By Van Jackson
There are some real problems with discourse analysis of this ilk.
I’ve noticed a pattern of analysts and scholars who, being either sympathetic to Chinese government views or critical of U.S. Asia policy, point to an “anti-China” discourse in U.S. scholarly and policymaking circles. These discourse analyzers express concern that the United States is provoking China and, at the most logical extreme, threatening regional stability. Their concerns are mostly misplaced. Blaming U.S. discourse for Chinese assertiveness would be amusing were it not irresponsible; it alleviates China of any accountability for its own actions.
To the extent that there’s an “anti-China” discourse in U.S. circles, its roots are not inherently with hawkish propensities of U.S. policymakers but with regional and U.S. perceptions of Chinese word and deed.
In a recent Diplomat piece, Dingding Chen repeated an occasionally heard argument that U.S. discourse about China is worrying, not because it reflects an aggressive China, but because it reflects a potentially aggressive or reckless U.S. policy establishment; this is the subtext of such arguments. In 2013 Alastair Iain Johnston offered a similarly themed analysis (PDF), claiming there was an “assertive China” meme in U.S. discourse, and that it was not connected to any particularly assertive change in Chinese behavior. Indeed, a large body of work of uneven quality has tried to frame any friction in Sino-U.S. relations as the onus of the United States, declaring the latter should, among other things, stop reconnaissance mission in international waters and not deploy ballistic missile defense to protect allies.
The logical error made by discourse analysis of this ilk is not in pointing out that some in the United States routinely express concern about Chinese behavior; this is accurate. But it does not necessarily follow that because an “anti-China” discourse exists in the United States that either U.S. perceptions are unfounded, or that U.S. behavior is to blame for Chinese behavior. Both of these logical leaps require scrutinizing not primarily U.S. behavior and perceptions, but dyadic behavior and regional perceptions.
Read the full story at The Diplomat