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

中国网络营销为什么这么多“坑”?

政府是市场秩序的唯一责任人。 文/石敢当 中国网络营销领域的“坑”,从来不是偶发的行业乱象,而是根深蒂固的系统性问题。多数评论停留在罗列“坑”的表现、泛谈治理方向,却未点透核心:网络营销的“坑”,本质是“利益至上”导向下,平台、商家、政府三方权责失衡,缺乏有效约束机制的必然结果。 一、网络营销的“坑”,核心是“欺骗式收割”的利益闭环 当下网络营销的各类“坑”,看似五花八门,实则围绕“流量变现”形成了完整的利益闭环,所有套路的核心都是“欺骗式收割”,而非单纯的“营销不当”,这也是其屡禁不止的关键所在。 其一,信息失真不是“过度包装”,而是“刻意造假”。直播带货中“假测评”“假销量”“假功效”,短视频里“剧本式对比”“剪辑式证明”,本质上是商家与内容创作者合谋的欺骗行为——不是为了展示产品价值,而是为了通过虚假信息,诱导消费者冲动下单。这种行为早已超越“营销夸张”的范畴,涉嫌虚假宣传,却因隐蔽性强、取证困难,成为行业常态。 其二,价格不透明不是“规则复杂”,而是“刻意设局”。“先涨后降”“满减叠加”“隐性消费”等套路,核心目的不是让利消费者,而是通过混淆价格认知,制造“捡便宜”的假象,本质是利用信息差进行价格欺诈。更关键的是,这种设局往往得到平台默许,甚至平台会主动配合设置“限时”“限量”等机制,倒逼消费者仓促决策,共同分食利益蛋糕。 其三,售后断裂不是“责任模糊”,而是“刻意推诿”。交易完成后,平台以“只是中介”为由撇清责任,商家以“已发货”为由拒绝售后,服务方以“与己无关”为由逃避义务,本质上是三方提前达成的“责任豁免”默契——只追求前端转化,不承担后端责任,将维权成本完全转嫁给消费者,形成“收割即脱身”的闭环。 至于流量驱动的情绪化营销,不过是这套闭环的“工具”——用情绪替代理性,用噱头替代事实,本质是为了降低欺骗门槛,让消费者在失去判断能力的情况下,进入预设的“坑”中。 二、关键症结:三方权责失衡,约束机制形同虚设 网络营销“坑”的泛滥,核心症结不在于个体商家的道德缺失,而在于平台、商家、监管三方的权责严重失衡,且缺乏能够有效制约各方的机制,导致“欺骗式收割”的成本极低、收益极高。 核心症结一:平台的“双重角色”冲突,沦为“坑”的推手。平台既是市场秩序的维护者,更是流量变现的受益者,这种双重角色的冲突,让其必然偏向自身利益。一方面,平台通过算法将高刺激、高转化的“坑式营销”内容推给用户,获取高额广告收入和佣金;另一方面,对商家的虚假宣传、价格欺诈行为“睁一只眼闭一只眼”,甚至为其提供技术支持(如虚假销量统计、流量投放)。平台的纵容,是“坑”持续存在的关键推手——没有平台的默许,多数“坑式营销”根本无法触达海量用户。...

美国民主基金会如何塑造涉华认知

导语:当国际舆论场的竞争从“谁在发声”转向“谁在组织发声”,影响力的生成逻辑也随之改变。资金、网络与议题设置,正在成为新的认知基础设施。 文/毕研韬 一、从资助到叙事:一种嵌入式影响路径 作为由美国国会拨款支持的机构,美国民主基金会(National Endowment for Democracy,简称NED)长期通过资助全球各地的媒体、研究机构和社会组织,参与信息生产过程。与传统公共外交直接输出立场不同,这一机制更具“嵌入性”:它依托本土主体,在目标国社会内部生成内容与观点。 这种路径的关键,不在于形成统一声音,而在于影响认知的生成方式。其基本逻辑可以概括为三个环节:首先,通过选择议题,决定哪些问题进入公共讨论;其次,通过研究与报道,塑造解释框架;最后,借助跨国网络,将相关内容扩散至更广泛受众。 其结果,是外部影响不再以“外来信息”的形式出现,而是融入本地知识与媒体体系之中。 二、资助网络的结构特征 从公开的年度资助清单来看,这一体系呈现出明显的网络化结构。 其一,地域分布广泛但重点清晰。项目覆盖东欧、拉美、非洲及亚洲,不同地区关注议题各有侧重。在部分发展中国家,重点集中于媒体能力建设与公共治理;在地缘政治敏感地区,则更多涉及政治参与与制度透明。...

美国智库提醒中国:对外投入多,不等于更有影响力

在全球发展合作中,真正决定影响力的,不是投入多少,而是这些投入如何被理解与认同。 文/毕研韬 近年来,围绕中国在东南亚及其它发展中国家的投入与影响力问题,国际政策界与学术界展开了持续讨论。AidData发布的Listening to Leaders 2025: Development Cooperation over a Decade of...

达赖喇嘛深度卷入爱泼斯坦权色网了吗

当“爆料”跨越语言与媒体层级迅速扩散时,真正需要追问的,不是结论有多惊人,而是它建立在怎样的证据链之上。 文:《无界传播》信息中心  时间:2026年4月9日 围绕爱泼斯坦(Jeffrey Epstein)案件的档案解封,国际舆论持续发酵。一些带有强烈指控意味的说法开始在不同语言空间中流动。其中,一则近日被某中文媒体放大的叙事称,第十四世达赖喇嘛“深度卷入权色网络”,并援引所谓“印度媒体披露新证据”。在情绪与判断之间,我们需要回到一个基本问题:这些信息是否建立在可靠的媒体与证据结构之上。 一、源头媒体是谁 在多篇中文传播文本中,被反复引用的源头主要指向The Hans India,于是这家媒体的公信力,或者说“这家媒体在印度新闻体系中的位置”,就成了关键。 从公开资料看,The Hans India创办于2011年,总部位于印度南部海得拉巴,是一家以英语出版的区域性媒体。其报道面向地方读者,国际传播能力有限,在全球媒体引用体系中存在感较低。...