|
|
|
| Chinese Diplomacy as Cultural Discourse |
| Shi Xu |
| School of International Studies/Centre of Contemporary Chinese Discourse Studies, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract As China increasingly engages with world affairs, the American-West, including individual governments, media and academia, have frequently decried Chinese diplomacy as “aggressive” “ambitious” or else “deviant”. This poses a serious challenge not just to global governance, but also to China’s effort of image-building. The present article attempts to reexamine and reinterpret the character and patterns of contemporary Chinese diplomacy from a cultural discourse perspective in favour of improvement in intercultural understanding in particular and in international relations more generally.The paper begins by pointing out that mainstream diplomacy studies, despite its insights and achievements, has not paid sufficient attention to the role that discourse plays and, in that connection, to the cultural nature that discourse is imbued with. This neglect may lead as a result to blindness to not only new ways of thinking, speaking and acting, but also, more seriously, the cultural traditions that guide those ways of thinking, speaking and acting.Then the article moves onto outlining a cultural-discursive perspective with special reference to diplomacy in general and to contemporary Chinese diplomacy in particular. First, it is argued that human communication needs to be considered as a global system of social interaction which is constituted out of diverse and competing discourse systems. Here discourse refers to social interaction in which groups or members interact using language and other means purposefully and consequentially in particular historical and cultural contexts. Thus, discourse is a composite of dialectically interlinked manifold elements (roughly speaking: communicators, acts, media, purposes, history and culture, CAMPHAC), while discourse system refers to the conglomerate of the cognitive-system (worldviews, values, principles, theories, strategies, etc.) and the operational-system (organization, institutions, technologies, tactics, etc.) which undergirds, guides, shapes and constitutes the particular discursive practice of a group, which is in differential and power relations with those of other discursive groups. As such, a discourse system serves as an important factor that determines the efficacy of its actual practice. It is these particular differential and power relations with other discourse systems that constitute the cultural nature of a discourse—hence cultural discourse.Next, it is pointed out that diplomacy is embodied and reproduced primarily in and through the social practice of discourse and furthermore that it is the living cultural tradition embedded in the discourse that plays a central role in guiding, molding and constituting the discursive practice of diplomacy. After all, diplomacy depends on and is realized through actors using language and other means of communication in ways that draw on and so reflect cultural traditions. By cultural traditions are meant those living worldviews, values, ways of thinking, principles of action, ways of meaning making, and the like.Proceeding from the notion of diplomacy as a form of cultural discourse, it is then argued that, as part of Chinese cultural traditions, five communicative principles are centrally relevant to and particularly important for contemporary Chinese diplomacy and therefore should be employed as an effective framework for its understanding. These are: to speak holistically, dialectically, harmoniously, poetically and creatively. To be more specific, the Chinese holistic worldview primes one to take into consideration time and space, history and culture, the local and global, self and other, etc. The Chinese dialectic way of thinking encourages one to look for interconnections and interrelations as a strategy to solve problems or overcome difficulties. The Chinese ethical code of conduct requires one to seek balanced harmony or equilibrium. The Chinese technique of meaning making exhorts one to resort to figures of speech in sense making. The Chinese belief in change expects one to embrace creativity and renewal.With this cultural discursive perspective on diplomacy, new light may be expected to be shed on the questions and answers over Chinese diplomacy reproduced by the Western world. Accordingly, two sets of recent cases of Chinese diplomacy are examined, also with a view to illustrating the use of the proposed cultural discursive account of diplomacy. They revolve round the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the US “China-strategy”, respectively. Here it will be seen that the Chinese diplomatic mission proposes to view the Russia-Ukraine conflict as well as its solution from a historical and geopolitical perspective, constructs the conflict as a matter of diverse facets and interrelations, suggests settlement of the conflict through peaceful dialogue and issues criticism of the US using figurative means. Further, it will be witnessed that, in the face of accusations by the US in its “Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China”, China publicizes its response and position by making active use of all new media and channels of communication: e.g. the central government’s websites, embassies’ websites, official media, foreign media platforms, joint organizations, as well as foreign institutions and individuals.Of course all this is not to say that a cultural discursive approach would serve to provide a fully satisfactory explanation of and guidance for a nation’s diplomacy. However, given the present theoretical reconstruction and empirical analysis of Chinese diplomatic practices, it may be contended that diplomacy, of every country, cannot be fully understood unless a cultural discursive perspective is drawn upon, especially in the case of China.In conclusion, a new cultural discursive strategy for the China-styled major-country diplomacy is proposed: To defuse China-threat and China-ambition theory and so to improve intercultural understanding of diplomacy and so also international relations in general and to facilitate China’s participation in and contribution to global governance in addition to its national rejuvenation, China’s diplomacy sets great store by Chinese cultural wisdom in its global communication and actively integrates media platforms and technologies in the process.
|
|
Received: 07 December 2022
|
|
|
|
1 刘建飞： 《新时代中国外交战略基本框架论析》，《世界经济与政治》2018年第2期，第4-20页。
2 凌胜利： 《中国特色大国外交的战略体系构建》，《国际展望》2020年第2期，第19-38，149-150页。
3 凌胜利： 《中国外交能力建设：内涵与路径》，《国际问题研究》2022年第2期，第20-36，153-154页。
4 孙德刚： 《合而治之：论新时代中国的整体外交》，《世界经济与政治》2020第4期，第53-80，156-157页。
5 杨洁勉： 《中国大国外交理论的国家特色和国际交汇》，《国际展望》2016年第1期，第1-16，152页。
6 Cabestan J. P.， La politique internationale de la Chine， Paris： Presses de Sciences Po， 2022.
7 Callahan W. A.， “China’s ‘Asia Dream’: the Belt Road Initiative and the new regional order，” Asian Journal of Comparative Politics， Vol. 1， No. 3 （2016）， pp. 226-243.
8 Heo J. C.， “The networking strategy of contemporary Chinese diplomacy，” World Economy Brief， Vol. 10， No. 18 （2020）， pp. 1-4.
9 Julienne M. & Hanck S.， “Diplomatie chinoise： de l’ ?esprit combattant? au ?loup guerrier?，” Politique étrangère， Vol. 1 （2021）， pp. 103-118.
10 Lincot E.， “La Chine et sa politique étrangère： le Sharp Power face à l’incertitude？” Revue internationale et stratégique， Vol. 115 （2019）， pp. 39-49.
11 Busilli V. S.， “Belt and Road Initiative （BRI）： la iniciativa estratégica de Xi Jinping，” Cuadernos de Política Exterior Argentina （CUPEA）， Vol. 131 （2020）， pp. 69-88.
12 Carretero F. D.， “China： diplomacia económica， consecuencias geopolíticas，” Cuadernos de estrategia， Vol. 18 （2017）， pp. 55-91.
13 Mosquera M.， “Principios y agenda en la política exterior China. Un análisis constructivista de los discursos de Xi，” Estudios Internacionales， Vol. 50， No. 190 （2018）， pp. 37-61.
14 Ampuero Ruiz P. I.， “Diplomacia en transición. La República Popular China frente a la dictadura cívico-militar en Chile，” Estudios Políticos， Vol. 49， No. 2 （2016）， pp. 35-54.
15 Lemus-Delgado D.， “La diplomacia china y la batalla por la verdad durante la pandemia de COVID-19： ? Una lucha por la hegemonía？” Estudios Internacionales， Vol. 53， No. 199 （2021）， pp. 91-114.
16 Tien N. I. & Bing N. C.， “Soft power， confucius institute and China’s cultural diplomacy in Malaysia，” Kajian Malaysia： Journal of Malaysian Studies， Vol. 39， No. 1 （2021）， pp. 55-76.
17 王艺潼： 《解构“中国外交强势论”——基于国家角色理论的实证分析》，《当代亚太》2019年第6期，第99-130，160页。
18 杨洁勉： 《中国特色大国外交和话语权的使命与挑战》，《国际问题研究》2016年第5期，第18-30，137-138页。
19 陈东晓、王公龙、王鸿刚等： 《新时代中国外交理论建设与外交实践笔谈》 ，《国际展望》2022年第1期，第1-22，157页。
20 江时学： 《国际秩序、中美关系与中国外交——关于中国国际关系研究的若干认识》，《亚太安全与海洋研究》2021第6期，第1-19，133页。
21 叶淑兰： 《中国外交话语权的历史演进、基本经验及生成逻辑》，《国际观察》2021年第5期，第53-78页。
22 卢静： 《国际责任与中国外交》，《国际问题研究》2019年第5期，第20-36页。
23 刘普： 《当代中国外交价值观： 内涵、功能与构建》，《教学与研究》2022年第3期，第76-87页。
24 王义桅： 《人类命运共同体如何引领中国外交？》，《东南学术》2021第3期，第64-71页。
25 孙吉胜： 《传统文化与十八大以来中国外交话语体系构建》，《外交评论（外交学院学报）》2017年第4期，第1-31页。
26 Seesaghur H. & Robertson E.， “An overview of the?Chinese?agenda： global sustainable peace and development，” Acta Universitatis Danubius： Relationes Internationales， Vol. 9， No. 2 （2016）， pp. 154-171.
27 Грачиков Е. Н.， Особенности внешней политики Китая： этапы смены стратегий // Научно-аналитический журнал Обозреватель-Observer， Vol. 3 （2015）， С. 34-46.
28 王帆： 《中国特色大国外交：理念升华与路径指引》，《人民论坛·学术前沿》2021年第23期，第96-105页。
29 Shi X.， Chinese Discourse Studies， Basingstoke： Palgrave Macmillan， 2014.
30 施旭： 《文化话语研究：探索中国的理论、方法与问题》（第二版），北京：北京大学出版社，2022年。
31 高晨阳： 《中国传统哲学整体观模式及其评价》，《文史哲》1988年第6期，第34-38页。
32 吕嘉戈： 《中国文化中的整体观方法论与形象整体思维》，《中国文化研究》1998年春之卷（总第19期），第25-30页。
33 彭华： 《中国传统思维的三个特征：整体思维、辩证思维、直觉思维》，《社会科学研究》2017年第3期，第126-133页。
34 王树人： 《中国传统思维方式基本特征辨析——中西文化比较研究之一》，《学术月刊》1990第2期，第1-5，11页。
35 何锡辉、王芝华： 《全面建设社会主义现代化国家话语蕴含的辩证思维》，《思想理论教育》2021年第3期，第32-37页。
36 励轩： 《对一些多民族国家“人民”话语的分析》，《世界民族》2021年第1期，第1-11页。
37 杨青： 《因势制变提升对外传播话语权》，《中国广播电视学刊》2021年第9期，第25-27页。
38 张岱年： 《中国哲学史大纲》，南京：江苏教育出版社，2005年
39 何田田： 《国际法秩序价值的中国话语——从“和平共处五项原则”到“构建人类命运共同体”》，《法商研究》2021年第5期，第61-73页。
40 李福岩： 《启蒙思潮与中国现代化发展话语体系之演进》，《理论导刊》2017年第5期，第43-46，56页。
41 马忠、薛建航： 《中国共产党百年来斗争话语的历史演进及思考》，《西安交通大学学报（社会科学版）》2021年第4期，第125-132页。
42 史安斌、张耀钟： 《新中国形象的再建构：70年对外传播理论和实践的创新路径》，《全球传媒学刊》2019年第2期，第26-38页。
43 杨明星、周安祺： 《新中国70年来外交传播体系的历史演进与发展方位》，《国际观察》2020年第5期，第107-133页。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
