Share This Article:

Context of Implicit Hegemonic Discourse in Contemporary China

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:434KB) PP. 147-152
DOI: 10.4236/sm.2015.52013    3,455 Downloads   3,758 Views  
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

Following the principles of rhetorical political approach and discourse-historic approach, this paper discusses the context of how implicit hegemonic discourse(IHD) manipulators in contemporary China discursively justify their own special interests and mislead the dominated to “maintain consent” to the current hegemony pernicious to the future of Chinese civilization. This context involves IHD manipulators’ subjective and partial interpretation on their lingui-philosophical, political and ethical orientations, in which ethical value locates as the core determining the other three elements. Finally, the author puts forward a new trinity to dissolve IHD in contemporary China.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Yuan, X. and Han, J. (2015) Context of Implicit Hegemonic Discourse in Contemporary China. Sociology Mind, 5, 147-152. doi: 10.4236/sm.2015.52013.

References

[1] Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
[2] Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene (p. 3). New York City: Oxford University Press.
[3] Department of Editorial (2011). Listening to Those “Sunken Voice”. People’s Daily, 14.
[4] Duan, G. W., & Zhou, H. C. (2012). Zhou’s Review of Deng Xiaoping’s Comments in Shenzhen, 1991: Reformation Should Become the Mainstream Value of the CCP. Nanfang Daily, A05.
[5] Grams, W., & Rogers, R. (1990). Power and Personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, Need for Approval, and Motivation on Use of Influence Tactics. Journal of General Psychology, 117, 71-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1990.9917774
[6] Jaffe, E., Nebenzahl, I., & Gotesdyner, H. (1989). Machiavellianism, Task Orientation, and Team Effectiveness Revisited. Psychological Reports, 64, 819-824.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3.819
[7] Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (3rd ed., p. 30). Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
[8] Rayburn, M., & Rayburn, L. (1996). Relationship between Machiavellianism and Type A Personality and Ethical Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1209-1219.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00412819
[9] Shi, X. (2006). Towards a Cultural Turn in Discourse Analysis: Reasons, Objectives and Strategies for Constructing a Chinese Discourse Studies Paradigm. Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 38, 135-138.
[10] Sima, Q. (2004). Record of History. Changsha: Yuelu Publishing House.
[11] Singer, M., & Patten, P. (2006). Guidelines for Communication: The Right Tool for Preparing Great Speeches (p. 112). North Muskegon, MI: Punim.
[12] Van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Comments on Context and Conversation. In N. Fairclough, G. Cortese, & P. Ardizzone (Eds.), Discourse and Contemporary Social Change (pp. 290-295). Bern: Peter Lang.
[13] Weber, M. (2006). Economy and Society (I) (Tr. into Chinese by Lin Yuanrong, p. 81). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[14] Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1, 33). London: Sage.
[15] Zhou, R. J. (2009). Incising the Connection with “Special Interest Groups”. Manager, 23, 18-19.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.