The Folk Discourse And The Discourse Interaction And Game

This paper focuses on the interaction and game between official and non-official discourses, which, under various forces, have become more and more common. Based on the dimension of politics, the non-official discourse can be viewed as a political discourse and action. It represents the resentments of commonwealth people against hegemonism, and the game between official and non-official discourses can be seen as an action of fighting against politics. Through "the practice of people", we tried to find a middle path between technological determinism and sociological determinism. Our assumption is that technology cannot determine the practice of people. On the contrary, the meaning of a technology is actually determined by the practice of people. Based on this assumption, this paper will not focus on the truth of the facts, but on different people, their environments and how they used different media to participate the construction of the facts.A fundamental question of this paper is how non-official discourse interacts and plays with official discourse in public events on new media platforms, and how such interactions are represented in the resolution of crisis. It can be further divided into two questions:a) how does each side construct their roles, how do they use media to communicate and represent the event, and what role does this communication play in determining the final result of the event; b) under which condition can we reduce the risk of the game of discourse? For the convenience of the research, we divided people into four categories:professional journalists, intellectuals, commonwealth people and governments. Based on two news events, we investigated each of them using the model of circus.In these events, the intrinsic characteristics of each group and their relationships with other groups still played an important role in their practices of the new media. Based on their different positions in the state-society relationship, the Internet had different meanings to them. However, the Internet was not merely a continuation of the original political power. Through practice, alliance and disassociation, people were always changing or creating something. On China’s internet, behind the protests were people’s perception and imagination of the government and government relationship. In both events, the government was the imaginary target. This reflected the mismatch of social psychology, governors’lack of communication skills and the distrust of the two sides. We believe that this mismatch determined a shift of the two sides from benign interactions to more irrational fights.In classic western theory, the ultimate goal of social and political movements is to establish a conversation with governments or the nation. However, we observed that in China the goal of internet protests was to create pressures and urge the resolution of particular cases. Therefore, controversial events were mostly resolved case by case depending largely on each particular protest without systematic processes.