Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reveals how accusations of disorder stigmatise rival hegemonic projects, focusing on China’s role in international order.
This paper investigates the role that discourses of ‘order’ and ‘disorder’ play within the legitimacy claims of both hegemonic and counterhegemonic projects. In particular, it considers how accusations of ‘disordering’ are used to stigmatise, and thus delegitimise, rival hegemonic projects. It looks at how China’s rise is represented within Western scholarly and policy discourse as necessarily a risk to international order: China is depicted as antithetical to the fundamental pillars of the ‘liberal’/rules-based international order, and is thus stigmatised as a disordering influence on the international. A close examination of China’s practices, policy discourses and scholarship relating to international order, however, suggests a different picture: China goes out of its way to represent itself, not just as conforming to the existing norms of international order, but in fact as a leader on these norms, and as a more faithful guardian of the fundamental values of international justice, peace and prosperity which underpin international order. Furthermore, Chinese policy discourse in turn seeks to (counter) stigmatise the US and its allies as themselves the greatest threat to international order, and centres the global South as the crucial ‘audience of normals’ for these claims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dani Solomon (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: