Value-blocs-oriented Agenda in International Communication: Narrative Policy Analysis Based on the Belt and Road Initiative

JING Jiayi, HU Zhengrong

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (5) : 6-27.

PDF(1789 KB)
PDF(1789 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (5) : 6-27.
International Communication Research

Value-blocs-oriented Agenda in International Communication: Narrative Policy Analysis Based on the Belt and Road Initiative

Author information +
History +

Abstract

From the perspective of international communication, philosophy and international relations, this paper explores 902 articles and 1.88 million words of policy texts on the Belt and Road Initiative from 16 countries and international organizations in the past decade. Based on the schematic narrative template of contextualization, role shaping, social mobilization and normative advice, this paper summarizes three common models of value-based international communication, namely, divergency model based on conflict narrative, overlapping model based on de-risk narrative, and convergency model based on community narrative. This paper proposes that the world is experiencing a broad and profound Epeirogenic Movement. Under the premise of political multi-polarization, value-blocs-oriented communication has become one of the most important forces to shape the geopolitical structure of international relations. Bloc boundaries are systematic, dynamic, and layered, expanding the possibilities for global dialogue and collaboration. In the future, international communication will go beyond the superficial stage of material and non-material communication of content, channel, data, and technology, upgrading to the stage of intrinsic competition driven by values.

Key words

values / international communication / the Belt and Road Initiative / blocs / narrative policy analysis

Cite this article

Download Citations
JING Jiayi , HU Zhengrong. Value-blocs-oriented Agenda in International Communication: Narrative Policy Analysis Based on the Belt and Road Initiative[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2024, 46(5): 6-27

References

[1]
爱德华·萨义德(1978/2019). 《东方学》(王宇根译). 北京: 三联书店.
[2]
陈先达(2009). 论普世价值与价值共识. 《哲学研究》,(4),3-9+128.
[3]
冯平, 汪行福, 王金林(2013). “复杂现代性”框架下的核心价值建构. 《中国社会科学》,(7),22-39+204.
[4]
郭焕成, 张继宏(1994). 国际地缘经济板块及其内在机制研究. 《经济地理》,(2),1-5.
[5]
郭凤至(2003). 价值、价值观念、价值观概念辨析. 《东北师大学报》,(6),41-46.
[6]
国务院新闻办公室(2023). 《共建“一带一路”:构建人类命运共同体的重大实践》白皮书.北京.
[7]
胡敏中(2008). 论价值共识. 《哲学研究》,(7),96-102.
[8]
马克思, 恩格斯(1845-1846/1972). 《马克思恩格斯选集(第一卷)》(中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局译). 北京: 人民出版社.
[9]
马克思, 恩格斯(1848/2018). 《共产党宣言》(中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局译). 北京: 人民出版社.
[10]
李德顺(1987). 价值论:一种主体性的研究. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
[11]
李巍, 罗仪馥(2019). 从规则到秩序——国际制度竞争的逻辑. 《世界经济与政治》,(4),28-57+155-156.
[12]
刘建飞(2001). 论意识形态与国家利益的关系. 《现代国际关系》,(7),33-37.
[13]
莫里斯·迪韦尔热(1973/1987). 《政治社会学》(杨祖功,王大东译). 北京: 华夏出版社.
[14]
门洪华(2014). 地区秩序建构的逻辑. 《世界经济与政治》,(7),4-23+156.
[15]
裴学进(2016). 自发与自觉:主导价值观转化为主流价值观的两种方式. 《马克思主义研究》,(10),102-110.
[16]
沈湘平(2007). 价值共识是否及如何可能. 《哲学研究》,(2),107-111+128.
[17]
舒良树(主编)(2010). 《普通地质学》. 北京: 地质出版社.
[18]
唐世平(2019). 国际秩序变迁与中国的选项. 《中国社会科学》,(3),187-203+208.
[19]
汪信砚(2002). 全球化中的价值认同与价值观冲突. 《哲学研究》,(11),169-179.
[20]
吴向东(2008). 论价值观的形成与选择. 《哲学研究》,(5),22-28+57.
[21]
魏玲(2017). 关系平衡、东盟中心与地区秩序演进. 《世界经济与政治》,(7),38-64+155-156.
[22]
肖勤福(1990). 经济区域化与“板块结构”. 《党校科研信息》,(32),8-9.
[23]
项久雨(2023). 世界变局中的文明形态变革及其未来图景. 《中国社会科学》,(4),26-47+204-205.
[24]
郁建兴(1996). 关于马克思价值概念的商榷. 《哲学研究》,(8),40-47.
[25]
杨宜音(1998). 社会心理领域的价值观研究述要. 《中国社会科学》,(2),82-93.
[26]
阎学通(2016). 无序体系中的国际秩序. 《国际政治科学》,(1),1-32.
[27]
岳圣淞(2023). 图式演绎、叙事重构与冷战后美国对华价值观外交. 《世界经济与政治》,(4),26-61+157-158.
[28]
詹姆斯·凯瑞(1989/2005). 《作为文化的传播:“媒介与社会”论文集》(丁未译). 北京: 华夏出版社.
[29]
赵月枝(2021). 国外传播政治经济学的贡献与局限. 《全球传媒学刊》,(6),4-26.
[30]
Boulding K. (1959). National images and international systems. Conflict Resolution, 3 (2), 120-131.
[31]
Buzan B., Waever O., & de Wilde J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
[32]
Cobb R. W. (1973). The belief-systems perspective: An assessment of a framework. The Journal of Politics, 35 (1), 121-153.
[33]
Converse P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review, 18 (1-3), 1-74.
[34]
Dewey J. (2004). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Delhi, IN: Aakar Books.
[35]
European Commission (2019). EU-China-A strategic outlook. Strasbourg.
[36]
Fiedler F. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 59-112.
[37]
Fukuyama F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York, NY: Free Press.
[38]
Frankel J. (1997). Regional trading blocs in the world economic system. Institute for International Economics, Washington.
[39]
Gee J. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
[40]
García-Herrero A., &Schindowski R. (2023). Global trends in countries’ perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative.Bruegel, Brussel.
[41]
Holsti O. R. (1962). The belief system and national images: A case study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6 (3), 244-252.
[42]
Huntington S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), 22-49.
[43]
Huntington S. (1996). Clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, NY: Simon& Schuster.
[44]
Hofstede G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
[45]
Hall S. (2018). The west and the rest: Discourse and power. In Gupta, T. D., James, C. E., Andersen, C., & et al. (Eds.). Race and racialization: Essential readings (pp. 85-93). Toronto, CA: Canadian Scholars.
[46]
Le Pichon X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73 (12), 3661-3697.
[47]
Manners I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal Common Market Studies, 40 (2), 235-258.
[48]
Schwartz S. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism:New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U.,Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G.(Eds.). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85-119). New York, NY: SAGE Publications.
[49]
Subotić J. (2016). Narrative, ontological security, and foreign policy change. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12 (4), 610-627.
[50]
Schiller H. (2018). Communication and cultural domination. New York, NY: Routledge.
[51]
The White House (1994). A National security strategy of engagement and enlargement.Washington.
[52]
The White House (2022). National security strategy. Washington.
[53]
Wilhelm A. (2006). Außenpolitik: Grundlagen, Strukturen und Prozesse. München, GER: Oldenbourg Verlag.

Footnotes

1. 一批代表文献如: Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2011). Power and interdependence. London: Pearson; Nye J. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, (80), 153-171; Wendt, A. (2003). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2. 澳大利亚未在国家层面加入过“一带一路”倡议。2018年10月,澳大利亚维多利亚州政府与中方签署“一带一路”合作谅解备忘录,2019年10月签署框架协议。2021年澳联邦政府以违反该国《对外关系法案》为由单方面撕毁该协议。

3. 具体文件可参考德国政府发布的Integrated Security for Germany: National Security Strategy和英国政府发布的Integrated Review Refresh 2023。

4. 具体信息可参考欧盟官网发布的“目标和价值观”页面, https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en

Funding

National Social Science Fund of China “Research on the strategy, process and effect of international communication”(22ZDA088)
PDF(1789 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/