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

什么是“内容工厂”?警惕其武器化倾向

文/毕研韬 在数字时代,信息生产和传播的方式正在发生深刻变化。每天,无数文章、视频、社交帖文在网络上快速涌现,塑造着公众认知。在这种背景下,“内容工厂”这一概念逐渐被广泛使用,它形象地描述了一种高效、批量化的内容生产模式。然而,随着技术发展和传播工具的升级,内容工厂的潜在武器化倾向值得引起重视。 一、概念来源与基本内涵 “内容工厂”这一词语在中文语境中较新,其概念最早来源于英文的Content Factory或Content Mill。 在中文中,“内容工厂”直译自英文,既形象又易于理解:像工厂流水线一样大量生产文本、视频、图片、音频等内容。其核心特征包括: 二、内容工厂的典型使用场景 商业与新媒体领域:在社交媒体、短视频平台和自媒体中,内容工厂模式广泛应用于企业宣传、品牌建设以及流量变现。团队通过高频发布和标准化模板,使内容覆盖广泛受众,提高曝光率。 科普、教育和信息传播:一些科普平台、教育机构或知识服务公司,也采用部分流水线化生产模式,将文章、视频或教学内容批量生成,以满足受众规模和覆盖需求。 国家安全与公共传播:在国家安全、公共舆论管理和政策宣传中,内容工厂模式可用于: 需要注意的是,国家安全领域的内容工厂更侧重于舆论管理和信息影响,其合法性与规范性在不同场景下可能存在争议。...

中国的圣诞节氛围:各地差异为何这么大?

文/毕研韬 年末时分,中国各地的圣诞节氛围呈现出鲜明差异。有些城市,圣诞树耸立,彩灯闪烁,商场橱窗布置华丽,人们手捧热饮、拍照留念,空气中弥漫着节日的温馨与热闹。另一些城市则平静如常,咖啡店和商场几乎没有特别布置,甚至看不到节日的踪迹。有人将这种差异归因于城市“开放度”与“现代化”,但这种看法过于片面,也容易引发误解。 一、圣诞节的世俗转身:从宗教符号到生活情趣 对部分中国人而言,圣诞节早已脱离宗教范畴,成为一个世俗化节日。大多数人参与节日活动,并非出于信仰,而是为了享受温馨、浪漫与社交氛围。街头的彩灯、商场的圣诞橱窗、可人的咖啡香和热巧克力的甜味,都是日常生活中的小确幸。节日的热度反映的是生活方式和文化消费习惯,而非价值判断。因此,将节日氛围差异直接等同于开放或保守,是对现实的一种简化。 二、商业推动:节日氛围背后的经济逻辑 节日氛围的浓淡,与城市商业生态紧密相关。在经济发达、商业活力旺盛的城市,商家会精心营造节日消费场景:橱窗装饰闪烁、节日商品丰富、主题餐饮和文化活动吸引年轻人驻足拍照、尽情享受。相反,在商业生态相对简单的城市,类似的节日推广有限,圣诞节氛围自然显得淡薄。这种差异反映的是经济和市场规律,而非城市文化态度。 三、治理考量:秩序维护与文化包容的平衡 城市治理方式也直接影响节日呈现。治理经验丰富、社会结构多元的城市,通常能在保障公共秩序与安全的前提下,包容更浓郁的节日气氛,甚至借此促进商业文化交流。治理压力较大或处于探索阶段的城市,则可能采取更审慎的策略以维持城市的安宁。这种差异体现的是管理逻辑和经验积累,而非保守或封闭的价值取向。 四、公众构成:社会心态影响节日感知 公众的国际视野、年龄结构和教育背景,也潜移默化地影响节日氛围。年轻人居多、中产阶层规模较大的城市,民众更乐于参与外来节庆活动:在街头广场拍照打卡、与朋友共享节日美食,甚至自发组织小型聚会。在社会结构相对单一、国际接触有限的地区,节日活动难以形成广泛共鸣。公众结构的差异,正是节日氛围差异的一个重要源头。 结论:差异是一面镜子,映照城市多元生态 圣诞节如同一面“镜子”,折射出不同城市在商业活力、治理能力、社会结构及公众心理上的多元生态。理解这种差异,应避免简单贴上“开放/保守”的标签,而是关注背后的经济、社会与管理逻辑。随着城市发展、治理经验积累与文化互鉴深化,各地对类似节庆的处理或将更趋理性与成熟。...

取消外语专业:一个被低估的结构性风险

文/毕研韬 近年来,中国部分高校取消或合并外语专业,理由多集中于就业率、学科整合与资源配置效率。从技术层面看,这似乎是一次理性调整,但若将其置于社会分层与国家认知能力的长期结构中审视,其影响远超教育领域。 第一,这一调整对不同社会阶层的影响高度不对称 对于上层家庭而言,外语能力早已不主要依赖国内高校体系。通过国际学校、海外学习与生活,子女在认知形成阶段便完成了与世界的直接连接。外语在这里并非“一门专业”,而是环境。这一群体事实上已经通过海外环境形成了自己的世界理解能力,不再依赖国内高校体系,所以国内高校是否保留外语专业,对其影响有限。 然而对于普通家庭,高校外语专业长期扮演着一种公共入口的角色——以相对可控的成本,进入世界知识体系、接触原始信息、形成跨文化理解。一旦这一通道被系统性削弱,外语能力便会从公共资源转化为私人资本。其结果并非简单的教育选择变化,而是世界理解能力的阶层固化,认知会被外包。 第二,削弱外语专业的风险不会立即显现,但会在中长期改变社会的认知结构 外语的价值不在“会不会说”,而在是否具备直接接触外部世界的能力。当系统性外语训练萎缩,社会对世界的认知将越来越依赖翻译、转述与二手解释。信息并不会减少,但判断权趋于集中,纠错机制变慢,对外部世界的理解也更容易被情绪化、标签化与内部叙事所替代。 这类影响具有显著的时间滞后性:短期内,对外交往照常运转,但十年之后,能够直接阅读、比较、验证国际信息的中间层减少,社会整体更容易陷入认知回音室,对外误判的成本也随之上升。 第三,把“精英全球化”与“公共认知收缩”并置,问题才真正显现 当上层社会通过海外生活自主形成对世界的理解能力,而公共教育体系又同步收缩面向世界的训练能力,一个“双重世界结构”便逐渐形成:少数人直接生活在世界之中,多数人通过转述来“理解世界”。长期来看,这不仅加剧社会内部的认知分化,也会提高政策沟通与社会共识形成的难度。 需要强调的是,这并非主张外语专业必须原样保留,更非否定结构调整本身。关键在于:在一个深度嵌入全球体系的大国,是否仍保留足够广泛、制度化、面向普通人的世界理解通道。 如果外语能力成为主要依靠私人资源获得的能力,其代价最终不会仅由某个专业或某一代学生承担,而会体现在国家整体的认知弹性与长期风险管理能力中。...

当下的台湾应如何自保?——从风险控制视角看台海局势

在台海语境下,“自保”意味着把风险管理置于情绪动员之上,把避免最坏结果作为最低共识。  文/毕研韬 在高度情绪化、对立化的舆论环境中,“自保”这个词往往被误读为对抗、动员,甚至战争准备,但如果回到更冷静的现实层面,一个更值得追问的问题是:台湾真正需要防范的,究竟是什么? 答案并不复杂——不是某一次具体的军事行动,而是被结构性地推向“不得不开战”的位置。 一、自保的前提:认清“决定性变量”不在军事层面 在台海问题上,军事力量的重要性毋庸置疑,但它并不是决定战争是否发生的首要变量。更具决定性的,是三点: 这意味着一个不太直观却至关重要的判断:一旦被认定为触碰政治红线,任何军事“吓阻”都会迅速失效。 在这种情形下,所谓自保,就不再是“防守能力是否足够”,而是是否还保有刹车能力。 二、政府层面:自保不是表态管理,而是红线管理 从风险管理角度看,台湾当局最重要的责任,并不在于持续抬高立场,而在于精确管理红线感知。 1.避免“不可逆”的政治动作 象征性表态可以反复修辞,但制度性、法理性、结构性的改变一旦发生,往往难以回撤。真正的自保,是在任何政策选择中都反复自问:这一动作是否会被解读为质变,而非量变?...