Little Pink and Chinese Political Subjectivity

First published on Duan Media, please do not reprint

In the past two years, we seem to have become accustomed to the operation of small pink: almost every one or two weeks, public figures or groups are subjected to "Internet violence" by them, so that they have to actively or passively withdraw from certain public platforms or Issue an apology. Since May, the "victims" have covered feminist activists, LGBT people, Jiang Fangzhou, popular science workers, Luo Xiang, and even Hu Xijin and employees of the Global Times. In the comments on these events, there are some paradoxical phenomena. In the articles published on the wall, because the "elephant in the room" could not be mentioned, most commentators lamented that "the Internet in Jane and China cannot even tolerate such voices/groups", or recalled the past, or painfully stated the consequences. However, because the structural factors are too obvious, among the people targeted by Little Pink (they call it "Hate the National Party" or "Eight Thousand"), the "elephant in the room" has become a frequently used explanation. . This is also a function of the wall: it gives those who oppose it a frivolous sense of superiority because they are aware of its existence, and it gives them a sense of forbidden pleasure because of the taboo of touching it, but it also makes them fall into A more damaging intellectual laziness.

Regarding Little Pink's "subjectivity", there used to be some brief debates in space, mostly outside the wall, or in non-public places inside the wall. On the one hand, some people think that the existing analysis of Little Pink is too "arrogant", devaluing or discrediting Little Pink's "subjectivity", ignoring the fact that there are living individuals behind the label. On the other hand, there are other people who think that there is no need to give too much complexity to Little Pink (commonly known as "adding drama"), they feel that Little Pink is a tool of the party-state, and it is not worth studying at all. Those who hold the first idea are mainly those who lean towards nationalism, and also include a small number of "minorities", while those who hold the second idea are mainly from the minority side. This article is mainly aimed at the second idea, but I believe that once the content is expanded, the confusion generated by the first idea will be self-destructed.

I summarize, specifically, the second idea can be expanded into the following points:

1) Little Pink is brainwashed.

2) Little Pink will not risk her life for the party and the state, she is just a joke.

3) Little Pink meets the wind, and once the weather changes, they will become the "Leading Party".

4) Little Pink will wake up after suffering the Iron Fist.

5) Internet violence and reporting are not real public actions or political participation, but poor imitations of the latter.

6) Little Pink's influence is not as big as imagined, and it is even less able to coerce the authorities.

I don't disapprove of all of these specific points, but rather, because I think many of these objections do contain insights, they should be taken seriously. The intent of this article is not to simply refute these views, but to absorb the insights and explain them effectively. If successful, we can understand the existence of Little Pink more completely and deeply. Of course, if the analysis of Little Pink is limited to this, it will miss an opportunity to push the issue of "subjectivity" into the long-term agenda. We can talk about how the "political subjectivity" of the Chinese people is established by analyzing the "subjectivity" of Little Pink. Does this kind of political subjectivity really need to be based on "cultural subjectivity" as emphasized by the Chinese Strauss School?

First, we need a definition of "subjectivity". "Subjectivity" is a complex philosophical concept that may be defined differently by different philosophers. The philosopher Thomas D. Williams said of "subjectivity": "Because of a man's subjectivity, he acts not only based on and motivated by external forces, but also from within himself. To act is the core of his own subjectivity. Because he is the master of his own actions, he identifies with his own actions, so these actions cannot be reduced to objective analysis, and therefore rejects definition. Rejection, this irreducibility, does not mean that the subjectivity and lived experience of this person is unknowable, but we must know it through a different method, one that merely reveals and opens up its essence."

Thomas Williams' use of "subjectivity" is close to how we use it most of the time in political discussions. When we speak of a person's subjectivity, we either mean that he acts on the basis of his true will, or that some of his internal states (beliefs, emotions, desires, etc.) are explanatory for his actions. Therefore, when some people criticize us for ignoring Little Pink's "subjectivity", what they mean is that we deny that Little Pink acts out of its own true will (for example, when we say that Little Pink is brainwashed), Or what he means is that we have overemphasized the influence of external factors (such as various policies of the Communist Party) in our explanation, and we have not paid enough attention to the role of Xiaopin's own beliefs, emotions, and wishes in it. Of course, he may also It would be wrong to say that our description of Little Pink's inner state is false.

Here we can first make an analysis: Is there a little pink that does not reflect subjectivity? I think even the most cheeky statist would be hard-pressed to deny that there are some little pinks that don't embody any subjectivity. According to the above definition, if a little pink's behavior is produced by manipulation, then he should have no subjectivity. Examples of manipulation can include: being ordered, being paid to do things, being severely misled by information. Despite the official denial, we know that many of Little Pink's "actions" are actually instructed by officials, and even some of the leaders have official backgrounds. This kind of command-based "action", no matter how intense it is, cannot reflect any subjectivity. We also know that since at least 2008, the Chinese government has had the habit of hiring people outside the system to seize the position of online public opinion, so we see a lot of excited little pinks on Weibo. Don't be serious with them (of course, some people may say that those who take money to do things are called "five cents", not "little pink").

"Being severely misled by information" is probably the closest to what we usually call "brainwashing". This situation is more complicated, and we want to avoid "big and big", that is, it is best not to include factors such as political education and other ideological indoctrination. We don't care how a person forms his political beliefs, but only whether a person's knowledge of a specific event has been seriously misled by information before acting (including verbal actions) on the event. Of course, the complexities here don't stop there. For example, some little pinks will go over the wall to look at the information outside. When he sees some information outside the wall that is in line with his own political beliefs, he may reinforce these beliefs and think that the other side is the "believer". (Western media) have been brainwashed". What he did not expect was that, several years ago, the Chinese government spent a lot of money to carry out "big external propaganda" outside the wall, and later became familiar with it, and has been able to achieve "external propaganda and internal propaganda" and "internal propaganda and external propaganda" (in Rabbit). The chairman's article has related discussions), the use of it is wonderful, and it is with one mind.

If a little pink before "action" on something, his information on the matter is seriously misled by the official or some self-media, and we assume that when he knows sufficient information (here must first rule out a complete anti-reality theory), he may not develop those "actions", then we would say that his "actions" lack subjectivity. For example, the case of classmate Lin falling from a building in Qianzheng 49 became a public incident. Some netizens believed that this was a "color revolution" created by foreign forces based on some information that was catching the wind. He cursed heavily and carried out human flesh to some young people who were photographed at the scene. Of course, even if some little pinks are misled by serious information, it does not affect him from doing what he would have done before, which means that these information does not have an important role in promoting his behavior. But even if this situation is excluded, considering the general information pollution in the Simplified Chinese community, in public events in which Little Pink participates in large numbers (although such participation is equally suspicious), it is a serious matter how much subjectivity Little Pink can show in it. Doubtful. Some sincere statists may not deny it, but they will say, how can you liberals be any better? You are not polluted by foreign media information? This issue is left for future discussion.

Here we need to clarify a misunderstanding. Some friends think that in the process of growing up Little Pink, they have been "misguided" by a lot of political education or the main theme propaganda in the media, and their political stance is the product of this misleading, so no matter what they later Whether what they do is manipulated or not, they cannot have subjectivity. I do not advocate such an unattainable subjectivity. On the one hand I tend to think that how one's political beliefs are formed can hardly be attributed to a single factor. On the other hand, I also do not think that how a person forms his political beliefs has a necessary relationship with his subjectivity, but rather the relationship between his political beliefs and his core beliefs, the relationship between his beliefs and his actions , is the key to subjectivity.

So the next point of contention is that some people think that for the current Chinese, their political beliefs are not part of their core beliefs (the core beliefs are the logic of existentialism, that is, what is good for their survival and development, they would do), so they don't actually practice those beliefs, or, if they do, they're not practiced as political beliefs. This is what Wei Qi expressed in his "Political Beliefs and the Logic of Political Practices in Mainland China" published by Duan Media two years ago. In particular, he mentioned that his arguments are mainly aimed at those who support the regime. I respond to this position in detail in Political Cognitivism and Political Behaviorism, but here I hope to respond in a different way and deliver on the promise of integrating the two positions.

I think that the reason why some people are reluctant to admit that Little Pink has subjectivity is because they take "subjectivity" too high, or they have not made any distinction between "subjectivity". Can there be only one subjectivity in politics? We should admit that some subjects are indeed not so "noble". For example, a person believes that the current regime is the regime that best serves his long-term interests, and therefore he is willing to support this regime with practical actions. I call this subjectivity "self-interested subjectivity," that is, the subjectivity of acting based on the calculation of interests. We have to distinguish this subjectivity from the previously manipulated "money to do things". "Acting with money" can certainly get some benefits, but it is different from "self-interested subjectivity". The self-interested subject does something based on the calculation of interests, but in the process there is no other subject who seduces him with these interests, so he is not manipulated. And even if he does something based on interests, he can't get those benefits right away, and the relationship between those interests and what he does is not a simple stimulus-response relationship. In fact, this egoistic subjectivity is quite close to what Wei Qi called "existential logic", which is why I think it may be unreasonable for him to make a sharp distinction between "political logic" and "existential logic". Even if we do not need to fully understand politics as a "struggle of interests", politics will of course involve the distribution of interests. We expect everyone to stand in a "veil of ignorance" and think about the distribution of interests, rather than starting from their own interests. is completely out of touch with reality. Many of the Chinese students who fight with Hong Kong young people on the streets overseas can fall into the category of "self-interested subjectivity" because their families are vested interests in China.

There is a phenomenon frequently mentioned by philosophers in political theory that I call "the subjectivity of passion". The subjectivity of passion is not acting on the basis of profit calculations, but on moral or political passions. These passions can include loyalty, courage, righteous indignation, honor, patriotism, belonging to a group, and resentment, xenophobia, and panic. Chantal Mouffe, in On the Nature of Politics, speaks of passion in politics: "Mobilization requires politicization, but politicization cannot fail to produce conflicting worldviews, along with People identify with opposing camps, so political mobilization of passion is permissible within the confines of the democratic process." One of the most familiar examples of political action based on passion is probably the May Fourth Movement. These May 4th youths were neither manipulated by the Soviet Union or Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao, nor for their own long-term interests. They took to the streets either out of patriotic enthusiasm or out of dissatisfaction with the current political and social conditions. . Even if we don't assign the meaning of "awakening" to the May Fourth Movement like later theorists or propagandists did, we can still say that the May Fourth youth had a subjectivity. Of course, some actions out of moral or political passion may be controversial in morality. For example, in the endless political assassinations in modern Japan, many assassins are indeed out of patriotism, thinking that the assassins are trying to harm their own country. , although the patriotic assassins have the sympathy of many people, these assassinations do not necessarily stand up to moral scrutiny.

In "Pink Mania and Totalitarianism Outside the System", I also mentioned the political passion behind Little Pink: "Humans are political animals, born with a desire to connect with others in action, especially when atomized and private. When the life in China can no longer provide them with a source of meaning. At a certain moment when these people are hiding in their own world, watching variety shows, Korean dramas and star chasing, a pursuit of 'sublime' will suddenly arise in their hearts, And for a nation that has no conditions to pursue true nobility, the only nobility is 'patriotism'."

Some philosophers would argue that action based on passion rather than rationality does not reflect true subjectivity, or, in other words, does not reflect the true "self". In "Two Concepts of Liberty," Isaiah Berlin gives a good summary of this line of thinking: "'I am my own master'; 'I am no one's slave'; but I will not Will it be the slave of nature? Or the slave of my own 'unruly' passions? Isn't this many species of the same kind of 'slaves'? Has man not freed himself from spiritual or natural slavery? experience? In this process of liberation, are they not conscious on the one hand of a dominant self and on the other of that which in them is destined to be dominant?" As above, we do not claim here Such a demanding "subjectivity". As long as these moral or political passions can be "reflectively endorsed" by actors, that is, when they are rational, they still think that what they did out of those passions was an expression of their true self, then In line with "the subjectivity of passion".

A subjectivity closest to our ideals is called "authentic subjectivity", which is to act purely based on the value and beliefs that we identify with ourselves. These value beliefs must meet at least two conditions: first, it can withstand prima facie justification; second, it is part of its own core beliefs, which means that the principle and its integrity (integrity) )related. In politics, the most typical situation is that a person acts on the basis of his own political beliefs. These political beliefs include a variety of holistic political positions, such as liberalism, feminism, Marxism, conservatism, and nationalism. Because this political stance is part of his core beliefs and self-identity, he may call himself a so-and-soist. This “authentic subjectivity” is most evident in those revolutionaries, such as the founding fathers during the founding of the United States, or Trotsky after he believed in Marxism. Some people's political beliefs may not rise to the height of their overall political position, but it does not prevent them from establishing a "authentic subjectivity", as long as their political beliefs are part of their core beliefs and have been preliminarily proven. to make. For example, there is a little pink who sincerely believes that "the rule of the Chinese Communist Party can best promote and safeguard the interests of all Chinese people" (I believe everyone can see that this is just a value belief), and he can defend this belief. is not easily refuted by the negative arguments provided by the general minority. As long as his actions are based on this preliminarily justified belief, we can say that he has "authentic subjectivity." This example and the example in "self-interested subjectivity" (calculating support for the Communist Party based on one's own interests) both have interests in mind, but the latter only considers their own interests, while the former considers the interests of all Chinese people. the biggest difference.

If I want to say a more specific image of "Little Pink", I can only think of Yan Xiaoguo played by Hu Jun in "October Siege". He was a student of the revolutionary party Liang Jiahui, and after familiarizing himself with and reflecting on everything his teacher taught, he came to the conclusion that this kind of thinking would only harm China, so he became a staunch counter-revolutionary. In the play, he set up numerous ambushes and tried every means to kill Sun Wen, even imprisoning the teacher and killing several people in a row. Naturally, his wish did not come true, and in the end he ended up drinking bullets and died, but before he died, he still said "I have repaid the country's kindness" in his mouth, and people had to feel sympathy for him.

The reason why I only think about the role of Yan Xiaoguo is because I really don't think that the political subjectivity of the people among the clamorous little pinks has really reached the level of "authentic subjectivity". Excluding those situations of manipulation mentioned above, in my opinion, the subjectivity of Little Pink conforms to the “self-interested subjectivity” and “passionate subjectivity”, but the “authentic subjectivity” is rare. . This is because "authentic subjectivity" has two important conditions, which we said above: the political belief is part of its core belief; the political belief is preliminarily justified. There are many small pinks and even the "fifty cents" who are indeed "slapsticks", and they don't take their political beliefs seriously. When the situation changes or their own interests are impacted, they will change 180 degrees. , which is why objections 2), 3), and 4) are justified. Another subjectivity condition is "action". When we say "action based on calculation of interests", "action based on political emotion", and "action based on political belief", we are not only talking about the internal state of the subject, but also emphasizing the relationship between the internal state and its actions. If it is an action, it must be able to identify the subject of the action, and the subject of the action must also take responsibility for the action. This makes the subjectivity of many online anonymous behaviors (such as online violence, human flesh, reporting, etc.) suspicious. Many times, we can only be sure that it is the little pink who is rioting on the Internet, in human flesh, and reporting, but we cannot connect these things with specific individuals. This is not the same as collective actions such as "demonstrations" and "parades", which are usually organized and organizers can be found. Even those that are not organized, the individual is present, and the physical body takes the risks posed by the ever-changing environment. So objection 5) would say that cyberbullying and reporting are not real public actions, but poor imitations of public actions.

Some people may have seen that these three kinds of subjectivity correspond to the three kinds of motives for doing moral things that Kant said in the first chapter of "The Metaphysics of Morality": profit calculation, moral emotion and good will . The difference between my theory and Kant's theory is that Kant believes that only moral actions based on good will have moral value, but I don't think that only actions based on value beliefs have subjectivity. Others may see that although I distinguish three kinds of "subjectivity", I did not strictly distinguish between "subjectivity" and "political subjectivity" above, but only talked about how to discuss in politics Use "subjectivity".

This involves our understanding of "politics". There are two understandings of politics, which are not very suitable for China's political context and are difficult to give meaning to Chinese political actors. The first is what Bernard Williams has criticized as "political moralism," which sees political philosophy as a branch of moral philosophy, or, in other words, political theory as an application ethics. There are many manifestations of political moralism, the most common of which is to spend most of the time searching for which political principle is the most morally justified and making it one's principle of action ; Another manifestation is that they regard their opponents as "argument opponents" rather than political actors, always trying to convince the opponent, or thinking that as long as the opponent is refuted in the argument, the opponent will change their political position. This understanding of politics is "out of place" because it presupposes that our opponents and the Chinese at large can be persuaded by reason and act according to reason, and more essentially, it presupposes that reason can agreement on fundamental political issues.

The second understanding of politics comes from Hannah Arendt. The problem with this understanding is that it is too exclusive and difficult to fit into the political reality of China. According to Arendt: "The raison d'être of politics is freedom, and its place of experience is action." She argues that the source of action is "principle": "Unlike the goal of action, the principle of action can be repeated over and over again without Exhaustion; Unlike motives for action, principles have a general validity that is not tied to any particular individual or particular group. However, principles only arise during action, they manifest in the world as long as action continues, action ceases, they There is no such thing. Such principles are honor, glory, or equal love, which Montesquieu called virtue, excellence, or excellence, but it could also be fear, distrust, or hatred.” She said, “Action ”, which is closest to the action in “passionate subjectivity,” which is partly analogous to that in “authentic subjectivity,” but she explicitly excludes “egoistic subjectivity,” because, Arendt argues, politics must get rid of The shackles of private interests.

The bigger problem is that, as some critics say, her concept of "action" places too much emphasis on "performativeness": "Performance artists such as dancers, performers, musicians, etc. Just as the actions of actors require the presence of others to be shown to them; both 'works' require a public 'organized' space, and both performances depend on the presence of others." The content of "communicative" action is also covered. Arendt's "action" theory still cannot explain the political subjectivity of the Chinese people. In current China, there is no political consultation mechanism (there is a political consultative conference) that meets Arendt’s standard (argumentation, persuasion, and deliberation that are not constrained by force), so what Arendt calls “communicative” actions, It seems difficult to expand here. And that kind of performative or display "action", which aims to win the audience's attention, is the most scruples of the ruling party and will be severely cracked down. According to Arendt's understanding of "politics" and "actions", China either has no political actors, or only has political actors who go to jail for a short period of time.

In fact, in the context of China, we should adopt a more flexible standard to look at "political participation", otherwise, we will not come to other conclusions except "a pool of dead water". In Philip Alden Kuhn's "The Origin of China's Modern State", he described the "political participation" of "literati midstream" from Wei Yuan and Feng Guifen to Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao from such a perspective, and regarded it as a modern Chinese state. The most important thing is that he can combine this kind of political participation with the inner life experience of Chinese traditional intellectual elites: "A thinker with fundamental concern, his talent should be that he has both He can raise the experience and aspirations of his own social group to a general level, and he can give his own specific worldview a universal meaning. In Kong Feili's view, writing books and sayings, using words to influence the world, promote change, or give universal meaning to the experience of the era in which one's group belongs, has its own traditions in China, and was also adopted by China in the late Qing Dynasty. Inherited by the intellectual elite. This more flexible and unique interpretation of "political participation" can bring us a lot of inspiration.

On the one hand, we cannot understand simply political practice as a part of moral practice, nor can we understand political discussion as moral debate (but moral debate can be a part of political practice, and it is also possible to intervene in politics based on moral beliefs. It is also a kind of "authentic subjectivity"). On the other hand, we cannot directly delineate a field, stipulate that this is the scope of "politics", and stipulate that only certain issues are political issues and only certain actions are political actions. As Arendt insists on distinguishing between "the political" and "the social", you will encounter a dilemma in theory, or you will not be able to keep up with the development of real politics (such as being unable to deal with the "" What is personal is what is political"), or fall into a paradox. This is why I did not deliberately define "political subjectivity", but took it as the application of "subjectivity" in politics. Based on such a pluralistic concept of "politics," we can understand not only those actors outside the system who have cut their teeth, but also the hidden "political participation" of contemporary Chinese intellectuals.

After 1978, the vitality of ideology and academics was reactivated, and some intellectuals inside and outside the system hoped to promote further changes in politics and society. The "New Enlightenment" of the 1980s goes without saying. Even in the post-Tiananmen era, when the so-called "ideas withdrew and academics entered", some scholars quietly set their own agendas in their writings. A group of "liberal conservatives" represented by Li Zehou, Zhu Xueqin, Xiao Gongqin, and Liu Junning have obvious "political plans" from their writings, that is, by giving radical changes to the world since modern times and two The disenchantment of the Chinese revolution in the tenth century, drawing on the least turbulent Anglo-American model, set China on a path of gradual improvement and ultimately achieved constitutional democracy. Another group of cultural-political conservatives, mainly Gan Yang, Liu Xiaofeng, and Jiang Qing, aimed to reshape China's subjectivity in the political, academic and cultural fields. The "blind worship" of modern Western academics and modern Western culture, redefines the compilation and interpretation of Western and Chinese classics, establishes the continuity of traditional China and modern China, and finally establishes the political subjectivity of China through the establishment of cultural subjectivity. subjectivity. In my opinion, these two groups of scholars also continue the political participation method of Wei Yuan and other "literati middle-class": the theory of liberal conservatism echoes the political practice of the Jianghu era, while the theory of cultural-political conservatism in the consciousness of the new era There are also manifestations in the form ("Four Self-confidences").

From the perspective of the use of "political subjectivity" by cultural-political conservatives, they are talking about political subjectivity in the sense of a political community. Can minorities talk about "political subjectivity" in a group sense? Of course we can, but our political subjectivity does not need to be based on China's cultural subjectivity. For nearly two decades, camps have looked in the cracks for opportunities for voice and action to advance their own agendas. By reporting on sensitive topics, defending the rights of disadvantaged groups, establishing and operating NGOs, running for local people's congresses, and "watching to change China", liberals have built brick by brick in China's civil society; "Bride of Blood", sued the Ministry of Education and the #MeToo movement, turning gender issues into a hot public issue today; before the Jasic Movement, those left-wing youth had formed a network of horse clubs, running magazines, reading clubs, Enter the factory and prepare for the coming of a vigorous struggle. These are all manifestations of "authentic subjectivity", as well as "public action" and "political participation" without political freedom.

Even in the face of unprecedented repression, minorities are still expected to participate in the construction of China's "public culture." In the current public opinion environment, feminists and the left have a greater advantage than liberals. On the one hand, the gender awareness of today's Chinese women is not what it used to be, but the gender equality situation has not advanced or retreated, which makes many women speak out, and gender issues often become a hot public topic. On the other hand, among young people, left-wing thinking seems to be making a comeback. They have reopened the Selected Works of Mao Zedong and use the ideas and words in it to explain contemporary China. The above may not be what the authorities want to see, but whether it is feminist or left-wing, the officials have successfully made them harmless or nationalistic for the time being, so there are "pink feminism" and "Lukes". doctrine (Royal Marxism)". How to compete with the official for "the masses", and how to put one's own bricks and tiles into the wall of public culture in the endless net, this is the test of the political wisdom of the minority.

More fundamentally, as a minority, our political subjectivity is closely related to this type of polity that has emerged for the first time in history, because we not only live in it, but are the object of its "dictatorship". The peculiarities of this regime include: its ideological legitimacy was based on Marxism and the worker-peasant revolution; it had a period of rule based on class struggle, during which class struggle pushed the state to the brink of life and death ; It has a period of successful institutional reform and experience of opening to the outside world, in which the freedom of the people has been developed to a certain extent, and the comprehensive national strength has been significantly strengthened; after 40 years of development, this country has not appeared a large number of people who yearn for The democratic middle class; it rises at the time of the decline of the United States, so the power of the United States to check and balance it is slightly weak; in order to deal with new crises, it has comprehensively strengthened social control and combined with emerging digital technologies to become A digital totalitarianism; the rise of populist nationalism (Little Pink) is changing the ecology of public opinion in this country. Under this form of government, the situation of the minority is not completely delineated from that of ordinary Chinese. How do we deal with this form of government and what it has brought to this nation, it is the minority as a political community. Political subjectivity is also the subjectivity of the Chinese as a political community.

Little Pink also has its "political subjectivity" as a group. I have already written about this "political subjectivity" in "Current China's Populism" and "The Split of Chinese Nationalism", so I won't repeat it. Some friends feel repelled or disgusted by the subjectivity or political subjectivity of Talking Pink. There may be two reasons for this. One reason has to do with some of the things mentioned above, that is, we still have a clean imagination of "political participation", building organizations, issuing manifestos, doing propaganda, public debates, going to the streets... I don't mean These types of actions are "outdated" and, in fact, are still practiced by liberals, feminists, and left-wing youth. But we obviously don’t know enough about political activity in the digital age (which has long been studied in Western academic circles), nor do we know enough about the mentality of Little Pink. Unlike populists in Western countries, Little Pinks highly identify with the ruling party, and it is more than enough for them to crack down on the "nation-hating party". Moreover, in their opinion, "going to the street" is the usual practice of "waste youth", which has long been criticized in their narratives. What motivation do they have to go to the street?

However, if you don't go to the street, is there no threat? According to my observations in the past two years, the "responsiveness" of relevant Chinese authorities to populism is quite rapid and in place. For example, we can think of whether most of the public figures or semi-public figures reported by the little pink All bombed? Have some of them been named and criticized by CCTV? Is there still a part found by the public prosecutor's office? This is a real threat. You don't have to drag you to the streets, you don't have to go to your door to criticize you, and you can ruin your life with the keyboard. This is the totalitarian and populist cooperation model of the new era, and it may not be limited to this in the future.

Earlier I said that from the perspective of individuals, cyber violence, human flesh, and reporting are indeed difficult to say that there is any "subjectivity", but from the perspective of groups, we can match these behaviors with the groups behind them. , so it is not a big problem to talk about the "political subjectivity" of the little pinks as a group in terms of these behaviors. In the eyes of some traditional political actors, "Fera's unbearable" behavior is drastically changing China's public opinion ecology and even China's political landscape.

There are also some friends who object to talking about the "subjectivity" of Little Pink because: if Little Pink has "subjectivity", then they are not manipulated, it means that there is a huge group doing something spontaneously to express Supporting the Communist Party is equivalent to further confirming the legitimacy of the Communist Party's ruling. But as we mentioned earlier, for some small pinks, if they have real information about a public event, some of their original remarks and practices may change; in addition, some small pinks do not put their own Political beliefs are too serious (not part of their core beliefs), or their words and deeds are entirely adjusted to their actual interests, and for these people, there is a possibility that they will turn their guns at any time. Therefore, we really do not need to be overly truthful about the words and deeds of online little pinks, but at the same time, we should not overestimate the people's yearning for freedom and democracy, nor the Chinese people's dissatisfaction with the ruling party.

As an individual little pink, there may be a day of awakening, but as a group of little pinks, the mode of linkage and whole person may continue to evolve. Because of the defect of individual subjectivity, he has always held an attitude of contempt for the whole group. It has to be said that this is a manifestation of immaturity both academically and politically. In any era, there are many grasshoppers in the wall, but if you are killed by the grasshoppers, wouldn't you be wronged?