2026年5月15日 星期五

The Branding of the Soul: CUHK and the New Patent on Identity

 

The Branding of the Soul: CUHK and the New Patent on Identity

In the primal forest, a wolf doesn’t need a trademark to be a wolf. It carries its identity in its scent, its howl, and the blood on its muzzle. But in the hyper-managed cages of modern institutionalism, identity has become a proprietary asset. The latest amendment to the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) Ordinance is a fascinating psychological case study: it essentially grants the Council a monopoly on the "vibe" of being associated with the university.

The new clause bans anyone from displaying themselves as a group connected to the university—or even using its name—without written consent. Nominally, this is to protect "intellectual property" and "reputation." In reality, it is an act of territorial scent-marking. It is the institutional equivalent of a silverback gorilla claiming every tree in the jungle as his personal brand, even the ones he didn't plant.

From an evolutionary perspective, we are seeing the ultimate triumph of the "In-Group/Out-Group" dynamic, weaponized by bureaucracy. By gatekeeping the name, the institution effectively severs the organic, lateral bonds of the "tribe"—the alumni, the students, the casual gatherings—and replaces them with a vertical, permission-based hierarchy. Want to organize a reunion dinner called "CUHK O-Camp Nostalgia"? Better get your paperwork in order, or you might find yourself on the wrong side of a cease-and-desist.

The cynical humor lies in the absurdity of the "Totalitarian CV." If the wording is interpreted with the usual lack of common sense found in modern governance, simply calling yourself a "CUHK Graduate" is a claim of connection. Will the Council need to audit every LinkedIn profile? Will your graduation photo become a copyright infringement? This is the darker side of human nature: the obsessive need to control the narrative so tightly that you end up suffocating the very community that gives the name value in the first place. They are trying to own the "echo" of the university, forgetting that an echo only exists if people are allowed to speak.