Abstract

This study critically examines public statements by H&M Group and the rebuttal by Chinese government spokespersons (CCTV News), aiming to uncover the ideological differences underlying the dispute over the Xinjiang cotton boycott. Employing van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to critical discourse analysis, the analysis reveals a fundamental discursive asymmetry. H&M Group activates a mental model centered on corporate social responsibility and international compliance, whereas CCTV News activates a model centered on national dignity and resistance to perceived external hypocrisy. These two mental models are not merely different but incommensurable in their underlying evaluative structures. This incommensurability explains why the two public discourses failed to engage substantively with each other, instead talking past one another. The study concludes that such discursively enacted ideological divergence not only reflects but also reinforces the deepening geopolitical rift between China and Western-dominated institutional frameworks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.