Categories of Hegemonic Discourse in Contemporary China

Xinfa Yuan¹, Jiuquan Han²

¹Foreign Language Department, Baoding University, Baoding, China.
²College of Foreign Language, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding, China.

DOI: 10.4236/aasoci.2015.54012                

Abstract

Following the principles of rhetorical political approach and discourse-historic approach, this paper discusses the categories 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. And it is concluded that the collusion between corrupted officials, pirate businessmen and their patronized scholars is getting more and more solid and prominent. Therefore more hegemonic discourses would appear until an end is put by the practice of ruling the nation by law.

Keywords

Implicit Hegemonic Discourse, Rhetorical Political Approach, Categories, Contemporary China

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bullock, A., & Trombley, S. (1999). The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (3rd ed., pp. 387-388). London: Harper Collins.
[2]	Chernow, B. A., & Vallasi, G. A. (Eds.) (1994). The Columbia Encyclopedia (5th ed., p. 1215). New York: Columbia University Press.
[3]	Fang, Z. Z. (2010). Faking Credential Gate of Tang Jun, a Hit Work Emperor. http://news.163.com/special/00014IRA/tangjunzaojiamen.html
[4]	Finlayson, A. (2007). From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political Analysis. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9, 545-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2007.00269.x
[5]	Glynos, J., Howarth, D. et al. (2009). Discourse Analysis: Varieties and Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/796/1/discourse_analysis_NCRM_014.pdf
[6]	Gottweis, H. (2006). Rhetoric in Policy Making: Between Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. In F. Fischer (Ed.), Handbook of Public Policy (p. 243). London: Taylor and Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420017007.ch17
[7]	Hua, J. Y. (2010). Yu Jinyong’s Claiming for Making a Lawsuit. China New Express Daily, 4 August.
[8]	Jiao, L. K. (2011). The Monopoly of “Liang Tong Oil” Elbowing out Private Distributors. Beijing Evening News, 24 October.
[9]	Liu, R. W. (2010). Creating Conditions to Eliminate Death Penalty for Those Corruption Criminals. Economic Information Daily, 21 September.
[10]	Pinuel, J. L., & Gaitán, J. A. (2010). Study of the Hegemonic Discourse about Truth and Communication in the Media’s Self-Referential Information, Based on the Analysis of the Spanish Press. http://www.revistalatinacs.org/10/art3/920_Complutense/42_PinuelEN.html
[11]	Shen, W. Q. (2010). That He Can Cheat All the People Succeeds. New Beijing Daily, 13 July.
[12]	Sun, L. Z. (2010). Administrative Accountability in the Form of Praise and Honor. Xinhua Daily Telegraph, 23 October.
[13]	Wang, Y. C. (2011). The Rupture between the Official and Civilian Discourses Observed from a Government’s Brutal Microblogs. http://views.ce.cn/view/ent/201105/17/t20110517_22424288.shtm
[14]	Xiao, Z. X. (2012). Mindset of Ship Abandonment Suffusing China from the Lower to the Upper. The Economic Observer Newspaper, 12 February.