Chinese and Western Interpretations of “Peaceful Development”: A Clash of Rules and Rule
Author
Jing, Jing
Term
4. term
Publication year
2013
Submitted on
2013-05-30
Abstract
This thesis examines why China’s “Peaceful Development” (formerly “Peaceful Rise”) narrative, crafted in response to Western “China Threat” discourse, has not been widely recognized in the West. Using Nicholas Onuf’s rule-oriented constructivism—which treats language as action (speech acts) and maps links between discourses, rules, and ruling patterns—it reconstructs the emergence of “Peaceful Development” and analyzes how differences in linguistic logic and political communication shape mutual perceptions. The study finds that while Western international discourse is often commissive within a heronomic pattern, Western talk about China’s rise shifts to assertive (“China Threat”) and directive (“China’s Responsibilities”) modes that generate hegemonic expectations, place China in a dilemma, and make dialogue asymmetrical, thereby undermining acceptance of “Peaceful Development.” On the Chinese side, a mismatch between a predominantly assertive domestic political style and a largely commissive foreign policy message, together with internal inconsistencies, creates a “commissive trap” that exposes China to external judgment and fragments the message. The thesis also highlights the mobility of categories and “pattern switches” among assertive, directive, and commissive forms, offering a more nuanced application of rule-oriented constructivism to the analysis of Chinese foreign policy.
Dette speciale undersøger, hvorfor Kinas diskurs om “fredelig udvikling” (tidligere “fredelig opstigning”), formuleret som svar på vestlige “Kina-trussel”-fortællinger, ikke har opnået bred anerkendelse i Vesten. Med udgangspunkt i Nicholas Onufs regelorienterede konstruktivisme – som ser sprog som handlinger (talehandlinger) og kortlægger forbindelser mellem diskurser, regler og styringsmønstre – rekonstruerer studiet tilblivelsen af “fredelig udvikling” og analyserer, hvordan forskelle i sproglogik og politisk kommunikation former gensidig opfattelse. Det viser, at vestlig international diskurs ofte er kommissiv inden for et heronomt styringsmønster, men at omtalen af Kinas fremkomst skifter til assertive (“Kina-trussel”) og directive (“Kinas ansvar”) former, som skaber hegemoniske forventninger, stiller Kina i et dilemma og gør dialogen asymmetrisk, hvilket undergraver modtagelsen af “fredelig udvikling”. På kinesisk side skaber et misforhold mellem en overvejende assertiv indenrigspolitisk diskurstil og den kommissive udenrigspolitiske fortælling, sammen med indre modsætninger, en “kommissiv fælde”, hvor Kina bliver underlagt eksterne domme og budskabet fragmenteres. Specialet fremhæver desuden, at kategorier og mønstre kan “skifte” mellem assertive, directive og kommissive former, hvilket nuancerer anvendelsen af regelorienteret konstruktivisme i analyser af kinesisk udenrigspolitik.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]
Keywords