RIGHTEOUS SELF, PROVOCATIVE OTHERS: CHINA-ALIGNED X USERS AND THE DIGITAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATE IDENTITY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTES

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35631/IJHPL.935001

Keywords:

China-Aligned Users, Digital Nationalism, Legitimation, South China Sea Disputes, State Identity; X

Abstract

The South China Sea (SCS) disputes are among the world’s most complex sovereignty contests. While substantial research has investigated the discourse of political elites and mass media, ordinary users’ discursive representations of the states involved in the disputes remain underexplored. This study centres on networked publics aligned with China’s stance to examine how they discursively construct and negotiate the role identities of China, co-claimant countries and extra-regional states, and how these identity constructions are mobilised to legitimise China’s claims and actions in the SCS disputes. The study integrates discourse-centred online ethnography, Social Media Critical Discourse Studies (SM-CDS) and the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to analyse 312 posts tagged with #SouthChinaSea on X between September 2023 and July 2024. The findings show that these users construct a morally polarised identity constellation in which China is represented as a righteous, victimised and defensive Self, while co-claimant countries and extra-regional states, particularly the Philippines and the United States, are represented as provocative, dependent, interventionist or destabilising Others. It contributes to research on digital political communication by showing how state identity, geopolitical legitimacy and digitally mediated nationalist discourse are co-constructed in online public debates over maritime disputes.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography. Language@Internet, 5. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/li/article/view/37571

Anthony, L. (2013). Developing AntConc for a new generation of corpus linguists. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013) (pp. 14–16). https://laurenceanthony.net/research/20130722_26_cl_2013/cl_2013_paper_final.pdf

Bolsover, G. (2017). Computational propaganda in China: An alternative model of a widespread practice. Computational Propaganda Project. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b081ab3f-a54d-40ad-896d-462d1f386042

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.

Buszynski, L., & Do, T. H. (2020). The South China Sea: From a regional maritime dispute to geo-strategic competition. Routledge.

Butts, D. (2024, June 24). China employing ‘gray zone tactics’ at contested Second Thomas Shoal, Lowy Institute’s Yaacob says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/24/china-employing-gray-zone-tactics-at-the-contested-shoal-expert.html

Chung, C. P. C. (2016). Drawing the U-shaped line: China’s claim in the South China Sea, 1946–1974. Modern China, 42(1), 38–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700415598538

De Castro, R. C. (2024). Exploring the Philippines’ evolving grand strategy in the face of China’s maritime expansion: From the Aquino administration to the Marcos administration. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 43(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034241234670

de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002002

Deluao, C. J. O., & Baradillo, D. G. (2026). Reading between the lines: Critical discourse analysis of Philippine news coverage on China and the West Philippine Sea. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Technologies, Psychology, and Social Sciences, 1(2), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.70847/690699

Erdogan-Ozturk, Y., & Isik-Guler, H. (2020). Discourses of exclusion on Twitter in the Turkish context: #ülkemdesuriyeliistemiyorum (#idontwantsyriansinmycountry). Discourse, Context & Media, 36, Article 100400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100400

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

Fang, F. (2014). Examining the South China Sea arbitration case from the media discourse perspective. In L. Cheng, Q. Ma, J. Du, & L. Hale (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Law, Language and Discourse (pp. 181–189). The American Scholars Press.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge.

Furtado, X. (1999). International law and the dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 21(3), 386–404. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25798466

Gildore, P. J., & Syting, C. J. O. (2022). Media representation of states involved in the South China Sea dispute: International news in context. World Journal of English Language, 12(6), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n6p19

Haque, U., Naeem, A., Wang, S., Espinoza, J., Holovanova, I., Gutor, T., Bazyka, D., Galindo, R., Sharma, S., Kaidashev, I. P., Chumachenko, D., Linnikov, S., Annan, E., Lubinda, J., Korol, N., Bazyka, K., Zhyvotovska, L., Zimenkovsky, A., & Nguyen, U. D. T. (2022). The human toll and humanitarian crisis of the Russia–Ukraine war: The first 162 days. BMJ Global Health, 7(9), Article e009550. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009550

Hartnett, S. J., & Reckard, B. R. (2017). Sovereign tropes: A rhetorical critique of contested claims in the South China Sea. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 20(2), 291–338. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.20.2.0291

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press.

Huang, Z. A., & Wang, R. (2019). Building a network to “tell China stories well”: Chinese diplomatic communication strategies on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 13, 2984–3007.

Kesavan, K. V. (2020, February 14). India’s ‘Act East’ policy and regional cooperation. Observer Research Foundation. https://fitm.ris.org.in/sites/fitm.ris.org.in/files/2021-08/ORF-14-02-2020-India%20s%20Act%20East%20policy%20and%20regional%20cooperation-AAGC.pdf

KhosraviNik, M. (2010). Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: Towards a systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453948

KhosraviNik, M. (2017). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 582–596). Routledge.

KhosraviNik, M. (2022). Digital meaning-making across content and practice in social media critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies, 19(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1835683

KhosraviNik, M., & Amer, M. (2022). Social media and terrorism discourse: The Islamic State’s (IS) social media discursive content and practices. Critical Discourse Studies, 19(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1835684

KhosraviNik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0003

KhosraviNik, M., & Unger, J. W. (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 205–233). SAGE.

KhosraviNik, M., & Zia, M. (2014). Persian nationalism, identity and anti-Arab sentiments in Iranian Facebook discourses: Critical discourse analysis and social media communication. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(4), 755–780.

Koller, V. (2012). How to analyse collective identity in discourse: Textual and contextual parameters. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 5(2), 19–38.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2020). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857

Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2020). Introduction to multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Lendon, B. (2023, February 13). Philippine Coast Guard says Chinese ship aimed laser at one of its vessels. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/13/asia/philippines-china-coast-guard-laser-intl-hnk-ml

Li, Y. (2021). China’s security interests and strategies in the South China Sea. In G. Houlden, S. N. Romaniuk, & N. Hong (Eds.), Security, strategy, and military dynamics in the South China Sea (pp. 63–78). Bristol University Press.

Lin, J., Martinus, M., Fong, K., Pham, T. P. T., Aridati, I. Z., & Gauri, S. (2026). The state of Southeast Asia: 2026 survey report. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. https://table.media/assets/documents/the-state-of-southeast-asia-2026-survey-final-single.pdf

Mangosing, F. (2023, August 12). Eyewitness to cat and (wet) mouse game in WPS. Philippine Daily Inquirer. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/217713/eyewitness-to-cat-and-wet-mouse-game-in-wps

Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: The mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 930–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

McCombs, M., & Valenzuela, S. (2020). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion (3rd ed.). Wiley.

Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472

Meyer, P. K., Nurmandi, A., & Agustiyara, A. (2019). Indonesia’s swift securitization of the Natuna Islands: How Jakarta countered China’s claims in the South China Sea. Asian Journal of Political Science, 27(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2019.1590724

Miller, J. M. (2000). Language use, identity, and social interaction: Migrant students in Australia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 69–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_3

Noer, J. H., & Gregory, D. (1996). Chokepoints: Maritime economic concerns in Southeast Asia. National Defense University Press.

Parker, A. (2012, January 28). In nonstop whirlwind of campaigns, Twitter is a critical tool. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/politics/twitter-is-a-critical-tool-in-republican-campaigns.html

Pittam, J. (1999). The historical and emergent enactment of identity in language. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1999.9683614

Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Social media and activist communication. In C. Atton (Ed.), The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 527–537). Routledge.

Poling, G. B. (2013). The South China Sea in focus: Clarifying the limits of maritime dispute. Rowman & Littlefield.

Putra, B. A. (2024). Brunei’s silent claims in the South China Sea: A case for the theory of trade expectations. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2317533

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-semitism. Routledge.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). SAGE.

Shambaugh, D. (2013). Assessing the U.S. “pivot” to Asia. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 7(2), 10–19.

Stieglitz, S., Dang-Xuan, L., Bruns, A., & Neuberger, C. (2014). Social media analytics. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0315-7

Storey, I. (2020, March 20). Malaysia and the South China Sea dispute: Policy continuity amid domestic political change (ISEAS Perspective No. 18). ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.

Sukarno, S. (2022). Revealing representation of China and America by the media of CNBC Indonesia relating to the South China Sea conflict. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 4(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v4i2.939

Tretiak, O. A., Tokovenko, O. S., Rexha, M. A., & Komlichenko, A. A. (2022). Public actors of international politics: Peculiarities of interaction. Cuestiones Políticas, 40(73), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4073.25

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2013). Contested areas of South China Sea likely have few conventional oil and gas resources. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10651

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Analyzing racism through discourse analysis: Some methodological reflections. In J. H. Stanfield II & R. M. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 92–134). SAGE.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.

van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466–485). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Routledge.

van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Springer.

Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12023

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.

Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). SAGE.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.

Zhu, F., & Li, L. (2021). China’s South China Sea policies. In K. Zou (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the South China Sea (pp. 167–183). Routledge.

Zou, K. (Ed.). (2021). Routledge handbook of the South China Sea. Routledge.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-10

How to Cite

Yang , H., & Ang, P. S. (2026). RIGHTEOUS SELF, PROVOCATIVE OTHERS: CHINA-ALIGNED X USERS AND THE DIGITAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATE IDENTITY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTES. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES, PHILOSOPHY AND LANGUAGES (IJHPL), 9(35), 01–22. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJHPL.935001