative enactments—boundaries that “cut together-apart” (kata), producing what matters through exclusion; ethics demands diffractive responsibility, refracting through differences for justice.

Article 293 enacts a cut: “picking quarrels” boundaries Chen’s inquiry as “matter-out-of-place” (disorder), cutting together “intent” (presumed malice) and apart “freedom” (scholarly flux), performed by the non-oral appeal’s apparatus. This posthumanist performativity excludes non-human agents (platform affordances, unheeded taxonomy), flattening diffraction—the letter’s avalanche model refracts “chaos” through non-linear responsibility, yet barred. Barad’s ethics gleams in the fissures: evidentiary voids (zero ripple) diffract the cut’s violence, demanding accountable re-enactment. The “shut up” directive enforces non-diffractive stasis, as selective anomalies (unpunished shares) expose the apparatus’s partiality—justice, uncut by multiplicity, risks ethical collapse.

3. Onto-Epistemology and Ethical Accountability: Suppressed Inquiry as Disentangled Knowledge Production

Barad’s onto-epistemology merges being and knowing: knowledge is material practice, accountability emerges from entangled cuts that honor differences.

The verdict disentangles this: “disruption” as knowledge-production fiat ignores onto-epistemological entanglement—Chen’s forwards as co-constitutive with digital ecologies, producing accountable inquiry. The non-public trial severs practice: the letter’s taxonomy intra-acts evidence with ethics, yet excluded, knowledge devolves to unaccountable fiat. Barad would see redemptive diffraction: the prosecutor’s admission refracts through voids, demanding ethical re-entanglement—dormant account as latent practice, awaiting multiplicity.

Conclusion: Barad’s Lens on the Case—A Coercive Cut in Entangled Flux

From Karen Barad’s agential realism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a flattened entanglement: exclusionary cuts deaden intra-actions, non-diffractive performativity erases accountability, and disentangled onto-epistemology voids ethical multiplicity. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a diffractive pause in the flux. This case cautions: cuts co-produce—enact violently, and differences rebel. As Barad diffracted, “Ethics is not an add-on; it’s in the cut”—may justice yet refract responsibly.