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

琉球“新战场”:本质是中日叙事权之争

文/毕研韬 在中日关系紧张、东亚地缘政治再度重构的当下,琉球(日本称“冲绳群岛”)问题正在成为一个新战场。这场争夺,并不只是关乎领土归属,更是在深层上对历史、国际法与文化认同的叙事权之争。 一、历史根基:中琉关系的复杂性与争议性 从历史来看,琉球王国与中国(明清)长期有册封和朝贡制度关系。根据明清官方史料,琉球国王每逢登基,都需派使向中国请求册封。法学研究指出,从 1372 年明朝册封琉球中山王起,琉球就维持着与中国的藩属关系。  这一点,在现代叙事中极具分量。许多中国学者主张,这种历史制度并非简单的“文化联系”,而是构成中琉之间政治与国际关系互动的重要基础。正如《中国社会科学院东海问题研究中心》学者在“琉球学”建设讨论中所言:这一制度是构建“中国与琉球共同历史记忆”的关键。 与此同时,日本对这一历史关系的解释则更为简化。日本传统叙事强调琉球已被“内化”为日本的一部分。1860–1870 年代,日本逐步将琉球纳入其国家机制,最终在 1879 年废藩置县,将琉球变为冲绳县。 这一段历史在中日两国叙述中具有极大争议。中国视角强调册封与朝贡关系意味中方在历史上有重大的制度性影响,而日本传统叙事则聚焦其“领土主张”和“国家统一”的合法性。...

毕研韬:中日目前的紧张关系将如何收场?

中日关系再次进入一种微妙而坚硬的状态:并非对抗到临界点,却始终难以回归稳定。表面上,两国的摩擦集中在东海、台海与技术管制等具体议题,但其背后是区域安全结构、经济链条重组与国内政治变迁交织而成的复合性紧张。这一局势将如何收场?答案不会是某个戏剧性的转折,而是一个长期化、分层次、动态均衡的过程。 一、结构性矛盾决定紧张关系的持久性 中日关系的核心张力来自结构,而非事件。 其一,东亚安全结构正在重新调整。日本的安全政策正由“专守防卫”向“有限进攻能力”转变,与美国在前沿部署上的协同不断增强。对中国而言,这意味着其在西太方向面临一个战略上更主动的近邻,而这种变化无法在短期内逆转。 其二,两国经济关系正在经历“部分脱敏”而非“全面脱钩”。日本对中国市场和制造链依赖仍深,但在半导体设备、高端制造材料等关键领域,正在强化管制、分散风险。技术层面的竞争性正在加深,从而削弱了以往的互信基础。 其三,国内政治趋向强化了对抗性预期。在日本,自由民主党内部的保守派在对华议题上影响力更大;在中国,周边安全态势使战略警觉成为政策制定的重要背景。双边政治结构都在收紧窗口,这使双方缺乏推动关系转好的强烈动机。 结构性因素的共同结果是:中日关系很难快速缓和,也不太可能走向失控。 二、安全领域的摩擦将进入“可控紧张”模型 未来数年,两国在东海与台海周边的安全接触将维持高频度。东海问题本身已从“领土争议”转向“日常化摩擦管理”,双方海空力量的接触是结构性的。这种摩擦具有两个特征:一是周期性升温,例如演训规模变化、侦巡频率上升;二是刻意维持不失控,双方均不愿让危机升级到军事冲突。 台海问题将是安全紧张的核心变量。随着日本在此议题上从“情势关注”转为“参与风险评估”,中国需要将日本视为潜在但不确定的局部参与者。这种“半参与”角色,会让中日安全关系更加敏感,但也促使双方强化危机沟通机制,以避免误判。 因此,中日的安全紧张更像一种“结构性噪音”:持续存在,但被双方控制在可管理区间内。 三、经济关系将经历再平衡,而非走向对立...

过去十年,台湾发生了哪些深刻变化?

文/毕研韬 过去十年,台湾的人口、产业、国际观、两岸认知都在同时转向,一个全新的台湾已经浮现。 一、人口断层与老龄化挑战 根据台湾当局统计,截至 2025 年 10 月,台湾 65 岁及以上人口占总人口比例已达 19.9%,逼近“超高龄社会”门槛。 与此同时,台湾总人口已连续多年自然负增长,新生儿数持续下滑。...

高市早苗为何对华强硬?日本安全观正在系统性重写

文/毕研韬 日本首相高市早苗上任后数次就中国与台海局势发表强硬表态,引发中日外交摩擦与国内外舆论的高度关注。要理解高市“强硬路线”的底层逻辑,必须将其放入日本的内政结构、地区安全格局、美日同盟机制以及高市个人政治路径的多重框架中进行系统分析。只有在这些脉络之中,才能避免情绪化判断,并实事求是地揭示此类言论背后的结构性动力。 一、地区安全结构的变化:从“外围冲突”到“直接威胁”的认知转变 日本防卫省自《防卫白皮书2021》起便持续强调中国军事力量快速发展、台海局势不确定性上升可能对日本周边安全造成直接影响。2022年版白皮书首次将“台湾稳定”列为“日本安全不可或缺”,并指出台海一旦发生武力冲突,“可能对日本的安全保障产生重大影响”。这些表述均为公开、可查证的内容。 高市的发言本质上是对白皮书既有判断的进一步政治化表达:即把可能的台海危机从“区域事件”提升为“日本自身的生存风险”。这种“安全化”话语符合哥本哈根学派所谓 securitization的分析框架——通过言语把某议题定义为生存威胁,使政府获得更多动员空间。 换言之,高市的强硬言论并非孤立的个人态度,而是对日本官方安全评估的一种更激进的政治呈现。 二、美日同盟机制的结构性压力:对美国的“可信承诺”展示 近年来,美日同盟在东亚的功能愈加突出。2023年、2024年的美日“2+2”会谈文件均明确提及“维持台海和平稳定”的共同立场,强调双方将“提升一体化威慑与应对能力”。这一合作框架要求日本在关键地缘议题上与美国保持高度协调。 在此背景下,日本首相若强调“台海事态可能构成日本存亡危机”,其效果之一即是向美国展示“日本不会在关键时刻退缩”。这种表态不仅是地缘政治需要,更是同盟互动的信号机制:美国期望日本强化防卫能力,以分担地区压力,日本则通过高调表态争取更明确的美国安全承诺。 这种双向互动在同盟体系中是常见现象。高市的言论因此具有“向盟友展示责任”的功能,并非单纯情绪性表达。 三、国内政治逻辑:保守派路线的延续与首相权威建构...