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

重新理解国际传播——《国际传播新维度》自序

中国当下的国际传播,存在两种不同的实践取向:一支侧重斗争与博弈,另一支侧重沟通与理解。 作者:毕研韬 发布时间:2026年10月12日 提高国际传播效能是我国的现实需要,但在路径选择上我国存在明显的对立观点,而其背后则是理念与认知的巨大悬殊。当下必须明确:单纯提高声量不一定能实现预期目标,有时反而适得其反。历史已经证明:有时候交流得越多,彼此的隔阂反而越大。在传播学上这叫“不可沟通性”。在信息需求侧业已巨变的时代,我们应举全国之力提高信息供给的质。 从1986年上大学至今,我在国际传播领域已摸爬滚打39年,期间我两度留学欧洲,三次访问印度,曾到访英国、爱尔兰、美国、沙特、阿联酋、尼泊尔、朝鲜诸国,见证了诸多重大历史事件,参与处置了若干重大国际涉华危机。近四十年间,我研修了语言学、符号学、传播学、人类学、宗教学、系统论、和平学等学科理论。这使我能从一个较长的时段,从跨学科、跨文明的视角观察和思考国际传播。这是我的一个专业优势。 那么在我眼里,究竟什么是国际传播?质言之,国际传播是指跨越国际信息边界的符号流与行为流。在中西方文化中,行为的权重都大于语文符号,正如“听其言而观其行”、Action speaks louder than words所揭示的。世人对国际传播的认识存在严重分歧:有人支持国际传播武器化,认为国际传播是捍卫国家利益的武器,而另一派则坚信国际传播的客观性,依然相信新闻专业主义。 我主张国际传播必须恪守效果导向原则,而且我相信国际传播必须遵循传播学规律,所以数十年来我一直不遗余力地推广传播学,为此我自称为“播火人”“布道者”。传播学孕育于世界大战中,是一门实战性极强的应用学科,它的价值就体现在对人类传播实践的指导上。这是我希望传播学初学者应理解并铭记的。推动国际传播理论创新,使之更具解释力和指导性,是国际传播学界的共同使命。这方面,我向来支持“拿来主义”:只要有益于“我”,可以不问出处。实践是检验真理的唯一标准,传播学本土化的根本目的是让其更好地服务于我国的传播实践。 这些年我一直呼吁开展跨文明对话。在操作层面,如果国际传播的双方处于同一纬度,即便努力培养共情性和同理心,也很难真正理解传播对象和传播生态。“不识庐山真面目,只缘身在此山中”,就是描绘这种场景。唯有努力提升自己的思维层级,从更高维度去俯视传播关系与传播环境,才有可能理解国际传播的真谛,这就是“欲穷千里目,更上一层楼”的内涵。...

海南大学毕研韬教授新书《国际传播新维度》出版

当今世界,国际传播已成为塑造全球认知图景、国际关系格局与国家战略空间的重要力量。在地缘博弈加剧背景下,国际传播正加速安全化转向,信息与传播的工具化乃至武器化现象令人担忧。在此背景下,国际传播将如何自救,又如何突围? 作者:唐玥宸  发布时间:2026年10月11日 海南大学国际传播与艺术学院毕研韬教授认为,今天,要进一步理解国际传播的嬗变、释放国际传播的功能,就需要从更新视角深入探索国际传播的本质与规律。为此,近些年他先后提出了“有组织的信息操纵”“制度传播”“战略传播2.0”等新概念和新理论。 毕教授从事国际传播研究与实践近四十年,如今他把最新研究成果汇集成《国际传播新维度——认识国际传播的五大“法门”》一书。该书由毕教授与范颖合著,全书17.5万字,近日由中国民族文化出版社出版。在书中,作者重新界定了国际传播等概念,随之从认知安全、战略传播、人工智能、战略理解、战略叙事五个角度,集中剖析国际传播的运行逻辑。 毕研韬说,《国际传播新维度》是《战略传播纲要》的姊妹篇。《战略传播纲要》由毕研韬与王金岭合著,2011年由国家行政学院出版社和中央编译出版社联袂出版,刘永治上将、张序三中将和阮次山先生为之作序。该书被乌克兰国家图书馆收藏。莫斯科大学教授帕申采夫曾两次指出,《战略传播纲要》的出版是中国战略传播概念发展的重要事件。北约战略传播卓越中心的一份文献把此书列为中国早期战略传播三部专著之一。 作者唐玥宸博士系海南科技职业大学设计学院副教授。

理解当代国际传播:安全化、工具化、武器化

当信息日益成为战略资源,国际传播也在经历深刻转变:从信息交流到战略工具,从影响认知到对抗性行动,安全化、工具化与武器化正在重塑国际传播的运行逻辑。 作者:毕研韬  发布时间:2026年10月10日 当代国际传播已不再局限于信息传递、文化交流和国家形象塑造,而是日益嵌入国家安全与战略竞争。地缘政治冲突加剧、人工智能快速发展、全球信息环境深刻变化,使国际传播的安全属性与战略价值更加凸显。要理解这一变化,需要关注三个相互关联却又有所区别的现象:安全化、工具化与武器化。 一、安全化:国际传播成为安全议题 国际传播的安全化,意味着信息流动、国际舆论、叙事竞争和认知影响等传播现象,越来越多地被纳入国家安全的分析与治理框架。 传统上,国际传播主要与跨境沟通、文化交流、国际形象和公共外交相关。随着信息环境与地缘政治深度交织,信息操纵、网络影响行动、虚假信息传播及其对社会信任和政治决策的潜在影响,逐渐进入国家安全议程。 安全化改变的不只是国际传播的研究视角,也包括政策制定者对传播问题的界定方式。当传播被视为可能影响国家安全的因素时,信息核验、风险监测、舆情研判和传播能力建设便可能获得更高的政策优先级。 但安全化并不意味着所有国际传播活动都应被视为安全威胁。过度扩大安全概念,可能模糊正常的信息交流与有组织的信息操纵之间的界限,也会压缩跨文化沟通与国际合作的空间。 二、工具化:国际传播服务于战略目标 国际传播的工具化,是指国家及其他行为体有意识地运用传播手段,实现外交、政治、经济或安全目标。 事实上,传播具有工具属性并非新现象。公共外交旨在增进对外理解,国际传播可以服务于贸易投资、国际合作与国家形象建设。问题不在于传播是否具有目的,而在于特定目标如何影响传播内容、方式及其评价标准。...

The Russia-Ukraine War Will Ultimately End Through Negotiations

The Russia–Ukraine war has lasted more than four years. The battlefield continues...