The Operational System of Western Discourse Hegemony in the Digital Age and China’s Response

Against the backdrop of deepening economic globalization and the restructuring of the international communication landscape by digital technology, international discourse power, as a significant manifestation of national strength, has increasingly become a strategic focus for all countries. In the process of accelerating the construction of a Chinese discourse and narrative system to form an international discourse power commensurate with China’s comprehensive national strength and international status, there exists a conspicuous anomaly in the current international discourse dissemination pattern of the digital age: it is the Western hegemonic countries, which uphold capital as the foundation, compel other nations to submit to the hegemonic system in the global expansion of capital, and produce “disaster capitalism,” that nonetheless manage to master the dominant international discourse through so-called “universal value” narratives, thereby using international public opinion to serve their hegemonic will. Meanwhile, the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which aims to overcome the paradox of capital expansion on a global scale and pursue justice in economic and social development both domestically and internationally, often encounters the difficulty of having its arguments unheard or, if heard, not disseminated. Consequently, after successfully resolving the historic problems of “being beaten” and “going hungry” and breaking the myth that “modernization equals Westernization,” China still faces the embarrassing predicament of “being scolded” in the international public opinion arena. This is arguably the most baffling anomaly in the contemporary international discourse dissemination landscape. In response, contemporary Marxists urgently need to systematically analyze the manifestations and essence of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age, deeply explore its inherent operational system, and then seek effective solutions to dismantle it.

在经济全球化深入推进与数字技术重构国际传播格局的背景下，作为国家实力重要展现的国际话语权愈发成为各国关注的战略焦点。在加快构建中国话语和中国叙事体系以形成同我国综合国力和国际地位相匹配的国际话语权的进程中，在当今数字时代的国际话语传播格局中存在着明显怪象：明明是奉行以资本为本，且在资本全球扩张中迫使他国依附霸权体系并导致“灾难资本主义”的西方霸权国家，却能凭借所谓的“普世价值”叙事掌握国际话语主导权，进而通过国际舆论去服务其霸权意志；而明明是旨在全球范围内克服资本扩张悖论，追求本国乃至全球经济社会发展正义的中国特色社会主义实践，很多时候却遭遇着有理说不出，或者说了传不开的难题，以至于中国在成功解决了“挨打”“挨饿”的历史性难题并成功打破了“现代化=西方化”的迷思后，居然还在国际舆论场中面临着“挨骂”的尴尬境遇，这堪称当代国际话语传播格局中最匪夷所思的怪象。对此，当代马克思主义者亟须在系统剖析数字时代西方话语霸权表现样态及其本质的基础上，深入探析其内在的运行体系，进而探寻破解数字时代西方话语霸权的有效方案。

I. Manifestations and Essence of Western Discourse Hegemony in the Digital Age

一、数字时代西方话语霸权的表现样态及本质

Discourse hegemony, as a core component of Western hegemony, provides crucial narrative support for the West’s dominant position in global political, economic, and cultural fields. With the rapid iteration of digital technology and the global deployment of digital infrastructure, Western discourse hegemony, building on its original operational logic, has gradually transformed digital technology into a core supporting tool for its discursive dominance. Western discourse hegemony in the digital age has broken through the single manifestation of traditional discourse manipulation, evolving into a four-dimensional manifestation pattern: domain generalization, technological reinforcement, audience sinking, and multi-dimensional collusion. This profound transformation in its manifestation pattern has directly propelled an unprecedented increase in the radius of influence and control efficacy of Western discourse hegemony. From the intersecting perspective of political economy and global communication theory, Western discourse hegemony in the digital age is by no means an accidental product of the natural evolution of digital technology, but rather a composite manifestation of the logic of capital’s global expansion and the demands of Western ideological export in the digital era.

话语霸权作为西方霸权的核心构成要素，为西方在全球政治、经济与文化等领域的主导地位提供了关键的叙事支撑。伴随着数字技术的迅猛迭代与数字基础设施的全域铺开，西方话语霸权在原有运行逻辑的基础上，逐步将数字技术转化为其话语霸权的核心支撑工具。数字时代的西方话语霸权突破了传统话语操控的单一表现样态，逐渐衍化为领域泛化、技术加持、受众下沉、多维合谋的四维表现样态。这种表现样态的深度转型，直接推动西方话语霸权的影响半径与操控效能得到空前提升。从政治经济学与全球传播理论的交叉视角切入，数字时代的西方话语霸权绝非数字技术自然演进的偶然产物，而是资本全球扩张逻辑与西方意识形态输出诉求在数字时代的复合呈现。

1. Domain Generalization: Systemic Expansion from Political Discourse to Global Digital Discourse

1.领域泛化：由政治话语向全域数字话语的体系扩张

The domain generalization of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age is the core evolutionary path through which it relies on digital technology to break through traditional discursive boundaries and maintain the hegemonic order. The essence of this evolution is reflected in the systematic expansion and deep penetration of Western discursive infiltration from the traditional single political domain to non-traditional security domains such as economy, ecology, and technology. After World War II, the West, with “liberal democracy” ideology as its core, constructed a discursive framework of the “end of history” and implemented one-dimensional institutional export to regions such as Latin America and Africa through international financial institutions and transnational media. However, this type of institutional export did not achieve the expected governance effects. Instead, after events like the “Arab Spring,” it triggered governance failures in some regions, such as political fragmentation and disorder in governance systems, profoundly exposing the inherent tension between its discursive framework and the actual needs of governance.

数字时代西方话语霸权的领域泛化，是其依托数字技术突破传统话语边界，维系霸权秩序的核心演进路径。这一演进的本质，体现为西方话语渗透从传统的单一政治领域，向经济、生态、技术等非传统安全领域的系统性拓展与深度蔓延。第二次世界大战后，西方以“自由民主”意识形态为内核，构建起“历史终结论”的话语框架，并借助国际金融机构、跨国媒体等对拉美、非洲等地区实施单维度的制度输出。然而，这类制度输出并未实现预期的治理效果，反而在“阿拉伯之春”等事件后，引发了部分地区政权碎片化、治理体系失序等治理失效问题，深刻暴露出其话语框架与现实治理需求的内在张力。

More importantly, facing the dual trend of the sustained decline in the global credibility of Western political discourse and the steady rise in international recognition of the Chinese path, Western hegemonic countries have begun to accelerate the process of domain expansion of discourse hegemony in the digital age. Their core demand is to maintain their advantageous position in the global governance system by reconstructing the discursive rules of global digital space. First, in the political domain, Western hegemonic countries use digital social platforms as a vehicle to package ideological discourses such as “liberal democracy” as “digital universal values.” Then, leveraging the targeted push mechanisms of algorithmic technology, they continuously disseminate discursive content such as the “end of history” and “democratic standards” into global digital space. In the discursive construction concerning non-Western political systems, Western hegemonic countries deliberately amplify the local governance difficulties of these countries and simplistically attribute them to systemic deficiencies. At the same time, they deliberately conceal their own structural contradictions, such as political polarization and social fragmentation, ultimately constructing a double standard of discourse in global digital space. Second, in the economic domain, Western hegemonic countries frequently use digitalized discourses such as “currency manipulation” and “overcapacity” as core tools, exerting public opinion pressure on the industrial policies and monetary systems of non-Western economies through methods like digital media agenda-setting and data reports from transnational think tanks. This phenomenon precisely confirms the assertion that the discourse of media imperialism often flows back and transforms into a relationship of economic domination, and it further reveals the deep entanglement between Western discourse hegemony and economic hegemony in the digital age. Third, in the ecological domain, Western hegemonic countries rely on digital carriers such as digital environmental monitoring platforms and virtual ecological exhibition halls to implement double standards in ecological discourse. On the one hand, using digital technical means such as satellite remote sensing data and digital model simulations, they selectively amplify the environmental problems in the industrialization process of non-Western countries and continuously fabricate and disseminate in digital space arguments such as “industrialization destroys the environment” and “resource consumption threatens global ecology” targeting non-Western countries. On the other hand, they deliberately evade their historical responsibility for carbon emissions accumulated since the Industrial Revolution. On this basis, these countries then use digital visualization technology to beautify the ecological governance achievements of the West, ultimately alienating ecological discourse into a digital tool to limit the industrialization process of non-Western countries.

更为重要的是，面对西方政治话语的全球公信力持续衰减和中国道路的国际认同度稳步提升的双重态势，西方霸权国家已经开始加快数字时代话语霸权的领域扩张进程。其核心诉求在于通过重构全球数字空间的话语规则，维系其在全球治理体系中的优势地位。一是在政治领域，西方霸权国家以数字社交平台为载体，将“自由民主”等意识形态话语包装为“数字普世价值”,再借助算法技术的定向推送机制，持续地向全球数字空间推送“历史终结论”“民主标准论”等话语内容。在涉及非西方政体的话语建构中，西方霸权国家刻意放大这些国家的局部治理困境，并将其简单地归因于制度性缺陷。与此同时，西方霸权国家又刻意遮蔽自身存在的政治极化、社会分裂等结构性矛盾，最终在全球数字空间中构建起双重话语标准。二是在经济领域，西方霸权国家频繁地以“汇率操纵论”“产能过剩论”等数字化话语为核心工具，通过数字媒体议程设置、跨国智库数据报告等方式，对非西方经济体产业政策与货币制度施加舆论压力。这一现象，恰恰印证了媒介帝国主义的话语经常回流而转成一种经济支配的关系的论断，也更加呈现出数字时代西方话语霸权与经济霸权的深度勾连。三是在生态领域，西方霸权国家依托数字环境监测平台、虚拟生态展厅等数字载体，推行生态话语的双重标准。一方面，西方霸权国家借助卫星遥感数据、数字模型推演等数字技术手段，选择性地放大非西方国家工业化进程中的环境问题，并在数字空间中持续炮制、扩散针对非西方国家的“工业化破坏环境”“资源消耗威胁全球生态”等论调；另一方面，西方霸权国家却又刻意回避其自工业革命以来累积的碳排放历史责任。在此基础上，这些国家再通过数字可视化技术美化西方的生态治理成效，最终将生态话语异化为限制非西方国家工业化发展进程的数字工具。

In summary, the domain generalization of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age is a systemic process rooted in the traditional political domain and expanding deeply into non-traditional security domains such as economy and ecology. Its core logic is to utilize the technical characteristic of digital media for cross-domain dissemination and, through multi-domain discursive coordination, enhance the penetrative power and influence of its discourse hegemony.

总之，数字时代西方话语霸权的领域泛化是以传统政治领域为根基，进而向经济、生态等非传统安全领域纵深拓展的系统性进程，其核心逻辑是利用数字媒介跨域传播的技术特性，并通过多领域的话语协同，增强其话语霸权的渗透力和影响力。

2. Technological Reinforcement: Strategic Upgrade from Linguistic Rhetoric to Digital Governance Models

2.技术加持：由语言修辞向数字治理模型的策略升级

In terms of technological reinforcement, the construction logic of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age has shifted from a paradigm dominated by traditional linguistic rhetoric to a dual-track paradigm combining linguistic rhetoric and digital governance models. The key driving force behind this transformation is that digital technology provides a “scientific” camouflage carrier for Western discourse hegemony, enabling it to use the apparent objectivity of technical tools to continuously enhance the concealment and persuasiveness of discursive manipulation, thereby evading scrutiny of its ideological essence by non-Western groups.

在技术加持方面，数字时代西方话语霸权的建构逻辑从传统的语言修辞主导范式，转向了语言修辞和数字治理模型双轨并行的范式。这一转型的关键动因在于，数字技术为西方话语霸权提供了“科学性”伪装载体，使其能借由技术工具的客观性表象，不断强化话语操控的隐蔽性与说服力，从而规避非西方群体对其意识形态本质的审视。

At the level of constructing digital governance models, Western hegemonic countries rely on the synergy of big data collection technology and algorithmic analysis capabilities to standardize and quantitatively translate political concepts such as “democracy,” “freedom,” and “governance effectiveness,” transforming them into quantifiable and rankable indicator data, forming digital discourse output tools with “index products” as the core carrier. This operation, based on Robert Dahl’s “seven criteria for measuring democracy,” has spawned evaluation tools such as the “Freedom House” index and “Polity IV.” Although these indices are externally packaged with multi-dimensional variables and complex algorithmic models to create an appearance of objectivity and science, their essence is to embed the core values of Western hegemonic countries into the underlying logic of indicator weight allocation and data screening. In the indicator setting stage, this is reflected in prioritizing evaluation dimensions that align with Western institutional models and value orientations; in the data processing stage, it is reflected in the selective screening and differentiated processing of data on the practical effectiveness of non-Western countries and regions. Its essence is to serve the instrumental construction of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age.

在数字治理模型构建层面，西方霸权国家依托大数据采集技术与算法分析能力的协同，对“民主”“自由”“治理效能”等政治概念进行标准化界定和量化转译，将其转化为可评分、可排名的指标化数据，形成以“指数产品”为核心载体的数字话语输出工具。这种操作以罗伯特·达尔的“衡量民主七要素”为理论基础，衍生出“自由之家”指数、“政体四”等评价工具。这些指数虽以多维度变量、复杂算法模型为外在包装，营造出客观科学的表象，但其本质是将西方霸权国家的核心价值嵌入指标权重分配与数据筛选的底层逻辑。在指标设定环节，体现为优先纳入契合西方制度模式与价值取向的评价维度；在数据处理环节，则体现为对非西方国家和地区的实践成效数据进行选择性筛选和差异化处理，其本质是服务于数字时代西方话语霸权的工具化建构。

Taking global governance indicators as an example, although they construct a comprehensive assessment framework around core governance dimensions, their underlying design and indicator logic have never escaped the ideological projection of the Western governance perspective. Taking the evaluation of digital democracy-related indices as another example, China’s practical achievements in the fields of democratic rule-of-law construction and social governance are systematically underestimated, while some countries that fell into governance disorder after the “Arab Spring” receive higher scores merely because their institutional forms conform to Western standards. This significant divergence between evaluation results and actual governance effectiveness profoundly confirms that “the gradual capitalization process of the media industry is closely related to the development of the capitalist economic system and social system.” [6]6 The author cites a source here; the original Chinese text does not provide the specific reference. Looking further, this type of technical discourse production has a dual obscuring effect. On the one hand, Western hegemonic states take their own governance perspective as the sole reference, defining governance practices that conform to their model as “excellent,” while deliberately devaluing governance innovations on non-Western paths through technical means such as indicator weight tilting and data interpretation bias, thereby forming a global discourse trap of “path exclusivity.” On the other hand, Western hegemonic states exploit the technical barriers of vast databases and complex algorithms to conceal the inherent value bias of the evaluation system. This practice packages the Western-centric cognitive framework as an “objective standard” in digital space, and the result will inevitably make it difficult for non-Western groups to perceive the essence of its discourse manipulation.

以全球治理指标为例， 它虽然围绕核心治理维度构建了综合评估框架，但其底层设计与指标逻辑始终没有脱离西方治理观的意识形态投射。再以数字民主相关指数评价为例，中国在民主法治建设与社会治理领域的实践成效被系统性低估，而部分在“阿拉伯之春”后陷入治理失序的国家，仅因制度形式契合西方标准便获得较高评分。这种评价结果与实际治理效能的显著背离，深刻印证了“媒介产业渐进资本化进程与资本主义经济体系和社会制度的发展密切相关”。更进一步看，这类技术化话语生产具有双重遮蔽性。一方面，西方霸权国家以其自身治理观为唯一参照，将契合其模式的治理实践定义为“优异”,而对非西方路径的治理创新，则通过指标权重倾斜、数据解读偏差等技术手段进行刻意贬低，从而形成“路径排他性”的全球话语陷阱。另一方面，西方霸权国家借助庞大数据库与复杂算法的技术壁垒，掩盖了评价体系的内在价值偏向。这种做法使西方中心主义的认知框架被包装为数字空间中的“客观标准”,其结果必将导致非西方群体难以察觉其话语操控的本质。

In summary, with the deep empowerment of digital technology, the core logic of Western discourse penetration in the digital age is manifested as using technical “instrumental rationality” to conceal the “value rationality” of capitalist ideology. Its fundamental intention is to accelerate the shift of Western discourse manipulation from traditional “explicit persuasion” to “implicit domestication.” When non-Western groups come into contact with technical discourses such as digital indices and mathematical models, they easily fall into the illusion of “scientific cognition.” Within this illusion, they unconsciously accept Western values, thereby providing implicit support for the penetration of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age.

综上所述，在数字技术的深度加持下，数字时代西方话语渗透的核心逻辑体现为，以技术层面的“工具理性”掩盖资本主义意识形态的“价值理性”。其根本意图在于加速西方话语操控从传统的“显性说服”转向“隐性驯化”的进程。当非西方群体接触数字指数、数理模型等技术化话语时，就极易陷入“科学认知”的错觉。而在这种错觉中，他们会不知不觉地接受西方价值观，进而为数字时代西方话语霸权的渗透提供隐性支撑。

3. Audience Sinking: Full-Chain Digital Penetration from Elite Circles to Mass Groups

3.受众下沉：由精英圈层向大众群体的全链数字渗透

The sinking of the audience of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age is an inevitable result of digital technology breaking traditional communication boundaries. The core of this phenomenon lies in the systematic extension of Western discourse penetration strategies from elite circles to mass groups, which is essentially a strategic adjustment of the logic of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age to adapt to changes in the communication ecology. Specifically, the characteristics of “low-threshold access and high-interactivity communication” possessed by digital technology provide technical support for Western hegemonic states to break through traditional penetration boundaries. In this context, Western hegemonic states, using various digital communication tools, shift the focus of discourse penetration toward mass groups, with the core intention of constructing a full-chain control system of “cognitive deconstruction—value implantation—behavioral incitement,” ultimately achieving deep influence over mass groups from ideological cognition to behavioral choice, thereby achieving full-chain, wide-coverage discourse penetration effects.

数字时代西方话语霸权的受众下沉，是数字技术打破传统传播边界后的必然结果。这一现象的核心在于，西方话语渗透策略从精英圈层向大众群体的系统性延伸，本质上是数字时代西方话语霸权逻辑适配传播生态变革的策略调整。具体而言，数字技术所具备的“低门槛接入、高互动传播”特性，为西方霸权国家突破传统渗透边界提供了技术支撑。在此背景下，西方霸权国家借助各类数字传播工具，将话语渗透重心转向大众群体，其核心意图在于构建“认知解构—价值植入—行为煽动”的全链条操控体系，最终实现对大众群体从思想认知到行为选择的深度影响，进而达成全链条、广覆盖的话语渗透效果。

At the level of cognitive deconstruction, Western hegemonic states use network proxy tools and anonymous accounts to target the cognitive blind spots of the masses, deliberately creating and widely disseminating false information such as “historical secrets” and “institutional scandals.” This operation often begins by distorting historical facts through digital means such as fabricating plots and piecing together historical materials, then relies on algorithm-driven precision targeting to form closed communication circles, continuously solidifying the cognitive biases of the masses, with the aim of fundamentally dissolving the historical legitimacy and institutional legality of non-Western societies.

在认知解构层面，西方霸权国家通过网络代理工具与匿名账号瞄准大众认知盲点，刻意制造并广泛传播“历史秘闻”“制度黑料”等虚假信息。这种操作，起先往往是通过虚构情节、拼凑史料等数字手段扭曲历史事实，然后依托算法精准推送形成封闭的传播圈层，不断固化大众的认知偏差，其目的在于从根本上消解非西方社会的历史合理性与制度合法性。

At the level of value implantation, Western hegemonic states attempt to continue the global rule of imperialism economically and politically in a covert but more deceptive manner. [7]7 This sentence echoes the critique of cultural imperialism found in post-colonial and dependency theories, particularly the idea that economic and political domination is sustained through cultural means. The core path is to embed Western values such as individualism and consumerism into various digital cultural products, attempting to achieve value domestication of the masses through the implicit dissemination of digital platforms. This is specifically manifested in digital games, where Western hegemonic states use plot settings to weaken the value of collective cooperation and deliberately strengthen the narrative orientation of “individual heroism”; on short video platforms, Western hegemonic states take “display of Western lifestyles” as core content, relying on algorithm-driven precision targeting to enhance the masses’ psychological identification with consumerism. In the process of digital entertainment consumption, audiences often unconsciously accept Western values, thereby gradually weakening their identification with and adherence to local value systems.

在价值植入层面，西方霸权国家妄图以一种隐蔽的但更具欺骗性的方式延续帝国主义在经济上和政治上的全球统治。其核心路径是将个人主义、消费主义等西方价值观嵌入各类数字文化产品，试图通过数字平台的隐性传播实现对大众的价值驯化。具体表现为，在数字游戏中，西方霸权国家借助剧情设定弱化集体协作价值，刻意强化“个人英雄主义”的叙事导向；在短视频平台，西方霸权国家以“西方生活方式展示”为核心内容，依托算法的精准推送增强大众对消费主义的心理认同。受众在数字娱乐消费的过程中，往往会在无意识状态下接受西方价值观，进而逐步弱化对本土价值体系的认同与坚守。

At the level of behavioral incitement, Western hegemonic states exploit the interactivity and transmissibility of digital social platforms, using extreme digital metaphors such as “institutional walls” and “rights deprivation” to continuously stigmatize, smear, and defame non-Western development models. At the same time, Western hegemonic states use means such as creating digital topics, manipulating trending lists, and coordinating bot accounts to deliberately incite confrontational emotions among youth groups in digital space, and secretly transmit offline action instructions through encrypted social software, promoting the transformation of “digital discourse” into “real-world action,” attempting to use digital mass power to shake the stable foundations of non-Western societies.

在行为煽动层面，西方霸权国家利用数字社交平台的互动性与传播性，通过“制度围墙”“权利剥夺”等极端数字隐喻，对非西方发展模式进行持续的污名抹黑与诽谤。同时，西方霸权国家借助数字话题制造、热搜榜单操控、水军账号联动等手段，在数字空间中刻意煽动青年群体的对立情绪，并通过加密社交软件秘密传递线下行动指令，推动“数字话语”向“现实行动”的转化，企图借助数字大众力量动摇非西方社会的稳定根基。

The above three elements are interlinked, forming a full-chain control system of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age. Its essence is that Western hegemonic states attempt to use digital technology to compete for global cultural hegemony, thereby transforming capital-dominated values into the “common-sense cognition” of the masses, thus achieving deep control over non-Western societies. This manifestation further highlights the strong penetrability and high harmfulness of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age.

上述三者环环相扣，构成了数字时代西方话语霸权的全链条操控体系。其本质是西方霸权国家试图借助数字技术争夺全球文化霸权，进而将资本主导的价值观转化为大众的“常识性认知”,从而达成对非西方社会的深度操控。这一表现样态进一步凸显了数字时代西方话语霸权的强渗透性与高危害性。

4. Multidimensional Collusion: From Government-Led to Covert Operations of Diverse Digital Actors

4.多维合谋：由政府主导向多元数字主体的共谋运作

The construction of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age has broken through the single-actor-led model, forming a digital collusion system with deep linkage among governments, academia, social organizations, and transnational tech capital.

数字时代西方话语霸权的建构，已经突破了单一主体主导模式，形成政府、学术界、社会组织与跨国科技资本深度联动的数字共谋体系。

At the government level in the digital age, the governments of Western hegemonic states are the core leaders and behind-the-scenes drivers of discourse hegemony construction, providing the foundation for the coordination of diverse actors. From the perspective of U.S. strategic practice, its *National Cyber Strategy*, released by the Department of Defense in 2018, was the first comprehensive national-level cyber strategy document in 15 years. [8]8 The U.S. *National Cyber Strategy* of 2018 was the first comprehensive cyber strategy released since the *Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative* in 2008, emphasizing an “America First” approach to cyberspace. This strategy lists maintaining the absolute leadership of the United States in the digital domain and promoting Western digital values globally as core objectives, constructing a comprehensive system for competing for dominance in cyberspace, highlighting the U.S. systematic layout for hegemony in the digital domain. The European Union, with its “Digital Europe Programme” as the core lever, advances its digital hegemony agenda. This program is the EU’s core funding project for digital transformation, focusing on key digital areas such as high-performance computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and semiconductors. The EU’s *“Digital Europe Programme” 2025–2027 Work Programme*, released in 2025, further refines the strategic path, explicitly binding the “digital sovereignty” agenda with the export of Western values. Through institutionalized measures such as formulating unified digital communication standards conforming to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) norms, funding multilingual digital content production, and building European data spaces, it forms a governance system that synergistically advances technological deployment and value penetration, thereby systematically promoting the global diffusion of Western digital governance concepts and technical standards. [9]9 The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a comprehensive EU data privacy regulation that came into effect in 2018, often seen as a model for digital governance that also serves as a tool for projecting European regulatory standards globally. This top-level design not only delineates the core issues and action boundaries for discourse practice by academia, social organizations, and tech capital but also ensures that the actions of diverse actors serve the overall hegemonic demands of Western states.

在数字时代的政府层面，西方霸权国家的政府是话语霸权建构的核心主导者与幕后推动者，为多元主体的协同提供了基础。从美国的战略实践来看，其2018年由国防部发布的《国家网络战略》,是时隔15年推出的首份完整的国家层面的网络战略文件。该战略将维护美国在数字领域的绝对领导地位、向全球推广西方数字价值观列为核心目标，构建起全方位的网络空间主导权争夺体系，凸显美国对数字领域霸权的系统性布局。欧盟则以“数字欧洲计划”为核心抓手推进其数字霸权议程，该计划是欧盟数字化转型的核心资助项目，重点聚焦高性能计算、人工智能、网络安全、半导体等关键数字领域。2025年欧盟发布的《“数字欧洲计划”2025—2027年工作计划》进一步细化了战略路径，明确将“数字主权”议程与西方价值输出深度绑定，通过制定契合《一般数据保护条例》(GDPR)规范的统一数字传播标准、资助多语言数字内容生产、搭建欧洲数据空间等制度化举措，形成了技术布局与价值渗透协同推进的治理体系，从而系统性推动西方数字治理理念与技术标准的全球扩散。这种顶层设计不仅为学术界、社会组织与科技资本划定了话语实践的核心议题与行动边界，而且能够确保多元主体行为服务于西方国家整体霸权诉求。

At the academic level in the digital age, Western academia exhibits a significant discourse bias, forming an academic screening mechanism that serves its hegemonic logic. For example, critical research on neoliberal digital expansion is marginalized for deviating from mainstream Western discourse positions; such findings not only struggle to enter core digital academic journals like the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) but even encounter traffic throttling and dissemination suppression on digital academic forums. Conversely, research that caters to Western hegemonic logic can be widely disseminated through channels such as digital academic platforms and transnational think tank reports, thereby forming a “virtuous” cycle of “academic discourse output—digital platform diffusion—hegemonic logic reinforcement.”

在数字时代的学术领域中，西方学术界呈现出显著的话语偏向，形成了服务于其霸权逻辑的学术筛选机制。例如，针对新自由主义数字扩张的批判性研究，因背离西方主流话语立场而被边缘化，相关成果不仅难以进入社会科学引文索引(SSCI)等核心数字学术期刊，甚至在数字学术论坛中遭遇限流与传播压制；而反观那些迎合西方霸权逻辑的研究，则能通过数字学术平台、跨国智库报告等渠道得到广泛传播，进而形成“学术话语产出—数字平台扩散—霸权逻辑强化”的“正向”循环。

At the level of social organization in the digital age, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of Western hegemonic states often use “digital public welfare” and “technological empowerment” as discursive cover, relying on global digital communication platforms to carry out covert discursive infiltration. On the one hand, through institutionalized measures such as funding non-Western local digital NGOs and hosting transnational digital governance forums, they package and disseminate Western-dominated digital governance standards as “universal,” constructing an exclusionary discursive consensus. On the other hand, some Western social organizations use technical evaluation tools such as the Digital Rights Index and the Digital Freedom Index to rank and pressure non-Western countries’ digital governance practices. Once a non-Western economy deviates from their preset standards, the social organizations of Western hegemonic states will coordinate with digital media to launch public opinion attacks, forming a complete chain of “social organization standard export → digital index pressure → media opinion criticism.” In this way, “mass communication has now become a pillar of the emerging American empire. ‘Made in the USA’ messages spread globally, functioning as the nerve center of American state power and expansionism.” [10]10 Herbert I. Schiller, *Mass Communications and American Empire*, 2nd ed. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), p. 1.

在数字时代的社会组织层面，西方霸权国家的非政府组织常以“数字公益”“技术赋能”为话语遮蔽，依托全球数字传播平台实施隐蔽的话语渗透。一方面，通过资助非西方本土数字非政府组织、举办跨国数字治理论坛等制度化举措，将西方主导的数字治理标准进行“普世化”的包装与传播，构建起具有排他性的话语共识；另一方面，部分西方社会组织依托数字人权指数、数字自由指数等技术化评价工具，对非西方国家的数字治理实践进行排名施压。一旦非西方经济体偏离其预设标准，西方霸权国家的社会组织便会联动数字媒体发起舆论攻击，形成“社会组织标准输出—数字指数施压—媒体舆论批判”的完整链条。如此一来，“大众传播目前已经成为正在浮现的美帝国的支柱。‘美国制造’的讯息在全球传播，发挥着作为美国国家权力以及扩张主义的神经中枢的作用”。

At the level of transnational tech capital, tech giants such as Apple, Google, and Meta have formed deep digital synergy with the governments of Western hegemonic states. By opening user digital behavior data interfaces to governments and sharing algorithmic analysis resources, these tech giants help Western hegemonic states precisely assess the cognitive characteristics and acceptance preferences of non-Western audiences. This synergy between state power and capital technology greatly enhances the targeting and efficiency of Western discursive manipulation, and has become an important technical support for Western hegemonic states to expand their discursive hegemony in the digital age. In addition, mainstream digital media in Western hegemonic states create cognitive bias through means such as selectively presenting facts and reconstructing digital narratives. Meanwhile, research data from academic institutions, index reports from social organizations, and platform algorithms from tech capital form resource interconnections, further strengthening the systemic nature and penetrative power of the digital discursive conspiracy, ultimately creating an unbreakable “digital closed loop” for Western discursive hegemony in the digital age. The essence of this multi-dimensional collusion is the concrete expression of power concentration in the discursive field in the digital age, whose core purpose is to suppress the dissemination of non-Western discourse through full-dimensional control of the network, thereby maintaining the West’s dominant position in the global order.

在跨国科技资本层面，苹果、谷歌、Meta等科技巨头与西方霸权国家的政府形成深度数字协同。这些科技巨头通过向政府开放用户数字行为数据接口、共享算法分析资源等方式，助力西方霸权国家精准研判非西方受众的认知特征与接受偏好。这种国家权力与资本技术的协同合作，大幅度提升了西方话语操控的针对性与效率，更成为西方霸权国家在数字时代实行话语霸权扩张的重要技术支撑。此外，西方霸权国家的主流数字媒体会通过选择性呈现事实、重构数字叙事等手段制造认知偏差。而学术机构的研究数据、社会组织的指数报告与科技资本的平台算法形成资源互通，进一步强化了数字话语共谋的系统性与穿透力，最终使数字时代的西方话语霸权形成难以突破的“数字闭环”。这种多维合谋的本质，是数字时代权力集中化在话语领域的具象表达，其核心目的在于通过全维度控制网络压制非西方话语传播，进而维系西方在全球秩序中的主导地位。

Overall, the above four-dimensional structure of Western hegemonic discourse in the digital age has become a new form of Western ideological global expansion. These manifestations of hegemony are by no means the natural product of the evolution of digital technology, but rather an extension of the capitalist mode of production in the digital age. It is both an expression of capital’s need for global expansion and a concrete manifestation of the demand for Western ideological export. Its intention is to achieve control over the global cognitive domain through digital media, maintain the dominant position of Western hegemonic states in the global ideological field, and ultimately serve the ultimate demand for the infinite self-expansion of capital.

总体而言，数字时代西方话语霸权的上述四维架构，已成为西方意识形态全球扩张的新型样态。这些霸权的表现样态绝不是数字技术自然演进的产物，而是资本主义生产方式在数字时代的延伸形态。它既是资本全球扩张需求的表现，也是西方意识形态输出诉求的具象化表达，其意图在于通过数字媒介实现对全球认知领域的掌控，维系西方霸权国家在全球意识形态领域的主导地位，并最终服务于资本无限增殖的终极诉求。

II. The Operational System of Western Hegemonic Discourse in the Digital Age

二、数字时代西方话语霸权的运行体系

As a practical form of spiritual power, the right to discourse (话语权) is essentially the real influence formed by a specific group through discursive practice. In this process, the right to discourse, which carries the interests of a specific group, is generated only when the discursive content presented through material carriers gains recognition from the audience. Therefore, this process is an organic combination of soft power, hard power, and the power of recognition. Examining this logic, it can be found that the core of the operation of Western hegemonic discourse in the digital age lies in using digital technology as a link to deeply couple cultural packaging, technological monopoly, and cognitive discipline, thereby constructing a discursive operational system that serves the global expansion of capital.

作为精神权力的实践形态，话语权本质上是特定群体通过话语实践所形成的现实影响力。在这一过程中，只有当依托物质载体呈现的话语内容获得受众认同时，负载着特定群体利益的话语权才得以生成。因此，这一过程是软实力、硬实力与认同力的有机结合。依此逻辑审视，可以发现，数字时代西方话语霸权运行的核心在于以数字技术为纽带，将文化包装、技术垄断、认知规训深度耦合，进而构建起服务于资本全球扩张的话语运行体系。

1. Systematic Packaging of Social Culture: Forming a Discursive System Adapted to the Digital Age

1.社会文化的体系化包装：形成适配数字时代的话语体系

Discourse “means a process in which a social group disseminates its meanings throughout society according to certain conventions, thereby establishing its social status and being recognized by other groups.” [11]11 The original Chinese text cites this definition without a specific source; it is a paraphrase of a common understanding in discourse theory, often associated with Michel Foucault’s concept of discourse as a system of representation. In this sense, the generation of the right to discourse is essentially a dynamic process in which a specific social group, through the meaning construction of social culture, transforms its own interests into a universal social consensus, and on this basis establishes cultural leadership and social dominance. From this logic, Western hegemonic states in the digital age, with the deep empowerment of digital technology, have upgraded the presentation form of their social culture from “theoretical narrative” to “digital concretization.” This discursive transformation strategy not only provides legitimate theoretical support for the systematic operation of Western hegemonic discourse in the digital age, but also, by weakening the explicit features of ideological penetration, effectively reduces the defensive and resistant psychology of non-Western societies toward external discourse, ultimately making Western hegemonic penetration more covert and deceptive.

话语“意味着一个社会团体依据某些成规将其意义传播于社会之中，以此确立其社会地位，并为其他团体所认识的过程”。就此而言，话语权的生成本质上是特定社会群体通过社会文化的意义建构，将自身利益转化为社会普遍共识，并在此基础上确立文化领导权与社会支配地位的动态过程。从这一逻辑出发，数字时代的西方霸权国家正是借助于数字技术的深度赋能，将其社会文化的呈现形式从“理论叙事”升级为“数字具象”。这种话语转化策略，既为数字时代西方话语霸权的系统性运行奠定了合法性理论支撑，又通过弱化意识形态渗透的显性特征，有效降低了非西方社会对外部话语的防御与抵触心理，最终使西方霸权渗透更具隐蔽性和迷惑性。

First, Western hegemonic states, through the abstract packaging of “universal values” and the empowerment of digital dissemination, shape a theoretical cognition of “natural reasonableness.” From the perspective of historical materialism, whether the spiritual values of social culture meet the objective requirements of human survival and development is the fundamental prerequisite for determining the rationality and legitimacy of the right to discourse. However, Western hegemonic states in the digital age, through means such as algorithm-precise推送 (targeted推送) and the construction of digital content matrices, continuously package capitalist derivative values such as “individualism” and “freedom of contract” as a social cultural system “conforming to human nature.” The purpose of this operation is to replace Marx’s scientific thesis that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of the social relations,” [12]12 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 4. thereby providing socio-cultural theoretical support for the rationality and legitimacy of their discursive hegemony. In the process of digital dissemination, when wage labor is packaged as a market behavior of “free choice,” the alienated relationship between capital and labor is naturalized into the appearance of an “equal transaction.” And when the special logic of capital expansion is disguised as “universal values,” its exploitative nature is systematically obscured in the fog of digital discourse. Ultimately, these abstracted and absolutized value concepts not only constitute the spiritual values and theoretical foundation of Western hegemonic discourse in the digital age, but also become the ideological tool for the global expansion of capital power.

首先，西方霸权国家通过“普世价值”的抽象化包装与数字传播赋能，塑造出“天然合理”的理论认知。从历史唯物主义视角来看，社会文化的精神价值是否契合人类生存发展的客观要求，是决定话语权合理性与正当性的根本前提。然而，数字时代的西方霸权国家通过算法精准推送、数字内容矩阵构建等形式，不断将“个人主义”“契约自由”等资本主义衍生价值，包装成“符合人类本性”的社会文化体系。这样操作的目的在于取代马克思关于“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”的科学论断，从而为其话语霸权的合理性和正当性提供社会文化理论支撑。在数字传播的过程中，当雇佣劳动被包装为“自由选择”的市场行为时，资本与劳动的异化关系便被自然化为“平等交易”的表象。而当资本扩张的特殊逻辑被伪装成“普世价值”时，其剥削本质便在数字话语迷雾中被系统性地遮蔽。最终，这些被抽象化和绝对化的价值观念，既构成了数字时代西方话语霸权的精神价值和理论基石，也成为资本权力全球扩张的意识形态工具。

Second, Western hegemonic states, relying on interdisciplinary theoretical collusion and support from digital academic platforms, construct a logically self-consistent theoretical system for Western digital discursive hegemony. Whether the theoretical starting point of social culture can form a systematic and logically self-consistent theoretical system directly determines the logical rigor and explanatory stability of the right to discourse. After establishing the theoretical starting point of “natural rights,” Western hegemonic states, through interdisciplinary collusion, have constructed a theoretical system adapted to the digital age. For example, Western philosophy and social sciences use philosophical speculation to consolidate the ethical foundation of free will, rely on neoclassical economic models to demonstrate the market “Pareto optimum,” and then use social organization theory to build a framework of representative democracy, ultimately forming a closed-loop theoretical system in fields such as law and political science. Entering the digital age, Western hegemonic states further rely on digital academic platforms such as the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) to continuously reinforce core viewpoints such as “market optimality” and “representative democracy” through algorithmic recommendations. In digital platform dissemination, when economics attributes capital accumulation to the “natural result of factor endowments,” political science beautifies interest group competition as “democratic vitality,” and sociology attributes class solidification to “individual ability differences,” the original disciplinary division of labor degenerates into a discursive barrier obscuring the essence of capital. This practice of endowing capitalism with a “rational” and “scientific” appearance is precisely the ideological operation criticized by Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology*: “giving their ideas the form of universality, and representing them as the only rational, universally valid ones,” [13]13 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 60. whose core purpose is to provide solid theoretical support for Western discursive hegemony in the digital age.

其次，西方霸权国家凭借跨学科理论共谋与数字学术平台支撑，为西方数字话语霸权搭建起逻辑自洽的理论体系。社会文化的理论原点能否形成系统且逻辑自洽的理论体系，直接决定着话语权的逻辑严密性与解释稳定性。在确立“天赋人权”这一理论原点后，西方霸权国家通过跨学科共谋构建起了适配数字时代的理论体系。例如，西方哲学社会科学以哲学思辨夯实自由意志的伦理根基，借助新古典经济学模型论证市场“帕累托最优”,再依托社会组织理论搭建代议制民主框架，最终在法学、政治学等领域形成层层闭环的理论体系。进入数字时代，西方霸权国家进一步以SSCI等数字学术平台为支撑，通过算法推荐持续强化“市场最优”“代议制民主”等核心观点。在数字平台传播中，当经济学将资本积累归为“要素禀赋自然结果”、政治学将利益集团博弈美化为“民主活力”、社会学将阶层固化归因于“个人能力差异”时，原本的学科分工便沦为遮蔽资本本质的话语屏障。这种赋予资本主义“理性化”“科学性”外观的做法，正是马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中所批判的“赋予自己的思想以普遍性的形式，把它们描绘成唯一合乎理性的、有普遍意义的思想”的意识形态运作，其核心目的是为数字时代的西方话语霸权提供坚实的理论支撑。

Finally, by relying on a superficial presentation of “scientificity” and digital everyday-life dissemination, the Western hegemonic states push their own social culture toward transformation into a system of everyday discourse. For any discourse to truly take root, it must convert abstract theory into everyday expressions that audiences can perceive, accept, and transmit. Although the Western discourse transformation in the digital age superficially conforms to this universal law, its practical process conceals a carefully designed logic of manipulation, achieving a covert transition from the general laws of discourse dissemination to the special operation of hegemonic discourse. Specifically, the Western hegemonic states first subject their own culture to a “de-historicization” treatment, severing the internal connection between culture and specific social relations, and then, through digital media, carry out a “de-politicization” rhetorical construction. For example, the expression “unfair distribution of resources,” which has a clear political-economic orientation, is reconstructed as the neutralized “development gap,” and core discursive symbols such as “efficiency first” are implanted at high frequency through digital dissemination forms like short-video pushes and social-platform topic operations; in the field of historical cognition, the violent history of “colonial plunder” is beautified as “the spread of civilization,” which is then widely disseminated through carriers such as documentaries and short social-platform articles, and the narrative of “Western civilization leading development” is amplified through algorithmic recommendations. This operational link allows the theoretical propositions of the Western hegemonic states to evade the stage of rational argumentation, achieving a deep penetration from abstract theory to digital everyday discourse, and ultimately completing the everyday-life landing of hegemonic discourse.

最后，依靠“科学性”的表层呈现与数字生活化传播，西方霸权国家推动自身社会文化向日常话语体系转化。任何话语要真正落地，都必须将抽象的理论转化为受众可感知、可接受、可传播的日常表达。数字时代西方的话语转化，虽在表面上契合这一普遍规律，但其实践过程却暗藏着精心设计的操控逻辑，实现了从话语传播一般规律向话语霸权特殊运作的隐性过渡。具体来看，西方霸权国家首先对自身文化进行“去历史化”处理，切断文化与特定社会关系的内在关联，继而借助数字媒介开展“去政治化”修辞建构。例如，“资源分配不公”这一具有明确政治经济学指向的表述，被重构为中性化的“发展差距”,并通过短视频推送、社交平台话题运营等数字传播形式高频植入“效率优先”等核心话语符号；在历史认知领域，“殖民掠夺”的暴力历史被美化为“文明传播”,进而通过纪录片、社交平台短文等载体广泛传播，并借助算法推荐放大“西方文明引领发展”的叙事。这一运行环节，让西方霸权国家的理论主张规避了理性论证环节，实现了从抽象理论到数字日常话语的深度渗透，最终完成话语霸权的生活化落地。

2. Capitalist Monopoly of Dissemination Carriers: Constructing a Dissemination System Adapted to the Digital Age

2.传播载体的资本化垄断：构建适配数字时代的传播体系

The fact that today’s Western hegemonic states, led by the United States, still possess strong international discursive power is not due to the advanced nature of their systems or models, but rather because, by relying on the first-mover advantages formed in the process of global capital accumulation, they have concentratedly occupied and controlled the core carriers of international discourse dissemination, thereby establishing a digital dissemination system that suits the interests of capitalist profit-making, and further consolidating their hegemonic discourse in both the spiritual and material dimensions.

当今以美国为首的西方霸权国家仍具有强大的国际话语权，并非因其制度或模式的先进性，而是凭借其在全球资本积累中形成的先发优势，集中占有并控制着国际话语传播的核心载体，由此建立起适配资本主义利益诉求的数字传播体系，进而在精神与物质的双重维度中不断巩固其话语霸权。

First, the Western hegemonic states, by relying on their economic advantages, achieve the capitalist concentration of digital media. “The emergence and development of any science and technology cannot escape the social interests formed by the coercive reproduction of social life; Internet communication technology is no exception.” [14]14 The source of this quotation is not provided in the original text. By relying on their strong economic strength, the Western hegemonic states form a monopolistic concentration of resources in the field of digital dissemination, constructing a dual hegemony of “content supply—platform control.” At the level of content supply, as early as the 1970s, 80% of the international news adopted by media around the world was provided by the Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse. To this day, these institutions remain the main information sources for global digital news. This means that the content produced by the Western hegemonic states can achieve instantaneous global distribution through various digital platforms, thus becoming the “agenda-setters” of international public opinion. At the level of platform control, digital platforms dominated by the capital of the Western hegemonic states have formed an oligopolistic pattern. From social networks to video streaming media, the core traffic gateways are all controlled by a few Western media enterprises. This concentrated state of media carrier possession makes the channels of international discourse dissemination in the digital age firmly held in the hands of the Western hegemonic states.

首先，西方霸权国家凭借其经济优势实现数字媒介的资本化集中。“任何科学技术的产生与发展都无法摆脱社会生活在强制性再生产中形成的社会利益，互联网传播技术亦如此。”西方霸权国家凭借其雄厚的经济实力，在数字传播领域形成垄断性资源集聚，构建起“内容供给—平台控制”的双重霸权。在内容供给层面，早在20世纪70年代，世界各国媒体采用的国际新闻中，80%是由美联社、路透社、法新社提供的。时至今日，这些机构仍是全球数字新闻的主要信息源。这意味着，西方霸权国家生产的内容可以通过各类数字平台实现即时性的全球化分发，从而成为国际舆论的“议程设置者”。在平台控制层面，由西方霸权国家资本主导的数字平台形成了寡头垄断格局。从社交网络到视频流媒体，核心流量入口均被少数西方媒介企业掌控。这种媒介载体占有的集中化态势，使得数字时代国际话语传播的渠道牢牢掌握在西方霸权国家手中。

Second, the Western hegemonic states use their linguistic advantages to deeply embed themselves into digital dissemination carriers. “The Rubik’s cube of future world politics will be controlled by those who possess information power; they will use the network control and information release power in their hands, and use English, this powerful cultural and linguistic advantage, to achieve goals that violence and money cannot conquer.” [15]15 The source of this quotation is not provided in the original text. This linguistic advantage is not a purely cultural phenomenon, but an important material carrier of Western hegemonic discourse in the digital age. On the global Internet, 90% of information is presented in English, of which 80% originates from the United States. What this data reflects is the monopolistic position of English in the core links of digital carriers. For example, the underlying architectures of mainstream global dissemination platforms such as Google, Meta, and YouTube are all based on English semantic logic. This means that the Western hegemonic discourse states will prioritize the dissemination of English-language information, while non-English content must undergo secondary processing such as translation and semantic adaptation before it can be disseminated internationally. This fundamentally weakens the discursive effectiveness of non-Western countries and regions. In this way, the Western hegemonic states can easily control international digital public opinion through the binding of language and digital carriers, thereby plunging non-Western discourse into a predicament of “passive response” or even “aphasia.”

其次，西方霸权国家利用语言优势深度嵌入数字传播载体。未来世界政治的魔方将被控制在拥有信息强权的人手中，他们会使用手中掌握的网络控制权、信息发布权，用英语这种强大的文化语言优势达到暴力、金钱无法征服的目的。这种语言优势并非单纯文化现象，而是数字时代西方话语霸权的重要物质载体。在全球互联网上，90%的信息以英文呈现，其中80%的信息源自美国。这一数据所体现的是英文在数字载体核心环节的垄断地位。例如，谷歌、Meta、YouTube等全球传播主流平台底层架构均基于英文语义逻辑。这就意味着，西方话语霸权国家会优先推送英文信息，而非英文内容则须经过转译、语义适配等二次处理后才能在国际范围内传播。这就从源头上大大削弱了非西方国家和地区的话语效能。如此一来，西方霸权国家便能够通过语言与数字载体的绑定，轻松地控制国际数字舆论，进而使非西方话语陷入“被动回应”甚至“失语”的困境。

Finally, the Western hegemonic states, by relying on their generational advantages, form a monopolistic control over global digital media carriers. Although media forms have shown a certain democratic trend in the development of informatization, the power to control and manipulate media has always remained in the hands of developed capitalist countries. [16]16 The source of this claim is not provided in the original text. The core mechanism of its realization lies in the fact that the Western hegemonic states, using “technological security” as a cloak of legitimacy, confine key technologies such as digital platform architectures, AI algorithm models, and cross-border data agreements within the Western camp through “small yard, high fence” [17]17 “Small yard, high fence” (小院高墙) is a Chinese term used to describe U.S. technology containment policies that restrict the transfer of advanced technologies to China while maintaining limited cooperation in other areas. type technological barriers and exclusive groupings like the “Five Eyes Alliance” [18]18 The Five Eyes Alliance is an intelligence-sharing partnership comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. and the “Chip 4 Alliance.” [19]19 The Chip 4 Alliance is a proposed U.S.-led semiconductor supply chain cooperation framework involving Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. As a result, the widely used digital carriers in developing countries, such as Meta platforms and Google search, are deeply dependent on the technological architectures dominated by the West. This directly leads to a structural technological dependence for developing countries, the result of which is that developing countries can neither independently develop core digital carriers nor possess the capacity to participate in the iteration of cutting-edge technologies, and can only passively follow the digital dissemination framework set by the West, losing the autonomous right to disseminate digital discourse at the technological source.

最后，西方霸权国家凭借其代际优势形成对全球数字媒介载体的垄断性控制。尽管在信息化发展趋势中，媒介形态表现出了一定的民主趋势，但掌控、操纵媒介的权力始终掌握在发达资本主义国家手中。其核心实现机制在于，西方霸权国家以“技术安全”为合法性外衣，通过“小院高墙”式技术壁垒与“五眼联盟”“芯片四方联盟”等排他性集团，将数字平台架构、AI算法模型、跨境数据协议等关键技术限定于西方阵营内部。如此一来，广大发展中国家广泛使用的Meta平台、谷歌搜索等数字载体，均深度依赖西方主导的技术架构，这直接导致发展中国家陷入技术层面的结构性依赖，其所导致的结果就是发展中国家既难以自主研发核心数字载体，又缺乏参与前沿技术迭代的能力，只能被动遵循西方制定的数字传播框架，从技术源头上丧失了数字话语的自主传播权。

3. Covert Shaping of Audience Identification: Constructing an Identification System Adapted to the Digital Age

3.受众认同的隐蔽性塑造：构建适配数字时代的认同体系

Marx pointed out: “Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.” [20]20 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis II. However, the operational system of Western hegemonic discourse in the digital age precisely deprives the audience of the power to “test truth through practice” by means of digital technology. This deprivation becomes a key link in the effective operation of its hegemonic discourse system, ultimately achieving a digital manipulation of the audience’s identification system.

马克思指出：“人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，自己思维的此岸性。”然而，数字时代西方话语霸权的运作体系，恰恰是通过数字技术手段剥夺了受众用“实践检验真理”的权力。这种剥夺成为其话语霸权体系有效运行的关键一环，最终实现了对受众认同体系的数字化操控。

First, digital cognitive discipline in the field of education. Cognitive discipline in the digital age is no longer limited to traditional funding cooperation between universities and enterprises, but constructs a closed loop of “standard monopoly—path dependence” through digital academic carriers. On the one hand, the Western hegemonic states, relying on carriers such as SSCI journal digital platforms and transnational think tank databases, embed the demands of capital accumulation into the academic evaluation system. For example, in the field of digital economy research, Western academic platforms, through keyword weight settings and reviewer preference guidance, make topics that align with the logic of capital, such as “free market” and “private property rights,” more likely to gain publication advantages. Correspondingly, topics of concern to non-Western societies, such as “digital sovereignty” and “data fairness,” are marginalized. On the other hand, the world’s major academic databases (such as Web of Science, JSTOR, etc.) are all operated and dominated by Western enterprises. Non-Western scholars can only gain recognition for their achievements and opportunities for dissemination by following the digital academic norms set by the West. This means that young scholars, in the use of academic tools, will unconsciously form a path dependence on Western discourse paradigms, and their cognitive models will gradually be solidified into a mindset of “Western standards = academic correctness.”

首先，教育领域的数字认知规训。数字时代的认知规训，已经不再局限于传统高校与企业的资金合作，而是通过数字学术载体构建“标准垄断—路径依赖”的闭环。一方面，西方霸权国家依托SSCI期刊数字平台、跨国智库数据库等载体，将资本增殖诉求嵌入学术评价体系。例如，在数字经济研究领域，西方学术平台通过关键词权重设置、审稿偏好引导，使“自由市场”“私有产权”等契合资本逻辑的相关选题更容易获得发表优势。相应地，非西方社会关注的“数字主权”“数据公平”等议题则被边缘化。另一方面，全球主要的学术数据库(如Web of Science、JSTOR等)均由西方企业主导运营。非西方学者只有遵循由西方设定的数字学术规范，才能获得成果认可与传播机会。这就意味着，青年学者在学术工具的使用中，会不知不觉地形成对西方话语范式的路径依赖，那么其认知模式也会逐渐被固化为“西方标准=学术正确”的思维定式。

Second, the digital cognitive penetration of the cultural sphere. Western cultural penetration in the digital age has broken through the one-way transmission of traditional film and television media, upgrading into an immersive operational system of “digital content production – algorithmic precision targeting – virtual scenario experience.” In the realm of digital film and television (such as the *Iron Man* series), hegemonic Western states use digital special effects to reinforce core narratives of “technology saving the world” and “private capital dominating public security.” On this basis, hegemonic Western states rely on the algorithmic recommendation mechanisms of mainstream media platforms to precisely push such content to non-Western youth groups based on user profiles, thereby achieving targeted precision communication. At the same time, in virtual social scenarios, hegemonic Western states construct “model rooms of Western lifestyles” and deeply embed core Western values such as “liberalism,” “individualism,” and “consumerism” into the scenario narratives and interaction logic of virtual social interaction. This value transformation is not the one-dimensional value export of the traditional sense; rather, by relying on the strong interactivity, immersive experience, and scenario immersion unique to virtual social interaction, it greatly lowers the transmission threshold and acceptance resistance of value concepts. This enables non-Western audiences, in their daily experiences such as constructing virtual identities and interacting in social relationships, to subtly accept Western value orientations, thereby achieving the concealment and high efficiency of ideological penetration. The purpose of this penetration is not to conquer territory or control economic life, but to conquer and control people’s hearts and minds. The empowerment of digital technology makes the West’s “conquest of hearts and minds” more covert and penetrating, further strengthening the effect of Western cultural penetration.

其次，文化领域的数字认知渗透。数字时代的西方文化渗透，已经突破了传统影视媒介的单向传播，升级为“数字内容生产—算法精准推送—虚拟场景体验”的沉浸式运作体系。在数字影视领域(如《钢铁侠》系列)中，西方霸权国家通过数字特效强化“技术拯救世界”“私人资本主导公共安全”的核心叙事。在此基础上，西方霸权国家依托主流媒体平台的算法推荐机制，根据用户画像将这类内容精准推送给非西方青年群体，进而实现精准的靶向传播。与此同时，在虚拟社交场景中，西方霸权国家构建出“西方生活方式样板间”,并将“自由主义”“个人主义”“消费主义”等西方核心价值理念深度嵌入虚拟社交的场景叙事与互动逻辑。这种价值转化并非传统意义上单向度的价值输出，而是依托虚拟社交所特有的强互动性、沉浸式体验与场景代入感，极大降低了价值理念的传播门槛与接受阻力，使非西方受众在虚拟身份建构、社交关系互动等日常体验中，潜移默化地接纳西方价值导向，进而实现意识形态渗透的隐蔽化与高效化。这种渗透的目的不是征服领土和控制经济生活，而是征服和控制人们的心灵,而数字技术的赋能则让西方社会的“心灵征服”更具隐蔽性与穿透力，这进一步强化了西方文化渗透的效果。

Finally, the digital cognitive guidance of the social sphere. Audiences in the digital age often understand reality and shape their own behavior through the virtual images constructed by the media – that is, “we are told what the world looks like before we see it.” Hegemonic Western states rely on this communication law, using algorithmic push technology to implement precise and systematic manipulation of global social cognition. First, they carry out targeted cognitive screening through information cocoons. Based on analysis of user digital behavior data, hegemonic Western states precisely push digital news, short videos, and other content that conforms to the logic of capital, such as “efficient free markets” and “the superiority of private ownership,” while simultaneously adopting restrictive measures such as limiting traffic and blocking heterogeneous discourses like “digital divide” and “critique of capital monopoly,” continuously solidifying users’ cognitive biases. Second, hegemonic Western states use digital public opinion manipulation to create false consensus. On mainstream digital platforms such as X and Facebook, they amplify Western discourse through methods like “trending topic top placement” and “bot account coordination,” packaging partial opinions as a “global majority consensus.” Consequently, when non-Western audiences are situated in the algorithmic constructed pseudo-environment, they gradually default to Western capitalist discourse as “objective fact.” Thus, the logic of capital degenerates from a “systemic existence” in a specific historical stage into a “digital common sense” permeating the daily cognition of the masses, ultimately achieving deep digital manipulation of non-Western social identity systems.

最后，社会领域的数字认知引导。数字时代的受众往往通过媒体构建的虚拟图景来理解现实并塑造其自身行为，也就是“我们在看到世界之前就被告知它是什么模样”。西方霸权国家依托这一传播规律，借助算法推送技术对全球社会认知实施精准系统性操控。一是通过信息茧房开展定向的认知筛选。西方霸权国家基于用户数字行为数据分析，定向精准推送“自由市场高效”“私有制优越”等符合资本逻辑的数字新闻、短视频等内容，同时对“数字鸿沟”“资本垄断批判”等异质话语采取限流、屏蔽等压制措施，持续固化着受众的认知偏差。二是西方霸权国家借助数字民意操控制造虚假共识。在X、Facebook等主流数字平台，以“话题榜置顶”“水军账号联动”等方式放大西方话语，将局部意见包装为“全球多数共识”。由此，当非西方受众处于算法构建的拟态环境中时，他们会逐渐将西方资本主义话语默认为“客观事实”,那么，资本逻辑便从特定历史阶段的“制度存在”蜕化为渗透大众日常认知的“数字常识”,最终实现对非西方社会认同体系的深度数字化操控。

In summary, Western discourse hegemony in the digital age has formed a systematic operational system with digital technology as its core link, and its evolution has always been in resonance with the global expansion of capital. This system takes the “universal” theoretical packaging of Western interest demands as its logical premise, relies on monopolistic control of digital communication carriers, and then deeply penetrates the cognitive field of the audience through digital cognitive discipline mechanisms. The essence of this progressive operational system is a new type of carrier for ideological colonization by hegemonic Western states in the digital age. Its core purpose is to achieve control over the global cognitive domain through digital media, ultimately serving the ultimate demand for the infinite self-expansion of capital. This digital-age discourse hegemony not only consolidates the West’s hegemonic position in the global communication system but also fundamentally distorts the development cognitive framework of non-Western societies, thereby becoming a deep structural shackle that maintains the global unequal order and hinders the independent and sustainable development of developing countries. To respond to and dismantle this discourse hegemony system, China urgently needs to carry out systematic construction from dimensions such as theoretical autonomy, technological sovereignty, and communication innovation.

综上所述，数字时代的西方话语霸权已形成以数字技术为核心纽带的系统性运行体系，其演进始终与资本全球扩张同频共振。该体系以“普世性”理论包装西方利益诉求为逻辑前提，依托数字传播载体的垄断性掌控，再通过数字认知规训机制向受众认知场域深度渗透。这一递进式运行体系的本质，是西方霸权国家在数字时代进行意识形态殖民的新型载体，其核心目的在于通过数字媒介实现对全球认知领域的控制，最终服务于资本无限增殖的终极诉求。这种数字时代的话语霸权不仅巩固了西方在全球传播体系中的霸权地位，更从根本上扭曲了非西方社会的发展认知框架，进而成为维系全球不平等秩序、阻碍发展中国家自主可持续发展的深层结构性桎梏。应对并破解这一话语霸权体系，中国亟须从理论自主、技术主权、传播创新等维度开展系统性建构。

III. China’s Response to Western Discourse Hegemony in the Digital Age

三、数字时代西方话语霸权的中国应对

Contemporary China must, on the basis of profoundly revealing the operational system of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age, strive to proceed from the three underlying logics concerning the operational system of discourse power – the discourse system, the communication system, and the identity system – to form a discourse system that “has reason and can articulate it,” break through the communication barrier of “being articulated but not transmitted,” resolve the identity dilemma of “being transmitted but not acclaimed,” and thereby provide a systematic plan for breaking through Western discourse hegemony.

当代中国必须在深刻揭示数字时代西方话语霸权运行体系的基础上，努力从事关话语权运行体系的话语体系、传播体系、认同体系这三大底层逻辑出发，形成“有理说得出”的话语体系，打破“说了传不开”传播壁垒，解决“传开叫不响”的认同困境，进而为突破西方话语霸权提供系统性方案。

1. Theoretical Breakthrough: Constructing an Independent Knowledge System of Philosophy and Social Sciences to Enhance Discourse Power

1.理论破局：构建哲学社会科学自主知识体系以提升话语权

General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out: “The foundation supporting the discourse system is the philosophy and social sciences system. Without one’s own philosophy and social sciences system, there is no discourse power.” Accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is, in the final analysis, constructing China’s independent knowledge system. In this regard, China in the digital age needs to use digital technology as a support to build an independent discourse system integrating “digital inheritance of cultural genes – digital refinement of practical experience – digital dissemination of value positions.” Thus, based on China’s unique history and culture, through the Two Integrations [n21], it can scientifically and reasonably interpret China’s current historical practice, ultimately achieving discourse confidence of “having reason to speak.”

习近平总书记明确指出：“支撑话语体系的基础是哲学社会科学体系。没有自己的哲学社会科学体系，就没有话语权。”加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学，归根结底是建构中国自主的知识体系。就此而言，数字时代的中国需要以数字技术为支撑，构建集“文化基因数字化传承—实践经验数字化提炼—价值立场数字化传播”于一体的自主话语体系，从而在立足中国独特的历史文化的基础上，通过“两个结合”来科学合理地解读中国当下的历史性实践，最终实现“有理可说”的话语自信。

First, promote the digital transformation of the genes of Chinese civilization through digital carriers to achieve subject autonomy. Subject autonomy is the logical starting point for constructing an independent knowledge system of Chinese philosophy and social sciences. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “Historical development has its laws, but people are not completely passive within them.” This means that philosophy and social science workers need to use digital tools as support to continuously promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture. On the one hand, it is necessary to fully utilize international digital communication platforms to transform the core concepts of fine traditional Chinese culture, such as “the people are the foundation of the state” and “a world of great harmony,” into interactive and transmissible digital content forms, thereby aiding the international dissemination of Chinese culture. On the other hand, in digital discourse expression, one must adhere to the autonomous consciousness of “we Chinese must use our own minds to think,” uphold a research orientation aimed at manifesting the Chinese path, Chinese governance, and Chinese principles as an intellectual pursuit, and rely on interdisciplinary digital collaboration platforms to promote deep collision, integration, and innovation among various disciplines in the digital space, thereby constructing a digital discourse system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner.

首先，依托数字载体推动中华文明基因的数字化转化，实现主体自主。主体自主是建构中国哲学社会科学自主知识体系的逻辑起点。正如习近平总书记所强调的：“历史发展有其规律，但人在其中不是完全消极被动的。”这就意味着，哲学社会科学工作者需以数字工具为支撑，不断推动中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化、创新性发展。一方面，要充分利用国际数字传播平台，将“民为邦本”“天下大同”等中华优秀传统文化的核心理念，转化为可交互、可传播的数字化内容形态，进而助力中华文化的国际传播。另一方面，要在数字话语表达中坚守“我们中国人必须用我们自己的头脑进行思考”的自主意识，秉持以彰显中国之路、中国之治、中国之理为思想追求的研究导向，依托跨学科数字协同平台，推动各学科在数字空间中深度碰撞、融合创新，从而构建出具有中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的数字化话语体系。

Second, use digital technology to refine original theoretical achievements of Chinese-path modernization [n22] to achieve content autonomy. In essence, philosophy and social science knowledge is a reflection of social existence. Consciousness at any time can only be conscious existence, and people’s existence is their actual life process. This means that philosophy and social science workers should take current practical work as their starting point. On the one hand, using technologies such as big data analysis and algorithmic modeling, quantitative research can be conducted on practices such as poverty alleviation, common prosperity, and whole-process people’s democracy. For example, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to visualize the regional collaborative effectiveness of poverty alleviation, or using public opinion analysis algorithms to refine public feedback from grassroots practices of whole-process people’s democracy, thereby transforming concrete practices into demonstrable and transmissible digital theoretical materials. On the other hand, relying on digital tools such as iconic concept databases and theoretical mapping systems, the digital connotations of iconic concepts like “new quality productive forces” and “a new form of human civilization” can be refined from the practical experience of Chinese-path modernization, thereby breaking the Western digital discourse monopoly over concepts such as “modernization” and “democracy.”

其次，借助数字技术提炼中国式现代化的原创性理论成果，实现内容自主。本质上，哲学社会科学知识是对社会存在的反映。意识在任何时候都只能是被意识到了的存在，而人们的存在就是他们的现实生活过程。这就意味着，哲学社会科学工作者应以当下的实际工作为出发点。一方面，可借助大数据分析、算法建模等技术，对脱贫攻坚、共同富裕、全过程人民民主等实践开展量化研究。例如，通过地理信息系统(GIS)可视化呈现脱贫攻坚区域协同成效，或通过舆情分析算法提炼全过程人民民主基层实践中的民众反馈，从而将具象实践转化为可论证、可传播的数字理论素材。另一方面，可依托标识性概念数据库、理论图谱绘制系统等数字工具，从中国式现代化实践经验中提炼“新质生产力”“人类文明新形态”等标识性概念的数字内涵，进而打破西方对“现代化”“民主”等概念的数字话语垄断。

Finally, relying on digital technological means, on the basis of firmly upholding the people-centered value stance, insist on value autonomy. The essence of value autonomy in the digital age is to use digital technology to precisely respond to the people’s cultural needs and to manifest the people-centered character of Chinese theory. Faced with the upgrading of the people’s needs from “material satisfaction” to “spiritual enrichment,” [23]23 The phrase “spiritual enrichment” (精神富足) is a term used in Chinese political discourse to describe a higher stage of cultural-ethical progress beyond basic material needs. philosophy and social science workers must use digital tools to build a bridge between theory and the people: on the one hand, through digital questionnaires, social media sentiment analysis, AI demand forecasting, etc., they must capture in real time the people’s practical concerns regarding cultural heritage, social governance, fairness and justice; on the other hand, they must use digital communication to strengthen value resonance, transforming the people-centered development thought into concrete content that can be perceived, empathized with, and disseminated, and always take “whether the people support it, whether they approve of it, whether they are happy with it, whether they agree with it” [24]24 This is a standard formulation attributed to Deng Xiaoping, often cited as a criterion for evaluating policy and work. as the fundamental yardstick for the digital dissemination of theory. This yardstick not only manifests the people-centered character of China’s independent knowledge system of philosophy and social science, but also, at the value level, constructs a digital discourse advantage distinct from Western capital logic, thereby building a solid value foundation for breaking Western digital discourse hegemony.

最后，依靠数字技术手段在坚定以人民为中心价值立场的基础上，坚持价值自主。数字时代价值自主的本质，是借助数字技术精准回应人民文化需求、展现中国理论的人民底色。面对人民群众从“物质满足”到“精神富足”的需求升级，哲学社会科学工作者需以数字工具搭建理论与民众之间的桥梁：既要通过数字问卷、社交舆情分析、AI需求预测等，实时捕捉民众对文化传承、社会治理、公平正义的现实关切；也要以数字传播强化价值共鸣，将以人民为中心的发展思想转化为可感知、可共情、可传播的具体内容，并始终以“人民拥护不拥护、赞成不赞成、高兴不高兴、答应不答应”作为数字理论传播的根本衡量标准。这一衡量标准不仅彰显了中国哲学社会科学自主知识体系的人民底色，更在价值层面构建了区别于西方资本逻辑的数字话语优势，进而为破解西方数字话语霸权筑牢价值根基。

2. Technological Breakthrough: Using New Quality Productive Forces to Enhance China’s International Discourse Power in the New Era

2.技术突围：利用新质生产力以提升新时代中国国际话语权

Against the backdrop of an era in which changes unseen in a century and the digital revolution are intertwined, enhancing China’s international discourse power requires both constructing a theoretical system that ensures “one has reason and can make it heard” and building a technological foundation that ensures “what is said can be spread widely.” Although China currently possesses preliminary material conditions and practical foundations, the media technology monopoly of Western developed countries remains a key factor constraining the enhancement of China’s international discourse power. Therefore, it is necessary, on the basis of grasping the historical opportunity of the new round of technological revolution, to fully utilize new quality productive forces to enhance the material support for the dissemination of Chinese discourse, thereby breaking the media technology monopoly of Western digital hegemony.

在百年变局与数字革命交织的时代背景下，提升中国国际话语权既要构建“有理说得出”的学理体系，也要建造“说了传得开”的技术底座。尽管中国目前已具备初步的物质基础与实践条件，但西方发达国家的媒介技术垄断仍是制约中国国际话语权提升的关键因素。因此，必须在把握新一轮科技革命历史机遇的基础上，充分利用新质生产力提升中国话语传播的物质支撑，进而打破西方数字霸权的媒介技术垄断。

First, build the strategic support of the digital communication system through breakthroughs in core technologies. Technological autonomy is a prerequisite for breaking Western digital discourse hegemony, because “without the advantage of core technologies, there is no political strength.” [25]25 This is a paraphrase of a statement by Xi Jinping on the importance of technological self-reliance. Therefore, it is necessary to “grasp the ‘bull’s nose’ of independent innovation in key digital core technologies, leverage the advantages of our country’s socialist system, the advantages of the new nationwide system for mobilizing resources, [26]26 The “new nationwide system for mobilizing resources” (新型举国体制) refers to a state-led mechanism for concentrating resources on strategic technological breakthroughs, updated from the earlier planned-economy model. and the advantages of the ultra-large-scale market, improve the basic research and development capabilities of digital technology, fight the tough battle of key core technologies, and achieve a high level of self-reliance and self-strengthening as soon as possible.” [27]27 This passage is a direct quotation from Xi Jinping’s speeches on digital technology development. Combining the characteristics of the communication system in the digital age, progress can be made in three aspects: first, focus on concentrated research in “bottleneck” areas, achieving breakthroughs in key areas such as high-end chips, AI recommendation algorithms, and cross-border data transmission protocols, ensuring the secure dissemination of Chinese discourse in digital carriers; second, build a full-chain innovation mechanism of “basic research—technology development—communication scenario application,” transforming technological breakthroughs into communication effectiveness; third, build a communication security barrier with independent technology, developing digital communication technologies that are tamper-proof and resistant to attack, preventing Western countries from suppressing the dissemination of Chinese discourse through technological means, and constructing a solid “technological moat” for the digital communication system.

首先，以核心技术突破构建数字传播体系的战略支撑。技术自主性是突破西方数字话语霸权的前提，因为“没有核心技术的优势就没有政治上的强势”。因此，必须“牵住数字关键核心技术自主创新这个‘牛鼻子’,发挥我国社会主义制度优势、新型举国体制优势、超大规模市场优势，提高数字技术基础研发能力，打好关键核心技术攻坚战，尽快实现高水平自立自强”。结合传播体系的数字时代特征，可从三方面推进：一是聚焦“卡脖子”领域集中攻关，在高端芯片、AI推荐算法、跨境数据传输协议等关键领域实现突破，确保中国话语在数字载体中的安全传播；二是构建“基础研究—技术开发—传播场景应用”全链条创新机制，将技术突破转化为传播效能；三是以自主技术筑牢传播安全屏障，研发防篡改、抗攻击的数字传播技术，避免西方国家通过技术手段压制中国话语传播，为数字传播体系构建坚实的“技术护城河”。

Second, build the competitiveness of the digital communication system through industrial collaborative innovation. The generation and maintenance of Western discourse hegemony in the digital age is essentially a three-dimensional synergy of “technology + capital + industry.” This means that China needs to continuously strengthen the core competitiveness of its independent communication system through industrial synergy effects. On the one hand, by optimizing the layout of industrial digitalization, cultivate leading digital media enterprises with international competitiveness, creating an industrial cluster of “technology-driven—content innovation—global channel expansion.” On the other hand, by innovating the industrial profit model of “cultural IP + digital technology,” promote Chinese stories to become international digital communication products. For example, *Ne Zha: Birth of the Demon Child* [28]28 *Ne Zha: Birth of the Demon Child* (哪吒之魔童降世) is a 2019 Chinese animated film that was a major commercial and cultural success. achieved a win-win of cultural value and commercial value through the deep integration of Eastern aesthetics and digital special effects. In addition, relying on its own industrial advantages, actively participate in the formulation of global digital media communication standards, actively promote the internationalization process of digital communication standards, and gradually break the monopoly pattern of Western countries over digital communication rules.

其次，以产业协同创新打造数字传播体系的竞争力。数字时代西方话语霸权的生成与维系，本质上是“技术+资本+产业”的立体协同。这就意味着，中国需要通过产业协同效应，不断强化中国自主传播体系的核心竞争力。一方面，通过优化产业数字化布局，培育具备国际竞争力的数字媒介龙头企业，打造“技术驱动—内容创新—全球渠道拓展”的产业集群。另一方面，通过创新“文化IP+数字技术”的产业盈利模式，推动中国故事成为国际数字化传播产品。如《哪吒之魔童降世》通过深度融合东方美学与数字特效，实现了文化价值与商业价值双赢。此外，依托自身产业优势主动参与全球数字媒介传播标准的制定工作，积极推动数字传播标准国际化进程，逐步打破西方对数字传播规则的垄断格局。

Finally, build an equal and open global communication pattern by optimizing the public attribute of digital media. The essence of media is a public carrier that connects society, transmits information, and promotes consensus, and its core value lies in guaranteeing the public’s equal right to information access and discourse expression. However, Western hegemonic discourse countries have alienated digital media into a tool for capital profit and a carrier of discourse hegemony, the result being a serious imbalance in the global communication pattern. Against this background, China needs to use new quality productive forces as support, actively promote the construction of the public attribute of the digital communication system, and create an inclusive ecology for international digital communication. On the one hand, it is necessary to break through the Western logic of “technology = capital tool” and build a digital communication foundation of “technology for the public good.” On the other hand, relying on the “Digital Silk Road,” [29]29 The “Digital Silk Road” (数字丝绸之路) is a component of the Belt and Road Initiative focusing on digital infrastructure and e-commerce cooperation. cooperate with developing countries to build cross-border optical fiber, satellite communication networks, regional digital content platforms, etc. This measure, on the basis of gradually breaking the Western-dominated centralized communication system, grants developing countries the right to participate equally in the production and dissemination of global digital discourse, thereby promoting the transformation of the international communication order from an unequal “center-periphery” pattern to a fair and reasonable direction, and ultimately gradually dismantling the foundation for the survival of Western discourse hegemony from the communication ecology level.

最后，以优化数字媒介公共属性构建平等开放的全球传播格局。媒介的本质是连接社会、传递信息、促进共识的公共性载体，其核心价值在于保障公众平等的信息获取权与话语表达权。但西方话语霸权国家却将数字媒介异化为资本逐利工具与话语霸权载体，其结果是全球传播格局的严重失衡。在此背景下，中国需以新质生产力为支撑，积极推动构建数字传播体系的公共属性，打造国际数字传播的普惠生态。一方面，要突破“技术=资本工具”的西方逻辑，构建“技术为公”的数字化传播底座。另一方面，要依托“数字丝绸之路”,与发展中国家合作建设跨境光纤、卫星通信网络、区域数字内容平台等。这一举措在逐步打破西方主导的集中式传播体系基础上，赋予发展中国家平等参与全球数字话语生产与传播的权利，进而推动国际传播秩序从“中心—外围”的不平等格局向公平合理方向转型，最终从传播生态层面逐步瓦解西方话语霸权的存续基础。

3. Communication Innovation: Implementing Precise International Communication Strategies to Enhance International Recognition of Chinese Discourse

3.传播创新：实施精准国际传播策略以提升中国话语的国际认同度

On the basis of grasping the generative mechanism of discourse power, constructing an independent knowledge system and empowering the upgrading of the communication system with new quality productive forces can indeed provide intrinsic structural guarantees for the effective dissemination of Chinese discourse. To achieve the leap from structural guarantee to actual recognition, the key lies in implementing a precise communication strategy. Specifically, it is necessary to rely on digital technology, follow the international communication logic of “who speaks, what is said, and how it is said,” and by optimizing communication subjects, refining communication content, and innovating communication methods, ensure that China’s voice can be spread widely, quickly, and accurately, thereby effectively breaking through the Western monopoly pattern of the “digital cognitive field.”

在把握话语权生成机理的基础上，构建自主知识体系、以新质生产力赋能传播体系升级，确实能为中国话语的有效传播提供内在结构性保障。而要实现从结构性保障到现实认同的跨越，关键在于实施精准传播战略。具体而言，需以数字技术为依托，遵循“谁来说、说什么、怎么说”的国际传播逻辑，并通过优化传播主体、凝练传播内容、创新传播方式，让中国声音传得开、传得快、传得准，进而有效突破西方对“数字认知场”的垄断格局。

First, accelerate the formation of digitally empowered multi-subject coordination, building a digital communication network for the resonance of Chinese discourse. At present, China must continuously “promote the restructuring of the international communication landscape, deepen the reform and innovation of the international communication mechanisms of mainstream media, and accelerate the construction of a multi-channel, three-dimensional external communication pattern.” [30]30 This is a direct quotation from a speech by Xi Jinping on international communication work. This means that it is necessary to rely on digital platforms to break the boundary restrictions of communication subjects and build an all-round, multi-level discourse resonance system. First, upgrade the digital communication capabilities of official subjects. Use digital social platforms to optimize discourse expression paradigms, such as concretely presenting core topics like the construction achievements of the Belt and Road Initiative through digital visualization forms such as dynamic data charts and live-action Vlogs; use AI multi-language real-time translation technology to achieve instant and precise dissemination of official discourse to multilingual regions, further consolidating the digital communication foundation of authoritative official discourse. Second, deepen the digital participation effectiveness of non-governmental organizations. For example, in response to the false narratives of Western non-governmental organizations, industry associations and other organizations can quickly release empirical materials such as workers’ salary flows and environmental testing reports through digital platforms, linking with overseas grassroots accounts to form a “chain of evidence communication” synergy, effectively eliminating cognitive biases in Western societies. Third, activate the digital voice vitality of grassroots subjects. By building a “Chinese Story Digital Co-creation Platform,” attract diverse groups such as digital enterprises, international students, and overseas Chinese to participate in discourse content production, then use algorithmic precise recommendation to reach target audiences, ultimately forming a digital communication matrix with multi-subject coordinated linkage and all-round coverage.

首先，加快形成数字赋能的多元主体协同，构建中国话语共振的数字化传播网络。当前，我国要不断“推进国际传播格局重构，深化主流媒体国际传播机制改革创新，加快构建多渠道、立体式对外传播格局”。这就意味着，需要依托数字平台打破传播主体的边界限制，构建全方位、多层次的话语共振体系。其一，升级官方主体的数字化传播能力。可借助数字社交平台优化话语表达范式，如以动态数据图表、实景Vlog等数字可视化形式具象化呈现“一带一路”建设成果等核心议题；运用AI多语种实时翻译技术，实现官方话语向多语种地区的即时精准传播，进一步夯实官方权威话语的数字化传播根基。其二，深化非政府组织的数字参与效能。例如，针对西方非政府组织的虚假叙事，行业协会等组织可通过数字平台快速发布工人薪资流水、环保检测报告等实证材料，联动海外民间账号形成“证据链传播”合力，有效消除西方社会的认知偏见。其三，激活民间主体的数字发声活力。通过搭建“中国故事数字共创平台”,吸引数字企业、留学生、海外华人等多元群体参与话语内容生产，再通过算法精准推荐触达目标受众，最终形成多主体协同联动、全方位覆盖的数字化传播矩阵。

Second, use digital technology to precisely match audience needs and build personalized identification based on user profiles. To enhance the recognition of Chinese discourse in the digital age, it is necessary to fully consider the differentiated needs of audiences in different countries and regions for communication content. We must “work hard on building a system for international communication, work hard on being readily accepted and easily understood, so that more foreign audiences can understand, are willing to listen, and can grasp the message, continuously improving the effectiveness of international communication.” [31] That is to say, digital technology is the key support for breaking through the Western information cocoon’s [32] shielding of Chinese discourse. First, construct refined digital audience profiles. Relying on cross-border digital research tools, systematically collect the core concerns of audiences in different regions, such as the modernization path needs of developing countries, the climate change concerns of European and American countries, and the poverty alleviation demands of Latin American regions. The segmented user digital profiles formed through multi-dimensional data integration provide data support for the content of Chinese discourse. Second, algorithm-based precise content推送. [33] For different profile groups, use self-developed recommendation algorithms to customize communication content. For example, push short videos of case studies on the digital transformation of China’s county-level economy to audiences in developing countries, push live-streamed explanations of China’s new energy technologies under the “dual carbon” goals [34] to European and American audiences, and push digital reports combining China’s poverty reduction experience with local practices to Latin American audiences. In short, by promoting the precise alignment of communication content with audience needs, it is possible to avoid cognitive biases and misunderstandings caused by cultural differences, and continuously enhance the international acceptance and emotional identification with Chinese discourse.

其次，利用数字技术精准匹配受众需求，构建基于用户画像的个性化认同。提升数字时代中国话语的认同度，必须充分考虑不同国家和地区受众对传播内容的差异化需求，我们要“在构建对外传播话语体系上下功夫，在乐于接受和易于理解上下功夫，让更多国外受众听得懂、听得进、听得明白，不断提升对外传播效果”。也就是说，数字技术是破解西方信息茧房对中国话语屏蔽的关键支撑。其一，构建精细化的数字化受众画像。依托跨境数字调研工具，系统采集不同地区受众的核心关切，如发展中国家的现代化路径需求、欧美国家的气候变化关切、拉美地区的脱贫减贫诉求。通过多维度数据整合形成的细分用户数字画像，为中国话语的传播内容提供数据支撑。其二，算法化内容精准推送。针对不同画像群体，借助自主研发的推荐算法定制传播内容。如向发展中国家推送中国县域经济数字化转型的案例短视频，向欧美受众推送“双碳”目标下中国新能源技术的直播讲解，对拉美地区受众推送中国减贫经验与本地实践结合的数字报告。总之，通过推动实现传播内容与受众需求的精准契合，能够规避因文化差异而引发的认知偏差和误解，持续增强中国话语的国际接受度与情感认同。

Finally, seize the initiative in setting international agendas in the digital age and occupy the commanding heights of discourse. Against the backdrop of the deep penetration of digital technology into the field of international communication, the core essence of seizing the initiative in setting international agendas lies in relying on digital technology to break through the long-standing Western monopoly on agenda-setting. This practical demand determines that China needs to construct a dual-dimensional discourse strategy of “critical deconstruction—constructive reconstruction.” In the critical deconstruction dimension, take digital empirical evidence as the core to debunk false propositions related to China. For example, in response to various fallacies and false statements about China, systematically build a multi-dimensional “fact database,” use data visualization technology to transform core facts into easily disseminable digital content forms such as dynamic charts and comparative short videos, and leverage the precise推送 mechanisms of international social platforms to break through the concealment of truth by the Western algorithm-dominated information cocoon. In the constructive reconstruction dimension, use digital carriers to innovate the presentation forms of civilization-dialogue-type agendas, transforming Chinese concepts and practices such as the Global Development Initiative and digital governance plans into concrete digital products like the “Digital Poverty Reduction Case Library” and “Ecological Governance VR Panorama,” and then reach audiences through multilingual algorithm recommendations. The essence of this strategy is a digital transcendence of the traditional “logic of self-proof.” It can effectively dissolve the foundation for the existence of Western digital discourse hegemony, promote the construction of an international discourse identification system in the digital age, help Chinese discourse upgrade from “local knowledge” to a “digital narrative” with universal consensus, and ultimately achieve a paradigm shift from “passive response” to “active leadership.”

最后，把握数字时代国际议题设置主动权，抢占话语制高点。在数字技术深度渗透国际传播场域的背景下，把握国际议题设置主动权的核心要义在于依托数字技术突破西方长期形成的议题垄断格局。这一现实诉求决定了，中国需要构建“批判性解构—建构性重构”的双维话语策略。在批判性解构维度，要以数字化实证为核心，破解涉华的虚假命题。例如，针对涉华的各类谬论与不实言论，系统搭建多维度的“事实数据库”,通过数据可视化技术将核心事实转化为动态图表、对比短视频等易传播的数字内容形态，借助国际社交平台的精准推送机制，打破西方算法主导的信息茧房对真相的遮蔽。在建构性重构维度，要借助数字载体创新文明对话型议题的呈现形式，将全球发展倡议、数字治理方案等中国理念与实践，转化为“数字减贫案例库”“生态治理VR全景”等具象化数字产品，再通过多语种算法推荐触达受众。这种策略的本质是对传统“自证逻辑”的数字化超越，它既能有效消解西方数字话语霸权的存续基础，又能推动构建数字时代国际话语认同体系，助力中国话语从“地方性知识”升级为具有普遍共识的“数字叙事”,最终实现从“被动回应”到“主动引领”的范式转换。

In summary, China’s response strategy to promote the transformation of international discourse toward a pattern of pluralistic co-governance, fairness, and justice is mainly reflected in the process of building an independent knowledge system of philosophy and social sciences to lay the academic foundation for “having reason to speak,” developing digital new quality productive forces to solidify the material support for “being able to spread after speaking,” and implementing precise international communication strategies to construct a practical path for “being heard and acclaimed after spreading.” The coordinated advancement of these three aspects can not only help contemporary China break through the situation of being besieged and

综上所述，中国推动国际话语朝多元共治、公平正义格局转型的应对策略，主要体现在构建哲学社会科学自主知识体系奠定“有理可说”的学理化过程中，发展数字新质生产力筑牢“说了传得开”的物质支撑，实施精准国际传播策略构建“传开叫得响”的实践路径。三者协同推进，既可以助力当代中国突破西方话语围堵打压的境遇，也能为人类文明新形态的全球传播与认同奠定坚实基础。

Author’s institution: School of Marxism, East China University of Science and Technology

作者单位：华东理工大学马克思主义学院