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.

Related Articles

美国国会推出涉藏新法案,猛烈冲撞中国底线

2026年5月21日,美国众议院两名议员提出《2026年确保西藏未来法案》(Assuring the Future of Tibet Act of 2026),目前已提交众议院外交事务委员会审议。 作者:毕研韬  发表时间:2026年7月12日 按照美国立法程序,该提案需经众议院外交事务委员会审议,如通过则进入众议院表决程序;如再获通过,还需经参议院审议并由总统签署。 该法案重点关注:在第十四世达赖喇嘛之后,怎样才能不让西藏议题在国际论坛上弱化?怎样才能让西藏议题继续成为美国的政策抓手?为此提案提出若干具体措施,全力提高“西藏流亡政府”(Central...

郑保卫教授主编的《追梦新闻60年》隆重面世

中国人民大学新闻学院郑保卫教授主编的《追梦新闻60年》一书,近期由人民日报出版社出版发行。全书四色彩印,以2024年10月中国人民大学新闻学院举办的郑保卫教授追梦新闻六十年座谈会为主线,收录了会议综述、大会发言、专题研究、深度访谈、学生感言,以及郑保卫教授的学术活动图片及摄影作品。 这本书记录学界同仁、业界专家对郑教授学术人生的评价、肯定与敬意;书中的深度访谈,还原了郑教授60年追梦新闻的心路历程,立体化呈现郑教授个人学术追求与国家发展与民族复兴伟业熔融经历;还收录了学生们撰写的郑老师在治学态度、道德品行、为人处世等方面言传身教的故事。500余幅图片和摄影作品,记录了郑教授个人工作、参加活动的一个个精彩瞬间,以及郑教授采撷的五洲风情。 通揽全书,看到的是郑教授追梦新闻的矢志不渝,学新闻、爱新闻、教新闻,在新闻研究、学科发展、国际学术交流等方面持续发力、久久为功。他坚持把论文写在祖国大地上,把学术研究与国家、社会、人民急需,以及传媒业改革发展需求紧密结合。他始终保持对生活、对事业的热爱,以摄影方式记录时代光影、展现家国风貌,体现了一位知识分子的人文情怀与社会担当。 《追梦新闻60年》的出版,是对一位老一代新闻学者六十年持之以恒、坚守理想信念的精神表达真诚敬意,也能为新时代新闻学和传播学研究者、教育工作者、青年学生及新闻从业者提供有益启示。 《追梦新闻六十年》编辑部 2026年5月26日

谁来解读西藏?——中国涉藏国际传播的主体困境

让世界理解西藏,关键在于构建符合国际传播规律的主体生态。 作者:毕研韬  发表时间:2026年7月10日 在国际传播领域,一个基本规律正在被越来越多的实践证明:传播主体本身就是传播内容的一部分。 一个国家向世界讲什么故事固然重要,但由谁来讲、以什么身份讲、凭借什么能力讲,往往更能影响传播效果。 尤其是在西藏这一具有高度历史复杂性、文化特殊性和国际关注度的议题上,传播主体不仅承担信息传递功能和意义解释功能,还决定故事的国际接受度。 近年来,中国持续加强国际传播能力建设,涉藏国际传播逐渐受到重视。然而,一个重大问题尚未引起足够重视:什么样的主体结构,才能支撑有效的涉藏国际传播?这关系中国如何在全球认知空间中解释西藏。 一、国际传播竞争首先是解释权竞争 国际传播并不是简单的信息输出。在全球舆论环境中,一个议题的国际认知,往往由多种力量共同塑造,其中政府机构提供政策解释、媒体生产公共叙事、学术界提供知识框架、社会群体提供生活经验、国际观察者形成外部评价。西藏议题正是如此。 不同国家和社会群体对西藏形成了不同的认知框架。中国叙事强调国家统一、民族区域自治、经济发展、文化保护和社会进步;国际社会部分群体则更多从宗教传统、文化身份、历史记忆以及人权理念等角度观察西藏。 这些不同框架之间的互动,构成了西藏国际传播的基本环境。 因此,涉藏国际传播面对的核心问题,不只是“如何表达中国观点”,更是...

“生活空间”理论:理解战略传播的新入口

毕研韬、胡琨将美国心理学家库尔特·卢因的“生活空间”理论引入战略传播研究,突破传统“信息逻辑”,从受众认知生成机制切入,为构建中国特色战略传播体系提供了全新的理论视野与分析框架。 作者:唐摩崖 发表时间:2026年7月9日 2026年5月,贾文山教授主编的《新时代的黄河文明与国际传播》正式面世。该书围绕黄河文明传承创新、中国特色国际传播理论建构以及地方国际传播能力提升等议题展开讨论,汇集了近年来国际传播研究领域的重要成果。其中,毕研韬、胡琨撰写的《“生活空间”理论对我国战略传播的启示》一文,把心理学领域的“生活空间”(Life Space)理论引入战略传播研究,尝试为战略传播研究提供一个新的理论解释框架。 近年来,随着国际竞争加速向认知、价值和意义层面延伸,战略传播逐渐成为国际传播研究的重要议题。2021年,中国提出“构建具有鲜明中国特色的战略传播体系”,标志着战略传播进入加速建设的重要阶段。然而,如何理解战略传播的运行机制,仍然是一个有待深化的问题。 传统传播研究往往强调传播主体的信息生产能力、媒介传播能力和议程设置能力,关注“传播什么”“通过什么渠道传播”以及“如何扩大影响”。这一研究路径对理解传播过程具有重要价值,但也存在一定局限:它容易将传播效果理解为信息传播能力的函数,而不能详尽阐释受众所处的社会环境、文化经验和认知结构对传播效果的深度影响。 事实上,国际传播中的许多认知分歧,并非简单源于传播主体或信息质量,而是源于不同社会主体拥有不同的生活经验和意义体系。同一信息进入不同社会环境后,可能产生完全不同的理解。这意味着,战略传播不仅是信息流动过程,更是不同“生活空间”之间的互动过程。 一、“生活空间”理论提供理解战略传播的新入口 “生活空间”理论由美国心理学家库尔特·卢因(Kurt Lewin)提出。卢因认为,人的行为并非简单由外部刺激决定,而是个人与环境共同作用的结果,用公式表述即B=f(P,E)=f(LSp),其中B指行为,P指个人,E指环境。这里“生活空间”指某一时刻影响个人行为的全部心理事实和环境因素,包括个体能够意识到的因素,和那些虽然未被明确感知但实际影响其判断和行动的因素。 这一理论突破了传统行为研究中的机械刺激-反应模式,强调人的行为嵌入具体环境之中。...