Negative Manifest Phenomenon

Abstract

“Negative phenomenon” refers to a paradoxical situation where an object that is prohibited, avoided, or repressed does not disappear; on the contrary, it becomes even more conspicuous in its “forbidden form.” This paper introduces and elaborates on this concept by integrating Chinese and Western philosophical traditions to examine the complex relationship between prohibition and appearance. We adopt a phenomenological perspective, drawing on Heidegger’s idea of the unmanifest manifest, to suggest that what is concealed can manifest indirectly. Through analysis of Foucault’s power-and-discourse theory and Freud’s repression-return mechanism, we reveal that power’s control over discourse does not fully eliminate the forbidden content; instead, it makes it more visible in new forms. The paper also engages with Chinese cultural examples — such as the imperial taboo-avoidance system and Zhuangzi’s ideas of teaching without words and “knowing without speaking,” as well as Han Feizi’s notions of ‘fa’ (law) and ‘shu’ (technique) — arguing that prohibition often generates deeper cultural meaning. Case studies include the ancient taboo system and recent incidents like the “Li Jiaqi paradox” and the “Wang Gang paradox,” illustrating how censorship and prohibition often end up amplifying the very taboos they seek to suppress . We conclude that in the modern context of information control and social media, awareness of the negative phenomenon warns us that relying solely on bans and suppression can be counterproductive, necessitating a more profound philosophical reflection on the mechanisms of discourse.

Introduction

The concept of “negative phenomenon” raises a paradoxical question: when a topic or image is banned, avoided, or repressed by those in power, it does not simply vanish; instead, it often appears even more distinctly in its forbidden form. For example, in modern Chinese cyberspace, certain events that are strictly censored end up provoking even greater public curiosity and attention. This paper aims to clarify the philosophical meaning of this phenomenon and its practical significance for understanding discourse. Specifically, the boundaries established by prohibition create new topics and metaphors for discussion, revealing the tension between power and visibility.

Literature Review

Similar ideas appear in Western philosophical traditions through discussions of appearance and concealment. For instance, Heidegger observed that things can reveal themselves precisely through their hiddenness, which resonates with the concept of a “negative phenomenon.” In social-cultural theory, Foucault analyzed how regimes of power create taboo boundaries in discourse, noting that taboos themselves become part of the power structure. Freud’s psychoanalysis similarly teaches that repressed content often returns in disguised forms. Chinese tradition has parallel notions: Zhuangzi’s dictum that “the wise do not speak; thus the sage practices teaching without words” highlights implicit communication, and Han Feizi’s writings on “fa” and “shu” illustrate how rulers manipulate language and secrecy. The imperial taboo system itself exemplifies negative phenomenon: avoiding the emperor’s name did not diminish its influence but rather reinforced it . Prior research has explored how power and discourse intertwine to shape society, but a coherent philosophical concept to explain how prohibition can paradoxically amplify forbidden topics has been lacking.

Theoretical Framework

We propose a theoretical foundation for “negative phenomenon” as a dialectical interplay of prohibition and visibility. On one hand, from a phenomenological viewpoint, presence can arise from absence: something can manifest indirectly through its concealment. Heidegger’s idea of the “unmanifest manifest” suggests that concealment and revelation are unified: when something is hidden, its implicit significance can become even more salient. Psychological studies support this idea: asking someone not to think of “a white bear,” for example, makes them think of it more often (the “white bear effect”), and similarly the Streisand effect shows that attempts to hide information often amplify public attention . On the other hand, from a power-and-discourse perspective, Foucault reminds us that modern power operates not just through laws but through norms and discourse: banning a topic effectively marks it as important and motivates covert exploration. Freud’s model likewise indicates that repression drives the forbidden idea back into consciousness. Together, these views allow us to analyze the function of prohibition, the modes by which forbidden content resurfaces, and the dynamics between power and resistance.

Case Analysis

Ancient taboo-avoidance system: China’s imperial taboo system is a prime example of negative phenomenon in action. In feudal times, emperors’ and ancestors’ personal names were declared sacred taboos, yet this did not weaken their status; on the contrary, it reinforced the divine aura of imperial power . For instance, during the Tang dynasty, the emperor’s clan name was Li. To avoid the taboo character “Li,” even everyday expressions containing that syllable (such as “eat li [carp]”) were banned or altered, and carp were renamed “red sturgeon.” This strict avoidance permeated official texts—emphasizing names in history books, altering place names—and daily life, embedding the taboo deeply in culture. Because the prohibition was so pervasive, people’s curiosity and reverence for these names grew stronger, making the taboo even more potent in society.
Contemporary internet and public events: Similar dynamics occur in today’s information society. The Tang dynasty “eat carp” taboo can be seen as analogous to modern political taboos. A recent example is the “Li Jiaqi paradox”: on June 3, 2022, popular livestreamer Li Jiaqi’s broadcast of a tank-shaped cake was abruptly interrupted, presumably because the keyword “tank” triggered censorship . The incident was then tightly controlled, and Li was pressured to apologize and keep silent. However, the image of the tank-shaped cake spread like wildfire on social media, becoming a meme. Likewise, as reported in CDT Weekly, the strong intervention in the Wang Gang “fried rice” controversy not only failed to suppress it but broadened awareness of the metaphor, giving rise to a so-called “Wang Gang paradox” following the earlier “Li Jiaqi paradox” . In each case, the censors’ attempt to eliminate a sensitive association unintentionally created a new focus of discussion, effectively magnifying the forbidden content.

Philosophical Discussion

These examples provoke deeper reflection on the paradox of language and power. First, language is inherently referential and suggestive: banning a word or topic often drives people to express it through metaphor, euphemism, or nonverbal means. Zhuangzi’s insight that “the sage practices teaching without words” is analogous to how censored truths find expression through implication. Second, from a psycho-social perspective, people are often drawn to forbidden topics: experiments show that telling someone not to think about X makes them think about X more (the so-called “white bear” or “forbidden fruit” effect) . Foucault further observes that power in modern societies works through norms and discourse; prohibition creates its own highlight, signaling that the forbidden topic is important and worthy of attention. Thus, censorship often creates a self-reinforcing loop: the more a subject is suppressed, the more it tantalizes public imagination and resurfaces in hidden or symbolic forms. This interplay indicates that attempts to silence a topic often ensure its persistence in the collective consciousness, albeit in transformed ways.

Conclusion

The notion of “negative phenomenon” underscores the dialectical relationship between prohibition and manifestation. Drawing on both Eastern and Western thought, we see that unilateral censorship often backfires: instead of erasing a topic, suppression tends to keep it alive and can even amplify it in subtle or symbolic ways. Ancient taboo systems and modern censorship alike confirm this dynamic. For contemporary society, this insight suggests that policymakers and media authorities should exercise caution: rather than relying solely on bans, they should foster open dialogue and transparent discussion, so as to avoid inadvertently magnifying the very ideas they intend to suppress.