Home 亚洲 The Threefold Mission of Chinese International Communication Scholars
亚洲传播学

The Threefold Mission of Chinese International Communication Scholars

Share

By Bi Yantao, Professor

As the global order undergoes accelerated restructuring and geopolitical conflicts continue to spill over—from the Ukraine crisis to renewed warfare in the Middle East, from U.S.-China strategic rivalry to the collective awakening of the Global South—the world is entering a convergence point of multipolar competition and value realignment. In response to this intensifying geopolitical landscape, Chinese international communication scholars should break free from the traditional confines of “telling China’s story well” and reposition themselves within a broader historical context—not merely as collectors, interpreters, and transmitters of information, but as observers, deconstructors, and reconstructors of the world’s cognitive order. Against this backdrop, I argue that international communication scholars shoulder three historical missions: interpretation, prediction, and intervention.

I. Interpretation: Piercing Appearances to Construct an Explanatory Framework for Our Time

In this era of information explosion and narrative chaos, geopolitical conflicts are often obscured by emotional rhetoric, ideological projection, and manipulated public opinion. The true logic and drivers behind global events are systematically concealed. International communication scholars must transcend both technological determinism and the constraints of nationalistic narratives to reclaim the primary academic mission—to explain the world.

This explanatory effort must not be a mere reiteration of state rhetoric, nor a passive adaptation of Western theories. Rather, it must be grounded in historical structures, communication logic, and the dynamics of cognitive evolution, enabling us to construct an indigenous explanatory framework. We must clarify: How is the global arena of public opinion shaped? How are the boundaries of cognition manipulated? How are national narratives embedded in strategic competition, and how do they influence decision-making? Amid the layered façades of geopolitical maneuvering, we must possess the clarity to “see through the clouds,” reconstructing a world picture that reflects the complexity and systemic logic of global reality—for both the public and policymakers.

II. Prediction: Making Forward-Looking Judgments Based on Cognitive Communication Systems

Prediction is not the exclusive domain of policy analysts. International communication scholars, who study the flow of cognition, naturally operate at the intersection of culture, psychology, media, and politics, granting them a unique edge in understanding how global cognitive systems build consensus—or opposition. As I remarked at the First Tibet Forum on International Communication on June 29, 2013, outstanding communication scholars possess a heightened sensitivity to shifts in political currents.

Today, as cognition becomes a key battleground of strategic competition, communication logic often precedes military deployments or economic adjustments. This enables us to detect early signs of shifting geopolitical dynamics—be it a sudden change in dominant narrative, a country’s reconfiguration of strategic language, or the emergence of new public issues within the global discourse. If these early signals can be systematically identified and extrapolated, international communication scholars can make meaningful contributions to forecasting the evolution of international relations, thus complementing traditional geopolitical analysis.

III. Intervention: Leveraging Cognitive Shaping to Participate in the Construction of Global Order

In an age where “cognition is power,” international communication scholars must move beyond interpretation and prediction to become active participants in shaping the global cognitive order. Such intervention goes beyond narrow efforts at public opinion management or media strategy; it involves the deeper task of reshaping collective understanding, policy perception, and cultural imagination—thereby influencing the strategic logic at its source. In this process, scholars must act as engaged agents of “knowledge politics,” not mere information brokers or passive recipients of discourse, but architects embedded in contextual restructuring, narrative design, and the formation of global consensus.

Communication is no longer just a technical tool, but a cognitive infrastructure for states to compete for influence—a core variable in the future construction of the international order. The strategic value of international communication lies in its capacity to redefine common sense, reprioritize global issues, challenge value legitimacy, and rearticulate key concepts. For China to enhance its institutional influence, it must build systemic capacity in cognitive structures, value consensus, and strategic narratives. This requires not superficial rhetorical tactics, but a comprehensive cognitive intervention force that bridges communication, strategy, culture, and politics—its goal: to reshape cognition as a means of guiding the evolution of order and redistributing structural power in the realm of ideas.

IV. Conclusion

The essence of geopolitical competition is increasingly shifting from the control of physical space to the shaping of cognitive space. In this historic moment of transition, international communication is no longer merely a functional discipline, but a strategic knowledge system. Communicators are becoming cartographers of global cognition, shaping the very architecture of international meaning.

Chinese international communication scholars must update their paradigms—moving from the academic periphery to the strategic forefront. This is not only a transformation of role, but a call to responsibility. Only by establishing systematic methodologies and practical pathways across the three dimensions of interpretation, prediction, and intervention can we meaningfully participate in the generative mechanisms of international relations. In doing so, international communication (and its scholars) will assume a new and vital historical role, helping China attain greater power in shaping the future international order.

Bi Yantao is a Professor at the School of International Communication and Arts, Hainan University, Editor-in-Chief of Communication Without Borders, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Charhar Institute.

Please follow and like us:
Related Articles

香港正经历一场深层次的结构转型

世界眼中的香港,正在发生什么变化? 文/毕研韬 在全球政治与经济结构持续重组的背景下,香港的国际形象与功能定位正在经历显著变化。外部评价趋于分化,但城市运行并未出现简单意义上的“退场”或“替代”。变化的核心,不在标签层面,而在结构层面。 一、国际观感的分化结构 在金融维度上,香港仍被视为全球主要金融枢纽之一。Z/Yen Group发布的《全球金融中心指数》(GFCI)长期将香港列入全球第一梯队,与纽约、伦敦、新加坡并列。其优势包括成熟的普通法体系、资本项目高度开放、成熟的金融监管框架,以及全球最大的离岸人民币业务中心地位。 但在政治评价层面,部分西方政府与媒体对香港制度环境持更为审慎甚至批评的态度,尤其是在香港国安法实施之后。一些国家调整了对港签证、引渡或贸易待遇安排。这种评价分歧,构成了当前国际舆论对香港认知的基本背景。 因此,“世界怎么看香港”并非单一答案,而是两条叙事线并行:一条强调政治制度变化,一条强调经济金融功能稳定。 二、资本结构的再配置 在实际经济运行层面,更具解释力的是资本流向与市场结构。香港股票市场融资规模、债券发行活动及跨境资金流动并未出现系统性断裂,而是投资来源结构发生变化。欧美部分资金的风险偏好趋于谨慎,但来自中国内地与亚洲地区的资本活跃度提升。 这种结构性再平衡,使香港的金融生态从“高度全球分散型”逐步转向“亚洲主导型”。这并不必然意味着国际性削弱,而是国际性的来源构成发生改变。只要资本自由流动机制与清算体系保持稳定,香港作为金融接口的功能仍具有现实基础。 三、企业与人才的选择逻辑...

“幸福之国”不丹为啥不与中国建交?

在两个变量显著变化之前,不丹维持现状具有高度理性基础。 文/毕研韬 截至目前,被誉为“幸福之国”的不丹尚未与中华人民共和国建立正式外交关系。两国虽保持边界谈判与一定层级的官方接触,但未互设使馆。这一事实在联合国成员国体系中较为罕见。其原因并非情绪性对立,而是多重结构性因素叠加的结果,核心集中在边界问题、地缘安全结构以及小国外交策略三个层面。 一、边界问题:建交前的制度性障碍 中不之间不存在正式外交关系,但自1984年起已启动边界谈判。根据双方公开资料,谈判至今已举行二十余轮。争议主要集中在西段(包括多克拉姆高原一带)与北段若干地段。2021年,双方签署《关于加快中不边界谈判“三步走路线图”的谅解备忘录》,这是近年来的重要进展文件,表明双方有意通过制度化路径解决划界问题。 在国际关系实践中,尚未解决的边界争议往往构成建交的现实障碍。虽然从法律层面看,建交与划界并非必然顺序关系,但对于体量较小、战略环境敏感的国家而言,在边界未定情况下推进建交,可能放大国内政治与安全压力。因此,边界问题是一个可验证、持续存在的结构性因素。 二、印度因素:区域安全结构的现实约束 不丹的对外战略高度嵌入南亚安全体系。1949年,不丹与印度签署《友好条约》,2007年修订后强调双方在国家安全与外交事务上“密切合作”。虽然修约强化了不丹的外交自主表述,但两国在安全领域的协调依然紧密。 不丹经济结构亦显示出高度依赖性。水电是其核心支柱产业,电力几乎全部出口至印度,相关融资与工程建设主要依赖印度支持。这种经济-安全双重依存关系,使不丹在重大外交决策上必须充分评估印度立场。 2017年发生于多克拉姆的中印对峙事件,将不丹西部边界问题推至国际舆论前台。该地区毗邻印度“西里古里走廊”,被视为印度东北安全的关键通道。事件本身说明,中不边界并非单纯双边议题,而是嵌入中印战略竞争结构之中。在这一背景下,不丹在处理中方关系时自然更趋谨慎。 三、小国外交策略:低暴露与渐进主义 不丹人口不足百万,长期奉行有限外交战略。其驻外使馆数量在全球范围内较少,外交资源集中于联合国、南亚区域合作框架以及与印度的双边关系。这种“小网络、低暴露”的外交布局,符合其国家治理重心——稳定优先与可持续发展优先。...

唐玥宸博士:在跨文化坐标中锻造传播判断力

在结构性转型中,一批具有跨文化经验的青年学者正在形成新的学术路径。唐玥宸博士,是其中的代表之一。 文/沈昊然 在海南自贸港深度融入全球体系的背景下,国际传播已从单向表达转向多维互动。真正有效的传播,不仅关乎语言能力,更关乎对不同文明逻辑的理解与转换能力。在这一结构性转型中,一批具有跨文化经验的青年学者正在形成新的学术路径。唐玥宸博士,是其中的代表之一。 唐博士现任海南科技职业大学副教授,是海南省高级“双师型”教师。她长期从事网络传播、国际传播与数字传播研究,并在教学、智库参与与媒介实践之间保持持续互动。 一条跨文化的成长路径 唐玥宸生于安徽,本科就读于哈尔滨。北方工业城市的社会结构与对俄地缘文化环境,为她提供了理解中国区域差异与边疆文化的早期经验。 此后赴英国攻读硕士学位,期间参加BBC职业研讨活动,系统接触公共媒体运行逻辑与职业伦理框架。归国工作数年后,她前往马来西亚攻读博士学位,在多元族群与多语社会环境中完成学术训练。英国与马来西亚的学习经历,使她对跨文化沟通中的语境转换与价值差异形成更为具体的体悟。 从安徽、黑龙江到英国、马来西亚,再到海南自贸港,这一迁徙路径构成了她理解国际传播复杂性的现实基础。 在实践与研究之间建立通道 除高校教学外,唐玥宸同时参与智库与媒体实践。她担任察哈尔学会研究员,并承担香港《无界传播》编辑事务工作。曾应海南国际传播中心邀请,以中方学者身份参与马来西亚国家新闻社BERNAMA专题圆桌讨论,围绕“短剧出海”与国际传播议题展开交流。 其研究文章发表于《学习强国》、澎湃新闻等平台,多份研究专报获得地方决策层关注。此前,她曾在央企董事长办公室工作六年,并在广播电视系统担任编导。这些组织传播经验与媒体实践,使其学术研究保持现实问题导向。 教学与长期主义...

未来五年,中国的国际贸易环境将如何变化?

未来五年,中国所处的国际贸易环境,将呈现“结构性重组深化、制度摩擦常态化、区域整合加速化”的总体特征。判断这一趋势,不能仅凭短期数据波动,而应从全球规则体系、地缘政治约束、产业链重构和技术变迁四个维度综合分析。 文/毕研韬 一、全球贸易体系进入“低速稳定”阶段 以WTO为核心的多边贸易体系仍在运转,但争端解决机制功能受限,规则更新滞后。全球贸易增长率已明显低于2001-2015年的高增长阶段。根据国际货币基金组织和世界银行近年来的预测,中期全球贸易增速大概率维持在温和区间,不会出现系统性崩塌,但也难以恢复高速扩张。 这意味着,中国未来面对的不是“全面脱钩”的世界,而是一个增速放缓、规则更复杂、合规要求更高的贸易体系。贸易本身仍是各国经济的基本支撑,但政治安全因素的权重上升。 二、中美经贸关系将长期处于“管控竞争”状态 中美关系仍是决定中国外贸环境的关键变量。过去几年,美国对半导体、先进制造设备和部分高技术产品实施出口管制与投资审查,这种制度化趋势短期内难以逆转。即便双边对话恢复,高科技领域的限制也不太可能全面松动。 未来五年,中美贸易不会完全脱钩,但结构将持续分层:消费品、农产品和部分中低端制造品仍保持规模往来;高端芯片、关键软件、核心装备等领域将维持较高壁垒。贸易规模可能波动,但真正的变化在于技术边界的制度化划分。这将抬高中国企业的技术替代成本,也倒逼自主创新能力提升。 三、中欧关系呈现“合作与审查并行” 欧盟在“去风险”(de-risking)框架下,加强对关键行业的外资审查和产业保护,同时并未放弃与中国的经贸合作。中国仍是欧盟重要贸易伙伴,欧洲市场对中国新能源、消费电子和机械设备存在稳定需求。 未来五年,中欧贸易总体规模可能保持,但摩擦形式将更加制度化。例如反补贴调查、碳边境调节机制、数据合规审查等工具使用频率可能提高。摩擦将成为常态,但全面对抗概率较低。欧洲内部也存在产业保护与市场需求之间的现实张力。 四、区域化趋势将继续强化...