Grok

A Postmodernist Philosophical Analysis of Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Case

From a postmodernist perspective, Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s case exemplifies the dissolution of grand narratives, the play of power in constructing “truth,” and the hyperreal fabrication of crime in a system where meaning is deferred, fragmented, and ultimately arbitrary. Postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jean Baudrillard provide lenses to deconstruct this ordeal, revealing it not as a straightforward “legal” proceeding but as a simulacrum of justice—a textual game where binary oppositions (truth/falsehood, order/disorder) collapse under the weight of ideological simulation. In 2023, Chen, an independent scholar, was convicted of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (寻衅滋事罪) for forwarding Twitter posts on his low-profile account (@_cenjoy). These included artistic cartoons (e.g., the “umbrella girl” symbolizing resistance), emotional memorials (e.g., June 4th candlelight images), theoretical debates (e.g., political spectrum analyses, Trump’s critique of communism), and historical facts (e.g., edits to Mao’s works). With near-zero followers and negligible engagement, the case’s “serious public disorder” claim evaporates into postmodern irony: a crime without impact, a punishment without substance.

Deconstruction: The Instability of “Rumors” and Binary Oppositions (Derrida)

Derrida’s deconstruction dismantles fixed meanings, exposing how language and texts are riddled with différance—deferral and difference—where no term holds absolute privilege. In Chen’s trial, the judiciary’s “sorting” (梳理) of posts as “false information” relies on rigid binaries: truth vs. falsehood, loyalty vs. subversion, order vs. chaos. Yet, these collapse upon scrutiny. Artistic posts like the “umbrella girl” are not verifiable “facts” but polysemic signs—symbols of resilience or critique, depending on the interpreter. Derrida would argue that labeling them “insults to national leaders” privileges a state-centric reading, suppressing alternative traces (e.g., cultural mutuality or emotional resonance). Chen’s defense invokes interpretive loops (解释学循环), echoing Derrida’s notion that texts have no originary meaning; the judiciary’s “truth” is a violent hierarchy, imposing closure on open signification.

The “high education = knowledge of falsity” presumption further deconstructs itself: if Chen’s scholarly background implies he “should know” the posts are false, why does the court deny his expert rebuttals during trial? This self-undermining logic reveals the phallogocentrism Derrida critiques—power masquerading as rational authority. The case’s non-public hearings and suppressed prison letters amplify this: justice is not a stable presence but an absent trace, deferred by procedural opacity. Ultimately, the “crime” is a textual artifact, not a material act; deconstruction exposes how the law’s language fabricates guilt, mirroring postmodernity’s crisis of representation.

Power/Knowledge and Disciplinary Mechanisms (Foucault)

Foucault views knowledge as inextricably linked to power, with institutions like the judiciary functioning as disciplinary apparatuses that normalize behavior through surveillance and classification. Chen’s prosecution illustrates a panoptic regime: his Twitter activity, innocuous in isolation (zero disruption), is “sorted” into a dossier of subversion, transforming private inquiry into public threat. Foucault’s Discipline and Punish describes how modern punishment shifts from bodily spectacle to soul-regulating norms; here, the vague “pocket crime” of “picking quarrels” serves as a biopolitical tool, disciplining intellectuals who engage in cross-cultural discourse.

The selective enforcement—state media like Guangming Daily republished similar content without repercussion—highlights Foucault’s “regime of truth”: what counts as “disorder” is not objective harm but deviation from dominant narratives. Chen’s posts, drawing from global ideas (e.g., critiques of communism akin to Western philosophical debates), challenge the monolithic “truth” of state ideology, prompting a power response that reclassifies them as “rumors.” His imprisonment and restricted release embody the “carceral archipelago,” where surveillance extends beyond bars, stifling the “gadfly” role of scholars. Foucault would see this as the judiciary’s role in producing “docile bodies”—suppressing the multiplicity of knowledges to maintain hegemonic control. The case’s irony: in a postmodern world of fragmented truths, the state’s “order” is itself a constructed fiction, reliant on suppressing alternatives.

The Incredulity Toward Metanarratives (Lyotard)

Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition proclaims an “incredulity toward metanarratives”—grand stories like progress, justice, or national harmony that legitimize power. Chen’s case deconstructs the metanarrative of “comprehensive rule of law” (全面依法治国): proclaimed as a unifying vision, it fractures into petit récits of arbitrary enforcement. The charge of “serious disorder” lacks empirical grounding (no quantifiable impact, as Chen’s complexity theory analysis shows), exposing “rule of law” as a performative language game, not a universal truth. Lyotard argues that in postmodernity, knowledge is legitimated through paralogy—innovative disruptions—rather than consensus; Chen’s forwards embody this, blending art, emotion, theory, and history into heterogeneous narratives that challenge the state’s monolithic story.

The judiciary’s refusal to engage Chen’s defenses (e.g., non-public trial, ignored appeals) exemplifies the suppression of differends—irreconcilable disputes where one party’s idiom is silenced. Chen’s “small narrative” as a doubting scholar (admitting cognitive limits via Gödel) is overwritten by the grand narrative of “national security,” illustrating Lyotard’s point: metanarratives totalize, erasing plurality. In a postmodern lens, the case signals the collapse of legal universality, replaced by fragmented, power-driven simulations of justice.

Hyperreality and the Simulacrum of Crime (Baudrillard)

Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality—where signs and simulations supplant reality—perfectly captures the case’s absurdity. The “crime” is a simulacrum: posts with zero real-world impact are hyperbolized into “serious disorder,” a fabricated spectacle without referent. Baudrillard’s orders of simulacra apply: the posts (first-order representations of ideas) are distorted into “false information” (second-order masks), then into a judicial narrative of threat (third-order simulation), finally becoming a self-referential system where the “sorting” process simulates justice without substance. Chen’s low-engagement account (fans 0, reposts <100) underscores this: the “disorder” is not real but a media-induced hyperreal panic, echoing Baudrillard’s Gulf War critique—“it did not take place.”

The judiciary’s emphasis on “high education” as guilt indicator further hyperrealizes intellect: knowledge becomes a simulated danger, detached from actual harm. In postmodern society, where truth is commodified, Chen’s case reveals law as a sign system sustaining power, not resolving conflicts.

Conclusion: Postmodern Implications for Justice and Resistance

Postmodernism unveils Chen’s case as a microcosm of fragmented authority: the law, meant to stabilize meaning, instead proliferates instabilities through arbitrary sign-play. Yet, this perspective also empowers resistance—Chen’s prison writings, like Derrida’s différance, defer closure, keeping critique alive. In a world of collapsed metanarratives, his vow of “lifelong struggle” embodies postmodern paralogy: innovative dissent against totalizing power. The case critiques not just Chinese judiciary but global trends where “truth” is simulated for control, urging a turn to plural, decentered justices. Ultimately, postmodernism warns: without embracing multiplicity, systems like this risk imploding into pure simulation, devoid of real legitimacy.