Political discourse is an integral part of socio-political relations, forms and defines a complex linguistic unit, knowledge and actions. Trump’s vehement anti-China rhetoric manifestly shifted the limits of China’s representation in US foreign policy discourse in general. However, the causal relationship between Trump’s agency and China’s representations is not investigated since there are a multitude of factors at play. Rather, in present study the focus is on how those changes in the Congressional discourse occurred that bred multiple legislations and, as it is argued later, institutionalized a particular antagonistic policy stance towards China. A testimony of this is that, contrary to many projections, Biden’s 2021-22 foreign policy agenda follows this discursive framework. The quantitative content analysis identified the main focal points and the pivotal value-laden concepts of the discursive change in Congressional repre-sentations of China. The analysis further pointed out that the key tendency is the ideologization of Congressional discourse on China. Although China was criticized in Congress during former administrations as an unfair or uncivilized player or actor, now this criticism manifests in antagonistic Cold war binaries, with the centrality of ‘freedom’ and Communist China being the main threat to it. The analysis concludes that the emerging ideological framework reconstruct the meaning of the competition between the US and China in Manichean terms of antithetical values and zero-sum game, which has unprecedented since the end of Cold war.
1. Zoellick, R. 2005. Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility. state.gov. available at: https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm (accessed 05.10.2021).
2. House of Representatives. Congressional Records. 114th Congress 2015-16. (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/114th-congress/browse-by-date) (accessed 05.10.2021).
3. House of Representatives. Congressional Records. 115th Congress. 2017-18. (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/115th-congress/browse-by-date) (accessed 05.10.2021).
4. House of Representatives. Congressional Records. 116th Congress. 2019-20. (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/116th-congress/browse-by-date) (accessed 05.10.2021).
5. Senate. Congressional Records. 114th Congress. 2015-16. (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/114th-congress/browse-by-date) (accessed 05.10.2021).
6. Senate. Congressional Records. 115th Congress. 2017-2018. (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/115th-congress/browse-by-date) (accessed 05.10.2021).
7. Senate. Congressional Records. 116th Congress 2019 – 2020. (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/116th-congress/browse-by-date) (accessed 05.10.2021).
8. Karaganov S.A. 2018. Kak pobedit' v kholodnoj vojne. Rossiya v global'noj politike. № 16(5), s.102-115. Available at: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/kak-pobedit-v-holodnoj-vojne-2/ (accessed 05.10.2021).
9. Kozlov, V. O., Bocharova A.P. 2021. Puti razvitiya otnoshenij SShA i Kitaya v kontekste diskursa amerikanskikh ehlit. SShA & Kanada: ehkonomika – politika – kul'tura, № 10, s. 91-107. Available at: https://usacanada.jes.su/s268667300016900-0-1/ (accessed 05.11.2021). DOI: 10.31857/S268667300016900-0
10. Novikov, D.P. 2018. Tramp i ne tol'ko: revolyutsiya bez kontsa. Rossiya v global'noj politike. № 16(5) s. 157-172. Available at: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/tramp-i-ne-tolko-revolyucziya-bez-koncza-2/ (accessed 01.10.2021).
11. Bacchi C. and Goodwin S. Post-Structural Policy Analysis. Palgrave, Macmillan US. 2016. 157 p.
12. Confucius. The Analects. china.usc.edu. Available at: https://china.usc.edu/confucius-analects-13 (accessed 01.05.2021)
13. Doty, R. 1993. Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines. International Studies Quarterly. 37 (3), pp. 297-320.
14. Foot, R. 2001. Rights beyond Borders: The Global Community and the Struggle over Human Rights in China. Oxford University Press. 296 p.
15. Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
16. Foucault, M. 1996. Discourse, Discontinuity. Foucault Live Collected Interviews, 1961-1984. Ed. by S. Lotringer. New York: Semiotext. pp. 33-50.
17. Hansen, L. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge. 259 p.
18. Ikenberry, J. 2012. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 392 p.
19. Mearsheimer, J. 2018. Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 328 p.
20. Bocharova A., Kozlov V. (2021). Tracks of US-China Relations’ Development in the Context of the discourse of the American elites. USA & Canada: Economics – Politics – Culture. No. 10, pp.91-107. DOI: 10.31857/S268667300016900-0 (accessed 05.11.2021).
21. Nymalm, N. 2013. The End of the ‘Liberal Theory of History’? Dissecting the US Congress Discourse on China’s Currency Policy’. International Political Sociology. 7, pp. 388-405.