The Communicology of a Blank Paper, a Void That Expresses

Abstract

In this paper I attempt to trace the semiotic path of meaning experience from “nothing” into “something”. Traditional communication studies are problematic in 1. focusing on the message to the effect of ignoring the communicators; 2. choosing to overlook how yet-to-be signs acquire meanings in the communicative moments; and 3. tending to assume a “natural science” attitude toward the studied phenomenon so that embodied consciousness is either sidetracked or psychologized. Taking communicology as both the theory and methodology, I first describe the semiotic network in which blank paper, a nonconventional sign, acquires its signness in a specified communicative event. Then, I look inward to the relation of consciousness and embodiment. Finally, I argue that communication is such a life-world moment wherein non-expression is collectively constituted as a form of expression.

1. Introduction

By 2022, the Chinese government had been enforcing zero-COVID-19 policies for three years. As the rest of the world began to hold large-scale concerts and international sporting events, a single case of infection could put entire neighborhoods in China under lockdown. Infected individuals were sent to quarantine facilities for weeks of isolation, while their neighbors in building compounds were confined to their homes for dozens of days. People’s daily lives were heavily regulated, with frequent, if not daily, COVID-19 tests and constant tracking of their movements in public places. The Chinese people grew increasingly impatient and resistant. According to Slaten (2022)1, there were 668 reported protests and other forms of dissent in mainland China from June to September 2022 alone.

Imagine that you, the reader, were listening to the evening news in late November that year when “the blank paper revolution” was discussed in China. You see close-up shots of white sheets of paper held high by a large crowd. Then, similar images of another protest flash across the screen, followed by another. Days later, news breaks that the central government had relaxed the strict zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and the Chinese people returned to a semblance of normalcy without constant COVID-19 checks. You might wonder what it is about the blank paper that could have sent such a strong message. Why not a slogan of some sort? Or, taking a more people-centered approach, you might ask how the participants’ experience of the blank paper led them to interpret it as a rallying sign of protest. Your possible questions are indicative of the varied focuses on communication that I plan to explore further in this paper.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Communication Historically Understood

The concept of communication has undergone an interesting shift from a noun to a verb. The rise of rhetoric in ancient Greece marked an important time period when the power of language was explored in terms of its persuasive strategies. Fast forward to the 20th century, with the rapid development of information technology, communication implied the faster and more efficient transmission of information. As for now, communication typically refers to the sharing of information or a transactional process of creating meaning through the exchange of symbols. Irrespective of the shift, its disciplinary interests still land heavily on studying “all forms, modes, media, and consequences of communication through humanistic, social scientific, and aesthetic inquiry”, according to the National Communication Association [of America]. It is supported by an institutional and cultural acceptance of the value of “good communication skills” and the belief that those skills can be improved through instructed practice. (Refer to [1] and [2] for a quick introduction, and [3] for a more philosophical overview.) Such a message-centered approach to communication is inadequate for my study in multiple ways. For one, its status quo treatment of the message simplifies and hides the undeniable efforts of choice making. Yes, blank paper would naturally count as a message in a protest, but so do the human participants, their bodily performances, the physical environment of the site, the stair flight that raises some participants higher than the rest of the crowd—all of which are larger in number and proportion. What then prompted the blank paper as a defining and unifying feature of the event? Secondly, traditional communication studies focus on established forms of expression—rhetoric, discourse, and language—which empower language to act upon people. Yet, the blank paper is not a pre-defined symbol. Instead, it is a void imbued with meaning in a specific context. This “sign-to-be” phenomenon demands investigation within the dynamic moment-to-moment communication of the protest. A third serious challenge inherent in such message-centered communication philosophy is its false dichotomy between the message and its communicators. With a “social scientific” approach, traditional communication studies objectify the message and communicator from a third person perspective and render the former in binary opposition to the latter. Such a practice hardly recognizes the legitimacy of reversibility between the two when the message acts as an inseparable part of people, and people as both the channel and content of the message. It tends to overlook lived experience of the action, means, and materiality of human communication [4].

2.2. A Communicological Approach

Communicology, in contrast, is “the human science studying discourse in all of its semiotic manifestations of embodied consciousness and of practice in the world of other people and their environment in global culture” [5]. It brings together two aspects of being human: extension (semiotic expressing) and intension (phenomena of internal thinking) [6]. Focusing on the relationship between an Addresser who expresses and an Addressee who perceives, communicology is, as Catt, Klyukanov, and Smith [7] (p. 1) describe it, “a philosophy of consciousness and a science of embodied discourse … where consciousness may be viewed as cultural and semiotic and experience as personal and phenomenological. [Both] commingle in communication”.

2.2.1. Communication as a Sign-System and a Sign in System

Communicology is founded on both semiotics and phenomenology. Semiotics explores how signs help us make sense of the world and ourselves. The starting point of a semiotic investigation is the reality of relation and hence of general modes of being [8] (pp. 639–62). In this world, there are subjective beings, subjective in the sense that the being is on its own, with respect to itself, not from another being. There are also objective beings, objective in the way that it is constructed or experienced as a being from another being. Humans are such subjective beings who can objectify the objective beings.

Charles S. Peirce, a pioneer in semiotics, defines a sign as a set of beings structured in certain ways. Peirce explains: “A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representamen”(Italics in the original) [9] (p. 228). In essence, this interaction creates a triadic relation among the three: if anything is perceived as bearing a representational relation to another thing, and the interaction between these two elements creates another representation, the totality of it forms a sign. The Representamen, the Object, and the Interpretant each in turn are terms for cluster concepts of objective beings. For instance, the Object may include a “repository of ideas or significant forms” [10] (p. 245).

Semiotics offers a framework to move beyond the message-centered approach. To communicate is to establish/find relations among the “constituting factors” by way of signing. These elements include the Addresser, the Addressee, the message, the context, the code, and the contact. They are all involved and logically connected in such a way that:

when the ADDRESSER sends a MESSAGE to the ADDRESSEE, the message requires a CONTEXT referred to, seizable by the addressee. The understanding of the message requires a CODE common to both participants. In addition, a CONTACT, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee must be present to enable the two to enter and stay in communication [11] (p. 353).

To gain a deeper understanding of communication as an organic system, we can imagine it as a single sign, where each of the above-mentioned elements plays a specific role in its composition. That is, communication begins with a mental Object—a concept or idea. This Object, both private and subject to development, acts as the initial sign. The ADDRESSER and the ADDRESSEE are the whos in the sign. The Addresser is the who that specifies what sign vehicle (Representamen) to choose for the Object in mind, and the Addressee is the who that interprets and/or potentially challenges the perceived expression. The embodiment of that who helps mark the sign’s boundary, which corresponds to distinctive levels of communication—intrapersonal when the Addresser and the Addressee coincide in the same person but separated by time; interpersonal when the Addresser and the Addressee are separated by space; group when the Addresser or the Addressee vary in numbers, for instance, one to many, or many to one; and intergroup when both Addresser and the Addressee are embodied in groups that are connected both in space and time within but separated in space between [12] (p. 14). The MESSAGE itself is the Interpretant, developed from the Representamen through a dynamic process. The CODE implicates a new set of signs that regulate the synchronic structuring of the MESSAGE so that the message comes out as it is. The CODE is a meta-sign, the “customs and laws” (in Peirce’s term) that assists the message’s transformation from Representamen to Interpretant. The CONTEXT, the surrounding environment, influences the type of relation between the Representamen and the Object—iconic (resemblance), indexical (pointing), or symbolic (conventional). Finally, CONTACT emphasizes the need for a physical or psychological connection between Addresser and Addressee for communication to occur. This factor requires the uniformity in the form of a presentation and/or representation, making sure that a certain medium (the Representamen) is functioning between the communicators involved. In other words, these elements/Factors provide necessary semiotic conditions for any communicative signs to make meaning. For a deeper exploration of the phenomenological implications of these elements, refer to [12,13,14].

In summary, semiotics offers a distinct perspective on communication. First, it highlights how communication differs from other human activities, such as commodity trading or war, due to its internal composition. Second, each Factor is both appositional and oppositional to other Factors in the system. Just as Jakobson explored how the acoustic properties of individual phonemes acquire meaning within a sound system, each factor, though meaningless in isolation, becomes imbued with meaning by virtue of being a single, distinctive component of the communication system. That is, each element is significant by being contextual to the rest in binary (logical) pairs (phenomenological) [12] (p. 13). Thirdly, the interplay of these factors in pairs serves a specific function, such as expressing emotions or evoking actions. In other words, communication is an elastic semiotic structure that accommodates and encourages the phenomenological experience of signs in time and space.

2.2.2. Communication as Lived-Experience

Phenomenology, the other theoretical pillar of communicology, focuses on consciousness and its ability to direct itself towards something in experience (intentionality in Husserl’s term). One of the most important discoveries of phenomenology is that the world is meaningful, that things appear to us always and already impregnated with meaning and significance. Phenomenology places priority in how things appear in our consciousness as we experience them rather than on the external objects. It directs the researcher’s attention inwardly to the ego, as with Husserl, or later to the embodied subject, as with Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology puts its priority on the “lived-experience” of the actor. It grounds the multifarious expressions of human existence in a hermeneutical understanding of being-in-the world. Phenomenology offers a vantage point of sign study from first person/subjective point of view so that the internal thought process is no longer speculation from the third person perspective but becomes possible to investigate.

Communicology integrates semiotics (signs and meaning) and phenomenology (lived experience) to understand how individuals and their experiences shape communication within a larger social context. From a structuralist point of view, the subject is a “discursive” construct and must be defined by “subjectivity” as one specific possibility of discursive determinations. Subjectivity is a particular relationship to discourse produced within discourse. On the other hand, communicative experience is thoroughly intersubjective. It involves practices, negotiations, and contestations among others with whom we are connected through embodied interactions [15] (pp. 358–360). This focus on intersubjectivity aligns with the idea that consciousness arises from our interactions with the world and others [16] (p. 132).

As suggested, communicology approaches the human practice of communication as a symbolic activity “in which ‘evidence’ is mediated by both converting experience (‘observation’) into consciousness (‘measurement’)” and by converting consciousness back into experience. This requires three progressive yet synergistic steps: 1. phenomenological description on the phenomenon as a sign-system, 2. phenomenological reduction with a focus on the signifiers in the sign-system, and 3. phenomenological interpretation with a focus on the signified [6]. In the following sections, I will first describe what is semiotically observed in a “blank paper protest” on 27 November 2022. I will then explore how embodiment affects the way we understand relationships in expression and perception. Finally, I will attempt an understanding of why non-expression can be a powerful form of communication within an interactive context.

3. Blank Paper in a Communicative Event

Students at Tsinghua University were among the first in China’s higher educational system to hold a peaceful protest in response to the devastating fire in the city of Urumqi on 24 November 20222. The following is a thematic description of how the event evolved from one individual standing out to a large-scale protest3. Note that the description is structured in Jakobson’s terms of communication Factors (as introduced in Section 2.2.1). As the purpose here is to reveal how they contextualize blank paper(s) as a sign, rather than to delve into the specific details of each factor, I will save the discussion on its theoretical framework and refer those interested to reference [11].

3.1. A Dynamic Contextualization

The CONTACT zone is the communicative/physical arena in which a female student (who we will refer to as Faye) slowly unfolds a big piece of white paper, then holds it chest high. She stands alone on the higher end of the stair steps leading to a student dining hall. Along her sides, passers-by flow in and out of the dining hall. In front of her is an empty space beyond which hundreds of people stand silently, some with smart phones, but all looking in her direction. Five minutes into the video, the ADDRESSER begins to increase in number. A few female students align by Faye’s sides, holding similar papers in their hands. Directed at them are mostly nonverbal MESSAGEs such as head turning, hugging, and thumbs-up, mixed with hand clapping and an occasional shout of cheering. The first noticeable verbal exchange comes when a male student walks up to the paper holders, observes, then turns sideways to face Faye and the bigger crowd at the same time: “We don’t need to leave the paper blank,” he says, “but to write out our thoughts”. “How could people know your intention if you are not expressing it?” he asks. Responses to him are ENCODED in multiple ways: some shout “yes” to his proposal; Faye dares him to write out his idea; another calls to “remove the officials” or “stop the zero tolerance COVID-19 policy”.

Two men in dark overcoats approach, holding similar sized papers on top of the original. This action sparks a more tangible interaction. Bystanders move closer to Faye and her friends. They add an emotional dimension to the CONTACT by singing the national anthem. The singing mixes with louder cheering and yelling that escalates to a near indistinguishable cacophony. A male onlooker (who we will call Michael) verbalizes his unconditional support for Faye and her friends. “You are doing what we’d like to but don’t dare to” he says. “You are the bravest of us all”. Others move forward and try to push away the paper blockers. This sparks a debate: one voice demands the paper blockers be allowed their “freedom of different expression”, other yells for them to “go away”, while a third calls for calm. Now, Michael steps back into the center with a stack of blank papers. “Come and get it if you need one”, he repeats. The passing and taking of the papers leads to noticeable shifts in physical proximity within the crowd. As the papers change hands, they transform from mere CONTACT into a localized MESSAGE of persistence and resistance. This transformation extends to the singing moment. The national anthem is sung again, in a unified chorus, then followed by the Internationale, voiced in clearer articulation of the lyrics: “Stand up! Those who refuse to be slaves!” “This the final struggle!” “The international ideal, unites…”.

Nearly 20 min into the recording appears an older man who introduces himself as “the Party Secretary of the University” [the highest authority in the school administration]. He takes questions from the crowd about daily COVID-19 testing protocols, possible investigations, and possible retaliation against student leaders. He is quick to assure that “I promise you that won’t happen”. “No problem”. “We have a plan”. “I’ll defer to higher authorities for specific instructions…” The blank papers get CONTEXTUALIZED in a newly popped up paper that is filled with letters like “We want reform, not a Cultural Revolution. We want to be citizens, not slaves,” and in the students repeated chanting of “Democracy! Rule of law! Freedom of expression!” The video ends when Faye reads a note in a sobbing voice addressed to the party secretary through a loudspeaker: “As a Tsinghua student, I/we’d like to believe…We have an obligation to express, to speak for the people [referring to those who died in the fire in Urumqi and other Chinese whose voices are not heard]…”

3.2. Blank Paper Functions

This thematized description allows us to trace how the blank paper functions in association with the Factors. When Faye initially holds it, the paper has its existential subjectivity. This physical feature allows Faye to present her thought (the Object in Peirce’s term) in a way that is visible and tangible for others as well as for herself. However, the paper itself is not enough; it needs a “further developed” sign to actualize the intended expression. Here, Faye chooses to express her thought through the absence of written words, so that the blankness itself becomes the Interpretant. So forms the sign when a thought, a piece of paper, and absence of verbal expression are rendered as an interrelated unity.

The sign will remain a sign only to Faye herself if it does not enter a larger semiosphere, a term Lotman uses for all the signs and symbols used within a particular culture or communication system [17]. The expressive/emotive function of the blank paper from Faye’s perspective finds it counterpart, the conative function, when the paper sign is directed at those in her vicinity, her intended audience. Its conative function is at full play through signs of the participants’ observation and support, of occasional indifference or opposition. Its phatic function is evident throughout. The fact that the papers are positioned above one’s eyes and that they are continually being passed around speaks of its phatic function to keep the audience in place, suggesting to them that the communicative event is not over yet. As an unconventional sign, the blank paper does not have a signification system of its own, unlike words in a language that are subject to language-described rules. Its referential function is inherently vague. However, this referential vagueness allows for a creative (poetic) interpretation by the audience. Be reminded that in Jakobson’s theory, the poetic function of language results from selective and combinatory modes of verbal arrangement. The selection is produced on the base of equivalence, similarity and dissimilarity, while the combination, the buildup of the sequence, is based on contiguity. “The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination” [11] (p. 358). Lanigan later adds a phenomenological aspect to the function in pointing out that the poetic function is a reversibility and reflexivity of two different dimensions of consciousness and experience: (1) while one is present, the other is absent; (2) while one functions as a code, the other is simultaneously the message; and (3) as one operates to make meaning static and stable, the other works to make the meaning dynamic and developmental [14]. The fact that the blank paper(s) evokes such a diverse range of audience response attests to the prominence of its creative function.

The party secretary’s arrival highlights how the blank paper sign can function differently for various participants. For him, all the functions of the blank paper message may have been lost. When he enters the scene, the nonverbal protest has transformed into a more vocal one, with participants expressing their demands explicitly. Instead of the papers, what have functioned conatively to him are the growing numbers of paper holders, the moving in of the surrounding crowd, the mix of casual and heated interactions, the collective singing of the national anthem and the Internationale. It is the vibrance of these signs, rather than the silent papers, that finds him as another and yet the primary Addressee for the message of discontent.

Thus far, this description is my interpretation of what happened semiotically to the gathering as represented in the video. Note that the signs and sign system (both verbal and nonverbal) that I choose to use for the description do not merely name; they give color and shape to the setting and present the participants in voice and bodily movement sensible to themselves and to others alike. My role here is akin to a viewer of the YouTube recording, trying to understand the communication dynamics “out there” without delving into the participants’ motivations or presuming their thoughts. In the next section, I turn to discuss how consciousness works to create meaning from the experiencing of this semiotic phenomenon.

4. Embodied Sign Relations

Husserl proposes that consciousness is always intentional. It is always directed towards something. However, the main concern here is the nature of that experience itself rather than the object of the experience. Imagine that the sign involved was not a piece of blank paper, but a yellow umbrella or a red rose. That would hardly change the experiential nature of the communicative gathering, though the object of the experience varies.

4.1. The Body and the Mind

In the footsteps of earlier phenomenologists, communicologists—Lanigan [13], Martinez [18], Catt [16], Macke [4] among others—emphasize the view that the human capacity for semiosis pivots on an interplay of the body and the mind. The body facilitates physical contact with the world. It identifies and attunes to specific forms of contact: for instance, the seeing of objects that give off light, and feeling the vibrations that are transformed into electrical impulses, i.e., hearing. The mind, in turn, decides both what to attend to that contextualizes the physical contacts, and which physical contacts to attend to—choice of context and choice within context. It judges whether something is a “true” representation of something else, and it determines a causality that models what could or might be in contrast to what is here and now [19].

In communication, two aspects of the phenomenal world are experienced prominently through our body—performing and speaking. Merleau-Ponty argues that we do not simply perceive the world through our senses, but rather that our bodies are always already engaged with the world. Our body is not merely one expressive space among the rest; it is the origin of the rest, expressive movement itself, that which causes them to begin to exist as things, under our hands and in our eyes [20] (p. 169). Going back to the communicative scene as described in the previous section, a lot of what the participants do suggests such an incorporative capacity. Faye makes the blank paper a tangible means of contact by feeling it and holding it so that the paper does not disappear into a blurry concept. Her supporters, such as Michael, adjust their bodily positions or move closer to her front but not her back. Doing so allows them to incorporate her action into the meaningful environment that they can react to. Her opponents use their own bodies to block, to separate the projected unity between her and the surrounding crowd. “Because of kinaesthetic movement we experience at the same time something about things and about our own powers through which we cognitively and practically make things our own” [21] (p. 12). Consequentially, “[a]bsent a body to experience it, there is no information, no message, no meaning, no self, no society, and no culture. The being of the human is on the kairos, the horizons of the flesh” (Italics in the orginal) [16] (p. 134).

Speaking is another bodily function unique to human beings. Frustration, for instance, is pre-reflectively embodied in the tone of voice, in inflection, pitch, hesitations, and sobs (not laughter), in accent, dialect, and in a narrative voice (“speaking speech” in Merleau-Ponty’s term). Such an experience of being-in-the-world seeks vocalization. The mouth then articulates message/discourse by using words [choice of words for a message] in a language system (code) that is shared in the community (spoken speech). When the consciousness is focused on the CONTACT (a factor in Jakobson’s communication model), the experience tends to be more of a speaking speech mode; people feel connected through the singing/sounding of, say, the national anthem. When the consciousness is on what is being articulated in words (MESSAGE), the experience tends to be more of spoken speech. Again, with the national anthem as an example, people speak of themselves as “slaves” who need to stand up. “Speech… is that moment when the significative intention (still silent and wholly in act) proves itself capable of incorporating itself into my culture and the culture of others—of shaping me and others by transforming the meaning of cultural instruments” [13] (p. 182).

4.2. Perception and Expression

Through our bodies we perceive and express. We perceive ourselves capable of expressing in signs and sign systems, and we express what we perceive to be important and relevant. Interestingly, Jakobson marks the Addresser as the embodied origin of communication, though perception comes before expression when the Addresser and Addressee are embodied in the same human being. As Lanigan explains, the Addresser both chooses a code (for a message) so that contact (for a context) exists with an Addressee and the Addresser practices the idea of code by being the first interpreter of what is said orally [14].

Perception and expression are often considered as two sides of the same coin, with one inwardly intended and the other outwardly intended. The tendency is to keep the two distinctively unrelated in a given communication event when perception is embodied in the Addressee and expression in the Addresser. Such embodied separation creates a semiotic space for contesting and negotiating sign relations. Be reminded that a sign is primarily a triadic relation connecting things that are yet other (sets of) signs. And different individuals engaged in a communicative act do not have the matching elements with matching orders of their combinations.

On the other hand, perception and expression may become intertwined when meaning emerges in the experience of shared consciousness. I hear you shouting “no more daily COVID-19 testing” in my direction. I recall the bad experience of my throat being poked in COVID-19 testing. I become aware of myself as sign in the presence of another. I join the shouting “no more COVID-19 testing!” Your expression becomes my perception, and your perception becomes my expression. Perception and expression are also reversible. As Martinez explains, what we come to perceive in our embodied relation to others, the world is always already an expression of our interconnection with others and the world (Italics in the orginal) [18] (p. 101).

The expressive body discloses cultural codes, and cultural codes shape the perceptive body—an ongoing, dialectical, complex helix of twists and turns constituting the reflectivity, reversibility, and reflexivity of consciousness and experience4. The emphasis on the body is not to ignore the mind—consciousness—but to highlight the fact that communication is not a mental concept, as it has so been treated in the field of communication. To reiterate Merleau-Ponty, the body is a pivot to the world and our sole means of communication [22] (p. 92).

4.3. Perception of the Other in Communication

Building on Husserl’s concept of the “living present” [21] (p. 9), where consciousness integrates past experiences (retention) with anticipated future (protention), we can explore how embodied signs are interpreted. In the blank paper protest, the sight of others holding the paper becomes a sign for an individual protester. Their perception is not limited to the present act of holding their own paper. They might draw on past experiences of censorship or collective action (retention) to shape their interpretation of the blank paper in others. Witnessing this participation (present awareness) adds another layer of meaning to their own protest. Finally, they might anticipate the movement’s future success or the potential impact on the authorities (protention) based on this shared experience. This interplay between past, present, and anticipated future highlights the dynamic nature of communication within a protest space. The blank paper itself might be a simple object, but its meaning constantly evolves as it interacts with the embodied consciousness of each participant.

4.3.1. Intercorporeality

Studies on everyday interactions show some interesting features in how we perceive the other(s) and their signs. First, we do not separate people into internal thoughts (mind) and external bodies. In the protest, for instance, we directly perceive Faye’s bravery in her stance and Michael’s sympathy through his actions. Second, our interactions are fundamentally embodied. We judge others in relation to who we are and where we are. The concept of “good” or “bad”, or of near and far, is measured relevant to our own. Third, others appear within a specific context. They are not isolated bodies but beings acting in a shared world. The movements of others—like Faye standing tall or Michael moving closer—become meaningful actions that reveal their intentions and goals within the protest. We understand them not just as bodies but as fellow beings existing “in the world” with a purpose.

While we use embodied interactions to understand the other person, we also see ourselves reflected in them. Merleau-Ponty captures this idea with the concept of intercorporeality. As he explains, our bodies become intertwined in the act of perception. We observe the actions of others, and through this observation, we gain a deeper understanding of our own embodied existence. These interactions, whether favorable or unfavorable, create a connection—a carnal intersubjectivity—between ourselves and the other person [23] (p. 118).

4.3.2. Embodied Relations as Experienced

So, communication is on, about, and out of relations. But what type of relation addresses the meaning experience in this discussion better? As is mentioned in the introduction, semiotic studies rooted in Peirce’s sign theory focus more on logical relations—formal connections between propositions or statements within a sign and the sign system. Meanwhile, the European tradition of semiology focuses more on the syntactic (rules of sign combination) and paradigmatic (rules of sign substitution) relations within a sign system. Both are characterized in rules of exclusion (either/or). However, as Jakobson points out, opposition is not a relation that is observed but one that thinks itself. Of two things in opposition, nothing could be more distinct when viewed as content. But from the point of view of thought, nothing could be more connected. The opposing two are inseparable; the one implies the other. As Holenstein reminds us, a phenomenological analysis differs from a purely logical one by not only examining each datum as it is “in itself” but also as it is given in the conscious, “for us”. Opposition appears as both an exclusion and an inclusion [24] (pp. 124–125).

Traditional logic relies on clear-cut distinctions between true/false and yes/no, while phenomenology challenges these limitations. As Lanigan suggests, consciousness might experience seemingly contradictory things simultaneously. For instance: 1. The phenomenological Law of Non-Contradiction—a thing can at once be and not be; a statement can be both true and false at the same time. 2. The phenomenological Law of Excluded Middle—a thing must both be and not be; a statement must be both true and false. 3. The phenomenological Law of Contradiction—one thing is another thing; a statement is both the same as and different from other statements. 4. The phenomenological Law of Identity—one thing is always another thing; a statement is another statement [12] (pp. 9–11).

These phenomenological rules/laws may work simultaneously for someone in a group gathering. Whoever they may be, they are likely to find themselves among others. That is, while their body turns to one direction, incorporating a focused relation of the Addresser and the Addressee, their consciousness may embrace things beyond. To that participant, things unfold “all at once”, with some people swamping closer and others pushing away and some speaking passionately, whereas others keeping their mouths shut. In this context, the participant finds themself in a semiotic network radiating from their own body. Within that personal radius, everything can appear to both be and not be—the blank paper held in Faye’s hand can be both her (directly perceived) thought and a sign of her saying no; another piece of paper with writing on it can be both their agreement and disagreement with Faye; the paper Michael drops on the ground which is picked up again can be both trash/nothing and sign of protest; all the upheld papers are as good/powerful as all other spoken/written means. One has to sort through all those possibilities in the choosing and to transform while responding.

5. The Absence That Expresses

As has been noted earlier, the meaning of the embodied blankness on the paper is initially vague. Its meaning emerges as other messages, and verbal ones in particular, come to contextualize varied possibilities. Yet, why do the protesters choose indirectness over language which is typically seen as the preferred tool for thought? What unique purpose does the no-verbal/non-verbal serve that language-coded petitions or slogans may not be able to?

5.1. Social Rules in Chinese Discourse

Linguistic studies suggest that a verbal means is a preferred choice thanks to it being a system. In that system, a signifier/sign vehicle (a sound in speech or a word in writing) matches a signified/Object according to “arbitrary rules” of (semantic) substitution and (syntactic) combination. It is a closed system in which each sign has to be defined as the internal relation between a signifier and a signified; the use of the same word in different contexts does not alter the place of the word in the linguistic system. As the rules are shared within (or can be learned by) all members in that language community, it allows the speaker to choose one on the expression plane (e.g., the word “tyranny”) that refers to, and is understood as having, a specific referent (e.g., the concept of “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control”) on the content plane. The “orderly freedom” in this signification system makes language a powerful tool for thought sharing.

Communicologists, however, argue that language functions differently in real-world use (both parole parlante and discours in Merleau-Ponty’s terminology). It is then no longer a matter of one term opposed to another within its linguistic system, but of a reference to an object, of a grasp upon reality [25] (pp. 37–39). That is, language becomes not just a system of signs, but a way to reference reality within a specific context and set of social/cultural rules. For instance, during the “COVID-19 years”, negative reports are largely missing in state-owned media on the side-effects of vaccination or on the hunger and anxiety the public had to endure in the lockdowns. Such verbal absence is not due to broken linguistic rules but because criticizing the government is forbidden.

A prominent social rule governing life in China is that verbal expression is not free, nor is it necessarily encouraged. Regarding press regulation, the World Press Freedom Index placed China in the bottom four in its 2020 Index (177th out of 180). This means that journalists cannot perform their duties of truthful reporting to the public on any subject the government deems sensitive. They face severe scrutiny, as exemplified by the cases of Zhang Zhan and Chen Qiushi, who received years of imprisonment for reporting the COVID-19 outburst in Wuhan.

Ordinary citizens fare no better. Regulations and restrictions governing online content have proliferated during the COVID-19 years. Moynihan and Patel report that online platforms must abide by state-imposed constraints and cooperate in implementing heavy-handed restrictions on political, social, and religious discourse5. Any attempt to commemorate the 23 lives lost in a COVID-19-related transportation accident, or pray for the death of a kidney patient or a heart transplant recipient denied medical treatment simply because they could not prove they were COVID-19-free, would result in the related online posts being taken down quickly by the cyber police. Alternatively, the individual who posted might be called in for questioning by public security personnel.

Together, people witnessed the disappearing of Peng Lifa, who spoke out on Sitong Bridge in Beijing, saying “We want reform, not a Cultural Revolution. We want to be citizens, not slaves” (the same words that were repeated on the Tsinghua campus a month later). Peng was quickly apprehended and forced into a police car. Then, there was no news of him. The video post met with the same end.

This limit on freedom of expression is not an abstract concept. It is a constant presence in daily discourse, shaping people’s life in China. It influences memories of the past, existing knowledge, and projections of future behavior. Life has taught a harsh lesson: be cautious with your words or be prepared to bear the consequences.

5.2. Meaning Constitution of Blankness by Both Addresser and Addressee

Within this social and cultural context, the use of blank paper on the Tsinghua campus becomes more comprehensible. Faye, the initial Addresser, has something to say. Her lived experience cautions her to be strategic in finding the right listener. A piece of paper, however, is a familiar object for college students, and thus less likely to arouse suspicion. Its emptiness invites everyone present to fill it in with their own ideas. These embodied interactions (as described earlier) bridge the initial power imbalance between Faye and the Party secretary. In hindsight, the blank paper served as a strategic tool for establishing CONTACT, which also functions as, or transforms into, part of the MESSAGE itself.

Communicological studies urge us to look beyond expression. They remind us that power, another layer of the inseparable context in experiencing discourse, resides not only in the right to speak but also in the right to interpret the words of others. Those in relative authority often hold the power to define the meaning of expressions and actions, potentially twisting interpretations to enforce their own desired course of action. This is exemplified by the case of a female blogger in Henan province who live-streamed while holding a banner that said “I have nothing to say”. Cyber police interpreted this as a veiled criticism, leading to the banning of her studio soon after.

Returning to the Tsinghua protest, the blank paper affected the intended authority for a somewhat different reason. Lanigan [26] (pp. 201–202) offers an insightful explanation: “When a person is conscious of an object [a blank paper], it is because that object is present within a phenomenal situation [the act of holding it for others to see]. Such a situation only presents the object as there [lack of verbal expression], but also suggests that objects are not there—that is, objects that can be there [all kinds of thoughts and behaviors that have been suppressed by the authority body far and near, past and present, on one individual or all]”. In that moment on campus, the blank paper spoke more powerfully than anything else, for the intended Addressee.

6. Concluding Remark

“To act is to place oneself for a moment in an imaginary situation, to find satisfaction in changing one’s ‘setting’” [20] (p. 156). Communication provides a semiotic space wherein sign relations are constructed, contested, and re-defined through our phenomenological bodies. In communication, we become aware of our life-world. Through communication we live our humanness.