1) Gossip: The Informal Public Opinion System (非正式舆论系统)

The Structure of Informal Opinion

An "Informal Public Opinion System" is not a standardized institutional term, but a recurring communication structure in actual society: a mechanism for opinion generation and distribution that bypasses media, institutions, and the public sphere of discourse. It does not rely on authoritative sources, aim for factual consistency, or shoulder explicit responsibility for error correction; yet, it exerts a sustained and stable influence on individual judgment and group direction over long periods. The operational foundation of this system is not the truth of information, but interpersonal trust and social positioning. Opinions flow along the lines of acquaintance, emotional resonance, and identity. Who is believed depends more on "who you are" and "what your relationship is to me" than on "whether what you say is correct." Consequently, while it is structurally decentralized, it often exhibits a centralized effect: a few nodes perceived as being "closer to the truth," "nearer the core," or "more trustworthy" exert a disproportionate amplification on the overall narrative. In this system, the value of information is derived not primarily from the content itself, but from its location within the relational network. To retell a story is an implicit declaration of stance; to echo it is a confirmation of allegiance; and a deliberate silence can constitute a structural statement. Gossip becomes the most common and effective vehicle for this system precisely because it is vague, private, and malleable—easy to pass on, yet leaving almost no traceable trail for accountability.

Contexts of Activation

From the perspective of communication and social psychology, informal opinion systems become significantly active in several scenarios: when established authority fails, when social order loosens, or when an individual’s position has shifted upward but has yet to be recognized by the formal structure. This is not an abnormal state, but a normative reaction to a vacuum of power and judgment. Formal public opinion often seeks to answer "how we should understand this," while informal opinion is more often used to solve a different problem: "whose side should I be on" in an uncertain situation. These scenarios essentially point to the same thing: the original coordinates of judgment have malfunctioned, and new ones have not yet been established. The informal opinion system is activated during this gap.

When authority fails, people do not stop judging; they simply lose a unified reference point. The power of judgment is rapidly devolved to the most accessible level—those around them. Whoever "seems to know more," "appears to have inside information," or "has connections to key figures" temporarily replaces the original authority. In this case, whether the information is accurate is not the primary issue; whether it can fill the void of uncertainty is. Gossip often appears here as a makeshift explanatory system, providing individuals with a sense of psychological stability: "at least I know what happened." When order shakes, the source of anxiety is not whether rules exist, but whether one's position is still stable. When resources, opportunities, discourse power, or relationship structures begin to flow—blurring the once-clear lines of upstream and downstream, inner and outer circles—man's greatest fear is not failure, but not knowing what he counts as at this moment. The informal opinion system functions here to rapidly re-label people: who is rising, who is sinking, who is "having problems," and who is "finished." These judgments require no evidence; they only need to be told repeatedly to take effect within the group.

The Structural Dampening Mechanism

The most tense and easily overlooked scenario is when an individual’s position has shifted upward but has not yet been recognized by the structure. When a person’s ability, independence, or influence leaps forward but remains trapped in old labels, they constitute a threat to the existing hierarchy. At this point, the informal opinion system often triggers a "correction" in the form of gossip: not by directly denying their ability, but by obliquely polluting their motives, character, emotional stability, or relational boundaries—re-narrating the "upward shift" as a "problematic individual." This is not an accidental act of malice, but a typical structural backlash. A cold but clear pattern emerges: the informal opinion system does not aim to disseminate facts, but to mend the structure. When authority fails, it provides alternative explanations; when order shakes, it provides temporary ranking; when an individual moves up, it provides a dampening mechanism. Its concern is not "what is the truth," but "can the structure continue to function?"

This logic aligns closely with Edward Bernays’ view that public judgment can be continuously shaped by social cues, emotional narratives, and organized communication. The only difference is that Bernays discussed macro-level political and PR operations, while what is described here is the spontaneous operation of this mechanism on an interpersonal scale. From this perspective, the informal opinion system is not a byproduct of lost control, but a self-rescue mechanism for the system before total collapse. It appears ugly, distorted, or even hurtful because it assumes functions that should be borne by the formal structure but can no longer be. Gossip, therefore, is not just "small talk," but a low-cost, high-penetration, decentralized technology of informal power. Its primary purpose is not to transmit information, but to reorganize relational structures. By talking about a third party, the communicator invisibly accomplishes three things: testing stances, creating shared secrets, and compressing a complex person into a shippable label. Much of gossip does not care for truth; it cares whether it successfully pushes someone outside the boundary of "us" or fixes them in a controllable position.

The Fake Consensus and its Cure

In terms of delivery, gossip almost always hides behind the guises of being "private," "caring," or "something that had to be said," spreading in leaps along chains of trust. Each retelling is fine-tuned to the psychological expectations of the recipient. Because it lacks a clear source, responsibility is continuously diluted, eventually forming a "pseudo-consensus" where "everyone says so." The long-term consequences far exceed reputational damage. Practical judgment is chronically polluted, individuals are dragged into traps of self-justification from which they cannot escape, and group trust is slowly eroded. Paradoxically, the power structure is malformed and solidified through this seemingly anti-authority mechanism. Those most skilled at manipulating gossip gain a discursive advantage, while those who truly abstain are more easily marginalized. Therefore, gossip is not a moral issue, but a symptom of governance failure. Where it appears, it means that formal judgment, formal rights/responsibilities, and formal communication mechanisms can no longer keep up with reality. It cannot be entirely eliminated, but it can be weakened. The only effective path is not to advise people "not to talk," but to rebuild the source of the power of judgment: making facts, processes, and boundaries clear, stable, and predictable again; returning disputes to formal venues where they are verifiable and accountable; and ensuring the structure gives a clear response to changes rather than leaving them in long-term suspension. When judgment finds a place to land, informal opinion naturally regresses into noise. Not because people suddenly become rational, but because continuing to spread it no longer yields structural profit.

2) My Case (我的具体情境)

Gossip as a Tool of Explanation

In my specific situation, I have come to realize that the key lies not entirely in the content of the rumors, but in their chronological order. From my observation, these discussions did not follow a clear error or event; they were initiated gradually after I began to change. Before that, I was relatively "identifiable": I was placed in an old position with clear labels and posed no significant uncertainty. When my way of outputting, the degree to which I was taken seriously, or the framework through which others viewed me began to shift, the old positioning no longer applied. Simultaneously, a new, widely recognized position had not yet formed. It is during this gap—when old labels fail and new ones are not yet stable—that uncertainty spreads. In hindsight, gossip feels more like an explanatory tool activated during this void. It may not stem from explicit malice or respond to a specific fact; rather, it is an attempt to provide a "circulatable version" of an explanation before the new structure solidifies.

Functional Displacement

During this process, I noticed that discussions often did not center on what I actually did, but gradually shifted toward speculating on my motives, state of mind, or personality. This shift has functional significance. Compared to behavior, motives and states are harder to verify and easier for different people to fill in with their own interpretations. Once the focus shifts from verifiable actions to the unverifiable question of "who I am," the power of explanation no longer rests with me or the facts, but returns to the discussants. In form, this type of gossip rarely appears as an explicit accusation; it more often begins with "concern," "confusion," or a vague sense of unease: "I can't quite read her lately," "I have a feeling I can't put into words," or "I'm just a bit worried." Such phrasing does not offer a refutable judgment; it invites participation. It makes "discussing me" appear reasonable without requiring responsibility for any specific conclusion. I also noticed that this information does not spread randomly. It tends to flow first among those who have no direct contact with me but share a relationship or emotional trust with the communicator. For these people, the cost of verification is high, while accepting a ready-made explanation is low-effort. Once the retelling occurs, the original source blurs rapidly, the discussion becomes "everyone says so," and individual responsibility is diluted.

A Systemic Response to Change

Psychologically, this process may also serve a defensive function. Faced with change in others, people are not always ready to update their understanding of relationships or structures. In comparison, it is often easier to transfer the tension brought by change onto a specific individual. By projecting uncertainty as "is there something wrong with this person," a structural change that needs re-understanding is simplified into an individual explanation. This situation is clear to me largely because the sequence was explicit: the change appeared first, and the related discussions followed. If these discussions were primarily reactions to a specific behavior, they would typically follow closely on the heels of the event; in my experience, they closely followed the change itself. This leads me to understand it as a mechanism for deceleration or containment rather than error correction. This brings me to an unpleasant but increasingly clear fact: in informal opinion networks, explaining, clarifying, or self-justifying often cannot fundamentally end the process. This is because what drives it is not a lack of information, but uncertainty itself. Only when a new role, position, or external recognition gradually becomes fixed will this space for explanation naturally contract. Until then, any attempt to directly "correct" it might instead be re-absorbed into the discussion.

The Subjective Experience of "Distortion"

Subjectively, this experience does not feel like merely being "bad-mouthed." It feels more as though the surrounding atmospheric pressure has changed. It is not that a specific sentence hit me, but that I perceived an overall shift in the mode of interaction. Responses become hesitant and vague; eyes and tones acquire a layer of evaluation, as if the explanation of "who I am" has been pre-generated in a place where I was not present. The most obvious sensation is distortion. What I am doing has not substantially changed, yet the feedback begins to revolve around a preset image. I am no longer responded to directly but treated as an object to be observed and judged. This state is not loud, yet its persistence causes one to unconsciously tighten their movements and increase self-monitoring. At the same time, I am clearly aware that this change does not stem entirely from something I did wrong. It appeared too synchronously, too structurally, and relies almost not at all on any single event. This leads me to view it as a system-level reaction rather than an immediate judgment of my personal behavior.

If one sets aside the emotional layer and observes solely from an operational level, the process presents a fairly common path: first, establishing the legitimacy of the discussion through vague expressions; then, spreading through relationship networks where verification costs are low; subsequently, shifting the focus from facts to state and personality; and naturally deforming and de-responsibilizing during the retelling. These steps are not necessarily consciously planned; they are more like a seasoned interpersonal operation that automatically emerges in uncertain situations. The goal seems not to be to completely negate me, but to occupy the explanatory space before I am clearly and stably understood. As long as a vague and biased label is placed in advance, that early impression may persist long after the facts become clearer. Overall, I prefer to understand this as a low-conflict, low-risk, but highly efficient way of coping during a period of structural transition. It does not rely on evidence or direct confrontation; it relies on only one condition: that a position is changing and a new structure has not yet fully formed. It is in this window that such operations are most effective.

3) How Does It Start? (谁在传播？)

The Chieftains of Informal Structures

The first people to spread gossip are usually not the "worst" people, but the people most dependent on informal structures for survival. This is the key insight for understanding the gossip mechanism. The common trait among such people is that their position is not supported by a clear role, verifiable ability, or institutional authorization; instead, it is highly dependent on relationship networks, emotional connections, and information advantages. When the structure is stable, this position is secure; but once the structure begins to loosen—signaling a riser or a reshuffling—they are often the first to feel threatened. For them, gossip is not a moral choice, but a tool for positional defense. Psychologically, these individuals are hypersensitive to "comparison." They do not focus on the facts themselves, but continuously scan for changes in relative position: who is being noticed by more people, who is starting to be taken more seriously, and who is bypassing them to establish direct connections. When they realize they are losing their explanatory power or intermediary status, they quickly develop intense unease. The cost of updating their self-narrative is too high, so they choose the lowest-cost method: polluting the other's explanatory space in advance.

The Logic of Defensive Sabotage

In terms of ability, those who initiate gossip often do not possess an advantage in competing in the public sphere. They are not skilled at speaking through work, results, or logic, but they are very adept at reading emotions, judging the "wind," and manipulating relationships. This makes them exceptionally proficient in informal communication. They know which words not to say and which half-said truths are most effective; they know to whom to speak, when to speak, and exactly when to stop. This is not an impulse, but an intuition formed by long-term practice. Another key condition: they often occupy a position that is "marginal but perceives itself as close to the core." Completely marginal people lack the capacity to spread information, and true core figures do not need gossip. Those most likely to act first are people near the core who lack formal authorization. Once they feel they might be replaced, bypassed, or re-ranked, gossip is activated to prove that "the problem is with the other person, not that the structure is changing." At the motivational level, the initiator will almost certainly wrap their behavior in "concern," "warning," or "I just feel something isn't quite right." This is not simple hypocrisy; it is a necessary condition. The first step of gossip is not to spread content, but to legitimize the discussion of the subject. Only when "talking about someone" is framed as reasonable behavior can subsequent dissemination find room. Thus, the true starting point is rarely an accusation, but a vague unease.

The Fear of Confrontation

An equally important but often overlooked point is that such people are usually terrified of direct confrontation. They choose gossip precisely because it is decentralized, sourceless, and unaccountable. If called out, they quickly retreat to the position of "I also heard..." or "I was also just worried." This structural retreat is the prerequisite for their daring to act first. Therefore, the first people to spread gossip act not because they have mastered the truth, but because they are the first to realize the old order is failing and the new order has not yet arrived. Their scent for change is incredibly keen, but their way of handling it is conservative and defensive. They do not push for structural updates; they try to slow down the change, pull back the old order, and pollute the path of the riser. It is worth noting that these people are not dull; on the other hand, they are exceptionally sensitive to environmental changes. They can detect subtle signals early: attention is being redistributed, discourse power is drifting, connection paths are being bypassed, and the default intermediary role is no longer needed. These changes have not yet formed at the formal level, but they have begun to ferment at the relational level. Many people realize the structure has changed only when the result appears; these people feel it "at the trend stage."

Certainty vs. Truth

The problem is not that they cannot see the change, but that they cannot bear the identity uncertainty it brings. When the old order was effective, their position—even if not powerful—was at least clear and stable. But once the old order loosens and the new order is not yet established, they fall briefly into a vacuum: old labels fail, yet future positions cannot be predicted. For such people, this vacuum itself is the threat, even harder to endure than explicit failure. In this state, only two paths usually remain. One is to push for structural renewal, accepting the new ranking logic and re-proving oneself by new standards; the other is to prevent the change from completing, letting the old order "live a little longer." The former requires ability, resources, and psychological endurance; the latter requires only a relationship network and a bit of linguistic skill. Thus, they almost inevitably choose the latter, and gossip is the natural result of this choice. It must be emphasized that this behavior is not always a clear rational calculation. Often, it is more like an instinctual reaction—to press the uncertain thing back into its original place. By creating a vague negative narrative about the riser, they attempt to make the environment "explainable" again. Once the riser is labeled as "problematic," "unstable," or "needing observation," the structure gains a temporary excuse to delay formal recognition of the change. This is not to completely negate the other person, but to slow down the re-ranking triggered by the change.

This is also why the target of gossip is often not the most powerful person, but those who are changing yet have not been formally confirmed. People who are already established do not need to be polluted, and truly weak people are not worth the effort. Only those in the transition stage, whose identity has not been locked down, are the most effective targets for intervention. For the communicator, this is the moment of lowest risk but highest potential gain. From this perspective, gossip is essentially a temporal strategy. Its goal is not to win, but to delay. How long it delays does not matter, as long as it delays until uncertainty is encapsulated again, even if in the wrong way. For them, a wrong certainty is easier to bear than a true uncertainty. Therefore, saying they "do not push for structural renewal" does not mean they lack the ability to perceive change, but that they lack the ability or will to bear the cost of change. Their defensiveness stems not from a concern for the truth, but from a fear of losing their position. Polluting the path of the riser is not because the other person truly has a problem, but because their existence itself exposes the fact that the old order is no longer reliable. They are not judging right from wrong; they are trying to make the world familiar again.

The Role of the Enablers

As for those who participate in spreading gossip, most are not active manipulators but people seeking security amidst structural uncertainty. Their participation is more an act of conformity than initiation. In a phase of structural upheaval and blurred evaluation standards, gossip provides many with a quick, low-risk way to "take a stand." They often do not believe they are doing something wrong; they understand retelling as sharing, warning, or relationship maintenance. Because of this, the spread of gossip is not accomplished by a few "bad actors," but by a group of people who choose the safe option in the face of uncertainty. Its stubbornness is not due to its persuasive power, but to the precision with which it satisfies the human need for position, security, and belonging.