60-year-old Niu Yingjun has been retired for several years. Now his "primary occupation" is the administration of four WeChat "friendly exchange chat groups,” where he makes it his duty to maintain a cheerful group atmosphere. One of his favorite tricks to do this is sending WeChat ”red envelopes” (virtual versions of red envelope gifts of money). When he sees that no one in the group is chatting, Niu Yingjun likes to send 20 or so red envelopes, costing just 1 or 2 yuan each (just a few cents), into the group, and quickly group members are scrambling for them. Although the amount of money in each gift is small, their role cannot be underestimated. Amidst the clamor of "thank you’s,” new topics begin brewing, and the group begins to liven up again. Niu Yingjun's interactions of "sending emotions, spreading love, and sharing friendship" through red envelopes is in fact a manifestation of social relations. Choosing who to send red envelopes to, how much to send in a red envelope, which group to interact with, and why even to send red envelopes at all, fully demonstrate the interaction styles of modern Chinese people. "Red Envelope Philosophy" is rooted in the "social emotional interactions" of traditional Chinese societal acquaintances. The action of "sending red envelopes" replicates the act of giving traditional red envelopes, with the same festive atmosphere of family members celebrating the Lunar New Year together. WeChat’s red envelopes have gradually bolstered social relationships, brightened moods, reduced the need for in-person visits during the holidays, and also reduced the social embarrassment of not having enough money to give by setting caps on the amount you can send. But WeChat red envelopes aren’t merely a derivative of traditional red envelopes. Their function also fully utilizes WeChat’s interwoven field of “strong and weak relationships,” expands their traditional use and cultural implications, and extends holiday well-wishing originally limited to small geographic areas and close relationships out to the whole of society, even strangers. Various jokes popular on the Internet–– "send red envelopes if you have an argument,” “red envelopes can resolve all problems, so there’s no need for words"–– all show that WeChat red envelopes have been successfully embedded in modern Chinese lives. Behind this flow of red envelopes, however, it’s hard not to think of scholar Liu Qing’s idea of the “dualism of irony” when talking about WeChat. Within the “short and fast” Internet world, enormous prosperity can easily lead to a different type of poverty; convenience can slide into exhaustion. In the overflowing sky of red envelopes, if we aren’t compelled to reflect on fundamental questions such as “Why red envelopes at all?”, “Why send red envelopes?”, and “Why scramble for red envelopes?” we could unknowingly be pushed into another abyss. Are relationships becoming too transactional? In 1973, American sociologist Mark Granovetter proposed the theory of “weak ties.” He believed that "weak ties," those that are not deep in interpersonal interaction, are more beneficial in the accumulation of personal social capital. This theory was very different from the previous perspective in academic circles of relying on close "strong relationships" to get ahead and had a limited impact at the time. However, in recent years, massive changes in modern society have gradually made Granovetter's theory more recognized in mainstream academic circles. Regarding the accumulation of personal social capital, more and more modern people are beginning to attach importance to and use the strategy of "weak ties.” An academic study in 2017 on WeChat red envelopes showed that, compared with closely connected “strong relationships,” WeChat red envelopes have the most obvious impact on the relationships between friends and those in the workplace. Interviewees also expressed their hope to use red envelopes to maintain relationships between friends and colleagues. When talking about the order and protocol for red envelope giving in groups, the interviewees had quite a bit of insight, stating, "The amount sent in a red envelope cannot be more than the leader sends." Many companies have institutionalized "sending red envelopes" as a means of rewarding and punishing employees. In the specialized “societal microcosm” of WeChat groups, personal relationship networks are largely derived from real life. “Weak tie” connections with friends and colleagues also help individuals expand social relationships and obtain diverse information. The mentality of speaking carefully and avoiding mistakes among "colleague groups" is easy to understand. The study’s author proposed that the risk of expression through red envelope giving is smaller compared to expression through speech. As long as a basic protocol is followed, it’s easy to avoid mistakes. From the perspective of pursuing advantages and avoiding disadvantages, to "send red envelopes if you have an argument” has a certain rationale. The question is, however, as WeChat red envelope giving is gradually expanding in use, from informal group holiday well-wishing to a company reward and punishment mechanism, will non-commercialized and genuine interactions between people begin to trend toward monetization? The social and cultural significance of traditional red envelope giving is for the older generations to bless the younger generations during festivals. Now, the result of gift-giving has evolved into a social lubricant suitable for all relationships and any scenario. With gifts as small as 1 cent and as much as 200 yuan (about 31 USD), WeChat red envelopes are used as a channel, means, and even purpose for social interaction. When this becomes a whole-of-society habit, we should be wary of whether this hinders other non-monetary interactions, imperceptibly weakening sincere and positive interactions between friends, therefore leading to the general tendency of the “profitization” of social relations. An even more frightening thought is that when red envelopes become the primary means of interaction for “weak tie” relationships, will "red envelope socializing" become the main method to maintain social relations? This point can be seen in the 2016 University of Hong Kong Committee election campaign bribery scandal triggered by WeChat red envelopes. It was revealed that Zhu Ke, a mainland student, had sent a WeChat red envelope of 80 yuan (around 13 USD) during the campaign. Media reports stated that school authorities said that 80 yuan wasn’t enough to influence voters and ruled that the bribery complaint was unfounded. However, some Hong Kong students strongly opposed it, believing that no matter how large or small the amount is, it was a bribe. As Zhu Ke and the mainland students who supported him saw it, WeChat red envelopes were just an electronic payment game, "usually sending red envelopes are just a way to brighten moods." In actuality, this represents the point of view of most WeChat red envelope users ––that red envelopes are just a normal way of socializing. It is precisely this ordinary WeChat red envelope, just like its platform WeChat, has successfully transformed into the very atmosphere we breathe, so that we don’t realize that it may have replaced text, pictures, and emojis as users’ main way to interact online socially. Will it be possible one day for red envelopes to replace our face-to-face encounters and become our primary way of socializing? If we abandon our controlled way of thinking towards this issue, is it really healthy behavior to use red envelopes to get votes? Can only red envelopes be used to liven up a group atmosphere? Can only red envelopes be used to express gratitude? How much vitality can a WeChat group have that is activated only by WeChat red envelopes? Unadorned spending to buy attention? If Zhu Ke's election bribery behavior is based on the habitual thinking of a “lively group atmosphere,” then by examining the acts of posting ads in a group, seeking help, and then sending a red envelope, it begs the question: isn’t this really just a disguised form of spending money to buy attention? Electronic red envelopes are not limited to WeChat. QQ, also owned by Tencent, has an even wider variety of red envelopes. For a QQ password red envelope, you need to reply with the password, such as “the group leader is really handsome,” to receive the red envelope. Imagine your phone suddenly being flooded with the phrase "the host is so handsome.” At first glance, it’s just a comedic joke to amuse people. But after a quick chuckle, and you really give it some thought, isn't this just unadorned spending to get attention? Even WeChat executives are aware of this problem. Zhang Xiaolong, the founder of WeChat, mentioned in a 2018 speech that “issuing red envelopes has become more and more of an undisguised monetary transaction,” simply issuing money and moving away from “the aspect of real emotions” into “the more you send in a red envelope demonstrates how much you care.” In subsequent versions, one of the new WeChat features is the ability to customize a red envelope’s cover to stimulate users' creativity and reflect the emotion behind the red envelope. But the interesting thing is that this feature was costly and was initially only open to businesses. In order to cast off this norm of measuring one’s intent by the amount of money sent in a red envelope, WeChat provides expensive customized services, allowing people to spend more money to decorate their "faces." WeChat red envelopes still fail to escape the shackles of “profitization.” Sociologist Erving Goffman, in his book "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,” proposed that any social interaction is a social performance and with every interaction individuals try their best to simplify themselves and create self-beneficial images. When "spending money for attention" and "seeking people for favors" transform from being secretive into a common social practice that allows for unabashedly displaying yourself, is this a form of social progress or degradation? Going back to interpersonal interactions, the key to changing the idea of "spending money for attention" from "wishful thinking" to "mutually agree upon" lies with the person who has "scrambled for red envelopes.” With a "taking advantage” mentality towards red envelopes and then guilt after for taking that money, one might begin to help out, adopting a subtle “spend money to help others” type of attitude to transform the rules of society. Greed in human nature: The "game function" of WeChat red envelopes It is necessary to re-examine the behavior of "scrambling for red envelopes" itself. A popular Internet joke goes, “I don’t bother to pick up one dollar on the ground, but I’ll burn down the heavens scrambling for one cent in a red envelope.” This joke vividly describes the soft spot modern people have for WeChat red envelopes. Why is a cent in a WeChat red envelope more valuable? Is it because people are curious about new things and like to join the fun? The key to the success of WeChat red envelopes lies in the action of “scrambling” for them. Compared with the "fixed amount red envelopes" that are treated equally, people are more obsessed with "random red envelopes." The previously-mentioned study also pointed out that the game aspect of WeChat red envelopes was favored by nearly 70 percent of respondents, becoming the biggest motivator for people to use WeChat red envelopes. Participants become addicted to playing the game because of the "surprise of an uncertain monetary amount" in the red envelopes. This psychology mimics the complex mixed emotions of excitement, tension, and anticipation experienced by people when playing cards or gambling. What people expect is that amidst randomness and uncertainty, not only will they make money for doing nothing, but they will also be beat others and become the winner with the "best luck.” It is precisely because of this gambler's psychology that various "WeChat minesweeping groups" have appeared in great numbers. 23-year-old Wu Zhehao, who lives in Michigan, recalled to a reporter from Why Not that in his first year in the US, he joined a “WeChat mine-sweeping group” out of “boredom and loneliness.” Just like a casino in real life, these group are full of strangers of all kinds, and each person who opens an account has to pay a 200 yuan deposit to the group owner in order to prevent people from abandoning the group. The group owner will quickly organize a game ranging from three to 10 people. The rules of the game are very simple. A player sends out a random red envelope. The amount is agreed by the players. The players will send it and get it again and again, until someone decides to quit. It is a seemingly boring game, but Wu Zhehao still played for five hours straight and lost more than 7,000 yuan (1,083 USD) in one night. “Later, thoughts about winning back that money turned over and over in my mind and just stagnated there.” This kind of WeChat red envelope gambling takes advantage of a basic human instinct, greed. This weakness of human nature is difficult to eradicate and is the same one that doomed Adam and Eve to eat the "forbidden fruit" in the Garden of Eden. In modern society, there is an anecdote about a man getting in a fight over grabbing a penny red envelope, reminding us that almost no one is content with grabbing just a single penny red envelope. When scrambling for red envelopes, people are always looking forward to more money. Not only that, but that it’s also better to surpass others and have the best winning luck. Modern Internet civilization: Taking lazy shortcuts It’s true that we cannot cure greed, but perhaps it’s laziness that we can battle against. Marshall McLuhan, the founder of modern communications theory, once pointed out that mass media will change people's ways of thinking and sensory perceptions. This influence is subtle, like a frog boiling slowly in water. It affects individuals, groups, and even entire societies over the course of many years. Modern social media networks are a world composed of various symbolic languages. Compared with traditional text, pictures, emojis, short videos, etc. can deliver massive amounts of information quickly. As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words.” Because of its vivid characteristics, the language of imagery has an advantage over the written language’s irreplaceable words. The problem, however, is that behind this emerging media format is also a "simple, direct, and fast" mode of thinking. As the economist Tyler Cowen puts it, “When information is easily accessible, we usually like short, fragmented, and pleasant content.” Today, when attention spans have become a scarce resource, images with their refined but superficial expressions have almost completely replaced traditional text, and at the same time have deeply rooted the concept of "simple, direct, and fast" into people’s consciousness. As for WeChat red envelopes, the function helps users express their feelings by moving their fingers, to buy attention by sending a red envelope, and to "get something for nothing" by staring at a screen. This concept is in line with the Internet thinking so revered by modern civilization––"Short and fast." But the principle of "short and fast" does not apply everywhere. Human contemplation and creativity require time; it’s difficult to proceed in fragmented chunks of time. The development and progress of human civilization also requires a medium that presents wholeness, complexity, and abstraction. Interpersonal relationships are only long-lasting with communication and exchange over a long period of time. In order to save time, giving up textual expression and reading, and instead choosing superficial emojis and short videos, and sending red envelopes for disagreements to avoid hurting friendships or to express intimacy with the same, tired pattern of sending red envelopes are essentially lazy shortcuts. A few years ago, when emojis swept through the Internet, many scholars worried that simple, visual, symbolic language would lead to social "low intelligence" tendencies such as the weakening of an audience's overall language ability. Today, with WeChat red envelopes embedded in our daily lives, especially given that the post-90s generation has surpassed the post-80s one to become the main users of red envelopes, we have reason to worry whether this simple and fast monetized transaction, with its lazy shortcut-taking behavior, will become the prevailing norm and future direction for modern civilization. Without deep reflection, we must be cautious as the social revolution represented by WeChat red envelopes may end up like what Neil Postman wrote in his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” where we will eventually be destroyed by what we love.
