Hello! Welcome to the third module of our course. In the previous lessons, we explored the high-level mechanics of discourse, examining how ideologies are 'naturalized' through Fairclough's model and how 'Cyber Sovereignty' can function as a Laclauian nodal point to build a hegemonic bloc. Now, we will add a powerful and concrete analytical tool to your repertoire to dissect the confrontational aspect of this process.
This lesson focuses on Teun A. van Dijk's 'Ideological Square,' a framework designed to analyze how groups systematically represent themselves in a positive light while simultaneously representing their opponents negatively. Since you're new to this concept, we will build your understanding from the ground up, starting with the socio-cognitive foundations of the "Us vs. Them" dynamic and then moving to the practical application of the model. By the end of our session, you'll be able to explain and use the Ideological Square to deconstruct the discursive strategies at play in the rivalry between China's digital vision and that of the West.
1. Power, Cognition, and the "Us vs. Them" Divide
Before we examine the Ideological Square itself, it's crucial to understand why it works. The construction of a positive 'Us' and a negative 'Them' is not random; it is a fundamental strategy in the exercise and reproduction of social power. As a scholar of governance and diplomacy, you are well aware that international relations are built upon such distinctions.
Teun A. van Dijk, a leading figure in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), argues that domination is not just enacted through material force but is also produced and reproduced through discourse. This happens by shaping the "social cognition"—the shared stereotypes, prejudices, and ideologies—of a group.
To introduce these foundational ideas, let's turn to Van Dijk himself. In the following video, he explains the core tenets of his critical approach.
Discriminatory Discourse and The Role of The Media #2
This is a lecture by Teun A. van Dijk on discriminatory discourse. He provides the theoretical background for why we need a tool like the Ideological Square.
Please watch the following segments: First, his introduction to CDA, where he links discourse to power and domination. Next, his explanation of power as control and how racism and other forms of domination are rooted in mental representations that distinguish between 'us' and 'them'. Finally, his discussion on the role of 'symbolic elites' (politicians, media) in shaping these ideologies through their control of public discourse. This is particularly relevant for analyzing state-led narratives like China's.
Van Dijk's key point is that ideologies are learned, shared systems of belief that serve the interests of a group. They are not merely personal 'hates' or biases but are systemic and cognitive. To deepen this point, let's read a short excerpt from his chapter "Discourse and Ideology."
00-Van Dijk-4183- Prelims.indd
This text provides the theoretical definition of ideology as a form of social cognition.
In the section "Elements of a theory of Ideology," please read the subsection titled Ideologies as social cognition. Focus on the paragraphs that define an ideology as a socially shared belief system and the description of the ideological schema (Identity, Activities, Goals, Norms, etc.). This will help you understand an ideology as a group's fundamental "self-image."
This establishes the cognitive and social architecture that the Ideological Square operates on. It's a framework for analyzing the discursive manifestation of this group self-image in contrast to a perceived 'Other'.
2. The Ideological Square: A Tool for Analysis
At its core, the Ideological Square is a simple yet powerful heuristic for analyzing ideological discourse. It posits that speakers and writers will systematically (though not always consciously) follow four overarching strategies to maintain a positive in-group identity and a negative out-group identity.
These four strategies form a polarized structure, as visualized in the diagram below.
The four macro-strategies are:
- Emphasize Our good things (Accentuează aspectele noastre pozitive)
- Emphasize Their bad things (Accentuează aspectele lor negative)
- De-emphasize Our bad things (Minimalizează aspectele noastre negative)
- De-emphasize Their good things (Minimalizează aspectele lor pozitive)
Let's read the concise definition from Van Dijk himself, followed by a very relevant example for your research.
This article from E-International Relations provides a clear, numbered list of the four strategies and applies them to a case involving China.
Please read the four-point list that outlines the square. Then, read the first example given in the following section, which describes how China's state media constructs a negative 'Other' by blaming the US for protectionism. This directly models the kind of analysis you could perform on China's DSR discourse.
This model is not just about praising oneself and criticizing the other. The "de-emphasizing" moves are just as important. They involve strategically ignoring, downplaying, or obscuring positive aspects of the opponent or negative aspects of oneself. For your thesis, this could mean analyzing how Chinese official documents might highlight the exploitative history of Western tech companies in Africa (Emphasize Their bad things) while downplaying or omitting any issues of data privacy or surveillance associated with their own technologies (De-emphasize Our bad things).
3. Mobilizing the Square: From Theory to Practice
Now for the most important part: how do you "mobilize" this framework for your analysis? The four macro-strategies are realized through a host of specific linguistic and discursive choices. Identifying these micro-level choices is the key to a robust CDA.
In this next video segment, Van Dijk explains how this polarization appears in discourse, from the topics chosen to the very words and metaphors used.
Discriminatory Discourse and The Role of The Media #2
Here, Van Dijk moves from the abstract theory to concrete examples of how the ideological polarization is realized in text and talk.
Please watch the segment from "an ideology has a fundamental structure" where he explains how discourse emphasizes 'our' good things and 'their' bad things, while simultaneously de-emphasizing 'our' bad things. Pay close attention to his examples concerning immigration. Then, watch his explanation of the power of metaphors, such as 'waves' or 'invasion,' to create an emotional, embodied sense of threat.
To give you a more systematic toolkit, Van Dijk provides a comprehensive (though non-exhaustive) list of the semantic and formal structures that can enact these strategies.
00-Van Dijk-4183- Prelims.indd
This section provides a detailed catalogue of the discursive moves used to realize the Ideological Square's strategies.
Please read the section titled Positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. You don't need to memorize the entire list, but rather understand the types of analytical questions it prompts you to ask. Focus on these examples: Under SEMANTIC STRUCTURES: Negative topics: What are the recurring negative themes associated with 'Them' (e.g., 'digital colonialism', 'cyber-hegemony')? Agency: Who is represented as the active agent of negative actions? (e.g., "The West exploits data" vs. "Data is collected by our systems"). Predication: What qualities and characteristics are attributed to 'Us' vs. 'Them'? (e.g., 'Us' = cooperative, innovative; 'Them' = aggressive, outdated). Under FORMAL STRUCTURES: Syntactic structures: The use of active vs. passive voice to assign or hide responsibility. Pronouns: The fundamental 'Us' vs. 'Them' division. Rhetorical moves: Look for metaphors, hyperboles, and euphemisms. For example, is Western influence framed as a 'digital iron curtain' (metaphor)? Is China's contribution framed as creating an 'unprecedented era of prosperity' (hyperbole)?
To see a full analysis in action, you can review the Sample Analysis section in the same document (resource_id="[LINK](https://discourses.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Teun-A.-van-Dijk-2011-Discourse-and-Ideology.pdf)", section 2), which deconstructs a Spanish politician's speech on immigration using this exact framework. It provides an excellent template for how you might structure a chapter or section of your own thesis.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we have introduced Teun A. van Dijk's Ideological Square as a robust analytical tool. We've seen that it's more than just a simple "Us vs. Them" binary; it is a four-part strategic framework for constructing ideological opposition through discourse.
Key Takeaways:
- Ideological Function: The core function of the "Us vs. Them" discourse is the reproduction of group power and solidarity.
- The Four Strategies: The Ideological Square operates through four complementary moves: emphasizing our good and their bad, while de-emphasizing our bad and their good.
- Analytical Mobilization: These strategies are realized through concrete discursive choices at all levels, from topic selection and syntax to lexical choice and metaphor. Your task as a critical analyst is to identify these specific moves and explain how they contribute to the overall ideological project.
In our next lesson, we will turn to Chantal Mouffe's concept of the 'constitutive outside.' This will provide a more philosophical lens on why an 'Other' is not just a rival, but a necessary element for the very formation of a political identity. We will then be perfectly positioned to synthesize Van Dijk's practical tool with Mouffe's political theory to analyze how China's discourse constructs the West as a 'digital colonizer' to define its own identity and mission in the digital sphere.