CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES.

To operationalize the theoretical framework outlined in this chapter, it is necessary to select an appropriate methodology. This is required to examine the corpus outlined and to use choices of language as a measurement. To explore these questions, a social linguistic discourse analysis coupled with a content analysis was the most appropriate framework since this form of analysis explores the creation of narratives as the context behind their creation which illustrates the challenge that the Chinese narrative poses to the American discourse, serving to illustrate the relations between the two discourses as how these discourses promote their own systems via their images of China in Africa (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, 2004, pg. 53). By doing so, it was possible to illustrate how the creation of the knowledge on China in Africa and the constructs of it is expressive of wider phenomena and how Chinese policy has a normative dimension.

The research framework utilised was qualitative in nature and focused primarily on the measurement of the language utilised in the corpus as well as the context within which it was created (Barker et al, 2008, pg. 273). This required the choices of language to be operationalised as the primary unit of measurement to test the theoretical framework outlined earlier in this chapter. In the words of Neil Mercer (2004, pg. 138), a methodology serves as the interface between the theory and the research question, which requires the selection of an appropriate methodology to serve as a connection between the two. In this case, the discourse analysis served as a connection between the knowledge on China’s African policies and the theories of Foucault and Bourdieu regarding the process of knowledge creation. To better apply these theories, two case studies on China’s policies towards the African states were selected to which the concepts outlined in this chapter and the literature review were applied. This methodological framework has several advantages in the exploration of the research problem.

I have selected this form of research design due to the overall size of my proposed research question and that it will enable me to utilize the theories outlined in this chapter. This is particularly useful when examining the different discourses since there are numerous different interpretations of China’s Africa policy within both the established American and Chinese literature on this subject. By utilizing this design, I will be able to use several of these interpretations as how this form of methodology and the selected theoretical framework complements each other. I sought to create a theoretical design supported by empirical data.

58

By examining documents, I was able to access a subject which was largely difficult to reach by other methodological frameworks (Joslyn and Reynolds, 1992, pg. 263)

There are several reasons why I have selected a social linguistic discourse analysis for my research design which relates to how it will fit my research questions. Firstly, since this type of research focuses on the context behind the creation of a source, it was possible to determine and explore the structures of experience behind the creation of the American and Chinese discourses on China in Africa. This was better reflected by exploring the phrases or recurrence throughout the Chinese and American discourses. Secondly, by focusing on the document as the context in which it was created, it is possible to explore the themes and choices of language present in the discourse on China in Africa (Johnstone, 2012, pg. 94). By utilizing this research design, it is possible to explore the process and experiences behind the creations of the American and Chinese discourses as understanding how the Chinese discourse responds to the claims made in the American discourse and how it then seeks to challenge them.

By codifying these common constructs and choices of language, it was possible to examine how the American and Chinese discourses conflict over their depictions of Chinese policy in Africa which serve as an example of the wider power relations between China and the United States, both of which are symbolic of two competing systems that seek to spread themselves beyond their original context. This raises the question of how China will seek to develop an alternative narrative to the perceived dominance of the American narrative. It is this alternative narrative that enabled the framework to explore the questions of how attractive the authoritarian model pursued by China is in the developing world as whether it will be successful in Africa.

Such a design will also make it possible to identify the norms that create the American and Chinese constructs of this subject. These norms were of importance since the purpose of the discourse is to sanction those who do not follow the norms that created it. By identifying the norms that create the American and Chinese discourses, it was possible to explore the more negative depictions of China in Africa throughout the American discourse alongside how the Chinese discourse seeks to challenge these with its’ own set of norms. It is these sets of norms that illustrated the conflict between the American and Chinese discourses over their depictions of China in Africa. This is particularly useful in the context of Bourdieu’s (2008, pg. 36) theories since this conflict raises the question over the legitimacy of a narrative, illustrating the underlying power relations between China and the United States. It is for these reasons that a social linguistic discourse analysis was the most appropriate methodology for my research questions.

59

The selected methodology has enabled the framework to examine the ways in which the Chinese discourse has legitimised China’s African policies through the use of shared experiences, which have come in the form of China’s assistance to anti-colonial movements during the Mao era and its four decades of economic development since the reforms of the Deng era (Shinn and Eisenman, 2012, pg.45). These experiences have granted China an advantage that few other external actors possess, with Chinese policies being promoted by the presentation of China’s experiences of development as an alternative framework for the African states to follow and in how the shared experiences of post-colonialism has played an integral part in China’s cultivation of its relationships with the African elites (Jiang et al, 2016, pg.4). Both experiences are an example of the more normative mechanisms that China has deployed to further its objectives in the African states that has largely been overlooked by the established literature.

In addition, the methodology in utilising the approach established by Foucault’s

Archaeology of Knowledge made it possible to explore the role that norms played in the

creation of the competing images of China in Africa. These images were a codification of the wider competition between democratic and authoritarian political norms, which has become increasingly notable as China seeks to present its system as an alternative as well as presenting itself as following a largely different path to the Western world. It is this aspect that shows how the research was able to underline the wider challenge that China poses in that it challenges the dominant paradigms, which has been a notable feature of the Chinese foreign policy discourse which has often been overlooked by the established focus on China as an economic and military challenger.

Regarding coding, a content analysis can help to further augment the discourse analysis outlined. One of these advantages is that such a framework will enable the research design to examine the themes prevalent in the American and Chinese discourse to explore the creation of their depictions of China in Africa. By doing so, it is possible to explore how these differing narratives serve to codify the power relations between China and the United States symbolized by the interactions and challenges they pose to each other. The content analysis will seek to code for phrases that were relevant to the themes of the American and Chinese discourses on China in Africa. Since the themes and language utilized in each discourse are different, this required the utilisation of two different sets of coding phrases. Examples of these included references to exploitation and conflict in the American sources along with Confucian terms in the Chinese discourse, the significance of which will be outlined in the next chapter. In terms

60

of software, I utilised Nvivo 10 to create a more concrete illustration of my collected data as grounding my research questions. In addition, such software enabled me to organize my data more efficiently than simply coding by hand. This may not be possible for Chinese language sources. By utilizing this software, I was able to code a larger number of sources than doing so manually. The utility of Nvivo 10 is furthered by its availability at Surrey which enabled me to receive further training in its use. To explore how these phrases have been developed, it was necessary to examine the established literature regarding China’s African policies.

To better achieve the research objectives discussed in the previous section, a more theoretical framework was used. The underlying rationale can be found in the fact that the question of the conflict between Chinese and American discourses is one that cannot be adequately addressed by a more empirical framework. This is due to the processes of the constructs of Chinese policy are often explained by more discursive theories rather than just being a question of independent and dependent variables which are better suited to narrower questions. Since the concept of discourse and symbiology is abstract, it was necessary to carry out a detailed review of the established literature to compare the various themes prevalent in the American and Chinese discourse. The theories of thinkers such as Bourdieu was one of the best ways to explore the discourse on Chinese policy in Africa as this sort of analysis examines how a response is worded and created rather than what it contains. Since discourse theory examines the creation of the common narratives, it is an essential tool in excavating the context in which the common American and Chinese constructs are created and ties into the methodology that I utilized (Johnstone, 2012, pg. 6).

As outlined in Chapter 1, I utilized two primary corpuses to explore the research question, which came in the form of American and Chinese governmental sources. The statements from these sources will be subject to a content analysis which coded for language that reflect the constructs of the American and Chinese discourse outlined in the literature review as the structures of experience that influence their creation. This sought to explore the meanings of these constructs as expressed through the choices of language in the corpus (Johnstone, 2012, pg. 263) Preliminary examples of these phases were references to Confucianism and culturalism in the Chinese statements and references to exploitation and proxy conflict in the American statements. I have chosen these phrases since they occur frequently throughout the American and Chinese discourse on China and Africa as reflecting the dominant themes of these respective discourses. As the research progresses over time, these categories may be subject to change which required a revised codebook.

61

In terms of case studies, I utilised the case studies of Sudan and Zimbabwe. The selection of these case studies is due to their popularity with much of the established literature on of China in Africa as it appeared to epitomize the excesses of Chinese policy as following the common constructs of China in Africa from the Anglophone literature, most notably those of China as a competitor and exploiter of Africa’s resources (Shambaugh, 2013 pg. 109). It is due to the popularity of this case study that provided a potentially greater amount of useful materials from the American discourse. The case of Sudan appeared to reflect the image of China as a reluctant Great Power in the region, which reflects the American constructs raised in the previous chapter (Large, 2009, pg. 612). It is for these reasons that the potential Chinese response to these claims was of great interest to my research questions.

The case Sudan served as a representation of the more recent developments in Chinese African policy and the Chinese discourse, which could be a point of comparison with the example of Zimbabwe to get a wider depiction of the constructs of China’s African policies. This has been particularly notable with the more interventionist stance taken by China in recent years, which appears to be in line with some of the constructs outlined in the established literature on China in Africa, most notably the constructs of China as a reluctant empire and as a facilitator of authoritarian norms (Halper, 2010, pg. 43). By exploring this case study, I hoped to explore the American images of China in Africa as how the recent shifts in Chinese foreign policy have manifested themselves in the Chinese narrative on China in Africa.

The case of Zimbabwe served as an example of the longer- term relations between China and the African states, since it was rooted in the post -colonial era. It was also an example of the earlier phases in China’s African policies, in this case, the provision of ideological and military assistance to the anti-colonial movements of the African continent during the Mao era. I used this to determine the continuity between the Chinese narrative of the Mao era and today, regarding the experiences of the time, in this case, the mutual experiences of imperialism that cemented the ties between China and the African states (Shinn and Eisenman, 2012, pg. 45). This can serve as a point of comparison between the Chinese approach of the past and the present and furthering the exploration of the images of China in Africa. In addition, the cases of Chinese policy in Sudan and Zimbabwe are examples of China as a dominant actor in an African state, with comparatively little competition from other external actors, whether it be due to the comparative unpalatability of these states or the lack of interest in them (Reiser. 2008, pg. 28). By using these cases of China as a dominant external actor in an African state,

62

I expected a more comprehensive image of Chinese foreign policy from both the American and Chinese sources on China in Africa, since China is a central actor to both Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Both the cases of Sudan and Zimbabwe illustrate the more controversial examples of Chinese foreign policy as reflected in the Anglophone literature, whether it be the exploitive practices of Chinese companies in resource rich states or the apparent facilitation of authoritarian regimes in the African continent. This was intended to reflect the themes in the more critical depictions of Chinese policy, which will enable a more compatible application of the framework to these cases. In addition, it is also these more controversial aspects of Chinese foreign policy that will render a Chinese response of interest to the research issue.

The methodology utilised entailed several steps. With the potential sources of data that was outlined earlier, I created two sets of coding phrases which required finding a meaning of the data (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, 2004, pg. 5). Such phrases were related to the constructs of China in Africa, an example being the references to Chinese support and arms sales to the regimes in Sudan and Zimbabwe being reflective of the construct of China as a facilitator of authoritarianism. These were derived from the common constructs outlined in the literature review chapter. This entailed the coding of several official Chinese and African statements to explore how China responds to comments about its Africa policy by coding for several phrases. The proposed sources were primarily in English which serves as a reflection of the intended audiences for these sources, since English is one of the primary languages of these case studies as serving as part of China’s bid to spread its constructs beyond. Sources were coded separately and were divided by their origin. In addition, I determined the extent to which the data is relevant to my research questions based on the frequency these phrases occur in the sources.

For this analysis to be feasible, it was necessary to create a set of recurring phrases which were related to the overarching topic. The coding phrases consisted of common terminology in Chinese foreign policy discourse such as “mutual benefit” and “win-win scenario” as Confucian terminology such as “harmony” and “benevolence” which are also popular in Chinese discourse. The codebook attempted to find phrases that could refer to China’s experience of imperialism. Possible examples of these may refer to “exploitation”, “shared experience” and “Tianxia” (天下), the latter two serving as references to China’s experience as an empire and as the victim of other empires (Xu, 2011, pg. 165). All serve to apply the constructs defined in the literature review to the cases of Sudan and Zimbabwe.

63

For the official American discourses, it was necessary to utilize a different codebook since I will be coding for different phrases from the Chinese discourse. This included phrases that imply the unsavory nature of some of China’s policies such as exploitation and human rights abuses. I have selected phrases along these lines since these make up the bulk of common American accusations made against Chinese policy in the region (Olende, 2014, pg. 33). These phrases will also reflect the themes prevalent in the American discourse which serve as a reflection of the process where the American constructs were created. By implementing a discourse analysis, I intended to depict how China responds to the comments made against its policy towards Africa by promoting its own constructs of these policies. This will serve to explore how China responds to the accusations made in the American discourses as to further explore how China’s experiences of imperial rule and exploitation have shaped its response towards it. Finally, the themes were reviewed to determine how the conflicting discourses are an underlying theme in China’s Africa policy as other potential themes which will be examined in less detail. This was determined by how the small amount of empirical data that I seek to utilize forms a coherent pattern in line with my questions.

Possibly the most significant advantage that this framework has is its ability to act as a strong interface between the theoretical framework and the research questions. This can be seen in how the methodology focuses on the corpus and the circumstances within which it was created in (Hook, 2001, pg. 522). Such an approach fits closely with Foucault’s archaeology