Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Core Ideas in Structuralist Philosophy

Structuralism, a mid-20th-century intellectual movement pioneered by Ferdinand de Saussure and extended by Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, and others, posits that human culture and meaning emerge from underlying systems of signs and relations rather than isolated essences. Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (1916) introduced the sign as a dyad of signifier (form) and signified (concept), arbitrary and relational, with meaning derived from synchronic differences within a langue (system) rather than diachronic evolution. Lévi-Strauss applied this to anthropology in The Raw and the Cooked (1964), analyzing myths as binary oppositions (raw/cooked, nature/culture) mediating contradictions, while Barthes in Mythologies (1957) deconstructed ideology as second-order signs naturalizing power. Structuralism emphasizes hidden structures shaping surface phenomena, often critiquing their role in perpetuating hierarchies. 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 the structuralist lens, exemplifies a signifying system in crisis: the judiciary’s binary “order/disorder” mythically conceals relational power, reducing inquiry to a signified “threat” in a synchronic structure of control.

1. The Sign and Arbitrary Relations: Judicial “Disruption” as Second-Order Myth Naturalizing Authority

Saussure’s arbitrary sign underscores that meaning arises from relational differences, not inherent links; Barthes extends this to myth as a depoliticized second-order sign, where ideology masquerades as nature.

The verdict constructs “disruption” as a mythical sign: the signifier (forwards like Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) arbitrarily signifies “knowingly false threat,” its relational difference from “order” naturalized through the “high education implies discernment” chain. This second-order myth depoliticizes power: evidentiary voids (unverified posts, zero causal chaos) reveal the arbitrariness—millions of similar shares signify harmlessness—yet the closed-door trial enforces the illusion, as if “quarrels” inherently disrupt. Structuralists would deconstruct this as ideological sleight: the prosecutor’s admission exposes the sign’s fragility, but the non-oral appeal sutures it, perpetuating a langue where authority’s difference privileges “stability,” masking relational contingency.

2. Binary Oppositions and Structural Mediation: “Order/Disorder” as Unresolved Cultural Contradiction

Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology views myths as mediating binary oppositions to resolve societal tensions, transforming raw contradictions into cooked harmony.

The case’s core binary—“social order” vs. “disruptive rumors”—fails mediation: Chen’s prison letter (taxonomy of art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory) uncookedly exposes the raw (non-causal flux), yet the judiciary cooks it into resolved “crime,” suppressing the contradiction. Selective enforcement amplifies the impasse: identical signifiers (unpunished shares) oppose “disorder” without resolution, as the “evidence chain” mythically harmonizes hierarchy. Lévi-Strauss would see cultural pathology: the trial’s opacity (barred defense) leaves the opposition raw, risking explosive return—the “shut up” directive enforces cooked stasis, but anomalies (prosecutor’s unverified confession) uncookedly fester, perpetuating structural violence over true mediation.

3. Synchronic Structure and Power’s Langue: The Verdict as Totalizing System Suppressing Diachronic Inquiry

Saussure’s synchronic analysis focuses on language as static system (langue), where parole (individual speech) is subordinated; structuralism critiques this totalization as power’s veil.

Article 293 totalizes synchronic control: Chen’s diachronic inquiry (historical-economic debates via forwards) is subordinated to the langue of “order,” its parole silenced in the non-oral appeal. The “high education” trope enforces systemic langue—relational difference privileging compliance—yet diachronic fissures (unheeded taxonomy) subvert it. Barthes would mythologize this as ideological: the verdict’s “chain” naturalizes power’s synchronicity, depoliticizing contingency (millions unpunished). Structuralism reveals the crisis: totalizing langue risks paralysis, as the case’s opacity suppresses parole’s vitality.

Conclusion: The Structuralist Lens on the Case—A Mythical Binary on the Brink of Deconstruction

From structuralism’s relational semiotics, the Chen Jingyuan case is a signifying impasse: arbitrary myths naturalize binaries, unmediated oppositions fester, and totalizing structures suppress inquiry’s flux. As of October 24, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its silence a structural pause. This case cautions: systems conceal their seams—probe, and the langue unravels. As Saussure noted, “In language, there are only differences”—may justice yet differentiate truth from myth.