–魏晓鸣

翻译：戈冰

当表达逐渐成为风险，沉默便成为常态。本文从个人写作经验出发，思考言论空间收缩、公共讨论消失与社会信任流失之间的关系，并提出：真正的自信，不在于消除不同声音，而在于能够面对它们。

表达原本是一项权利，却在现实中变成风险。因为当一个社会开始习惯沉默，它所付出的代价，远远超过个体所承受的压力。

我之所以持续写下去，并不是因为情绪，而是因为现实本身不允许人们假装看不见。一个普通人，仅仅因几段言论被约谈、被限制、被警告，这并非个案，而是一种结构性的常态。当公共讨论被视为“敏感”，当批评被轻易贴上“敌对”的标签，问题就不再是某个人说了什么，而是这个社会还能不能允许不同的声音存在。

言论自由的意义，从来不在于赞美，而在于质疑。赞美不需要勇气，质疑才需要。真正考验制度自信的，也不是听到掌声时的从容，而是面对批评时的态度。一个连质疑都无法承受的权力，本身就暴露出脆弱。

近年来，围绕“意识形态安全”的强调越来越频繁。官方反复提出必须维护主流舆论阵地，强调网络空间治理和舆论导向统一。在一系列治理框架下，“安全”成为高频词汇。然而，当安全的边界不断扩大，表达的空间就不断缩小。问题在于，究竟什么才是威胁？理性的批评是威胁吗？对政策的不同看法是威胁吗？普通人的疑问又算不算威胁？

如果所有不同意见都被归入风险管理的范畴，那么公共理性就会被行政逻辑取代。平台自我审查，媒体统一口径，个人学会闭嘴。久而久之，社会形成一种奇怪的共识：大家都知道问题存在，但没人公开讨论。沉默不代表认同，只代表恐惧。

恐惧会带来两个后果。第一，是社会活力的消退。没有自由讨论，就没有创新思想；没有思想的碰撞，进步也就失去了土壤。第二，是信任的流失。当人们无法通过公开表达解决问题，便只能在私下发泄情绪，信任便会逐渐瓦解。

有人会说，稳定压倒一切。但稳定从来不是压出来的，而是建立在透明和信任之上。如果批评者被视为破坏者，那么社会就只剩下两种人：沉默者与承担风险的人。这样的结构，本身难以长久维持。

继续写下去，并不是为了对抗谁，而是为了记录。当表达需要勇气时，写作就具有了见证意义。哪怕声音微弱，也意味着社会还没有完全陷入沉默。

一个真正强大的社会，应当允许人们提出问题，而不是只允许重复答案。真正的自信，不在于屏蔽不同声音，而在于面对它们时仍然能够保持从容。

如果连讨论的空间都没有，未来又从何而来？或许有人会问：这样写真的有用吗？历史给出的答案是，思想从来不会因为压制而消失，只会在沉默中积蓄力量。真正决定时代走向的，不是恐惧本身，而是恐惧之下仍然选择发声的人。

这不是终点，而是继续。因为沉默的代价，往往比发声更高。

Speaking Out Despite Fear

–Wei Xiaoming

Translated by Ge Bing

When expression becomes a risk, silence becomes the norm. Drawing from personal writing experiences, this essay explores the relationship between shrinking spaces for speech, the disappearance of public discourse, and the erosion of social trust. It argues that true confidence lies not in silencing differing voices, but in confronting them.

Expression was once a right, but in reality, it has become a risk. For when a society grows accustomed to silence, the price it pays far exceeds the pressure borne by individuals.

I continue to write not out of emotion, but because reality itself does not permit people to pretend they are blind. It is not an isolated case when an ordinary person is summoned for questioning, restricted, or warned simply for a few statements—it is a structural norm. When public discourse is deemed “sensitive” and criticism is readily labeled “hostile,” the issue transcends individual words—it becomes whether society can tolerate divergent voices at all.

The value of free speech lies not in praise, but in questioning. Praise requires no courage; questioning does. True tests of institutional confidence aren’t measured by composure amid applause, but by attitude toward criticism. A power that cannot tolerate even questioning exposes its own fragility.

In recent years, the emphasis on “ideological security” has grown increasingly frequent. Authorities repeatedly stress the need to safeguard the mainstream public opinion arena, emphasizing unified governance of cyberspace and public discourse. Under a series of regulatory frameworks, “security” has become a high-frequency term. Yet as the boundaries of security expand, the space for expression shrinks. The question remains: What truly constitutes a threat? Is rational criticism a threat? Are differing views on policy a threat? Do ordinary people’s questions count as threats?

If all dissent is categorized under risk management, public reason will be supplanted by administrative logic. Platforms will self-censor, media will adopt uniform narratives, and individuals will learn to keep silent. Over time, society will develop a peculiar consensus: everyone knows problems exist, yet no one discusses them openly. Silence does not signify agreement; it signifies fear.

Fear yields two consequences. First, the erosion of social vitality. Without free discussion, innovative ideas cannot flourish; without the clash of ideas, progress loses its fertile ground. Second, the erosion of trust. When people cannot resolve issues through open expression, they vent their frustrations privately, and trust gradually disintegrates.

Some may argue that stability trumps all. But stability is never forced; it is built upon transparency and trust. If critics are labeled as disruptors, society is left with only two types of people: the silent and the risk-takers. Such a structure is inherently unsustainable.

Continuing to write is not about opposing anyone, but about recording. When expression requires courage, writing becomes a form of testimony. Even a faint voice signifies that society has not yet fallen completely silent.

A truly strong society should permit people to raise questions, not merely repeat answers. True self-confidence lies not in silencing dissent, but in maintaining composure when confronted by it.

If there is no space for discussion, where does the future come from? Some may ask: Is writing like this truly effective? History answers that ideas never vanish through suppression; they merely gather strength in silence. What truly shapes an era is not fear itself, but those who choose to speak out despite it.

This is not the end, but a continuation. Because the cost of silence is often higher than that of speaking out.