This article comes from the official account: Nanjing Social Sciences
The general secretary pointed out that accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is, in the final analysis, the construction of China's independent knowledge system. The construction of an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication is the common dream of several generations of journalism and communication scholars, and it is also a task that must be completed but at the same time extremely arduous. The hegemony of academic discourse in the West, especially in the United States, dominates China's academic research on journalism and communication in both explicit and implicit ways. Professor Deng Jianguo analyzed the two paths of pursuing the construction of an independent knowledge system in recent years: the theory of geocultural particularity and the theory of geocultural universality, and pointed out that whether it emphasizes difference or universality, it is possible to fall into the inherent Orientalism with the West as the standard, and it is also possible to cover up the real uniqueness with superficial differences. The article emphasizes that we should take the search for similarity as the starting point, and take the attitude of "seeking similarities and analyzing differences, and mutual learning between civilizations" to transform Western universalism into global universalism, and realize the construction of independent knowledge system in the process. The author's open and positive academic stance is commendable, and the construction of an independent knowledge system is not simply to draw a clear boundary for Chinese journalism and communication, but should be responsible for contributing Chinese wisdom to human academic innovation, and only in this way can the vitality of this knowledge system be reflected.
——Hu Yiqing, professor and doctoral supervisor of the School of Journalism and Communication, Nanjing University
"Seeking Similarities and Differences, Mutual Learning among Civilizations": An Analysis of Deng Jianguo's Path to Constructing an Independent Knowledge System of Chinese Journalism and Communication
Professor and doctoral supervisor of the School of Journalism, Fudan University
This article was originally published in Nanjing Social Sciences, Issue 1, 2024
The notes for this article are omitted
Unless otherwise indicated, the pictures in the article are from the Internet
摘要 /Abstract/
The "de-Westernization" and "construction of an independent knowledge system" in Chinese journalism and communication are worthy of the pursuit of any unbiased scholar from the East and the West. We can see that, on the one hand, Western scholarship has its own unique ontology, epistemology, and axiology, as well as the corresponding academic normative system, and on the other hand, the rich intellectual resources of non-Western countries have not been sufficiently valued and developed to reflect in the global knowledge system of journalism and communication research. The former is "from China to China" and risks falling into the trap of "cultural essentialism and East-West dualism", and has the shortcomings of "policy and nationalist discourse more than academic rational discourse" and too grandiose, while the latter "from China to the world", but underestimates the difficulty of developing global universality from China's particularity, and may also make itself in the name of "autonomy". Westernization again". This paper points out that the paths for Chinese scholars to construct an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication can include three ways: one is to increase the themes, research evidence and theoretical perspectives of Chinese studies, the second is to adhere to the construction line of "concept-theory-system", and the third is to take Thomas Kuhn's idea of "paradigms are incommensurable but translatable", and adopt the path of "seeking similarities and analyzing differences, and learning from each other", that is, from the "similarity/similarity" between China and the West, which belong to a community with a shared future for mankind By focusing on and analyzing the differences in these similarities through empirical research based on China, we will work with Western scholars to contribute to the enhancement of the knowledge system of human journalism and communication, and transform "Western universalism" into "global universalism".
From the very beginning, the development of communication studies in mainland China has regarded "construction of independent knowledge system/de-Westernization" as the ultimate goal of its development, which is reflected in the "16-character policy" (systematic understanding, analysis and research, critical absorption, and independent creation) for the development of communication studies in China proposed at the first National Communication Studies Symposium in 1982. On April 25, 2022, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out during his inspection tour of Chinese Renmin University that accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is, in the final analysis, the construction of China's independent knowledge system. Later, in September 2022, the Ministry of Education held the "Philosophy and Social Sciences Knowledge System Construction and University Consultation Service Ability Improvement Project Promotion Conference", and the construction of an independent knowledge system of Chinese journalism was put on the agenda. As a result, "constructing an independent knowledge system" has become a hot topic in philosophical and social science research in mainland China, including journalism and communication. After 40 years of development, today's Chinese communication studies are considered to have transitioned to a stage where "independent innovation" can be carried out, "in particular, in the context of Chinese culture, politics and economy, the vigorous development of ICTs has provided fertile soil for independent innovation in Chinese communication studies, and has provided unprecedented favorable conditions for the construction of independent knowledge systems in communication studies in mainland China". However, how to fully demonstrate the necessity of constructing an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication in mainland China from a theoretical perspective, what discourse strategies do representative scholars in mainland China use, and what is the specific way to realize the construction of an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication in mainland China? This paper attempts to answer these "meta-questions".
1. The necessity of "de-Westernization" and "construction of independent knowledge system" in China's journalism and communication research
It should be said that in this era of increasingly globalized academic research, almost no one will say that "de-Westernization" and "construction of independent knowledge systems" are unnecessary, let alone that they are bad. A larger background of the mainland's call for "the construction of an independent knowledge system of Chinese philosophy and social sciences" is the call for "de-Westernization" in the international social sciences (including journalism and communication) academic circles. As we all know, journalism and communication was born under the theoretical and disciplinary traditions of the United States and some Western European countries, and the classic research in this field undoubtedly embodies this.
"Constructing an independent knowledge system" and "de-Westernization" in journalism and communication are actually two sides of the same coin. When we talk about "autonomy", we must answer the question "from whom?" This "who" is naturally the "West", so the call for "building an independent knowledge system" in journalism and communication research in non-Western countries, including China, can also be expressed as "indigenization" and "endogenization". They are the opposite of "de-westernization" and "decolonization".
The "West" here can be divided into the first echelon (the United States and Great Britain) and the second echelon (France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Italy). Most scholars in these Western countries are concerned with how to achieve "communicative rationality" in the Habermas sense. They have an ignorant, superior, and even contemptuous attitude toward the history, philosophy, and civilization of non-Western countries, either completely ignoring the cultural, environmental, ideological, and power factors that influence "communication," or treating them as "constants" and therefore not worthy of attention. The academic and publishing circles in Western countries "have developed ontologies, epistemologies, and axiologies for various social sciences through well-designed systems of academic evaluation and publication." ”
Behind these practices of Western countries are "Eurocentrism" and "Orientalism". Samir Amin argues that Eurocentrism is a theory of world history that politically considers Europe unique and superior and therefore legitimizes its expansion into the rest of the world, and that culturally it believes that Europe inherited rational philosophy from ancient Greece, while the East has never been able to get rid of metaphysics. Edward Said focused on the colonial discourse he called "Orientalism." He pointed out that one of the essential characteristics of "Orientalism" was the separation of the West from the East, and the belief that the West was ontologically, epistemologically, and axially superior to the East.
Eurocentrism and Orientalism have led to the "intellectual imperialism theory" of Western countries towards non-Western countries, which in turn has led to the so-called "captive mind" of some scholars in developing countries because of their academic training in the West, a mentality that believes that Western knowledge is superior to local knowledge, and a kind of "academic dependence" on Western countries dependency theory）。 This academic dependence is manifested in the "internal system" in which non-Western countries rely heavily on the West in the structure and ownership of various ideological media, such as publishing houses, academic journals and websites, and in the "external system" in which non-Western countries rely heavily on educational technology and investment, training and research provided by Western countries, as well as in the West's demand for "cheap" academic labor in non-Western countries.
At the same time, the rich intellectual resources of non-Western countries have not been sufficiently valued and exploited, including the Confucian and Taoist paradigms in China, the kuuki concept in Japan (a "climate of opinion" or "atmosphere" that members are required to abide by), the "co-rising" paradigm of Indian Buddhism, the concept of ubuntuism in South Africa (emphasizing community and collectivism), and the concept of kapwa in the Philippines (a "recognition" or "atmosphere" of shared identity) the inner self that can be shared with others") has been ignored by Western scholars, consciously or unconsciously.
For example, Western concepts and theories of journalism and communication, such as democracy, public sphere, and journalism, are all based on Western "individual" and "agency" The early internationalization of journalism and communication was actually Westernization and Americanization, which led to the long-term dominance of American-style journalism and communication theory based on modernization theory and "media effect" in the world. As a result, some scholars in non-Western countries have called for the production of knowledge based on indigenous traditions that reflects local realities, scholarship and cultural styles.
It should be pointed out that the issue of "de-Westernization" of journalism and communication has also attracted the attention of Western scholars. They called on scholars around the world to reflect on the diverse prerequisites for knowledge production, and advocated for an "epistemological turn" in journalism and communication studies. For example, in 2014, the American Journal of Communication Theory published a special issue dedicated to discussing and summarizing the necessity, possibility, and realization of "de-Westernization" (globalization, internationalization, cosmopolitanism, and the localization of academic knowledge) communication research, and in 2018, the Journal of Communication also published a special issue titled "Ferments in the Field" The special issue (using plural ferments) explores the development orientation of journalism and communication, the most important of which is the "Westernization" of journalism and communication, that is, the global universalization of research findings native to a specific time and space in the West, which is used to describe and explain the completely different practices of journalism and communication in different countries, forming a disparity between "the West" and "the rest of the world", which completely ignores the real picture of global journalism and communication research.
2. The two discourses of "constructing an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication" in mainland China
Since 2022, mainland journalism and communication scholars have published a large number of papers on "Constructing an Independent Knowledge System of Chinese Journalism and Communication", summarizing their contents, mainly including the following two discourses.
(1) Geo-Culture-Particularity Theory - "From China to China"
Some scholars oppose "Western universalism" and point out that the general idea of constructing an independent knowledge system of Chinese journalism and communication is to "take China as the mirror, take the times as the mirror, base ourselves on China's reality, solve China's problems, and constantly promote the creative transformation and innovative development of China's excellent traditional culture". In the discourse of these scholars, "China's practice" is an extremely frequent expression. For example, Wang Runze et al. pointed out that in the context of Chinese-style modernization, journalism and communication should grasp the basic characteristics and context of the beginning and development of information civilization, start from the problem domain that really comes from practice, and deflect knowledge innovation to the basic and humanistic aspects; Yang Baojun pointed out that Chinese news reality is the core source of the "problem system" of contemporary Chinese journalism, and contemporary Chinese news reality and news practice have always been the core object of contemporary Chinese journalism research and the core of the source of research problems. He pointed out that contemporary Chinese journalism has its own characteristic issues that extend from its own academic traditions, such as the issue of party spirit and the people's nature in journalism, the relationship between party spirit and the people's nature, the nature and function of news and propaganda (news and public opinion) work, the issue of public opinion guidance, the issue of positive propaganda as the mainstay, and the issue of the basic relationship between news, propaganda, and public opinion, all of which are important issues that have been formed in the ideology and theory of party newspapers in the period of the new democratic revolution. "If these issues are diluted, extinguished, or not paid enough attention to the academic context of Chinese journalism, then contemporary Chinese journalism will have no special foundation of its own, and the so-called construction of an independent knowledge system of contemporary Chinese journalism will be in vain. In a book review article, Cheng Lihong argues that Hu Baijing's Consensus and Order: A History of Chinese Communication Thought "excavates the local cultural roots of communication thought, and can be regarded as a blockbuster work in the construction of an independent knowledge system of communication studies." The book is magnificent, far-reaching, and looks at history and reality. These scholars all emphasize the particularity of China and the urgent need for Chinese scholars to construct "independent knowledge systems" that can explain these practices from China's practice, and they do not care whether these independent Chinese knowledge systems can be universalized globally, so they can be said to be "from China to China".
(2) Geo-Culture-Universal Theory: "From China to the World"
Other scholars, while opposing "Western universalism," advocate promoting a "global universalism" that includes China. Zhang Taofu and Jiang Hua pointed out that "on the basis of getting rid of the unfavorable situation of dependent knowledge production (to the West), we should strive to make breakthroughs in 'knowledge', 'value' and 'paradigm', so that it is possible to gradually establish an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication with universal significance that is rich in Chinese connotation and can connect with the world". Huang Dianlin clearly pointed out that the ultimate purpose of constructing an independent knowledge system should be to establish a set of knowledge systems that transcend local practices and local knowledge and have general explanatory power, so as to update and reconstruct the existing world knowledge map. Hu Zhengrong further pointed out that in the process of constructing an independent knowledge system, it is necessary to correctly understand academicity (emphasizing methods and norms), ideology (emphasizing direction and value) and openness (emphasizing pluralism and universality).
"Concept" is the basic unit of knowledge system, and it is of great significance to explore the method of concept construction and interpretation to construct an independent knowledge system. For example, Zhang Dawei and Zhou Tong pointed out in a paper entitled "Concept Supply: The Urgent Need for the Construction of an Independent Knowledge System" that "producing and providing concepts that can explain Chinese problems, Chinese phenomena, and Chinese practices is the top priority for the construction of independent knowledge systems". Liu Hailong believes that Chinese scholars need to conduct academic research in the context of a community with a shared future for mankind, and that scholars need to study the Eastern and Western cultures more deeply, summarize and explore the unique local experience, so as to establish a globally recognized concept and theoretical system. Hu Yiqing believes that the study of Chinese journalism should avoid the ghostly accusation of "journalism without learning" and the "poverty of journalism", and should not still take the (Chinese) common-sense normative knowledge system as the theoretical framework of Chinese journalism in the future, but should (more universally) define the genus concept of "news" as information production, knowledge-based and landscape presentation, which can effectively support journalism from a normative discipline to an exploratory science, thereby stimulating the imagination of journalism. Wei Lu and others also pointed out that "Chinese journalism and communication scholars have the responsibility and ability to ...... Create new concepts, new categories and new expressions that integrate China and foreign countries, explain Chinese practice with Chinese theory, sublimate Chinese theory with Chinese practice, and achieve corner overtaking in the digital age. We can use Geertz's words to describe the assertion of this second group of scholars – "We are not studying this place (China), but doing research in this place (China)." In other words, these scholars generally advocate that "from China to the world" - the "place of research" can be divided into Chinese and Western, and the "research discovery" belongs to the contribution of Chinese scholars to the world's knowledge system, and there is no distinction between Chinese and Western.
The above two paths of "from China to China" and "from China to the world" belong to "Geocultural Theories". This theory requires researchers to take the social and cultural background of their location as the basic premise and research object, including two orientations: "geocultural-specific", which advocates that local scholars study local phenomena and serve local purposes, which is an inward-looking (emic) approach, and "geocultural-universalism" Geocultural-general is an outward-looking approach that attempts to extract general theories from local research objects. It is important to distinguish between these two "geocultural theory" orientations, as they have completely different methodologies and goals. For example, communication scholars in Latin America have put forward the "Participatory communication for social change" under the guidance of "geo-culture-universality", but have not labeled it as "Participatory communication theory for social change in Latin America", reflecting the universality and inclusiveness of the theory. In contrast, Chen Guomin's "A harmony theory of Chinese communication" can only describe and explain the communication behavior of Chinese, reflecting the "geo-cultural-special" thinking of the theory and the introversion and exclusivity of "China-centered".
3. The shortcomings of the mainland's discourse on "constructing an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication".
In my opinion, the construction of an independent knowledge system of Chinese journalism and communication, from "from China to China" and "from China to the world" is reasonable, but both have shortcomings. Let's talk about the latter first, and then focus on the former.
(1) "Geo-Culture-Universalism" May Slide into Western Ecumenism and "Re-Westernize" Itself
The risks are reflected in the following aspects. When some scholars call for "the construction of an autonomous knowledge system/de-Westernization", they are actually using Western scientific categories for analysis. For example, some scholars refer to communication studies in Western countries as "communication science" and non-Western communication studies as "communication arts", but the terms used to refer to these "communication arts", such as rhetoric, semiotics, phenomenology, and critical studies, are of Western origin. For example, Liao Shengqing et al. examined nine CSSCI journalism and communication journal articles from 1998 to 2022 and found that "from 1998- In 2022, the level of knowledge creation in journalism and communication in China will continue to rise, and the autonomy of the discipline still needs to be improved, the knowledge storage environment will change rapidly, the internal knowledge base will be updated slowly, and the audience research and effect research need to be strengthened, and the standardized development of theoretical research and methodological research should be promoted to promote the accumulation and application of knowledge. Liao Shengqing takes it for granted here that knowledge as defined in the West is "knowledge", which objectively causes him to advocate "from China to the world" but "from China to the West". His suggestion that audience research and effectiveness research needs to be strengthened will only make Chinese journalism and communication research "more compliant" rather than "more autonomous" with Western research paradigms.
Wei Lu et al. analyzed the current situation and problems of the international influence of Chinese journalism and communication research from many aspects, such as international paper publications, book publications, and international conferences. He cited the data on the international publication of Chinese journalism and communication scholars - from 2018 to 2022, a total of 470 papers with Chinese mainland scholars as the first authors were accepted at the ICA Annual Meeting, and the number of accepted papers increased year by year, reaching 154 in 2022; the accepted authors came from 62 Chinese mainland institutions - and said that "this demonstrates the vigorous vitality and growing international influence of China's journalism and communication discipline." At present, in China's academic evaluation system, many returnees think that it is "relatively easier" to publish SSCI than CSSCI, and the performance evaluation of SSCI papers given by their schools is much higher than that of CSSCI publications, which encourages their international publication. However, if we do not carefully distinguish the specific content of these international publications, the increase in the number of international publications by Chinese journalism and communication scholars does not necessarily mean an increase in China's independent knowledge of journalism and communication, but on the contrary, it may also mean an increase in Western academic imperialism, the degree of dependence of the mainland on Western scholarship, and the "captive mentality" of mainland scholars towards Western knowledge.
There are also some scholars who are keen on various "world tours", such as compiling cases of the same research topic from dozens of countries around the world, providing Chinese data under Western academic frameworks or research designs, or organizing panels of scholars from multiple countries at academic conferences, etc., which have limited contribution to China's construction of an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication.
Although the above approaches are also put forward in the name of "constructing an autonomous system of Chinese journalism and communication", if researchers are not reflective and underestimate the difficulty of prescribing global universalism from China's particularity in academic production, it is likely to unconsciously slide into the "Western universalism" that we oppose, and eventually lead to the disappearance of "China" in journalism and communication research to "autonomously" The name conforms to and strengthens the Western academic paradigm, and "Westernizes itself again".
(2) "Geo-culture-particularism" is easy to fall into cultural essentialism and "academic identity politics"
First, Western culture "is not Western in any essential sense, but has only arisen in the West by chance geographically and historically." Oriental culture had a strong influence on Greek culture. The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution in the West could not have been separated from the contribution of Islam. For example, in the 16th and 17th centuries, a large number of European merchants and missionaries went to China and brought Sinological classics back to the West. Confucius's idea of governing the country centered on "benevolence" and "propriety", as well as the picture of a civilized, stable, and prosperous country constructed by it, were even more desirable for Europe, which had experienced the dark Middle Ages, was always in constant war, and was eager to find an outlet for a new political system. During the "China fever" of the 18th century, Voltaire, the pioneer of enlightenment, strongly admired China and Confucius in his words, deeds and writings, and regarded Confucius as an "interpreter" of "reason" and "wisdom". Voltaire borrowed the ideas and culture of China and other Eastern countries, expanded his own ideological horizons, and gradually formed his own enlightenment ideological system. Therefore, there is a dialectic dynamic relationship between Eastern and Western cultures. Moreover, Orientalists have a long tradition of reinterpreting and using "foreign" ideas in light of the cultural and ideological context of their own countries, resulting in so-called "traveling theories."
Second, the extreme of "geocultural-particularism" may lead to "reverse/autonomous orientalism", for example, Japanese intellectuals in the thirties of the 20th century embraced "Japonism" (nihon shugi). There is also a "nihonjinron" (nihonjinron) in contemporary Japanese sociology. Both schools of thought believe that it is impossible for any Westerner or Western theory to understand Japanese culture. This "autonomous orientalism" also existed among some scholars in countries such as India and the Philippines, and it eventually led to the alliance of indigenous scholars with nationalism and the over-politicization of the social sciences in their own countries.
As a result, some Western scholars are based on the "epistemological turn" of global knowledge production in journalism and communication, while non-Western scholars are based on a cultural strategy to resist Western academic imperialism and defend their own national academic sovereignty, and their arguments are more nationalistic. Although the latter sometimes has some "epistemic" overtones, these efforts have remained at the forefront of proposing various more abstract philosophical frameworks without any substantive theoretical contributions.
In a rare reflective paper related to the construction of an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication in the mainland, Huang Dianlin pointed out that "with the increasing importance of knowledge autonomy in the international discourse power game, the construction of the mainland's independent knowledge system has changed from a relatively implicit problem consciousness to an explicit policy discourse, which overemphasizes the locality and particularity of the knowledge system, and turns 'knowledge system = experience system' or 'knowledge system = local knowledge system' to 'universal imperialism' Intolerance of particularity'". This also means that if China's argument for "constructing an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication" appeals too much to nationalist discourse and policy discourse rather than rational discourse, it may eventually strengthen its label of "no learning", and will lose the opportunity to extract global universality from its own particularity and contribute to the global knowledge system of journalism and communication. Moreover, if the "geo-culture-particularism" is adopted, the global knowledge production of journalism and communication will eventually fall into "academic identity politics", resulting in the inability of journalism and communication studies in various countries/regions to dialogue.
(3) It has not yet been able to propose a feasible way to achieve the grand goal of "building an independent knowledge system".
It is necessary to distinguish between several categories: concepts, theories (models), knowledge, knowledge systems, and philosophy, because this further clarifies the accessibility of our goal of "constructing an autonomous knowledge system" and the availability of means.
"Concept" is a form of thinking that reflects the characteristics, essence and relationship of things, it is a key component of theory, and its importance to concepts is as mentioned above, so I will not repeat it here.
There are many definitions of "theory", and it takes a bit more ink here. Macro definitions such as "a theory is a statement containing a set of concepts, explanations, and principles about certain aspects of human experience", and a theory "the idea of explaining an event or behavior, which makes an otherwise chaotic situation clear, and which distills order out of chaos...... (It) synthesizes data, focuses our attention on what matters, and helps us ignore those things that don't matter," etc. But we define theories more in a microscopic sense. "It is the explanation and prediction of social phenomena, and it can relate the object of study to other phenomena" or "theory...... is a series of assertions about the relationship between different variables". The simplified form of a theory in the micro sense is "models". The functions of social science theories (models) include structuring, explaining, eliciting and predicting. Good theories are simple, explanatory, universal, and value-neutral. There are many theories of communication, and the theory of mass communication alone can be divided into "five categories": social science theory, normative theory, critical theory, operationalization theory, and everyday theory.
"Knowledge" is the result of processing the experience of practice (including scientific experiments) through the activity of the human brain. According to Plato, mere belief (belief) does not constitute knowledge. For a belief to become knowledge, it must be supported by real and reasonable evidence (knowledge=belief+evidence). Based on the three "intellectual interests" discussed by Habermas, "the knowledge of journalism and communication comes from three types of knowledge: positivist theory, hermeneutic theory, and critical theory". These three types of knowledge take "facts", "explanations" and "liberation" as their goals, but they all conform to Plato's formula of "knowledge = belief + evidence" to varying degrees.
What is a "knowledge system"? A "knowledge system" is an interconnected knowledge system formed by integrating some fragmented, scattered and relatively independent knowledge. Here we combine the knowledge system of communication to illustrate.
American communication scholar C.T. Craig distinguishes Western communication theory into seven "theories/traditions/paradigms", including rhetoric, semiotics, phenomenology, cybernetics, social psychology, social culture, and critical theory. He defines "communication theory/tradition/paradigm" as "the various discourses and methods of communication proposed by relevant researchers to solve their own problematiques that they consider important". In fact, every theory/tradition/paradigm he brings out is a "knowledge system", and it has made its own conceptualization of "communication" from a unique perspective and put forward corresponding methodologies.
Craig uses five indicators or dimensions to distinguish and evaluate these seven "knowledge systems": what is their own unique definition of "communication", what are the "communication puzzles" derived from this definition, what are the iconic terms and vocabularies used, what are the everyday ideas that are supported by them, and what are the everyday ideas that are challenged on the basis of them? For example, semiotic theories/traditions/paradigms (knowledge systems) define "communication" as "human intersubjective negotiation through symbols" The "communication problem" is "How does this kind of symbolic negotiation overcome misunderstandings and gaps between subjects?", and it uses iconic discursive vocabulary such as icon, index, symbol, signifier and signified, and it is supported by the everyday notion that "we all need a common language to communicate", according to which the everyday notions that are challenged include " (However) words may not be able to convey meaning" and "language may not be neutral". Craig pointed out that theories/traditions/paradigms (knowledge systems) need to "have something to say" with each other—for example, semiotic theory can redescribe the iconic discursive terms of "self" and "other" in phenomenological theory, and phenomenological theory can also redescribe the iconic discursive words of semiotic theory (such as "signified" and "signified").
These indicators are used as the "Craig Rules" for evaluating communication theories/traditions/paradigms (knowledge systems) or "systems about knowledge systems (which he calls the 'constructive meta-model' of communication theories/models"). Undoubtedly, rhetoric, semiotics, phenomenology, cybernetics, social psychology, socioculture, and critical theory as systems of knowledge in communication have developed over decades, hundreds of years, centuries, and thousands of years. This means that some journalism and communication scholars in mainland China are undoubtedly facing huge challenges in bypassing concepts and theories and directly proposing the grand goal of "building an independent knowledge system" ("discipline system, academic system, discourse system, etc."), and the road to its realization is full of difficulties.
In addition, judging from the historical law of knowledge production itself, it is difficult to construct a "knowledge system" in a relatively short period of time through pre-planning and centralized use of resources. We examine the birth of "knowledge systems" around the world, such as Romanticism, the Vienna School, the Chicago School, pragmatism and functionalism, etc., which were first started by scholars with similar interests through spontaneous "salons" and "groups" and other forms, and after years of development, they were summarized by later generations as such and such systems, schools and traditions. Professor Huang Dan was asked in an interview, "Do you subconsciously want to build a system?"
Not really, not at all, there is an idea of constructing a theory, but there is no idea of constructing a system...... It would be nice if the research question could come up with a concept or theory in empirical research, and it would be good if the concept could be put forward to explain a certain phenomenon in Chinese journalism. At present, this is not achieved at all, let alone any system. My greatest hope is that some concepts can be used to explain the phenomenon in China through empirical material (which no other theory can do), and that this concept and theory will be universal. If you are connected with something foreign and people can accept it, people will use your thing to re-look at this empirical thing. It's good to be able to do this in this life, it's hard.
Huang Dan mentions experience, concepts, theories, knowledge and knowledge systems, and points out the difficulties of his own research. However, his exclamation reflects reality. Although non-Western countries have been calling for "de-Westernization/construction of independent knowledge systems" in journalism and communication studies in non-Western countries for many years, the efforts of non-Western scholars have long remained at the level of philosophical interpretation and the formulation of several "metatheories" that are similar and similar, far from reaching the level where the Western social science knowledge system is widely understood, disseminated and applied, and even further away from shaking the Western social science system. So far, communication theories in Asia, including China, have been "more like philosophy or art" – "they complement the logical positivist philosophy behind Western communication theory, but are difficult to test with Western scientific methods". This means that there is a long way to go to construct an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication in mainland China, and it is far from being achieved overnight.
Fourth, the specific path of constructing an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication in China
Although there is a long way to go to construct an independent knowledge system of Chinese journalism and communication, as long as we are down-to-earth and adhere to the "effective path and long-termism", there is no hope for realization. I think there are at least three implementation paths below.
(1) Add themes, research evidence, and theoretical perspectives for Chinese studies
The first is a new research topic. Dennis McGuire points out: "New media are very susceptible to their unique social and cultural impacts, but they have not yet been properly evaluated. "In China, with a population of 1.4 billion, 1 billion of whom are netizens, journalism and communication research in China enjoys a bonanza of research topics that are the envy of their peers around the world, such as: how does the Chinese government use the Internet to advance the development of Chinese society? how does "news for development" be compatible with "news for surveillance"? how have social media and artificial intelligence affected China's politics, economy, culture, society, and interpersonal interactions, and how are regional economic development differences related to the digital divide and the knowledge divide? How has WeChat made life easier for illiterate and semi-literate people? How has Douyin become a new way for rural women to change their lives? How is the online community culture of Chinese teenagers different from that of the West? The topics of Chinese journalism and communication research can also include those communication phenomena that transcend traditional geo-culture and politics and do not belong to a specific country or region, such as the (Western) global Internet, global media and international institutions, Global social movements and civic organizations, which transcend the spatial boundaries of traditional nation-states and have not been studied by communication scholars in Western countries, should also change the ontological assumptions based on traditional research to help expand the scope of topics in Western communication studies and test the applicability of Western academic findings. The second is new research evidence. Chinese journalism and communication scholars can present non-Western research evidence to confirm, falsify, or enrich previous findings based on Western research evidence. It is important to note here that Chinese and Western scholars should raise common academic questions and theories based on empirical evidence from around the world to promote cross-border dialogue. The third is a new theoretical perspective. In view of the great differences between China and the West in onto-cosmology, epistemology, and axiology, Chinese scholars can redefine and describe communication/communication, knowledge, humanity, identity, individuality, community, democracy, truth, language, News, etc., and examine how they regulate and guide the daily communication behavior of Chinese people from these perspectives, for example, in a Chinese culture that emphasizes "gentlemen are quick to words and quick to deeds" and encourages collectivism, what kind of communication/communication is most suitable and how is it measured? what are the limitations of individualistic communication and identity shaping in such a culture, how can citizens develop critical thinking and participation, how do emotions and bodies play a role in communication, and so on.
(2) Improve the construction path of "concept-theory-system".
In addition, we should also adhere to the path of "construction of knowledge system of Chinese journalism and communication" from experience, concept, theory, knowledge to knowledge system to overcome the shortcomings of ambiguity, ambiguity and inappropriateness. Deng Jianguo once pointed out that although the mainland's "China-centered" communication ideological research has made great progress, it still needs to be improved in the following aspects: First, at the analytical level, it is necessary to consciously distinguish communication concepts, communication theories (models), Communication concepts and communication philosophies, and clarify the interrelationship between them, so as to avoid the dislocation of comparative levels in the comparative study of Chinese and Western communication, such as using Chinese communication philosophy to talk about Western communication theories (models) (rather than the philosophical views behind them), or using Western communication theories (models) to describe and analyze Chinese communication philosophies. The former is not in dialogue on the same level, and the latter is philosophically (ontological, epistemological, and axiology) contradictory to itself. The philosophical outlook behind the communication theories and models based on information theory is positivism, analytical thinking, and dominating stance, while the philosophical outlook behind Chinese communication thought emphasizes wholeness, interpretation, synthesis, tolerance, and harmony. The second is to carry out more meta-theory research on Chinese communication, and strengthen the reflection on the current status of research, the construction of typology and the integration of middle-level theories. Chinese communication studies are mostly embodied in the study of communication history, with complex content and vague types. In my opinion, three levels of research can be distinguished: communication methods, communication practices of specific groups in a specific period, and the common views of specific groups on these communication practices, thus forming three fields of Chinese communication studies: media studies (such as bronzes, oracle bone inscriptions, bamboo slips, printing, etc.), communication practice studies (such as rhetoric, propaganda, journalism, etc.), and communication thought studies (theory, meta-theory/philosophy). The third is to extract the various traditions within the Chinese communication theory (such as Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Mohistism, and Legalism) and the different stages within the same tradition according to the meta-theory, and promote the comparison and dialogue between them. This kind of structural, reflective and integrated thinking is more necessary to construct a broader independent knowledge system of journalism and communication in mainland China.
(3) Adhere to the construction concept of "seeking similarities and analyzing differences, and learning from each other".
Thomas Kuhn argues that the scientific revolution has replaced an old paradigm with a new paradigm. There is incompatibility between these two paradigms. Different paradigms mean that the problem to be solved will not be exactly the same, and the methods and criteria for solving the problem will not be the same, and there is no extra-paradigm arbiter or arbitration method between the two paradigms, which is Kuhn's incommensurability. Kuhn pointed out that disputes between paradigms cannot be resolved by means of proofs, that is, it is impossible to prove the superiority of one paradigm over another by logical means. If the West is based on the "individual" communication paradigm, and China is based on the "relational" communication paradigm, then according to Kuhn's above view, the Chinese and Western paradigms are incommensurable.
But Kuhn also points out that the incommensurability of paradigms does not mean that they are not comparable, nor is it the same as the non-translatable. Scientists of different paradigms have the same or roughly the same neural mechanisms, stimulus conditions, everyday world, everyday language, which are the basis for them to overcome communication barriers to a certain extent. On this basis, they can identify where the differences are. They can recognize each other as members of different linguistic communities and then become translators. If they both restrain themselves enough and do not interpret each other's abnormal behavior as wrong, crazy, or irrational, they will surely learn to successfully predict each other's behavior. Each side will also learn to translate the other's theories and their inferences into their own language, and to describe in their own language the world in which the other's theories apply. In Kuhn's view, historians of science have done just that when they deal with the theories of science in the past. Translators have different goals, and he has to find the best compromise that works best. Kuhn argues that translation enables scientists with different views to achieve a degree of mutual understanding on the one hand, but on the other hand, differences between scientists will not be completely eliminated due to the difficulties of translation. In my opinion, treating the cultural paradigms between the East and the West as "incommensurable but translatable/explainable" can bring new opportunities for China to "construct an independent knowledge system of journalism and communication" and "de-Westernization".
First, it means that we can look for "similarity/equivalence" rather than "commonality/universality" between the Eastern and Western paradigms. The former means that we can "seek similarities and analyze differences, and learn from each other," while the latter means "use universality to eliminate differences." "Similarity and dissimilarity" is particularly suitable for social science research, including communication studies, because, unlike the natural sciences, no two societies and cultures can be identical at any given time. Secondly, in the pursuit of "seeking similarity and analyzing differences, and mutual learning between civilizations", "similarity" is the basis for mutual comparison and communication between paradigms, and "difference" is the necessary premise for "translation" between paradigms, so that scholars from both sides can obtain inspiration and jointly promote the gain of global knowledge, but both Chinese and Western scholars must have real interest and practical actions in each other's culture, language and society, so that the translation of "difference" can be successful. Third, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as "the difference that makes a difference", and in order to achieve "similarities and differences, and mutual learning between civilizations", Chinese scholars should pay special attention to, compare and analyze the different solutions to the problems common to Chinese and Western societies but call for different solutions due to the differences in Chinese and Western history and culture, so how can China and the West "learn from each other" Naturally, the water fell out.
So where is the "similarity/similarity" between China and the West? The academic production to construct the independent knowledge system of Chinese journalism and communication should answer the "questions of China, the people, and the times". At the macro level, these "questions from China" are reflected in how to realize China's core socialist values (prosperity, democracy, civilization, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendliness) as soon as possible, and at the micro level, how to develop China's economy, eradicate poverty, achieve common prosperity, rural revitalization, digital transformation, social governance, and international communication. The "17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations" are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, which call for the world to take action together to eradicate poverty, protect the planet, and improve the lives and futures of all people everywhere to promote the sustainable development of human society. It can be seen that the "question of China" and the "question of the world" are very compatible. It is this kind of convergence that has become the basis for Chinese and foreign journalism and communication research to "seek similarities and analyze differences, and learn from each other". This is also evidenced by the fact that "the papers and monographs that have been more cited by the international academic community are the results of focusing on major issues in the development of human society" in China's journalism and communication research.
Before concluding this lengthy article, I will cite just four examples to illustrate how Chinese journalism and communication scholars can "seek similarities and distinguish differences, and learn from each other."
Zhang Guoliang and Li Benqian examined for the first time the relationship between the mainland audience's agenda and the mass media agenda with 668 audiences in Shanghai and Yunnan, the People's Daily, and the newspapers and evening newspapers of the party organs in the two places. They found that at the macro level, the mainland audience agenda was significantly correlated with the mass media agenda, but at the micro level its correlation was low. The authors proposed an "asymmetric communication model" between media agendas, and based on the "ladder rule" between the agendas of different levels of Chinese audiences and media agendas, they put forward the "theoretical hypothesis of contingency communication effect".
In another example, Sun Xinru's investigation of the WeChat use and WeChat group activities of a group of young people in Pumi villages in Yunnan Province found that just as Roger Silverston, a British media research scholar, gained daily life by analyzing the entry of television into people's lives, WeChat has become an important way for these Chinese ethnic minority youth to express themselves at a micro-level level. She also found that in this new mobile space built with the help of WeChat, young people not only understand and express themselves in a space that is highly integrated with their own life situations, but also aspire to get rid of the limitations of real time and space to a certain extent, and strive to imagine an ideal "self" and "different" cultural situation. She believes that this group of young people shows a new way of "cultural writing" based on specific social situations and cultural logics in WeChat.
In another example, Shen Qi and Shao Yiming asked 730 elderly people in Wuzhi County, Henan Province to watch 18 images of social robots based on the "media equivalence theory" and the "stereotype content model", and found that the Chinese elderly were more willing to use the warmer and more capable robots, but because they were worried that the use of such robots might lead to their neglect by their families, they reduced their willingness to use these warm and capable robots. According to the researchers, "this may be due to the influence of traditional culture, and the elderly in mainland China are more concerned about the relationship with family members." Especially in the rural areas of the mainland, once the elderly lose their ability to work and take care of themselves, they are in an absolutely marginal position in the family power structure. Older people have a stronger sense of dependence and obedience to their families and children, and they are more concerned about their children's attitudes." This study is the first to verify the "media equivalence theory" and "stereotype content model" of the West in China, but on this basis, there are new discoveries based on the national conditions of the mainland.
For another example, at the end of Hu Baijing's book Consensus and Order: A History of Chinese Communication Thought, he came to the conclusion that "order is born in Tao or sexuality—in heaven and nature as Tao and in artificiality, and communication (speech and communication) is a tool for Tao enlightenment and order creation." Cheng Lihong pointed out that this book is "a major work for the construction of an independent knowledge system of communication studies." However, I believe that this book is precisely a work of "seeking similarities and analyzing differences, and learning from each other", because the "individual expression", "interpersonal communication", "social interaction and its norms", "political communication", "public consultation", "rationality", "publicity" and "public life" are not "fundamental issues" unique to China, but the universal needs of the survival and development of all human societies, so its results have the potential for dialogue with the West.
It should be emphasized that the above four examples of Chinese journalism and communication research are not simply copied and verified by researchers from Western communication theories, but from the perspective of a community with a shared future for mankind, starting from the "similarity/similarity" between China and the West, and then looking for and analyzing the differences between China and the West through empirical research, so as to contribute to the overall enrichment of human communication research knowledge together with Western scholars by adding new research topics, new research evidence, and new theoretical perspectives to human communication research. Here, the "similarity/similarity" between China and the West specifically includes: both Chinese and Western societies need information dissemination agencies to set public agendas to realize social values (Zhang Guoliang, Li Benqian), the impact of traditional media and digital media on people and society, and the question of how users use various media to meet their own needs (Sun Xinru), how to apply artificial intelligence to serve the elderly (Shen Qi, Shao Yiming), and "how individuals deal with themselves, others, and society" The relationship problem (Hu Baijing). However, these "similar/similar" problems will have different aspects and require different solutions due to the differences in Chinese and Western history, culture, economic and social development, and political systems. The empirical research on the academic issues of "similarity/similarity" between China and the West by scholars of journalism and communication above the mainland is precisely the "Chinese-style" answers and contributions given by Chinese scholars, thus transforming "Western universalism" into "global universalism", which is also the natural path advocated by the author of this paper to construct an independent knowledge system of Chinese journalism and communication-"seeking similarities and analyzing differences, and mutual learning between civilizations".