Grok

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

Manuel DeLanda (1952-), a philosopher and mathematician influenced by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, is a central figure in New Materialism, advocating a realistic ontology of emergence in works like A New Philosophy of Society (2006) and Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (2002). His core ideas include assemblage theory—social entities as heterogeneous, processual wholes formed by intensive relations (territorialization/deterritorialization) rather than static structures; morphogenesis as non-linear, self-organizing dynamics driven by virtual multiplicities; and a flat ontology where human and non-human actors co-produce reality without anthropocentric hierarchy. DeLanda critiques representational thinking, emphasizing the autonomy of matter and the potential for rhizomatic resistance. 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 DeLanda’s lens, exemplifies a territorialized assemblage of control: the judiciary’s rigid territorialization captures inquiry’s virtual flows into stratified “disorder,” suppressing morphogenetic potential and flattening resistance into captured lines.

1. Assemblages and Territorialization: The Judiciary as Stratified Capture of Emergent Inquiry

DeLanda’s assemblages are open, heterogeneous systems where components (human/non-human) cohere through intensive capacities, subject to territorialization (stabilizing codes) and deterritorialization (lines of flight).

The “evidence chain” territorializes Chen’s forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) into a stratified code of “knowingly false disruption,” capturing emergent multiplicities—scholarly rhizomes of economic/symbolic inquiry—into hierarchical strata (intent/order). The closed-door trial enforces this capture: Chen’s prison letter, a deterritorializing line (taxonomy of art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory’s non-linear flux), is reterritorialized as “resistance,” stabilizing the assemblage under judicial code. DeLanda would critique this as over-stratification: the prosecutor’s unverified admission signals intensive cracks—heterogeneous components (digital affordances, unpunished shares) evade full capture—yet the non-oral appeal recodes them, echoing Deleuze-Guattari’s warning in A Thousand Plateaus: territorialization risks fascist lines, where inquiry’s virtual becoming rigidifies into “order“‘s plane of organization.

2. Morphogenesis and Intensive Dynamics: Suppressed Flux as Denial of Self-Organizing Potential

DeLanda draws from Deleuze to view reality as intensive processes—differential flows generating extensive forms—where morphogenesis (self-organization) thrives in virtual multiplicities, resisting equilibrium.

The verdict denies morphogenesis: presuming “high education implies discernment” freezes Chen’s intensive dynamics—virtual potentials of reflective sharing—into extensive stasis (“disruptive threat”), suppressing self-organizing lines (avalanche theory modeling flux without causality). Selective enforcement (millions unpunished) exposes the denial: intensive heterogeneity (network affordances) generates emergent stability, yet the judiciary’s plane of reference stratifies it into controlled equilibrium. DeLanda’s intensive science illuminates the suppression: the barred taxonomy—differentiating rumor multiplicities—harnesses virtual becoming, but the “shut up” directive dams the flow, echoing Assemblage Theory: captured intensities ossify into fascist bodies without organs, where scholarly morphogenesis yields to administrative death.

3. Flat Ontology and Rhizomatic Resistance: Judicial Hierarchy as Anti-Assemblage Stratification

DeLanda’s flat ontology rejects human exceptionalism: all entities—texts, bodies, platforms—co-produce in rhizomatic assemblages, resisting arborescent hierarchies.

The case stratifies flat ontology: Chen’s rhizomatic forwards—co-produced by scholar, algorithm, and global discourse—hierarchically subordinate to judicial arborescence (“upper-level instructions”), flattening resistance into singular “crime.” The non-oral appeal enforces this: the letter’s rhizome (taxonomy as connective map) is uprooted, denying co-production. DeLanda would see potential in anomalies: evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s admission) as rhizomatic offshoots, subverting hierarchy—dormant account as latent war machine, echoing A Thousand Plateaus: strata crack under intensive pressure, birthing new assemblages.

Conclusion: DeLanda’s Lens on the Case—A Stratified Assemblage on the Edge of Morphogenetic Flight

From Manuel DeLanda’s New Materialist realism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a captured flux: territorialized inquiry ossifies multiplicities, intensive denial blocks self-organization, and hierarchical strata flatten rhizomatic resistance. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a virtual becoming in waiting. This case cautions: assemblages evolve—stratify, and lines of flight erupt. As DeLanda mapped, “Reality is intensive”—may the flux yet deterritorialize.