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

Who Decides Taiwan’s Future? — The Real Clash Between Two Logics

The debate over Taiwan’s future appears, on the surface, to concern “who...

One War, Different Realities: Why China and the West See the Russia–Ukraine War Differently

Abstract This essay explores the cognitive and perceptual divergence between China and...

俄乌战争:西方为何读不懂中国

俄乌战争爆发后,西方主流舆论长期存在一个困惑:为什么相当一部分中国民众,甚至包括不少受过高等教育、熟悉国际事务的中国精英,并不完全接受西方关于俄乌战争的主流叙事? 文/毕研韬  2026年5月26日发布 在西方主流认知中,答案往往被简单归结为“宣传”“信息控制”或“媒体环境差异”。这种解释本身,恰恰反映了西方对中国社会认知结构的理解不足。 一个无法回避的现实是:即便在长期接触西方媒体、具备国际视野的人群中,很多人依然对西方关于俄乌战争的逻辑持保留态度。这意味着,问题并不仅仅是“信息获取”问题,而更深层地涉及不同文明体系对于国际政治的理解方式。 俄乌战争不仅是一场军事冲突,也是一场关于“现实解释权”的全球认知冲突。 一、西方叙事的逻辑基础 西方关于俄乌战争的主流叙事,大致建立在以下几个核心原则之上: 第一,主权不可侵犯。俄罗斯以武力进入乌克兰领土,因此构成对主权国家的侵略。 第二,小国拥有自主选择权。乌克兰有权自主决定其外交与安全安排,包括是否加入北约。 第三,联盟扩张不等于侵略。北约东扩被视为成员国基于安全需要的自愿选择,而非对俄罗斯的进攻。 第四,国际规则高于地缘政治逻辑。任何国家都不能以“安全焦虑”为理由,改变现有国际边界。...

谁能决定台湾的未来?——两种逻辑的真实冲突

围绕台湾未来的争论,表面是在讨论“谁来决定”,本质是在争谁有资格定义规则。两种叙事各自成立,但最终影响力取决于现实力量与情境变化。 文/毕研韬  2026年5月26日发布 一、这个问题其实在问两件完全不同的事 “谁能决定台湾的未来”,表面上这是一个政治问题,但实际上至少有两种完全不同的回答方式。 一种说法是:台湾的未来应该由台湾社会自己决定。 另一种说法是:台湾问题涉及国家统一,最终应由包括台湾同胞在内的全体中国人共同决定。 这两种说法看起来都在讲“人民”,但关键差别在于谁被算作“人民”,以及谁有资格做最终裁判。 二、民进党/台北叙事:强调“岛内决定” 以台湾现行执政力量的叙事为例,核心逻辑很简单: 台湾是一个已经形成稳定政治体系的社会,因此未来由岛内选举、民意和制度来决定。 在这个逻辑里,谁执政由选票决定,政策走向由岛内政治竞争决定,外部力量只能影响,但不能“决定”。...