Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Julia Kristeva’s Philosophical Core Ideas

Julia Kristeva (1941-), a Bulgarian-French philosopher, psychoanalyst, and semiotician, is a pivotal figure in post-structuralism, blending Lacanian psychoanalysis with Bakhtinian dialogism. Her core ideas revolve around the semiotic (chora)—a pre-symbolic, rhythmic maternal space of drives and bodily inscriptions—and the symbolic—the patriarchal order of linear language and law that represses it. In Revolution in Poetic Language (1974) and Powers of Horror (1980), Kristeva explores abjection as the mechanism by which subjects form through violent expulsion of the “other” (maternal, chaotic), yet this repression generates revolutionary potential via poetic language that disrupts symbolic rigidity. Politically, she advocates for an ethics of intertextuality, where subversive rhythms reclaim the abject, fostering fluid subjectivity against authoritarian norms. 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—viewed through Kristeva’s lens, exemplifies symbolic repression of the semiotic: the judiciary’s linear “order” abjects intellectual inquiry, yet Chen’s prison letter erupts as abject rhythm, signaling ethical rupture. Below, I evaluate from key dimensions of Kristeva’s thought.

1. Symbolic Repression and the Abject: Judicial “Order” as Patriarchal Expulsion of Semiotic Inquiry

Kristeva’s symbolic order—rigid, phallocentric law—represses the semiotic chora (pre-linguistic drives, rhythms of thought), projecting chaos onto the abject “other” to forge subject stability.

The verdict embodies this repression: forwards of academic discourse (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) are abjected as “knowingly false disruption,” expelling the semiotic vitality of scholarly rhythm—Chen’s exploratory “drives” (curiosity, intertextual citation)—into the legal void. The “high education implies discernment” presumption enforces symbolic linearity, casting intellectual multiplicity as chaotic “threat,” much like the abject maternal body in paternal law. Kristeva would diagnose this as foundational violence: the closed-door trial and “shut up” directive ritually expel the semiotic, stabilizing the judiciary’s phallic “order.” Yet anomalies like unverified posts implicate the abject’s return—the repressed (e.g., no causal “disorder”) haunts the symbolic facade, prefiguring rupture.

2. Poetic Revolution and Intertextuality: Chen’s Prison Letter as Rhythmic Subversion of Legal Monologism

Kristeva posits poetic language as revolutionary: it reactivates semiotic rhythms within symbolic structures, via intertextuality—dialogic weaving of voices—to disrupt monologic authority and reclaim ethical subjectivity.

Chen’s prison letter exemplifies this: its categorization of “rumors” (art/emotion/reason/fact) and “avalanche theory” (non-linear inquiry) intertextually weaves scientific, legal, and personal rhythms, subverting the verdict’s monologic line (“evidence chain”). This poetic eruption—abject rhythms piercing symbolic rigidity—counters the trial’s expulsion, much like Kristeva’s Revolution in Poetic Language, where avant-garde textuality reclaims the maternal chora. The selective enforcement (millions of similar forwards unpunished) underscores intertextual irony: the judiciary’s narrative, interwoven with unacknowledged voices (netizens’ impunity), unravels its own coherence. Kristeva would see utopian potential here: Chen’s letter, though suppressed (“shut up”), dialogically haunts the symbolic, fostering ethical intersubjectivity beyond legal monologue.

3. Ethics of the Abject and Subject Formation: The Case as Violent Expulsion Masking Fragile Order

Kristeva’s ethics of abjection views subject formation as precarious: the symbolic ejects the abject to affirm itself, but this violence reveals interdependence—ethical recognition demands embracing the expelled “other.”

The sentencing violently abjects Chen as “disruptor,” expelling his semiotic inquiry (e.g., candlelight memorials’ emotional rhythms) to shore up symbolic “social harmony,” yet this fragility shows: evidentiary voids (no debunkings, no chaos metrics) betray the order’s abject underbelly. The non-oral appeal and barred defense enact expulsion’s ritual, but Chen’s post-release Twitter stasis—dormant yet resonant—mirrors the abject’s uncanny return, demanding ethical reckoning. Kristevan ethics gleams in this: justice requires intertextual embrace of the expelled (e.g., scholarly “otherness”), transforming violence into mutual recognition; the case’s silence implicates a fragile hegemony, ripe for semiotic reclamation.

Conclusion: Kristeva’s Lens on the Case—Abject Rhythms in Symbolic Chains

From Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic semiotics, the Chen Jingyuan case is a drama of expulsion: symbolic law abjects semiotic vitality, yet poetic intertextuality erupts as revolutionary ethics, exposing the order’s precarious violence. As of October 21, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains silent, its abject pulse a latent call for recognition. This case cautions: without embracing the expelled rhythms, hegemony fractures. As Kristeva insists, revolution lies in poetic reclamation—here, urging a judiciary that dialogues with the abject, not silences it.