Methodological Consciousness: The Construction of the Narrative System of Chinese-Path Modernization from the Perspective of Marx’s Method of Presentation

The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC proposed: “Accelerate the construction of a Chinese discourse and Chinese narrative system, and comprehensively enhance the effectiveness of international communication.” [1]1 The “two overall situations” (两个大局) refers to the overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation (中华民族伟大复兴) and the overall situation of changes unseen in a century (百年未有之大变局). As a new path of modernization development, Chinese-path modernization urgently needs to clarify the Chinese path, clear away cognitive fog, enhance cognitive identification, and construct a narrative system that connects China and the rest of the world. For a long time, an important issue troubling Chinese narrative has been: how can China’s autonomous narrative system reach the world? The construction of a narrative system depends on the structural support of narrative methods; the choice of method fundamentally affects the content representation and interpretive style of the narrative. Currently, the academic community focuses on normative research on the theoretical, practical, and value dimensions of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, achieving a series of fruitful results, while research concerning the methodology of the narrative system remains relatively weak. The method of presentation is a scientific method formed by Marx in the process of refining the logical structure, content expression, and terminological transformation of theory, used to explain research results. The application of the method of presentation is the reason why the abstruse and obscure theories in monumental works such as *Capital* could be recognized by the working class worldwide and become a powerful theoretical weapon. In this sense, Marx’s method of presentation is precisely an important method for establishing a logically self-consistent, value-integrated, and content-rich narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, and for presenting the rich connotations and value implications of Chinese-path modernization to the people of the world. Constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization guided by Marx’s method of presentation is not only an important path for “strengthening the capacity for international communication and comprehensively enhancing the effectiveness of international communication,” but also an inevitable requirement for breaking the methodological monopoly of Western narrative methods over the construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization and deepening the methodological consciousness of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization.

党的二十届三中全会提出：“加快构建中国话语和中国叙事体系，全面提升国际传播效能。”作为一条现代化发展新道路，中国式现代化迫切需要讲清中国道路、廓清认知迷雾、增进认知认同，构建融通中外的叙事体系。一直以来，困扰中国叙事的一个重要问题就是：如何让中国自主的叙事体系走向世界？叙事体系的建构有赖于叙事方法的结构性支撑，方法的选择从根本上影响叙事的内容表征与阐释样式。当前，学界聚焦中国式现代化叙事体系之理论、实践、价值维度展开规范性研究，取得了一系列丰硕成果，而关涉叙事体系方法论的研究仍较为薄弱。叙述方法是马克思在推敲理论的逻辑结构、内容表述与术语变革过程中，形成的阐释研究成果的科学方法。叙述方法的应用是《资本论》等鸿篇巨制中艰深晦涩的理论能够为全世界工人阶级所认同，并成为强大理论武器的原因。在此意义上，马克思的叙述方法正是建立逻辑自洽、价值融通、内容翔实的中国式现代化叙事体系，向世界人民展现中国式现代化的丰富内涵与价值意蕴的重要方法。以马克思的叙述方法为指引构建中国式现代化叙事体系，既是“加强国际传播能力建设，全面提升国际传播效能”的重要路径，也是打破西方叙事方法论对构建中国式现代化叙事体系的方法论垄断，深化中国式现代化叙事体系的方法自觉的必然要求。

I. Literature Review and Formulation of the Research Question

一、文献梳理及研究问题的提出

From the perspective of the historical torrent, the rise of a great power is inevitably accompanied by the local construction and international dissemination of its discourse and narrative system. The 2013 National Conference on Propaganda and Ideological Work pointed out the need to “guide people to understand contemporary China and view the external world more comprehensively and objectively.” [2]2 The 2013 National Conference on Propaganda and Ideological Work was a major meeting convened by the CPC Central Committee to set the direction for ideological and The 2017 report of the 19th National Congress of the CPC proposed, “Advance the capacity for international communication, tell China’s stories well, and present a true, multi-dimensional, and comprehensive China.” The 2022 report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized, “Accelerate the construction of a Chinese discourse and Chinese narrative system.” In 2024, the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC regarded “constructing a Chinese discourse and Chinese narrative system” as an important part of deepening the reform of the cultural system and mechanisms. Based on the broad vision and strategic thinking of the “two overall situations,” [3]3 Chen Xujing (1903–1967): a Chinese sociologist and historian who advocated wholesale Westernization during the 1930s cultural debates. the Party and the state have pointed out the urgency and importance of constructing a narrative system; deepening the narrative system that matches the practice of modernization is an inherent requirement for advancing Chinese-path modernization.

从历史洪流来看，大国崛起必然伴随着话语与叙事体系的本土建构与国际传播。2013年全国宣传思想文化工作会议指出，要“引导人们更加全面客观地认识当代中国、看待外部世界”。2017年党的十九大报告提出，“推进国际传播能力建设，讲好中国故事，展现真实、立体、全面的中国”。2022年党的二十大报告强调，“加快构建中国话语和中国叙事体系”。2024年党的二十届三中全会将“构建中国话语和中国叙事体系”作为深化文化体制机制改革的重要内容。党和国家基于“两个大局”的宏阔视野与战略思维，指明了构建叙事体系的紧迫性与重要性，深化与现代化实践相匹配的叙事体系是推进中国式现代化的应有之义。

Chinese-path modernization has always been a hot issue of continuous concern in domestic academic circles, and research on the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization has gradually become an academic growth point within the problem domain of Chinese-path modernization. Reflecting on existing research, it can be found that when discussing the possibility of constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, the academic community mainly focuses on the epochal purport, thinking logic, development context, value goals, and realization paths of the narrative, with less attention paid to the methods and specific experiences of narrative system construction. In the few methodological studies, the focus is on exploring the constructive role of historical dialectics, the method of real abstraction, the method of systematic comparison, and the method of emotional regulation in the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, analyzing the borrowing of methods from other disciplines such as textology, communication studies, hermeneutics, and phenomenology, and when tracing the theoretical origins of methods, there is a tendency to trace back to relevant theories of Western narratology such as those of Foucault, Tzvetan Todorov, and Mieke Bal. At the specific level of method application, it is emphasized that the discourse mode of Chinese-path modernization needs to focus on comparative interpretation, highlighting “Chinese characteristics” in the mutual verification of China and the West, selecting appropriate and suitable discourse forms according to the discourse object, and achieving the concerted effort of political discourse, academic discourse, and everyday discourse. To enhance the penetrative power and communicative power of the narrative of Chinese-path modernization, it is necessary to achieve the innovation, popularization, massification, and contemporization of discourse expression, especially paying attention to using digital technology to innovate the means of disseminating holistic discourse, pursuing a diversified discourse dissemination mode combining text and images.

中国式现代化一直是国内学界持续关注的热点问题，对中国式现代化叙事体系的研究也逐渐成为中国式现代化问题域下的学术增长点。反思既有研究可以发现，学界在探讨中国式现代化叙事体系建构何以可能的问题上，主要聚焦叙事的时代旨趣、思维逻辑、发展脉络、价值目标、实现路径等，较少关注叙事体系建构的方式方法与具体经验。在仅有的方法研究中，重点探究历史辩证法、现实抽象法、系统比较法、情感规约法对中国式现代化叙事体系的建构作用，分析文本学、传播学、解释学、现象学等其他学科方法的借用，并且在展开方法的理论溯源时倾向于追溯到福柯、茨维塔·托多罗夫、米克·巴尔等西方叙事学的相关理论。具象到方法的应用层面，强调中国式现代化的话语方式需要注重比较阐释，在中西互证中凸显“中国特色”，根据话语对象选择合适恰当的话语形式，实现政治话语、学术话语与生活话语的同向发力。要提升中国式现代化叙事的穿透力和传播力，必须实现话语表达的创新化、通俗化、大众化、时代化，尤其要注重借助数字技术创新整体性话语的传播手段，追求文字与图像相结合的多元话语传播方式。

Overall, domestic academic research on the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization rarely involves the analysis of the method of presentation and its application, showing a tendency to replace the method of presentation with research methods, or to emphasize mainstream Western narrative methods while neglecting Marxist and China’s autonomous narrative methods. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically summarize the basic experience of Marxist discourse and narrative, form a narrative system method with Chinese characteristics, and enhance the methodological consciousness of constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization. From the methods clarified and used by Marx in his textual narratives, his unique method of presentation is an important way to construct a systematic and complete ideological edifice and to decode scientific theory for the proletariat worldwide. Lenin, when analyzing the method of presentation in *Capital*, highly praised it: “The method of exposition (and of research) in general dialectics should be just so.” [4]4 Michael E. Latham: an American historian of modernization theory, author of *Modernization as Ideology* (2000). In this sense, the potential value of Marx’s method of presentation for constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization still awaits in-depth exploration. In this regard, the questions that urgently need to be answered are: Why does the method of presentation possess such a powerful capacity for narrative construction? From the perspective of the method of presentation, what difficulties does the current construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization encounter? More importantly, how can we construct a systematic and complete narrative system of Chinese-path modernization guided by the method of presentation? Based on the above questions, this article attempts to extend from the basic stipulations of Marx’s method of presentation and explore theoretical and practical solutions to extricate the narrative of Chinese-path modernization from its difficulties, thereby providing methodological reference for constructing a systematic and complete narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, and also offering different entry perspectives for further promoting research on the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization.

总体上看，国内学界对中国式现代化叙事体系的研究鲜有关涉叙述方法及其应用的探析，存在以研究方法代替叙述方法，抑或重视西方主流叙述方法而忽视马克思主义与中国自主叙述方法的倾向。由此，有必要系统总结马克思主义话语叙事的基本经验，形成具有中国特色的叙事体系方法，以提升中国式现代化叙事体系建构的方法自觉。从马克思在文本叙事中所澄明与使用的方法来看，其独特的叙述方法是构建系统完整的思想大厦以及向全世界无产阶级解码科学理论的重要途径。列宁在分析《资本论》的叙述方法时曾对其做过高度评价，“一般辩证法的阐述（以及研究）方法也应当如此”。在此意义上，马克思的叙述方法对于建构中国式现代化叙事体系的潜在价值仍有待深度挖掘。对此，亟须回答的问题是，叙述方法何以具有强大的叙事建构能力？在叙述方法视野下，当前中国式现代化的叙事体系建构遭遇何种困境？更为重要的是，如何以叙述方法为指引构建系统完善的中国式现代化叙事体系？基于以上问题，本文将试图从马克思叙述方法的基本规定中延伸与探究走出中国式现代化叙事困境的理论和现实方案，以此为构建系统完善的中国式现代化叙事体系提供方法参照，也为进一步推动中国式现代化理论体系的研究提供不同的切入视角。

II. The Methodological Establishment of Narrative: The Basic Stipulations of Marx’s Method of Presentation

二、叙事的方法确立：马克思叙述方法的基本规定

“Narrative” (narrative) and its cognate “narration” (narration) both originate from the Latin word *narrare*, meaning to tell, relate, and discuss. However, there is a clear boundary between their functional meanings: narrative leans towards the discourse symbols and textual carriers that are narrated, while narration focuses on the interpretive act of producing and creating narrative texts. In this regard, for a subject to process and transform experiences, events, and actions into a logical and coherent narrative system, it needs to be supported by a scientific method of presentation; the reason a text can become a text is based on the use of the method of presentation. For a long time, the construction of narrative systems has often had a potential “misjudgment,” namely, neglecting the dialectical relationship between research methods and the method of presentation, and suspending the role of the method of presentation in the systematic construction of narrative. Marx’s explanation of the method of presentation and its relationship with research methods clarifies the value, function, and formal stipulations of the method of presentation, providing guidance for leading the narrative system to greater depth.

“叙事”（narrative）及其同源词“叙述”（narration）都来源于拉丁词narrare，意为讲述、关联与谈论。然而，二者的功能性意涵存在明显界限，叙事偏向被叙述出来的话语符号与文本载体，叙述则侧重生产与创造叙事文本的阐释行为。就此而言，主体要将经验、事件和行动加工转化为具有逻辑性与连贯性的叙事体系，需要以科学的叙述方法为支撑，文本之所以能够成为文本是建立在使用叙述方法的基础上的。一直以来，叙事体系构建往往存在潜在“误判”，即忽视研究方法与叙述方法的辩证关系，悬置叙述方法对叙事体系化建构的作用。马克思对叙述方法及其与研究方法关系的阐释，明晰了叙述方法的价值、功能与形态规定，为引领叙事体系走向纵深提供指引。

(A) The Value Stipulation of the Method of Presentation: The Concrete Reproduction of Abstract Determinations

(一)叙述方法的价值规定：抽象规定的具体再现

The method of inquiry and the method of presentation are a pair of methods in Marxist methodology that complement each other and are inseparable. The logical endpoint of inquiry is the logical starting point of presentation, and the method of presentation is precisely the key link through which the “life of the material” formed by the method of inquiry is ideally presented. In the postface to the second edition of Volume 1 of *Capital*, Marx distinguishes between the method of inquiry and the method of presentation and emphasizes the importance of the method of presentation: “Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately presented. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.” That is to say, the method of inquiry is a method of fully appropriating real material and analyzing its inner connections through the “power of abstraction,” while the “life of the material” obtained by the method of inquiry can only be unfolded from abstract determinations into a holistic understanding through the method of presentation, and objectified in forms such as concepts, categories, and chapter structures. Marx always maintained a rigorous attitude toward the use of the methods of inquiry and presentation: “Whatever shortcomings my works may have, they have one merit: they are an artistic whole. But this can only be achieved with my method, by not having them printed until they lie complete before me.” He sharply pointed out that Green’s textbook-style compilation method was unsuitable for “works of dialectical structure.” Although the method of presentation appears as a continuation of the method of inquiry, this does not mean that the method of presentation is in a passive state. In the process of conceiving the overall narrative structure of *Capital*, Marx successively proposed a “five-part structure plan,” a “six-book structure plan,” and a “four-volume structure,” aiming to scientifically and completely present the theoretical system of political economy. The continuous supplementation and improvement of the overall structure and detailed content highlight the importance of the method of presentation. From the specific content involved in the method of presentation, it contains multiple determinations such as content expression, logical structure, terminological revolution, and revision and translation. Marx’s repeated deliberation and revision of expressions, detailed analysis and explanation of theoretical attacks, and careful scrutiny and transformation of terms provide important insights for constructing a dialectical narrative system that unifies theoretical core and practical reality.

研究方法与叙述方法是马克思主义方法论中相辅相成、不可分割的一对方法，研究的逻辑终点是叙述的逻辑起点，叙述方法正是观念地呈现研究方法所形成的“材料的生命”的关键环节。在《资本论》第一卷第二版跋中，马克思在区分研究方法和叙述方法的基础上强调叙述方法的重要性，“在形式上，叙述方法必须与研究方法不同。研究必须充分地占有材料，分析它的各种发展形式，探寻这些形式的内在联系。只有这项工作完成以后，现实的运动才能适当地叙述出来。这点一旦做到，材料的生命一旦在观念上反映出来，呈现在我们面前的就好像是一个先验的结构了。”也就是说，研究方法是大量占有现实材料并通过“抽象力”分析其内在联系的方法，而研究方法所取得的“材料的生命”只有借助叙述方法，才能使其从抽象规定展开为整体认识，并以概念、范畴、篇章结构等形式对象化呈现出来。马克思始终对研究与叙述方法的使用保有严谨的态度，“不论我的著作有什么缺点，它们却有一个长处，它们是一个艺术的整体，但是要达到这一点，只有用我的方法，在它们没有完整地摆在我面前时，不拿去付印”，并犀利地指出格林教科书式的编纂方法并不适用于“辩证结构的著作”。虽然叙述方法表现为研究方法的承续，但这并不意味着叙述方法处于被动状态。在构思《资本论》总体叙事结构的过程中，马克思曾经先后提出“五篇结构计划”“六册结构计划”“四卷结构”，以期科学完备地呈现政治经济学理论体系，对整体结构与细节内容的持续性增补完善彰显了叙述方法的重要性。从叙述方法所关涉的具体内容上看，其蕴含着内容表述、逻辑结构、术语革命、修订翻译等多重规定，马克思对表述的反复斟酌与修改、对理论攻击的详细辨析与说明、对术语的仔细推敲与变革，为构建理论内核与现实实践有机统一的辩证叙事体系提供重要启示。

(II) Functional Determinations of the Method of Presentation: Ontological Representation and Cognitive Convergence

（二）叙述方法的功能规定：本体表征与认知聚合

The method of presentation connects the two ends of the “actual movement” and the narrative audience in the narrative chain. Therefore, in the process of its application, it bears the dual functions of representing the narrative ontology and promoting cognitive convergence. Looking at the narrative link of any problem, the “actual movement” formed through the power of abstraction of the method of inquiry must be processed and integrated by the method of presentation before a text carrier with complete expression, rigorous logic, and complete meaning can be presented to the reader, enabling the reader to form an understanding and cognition of the narrative ontology. Thus, the method of presentation, as an important intermediary linking the narrative object and the narrative audience, directly concerns the dual aspects of whether the narrative ontology can be given a reasonable expression and whether the text carrier can be accepted and recognized by the reader. At the level of the narrative object, Marx emphasizes that the corresponding method of presentation must be adopted according to the characteristics of the narrative object: “Our method of presentation must naturally depend on the nature of the object itself.” Taking Volume 1 of *Capital* as an example, the understanding logic of bourgeois classical political economists in their presentation of value theory led them to regard value as a fixed, mechanical, and isolated economic phenomenon, neglecting the logical connections behind value in the narrative process. In contrast, the mode of presentation Marx adopted in analyzing value theory reveals a dialectical implication, scientifically and rigorously discovering from the analysis of commodities the value form that makes value exchange-value. At the level of the narrative audience, readers can only access and understand the method of inquiry through the method of presentation in the order of reading. Therefore, Marx emphasizes that the method of presentation must incorporate the cognitive situation of the narrative audience into its criteria. When Marx founded the first newspaper specifically aimed at the proletariat, the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung*, in 1848, he presented political programs through guiding articles and revolutionary poetry and literature, thereby greatly “inspiring the proletarian masses.” Furthermore, to ensure that *Capital* was “quickly understood within a wide circle,” Marx constantly explained, supplemented, and revised it according to the readers’ knowledge reserves and logical thinking, making this abstruse political economy theory “as popular as possible” and graspable by the broad working class. Thus, only by constructing a discourse and narrative system that fits the readers’ value preferences, cognitive levels, and receptive capacities can the “audience horizon” and the “narrative horizon” achieve fusion. The dual functions borne by Marx’s method of presentation deeply embed it in the narrative chain, making it an indispensable part of the narrative link.

叙述方法在叙事链上联结着“现实的运动”与叙事受众两端，因而在运用过程中承载着表征叙事本体与推动认知聚合的双重功能。就任何一个问题的叙事环节来看，经由研究方法的抽象力所形成的“现实的运动”，必须借助叙述方法的加工与整合，才能将一个表述完整、逻辑严密、意义完整的文本载体呈现给读者，以使读者形成对叙事本体的理解与认知。由此可见，叙述方法作为链接叙事对象与叙事受众的重要中介，直接关涉叙事本体能否被赋予合理的表述，以及文本载体能否被读者所接受和认同的双重面向。在叙事对象层面，马克思强调必须根据叙事对象的特性采用相应的叙述方法，“我们的叙述方法自然要取决于对象本身的性质”。以《资本论》第一卷为例，资产阶级古典政治经济学家对价值理论叙述的知性逻辑，使其将价值视为固定、机械、孤立的经济现象，在叙事过程中忽视价值背后的逻辑关联。与之相较，马克思在分析价值理论时所采取的叙述方式则显现出辩证法意蕴，进而科学严密地从商品分析中发现使价值成为交换价值的价值形式。在叙事受众的层面，读者在阅读次序上只有经由叙述方法才能接触与了解研究方法，因此马克思强调叙述方法必须将叙述受众的思想认知情况纳入衡量标准。马克思在1848年创办第一份专门面向无产阶级的报纸即《新莱茵报》时，就通过刊发指导性文章与革命诗歌文学等方式叙述政治纲领，并因此极大“鼓舞无产阶级群众”。此外，为了让《资本论》在“广大范围内迅速得到理解”，马克思根据读者的知识储备与思维逻辑不断进行解释、补充与修订，以使这艰深难懂的政治经济学理论“尽可能地做到通俗易懂”并为广大工人阶级所掌握。由此可见，只有构建契合读者价值偏好、认知水平与接受能力的话语与叙事体系，才能让“受众视界”与“叙事视界”实现融合。马克思叙述方法所承载的双重功能使其深刻嵌入叙事链条，并成为叙事环节中不可或缺的重要部分。

(III) Form Determination of the Method of Presentation: “Real Historical Presentation”

（三）叙述方法的形态规定：“现实的历史叙述”

On the basis of criticizing Hegel’s narrative form in the *Science of Logic*, Marx distinguishes between “ideal historical presentation” and “real historical presentation,” and regards the latter as the rational form of the method of presentation. Influenced by the dominant modern Western concept of rationalism, the Western social-historical field in Marx’s time generally saw the prevalence of “ideal historical presentation.” Before the rationalism spawned by Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am,” all things “had to justify their existence before the tribunal of reason or renounce the right to exist.” In this theoretical situation, some Western thinkers embedded rational principles into historical narratives, attempting to conduct historical research from the perspective of rational concepts, thereby defending the historical eternity of reason. Hegel pushed the idealist narrative to its peak. The dialectical presentation in the *Phenomenology of Spirit* and the *Science of Logic* depicts world history as the result of the continuous externalization of absolute spirit; world history fundamentally manifests as the “cunning of reason.” “Hegel often makes real presentations that grasp the thing itself within speculative presentations. Such real presentations made within speculative expositions tempt the reader to take the speculative presentation as real and the real presentation as speculative.” Marx profoundly realized that this mode of presentation is essentially only a movement of words, not concerning the practical activities of the real world, and possesses no real capacity to transform the world. Therefore, Marx advocates establishing dialectics on the basis of people’s real existence, achieving the integration of dialectical theory and real practice. Specifically, one must start from the “most stubborn facts,” i.e., the material practice of real individuals, and grasp the totality of social relations and the dialectical nature of human existence through real historical presentation: “It does not seek a category in every age, but always stands on the basis of real history; it does not explain practice from ideas, but explains various ideological forms from material practice.” The real and dialectical attributes elucidated by Marx’s method of presentation fundamentally differ from Western traditional narrative paradigms. It contains Marx’s critical reflections on the practical application of dialectics and the method of presentation on the foundation of historical materialism, and is the essential attribute of Marx’s method of presentation.

马克思在批判黑格尔《逻辑学》叙事形式的基础上，区分了“观念的历史叙述”与“现实的历史叙述”，并将后者视为叙述方法的合理形态。受近代西方主导性观念即理性主义的影响，马克思所处的西方社会历史领域普遍存在“观念的历史叙述”的滥觞。在笛卡尔的“我思故我在”所催生的理性主义面前，一切事物都“必须在理性的法庭面前为自己的存在作辩护或者放弃存在的权利”。在此理论境遇下，部分西方思想家将理性原则嵌入历史叙事之中，试图从理性观念出发展开历史研究，以此为理性的历史永恒性辩护。黑格尔将观念论叙事推向顶峰，《精神现象学》和《逻辑学》的辩证法叙述将世界历史描绘成绝对精神不断外化的结果，世界历史在根本上表现为“理性的机巧”，“黑格尔常常在思辨的叙述中作出把握住事物本身的、现实的叙述。这种在思辨的阐述之中所作的现实的阐述会诱使读者把思辨的阐述看成现实的，而把现实的阐述看成思辨的”。马克思深刻地意识到，这种叙述方式本质上只是词句的运动，并不关涉现实世界的实践活动，不具备任何改造世界的现实能力。由此，马克思主张将辩证法建立在人之现实生存的基础上，实现辩证法理论与现实实践的结合。具体而言，必须从“最顽强的事实”即现实个人的物质实践出发，通过现实的历史叙述把握社会关系的总体性与人存在的辩证本性，“它不是在每个时代中寻找某种范畴，而是始终站在现实历史的基础上，不是从观念出发来解释实践，而是从物质实践出发来解释各种观念形态”。马克思叙述方法所阐明的现实与辩证属性同西方传统的叙事范式存在根本差异，它蕴含了马克思在唯物史观地基上对辩证法以及叙述方法现实运用的批判性思考，是马克思叙述方法的本质属性。

III. Examination of Modernization Narratives: Multiple Challenges to the Narrative System of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、现代化叙事的审视：中国式现代化叙事体系的多重挑战

At the historical intersection where the “two overall situations” [1]1 The “two overall situations” (两个大局) refers to the overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation (中华民族伟大复兴) and the overall situation of changes unseen in a century (百年未有之大变局). interact with each other, the narrative of Chinese-path modernization, rooted in a century of practice, faces increasingly difficult and complex tasks of external narration and international communication. Comprehensively and three-dimensionally displaying the image of Chinese-path modernization depends on constructing a narrative system that both meets the requirements of local modernization development and can integrate into the broader pattern of international communication. Examining reality based on the basic determinations of the method of presentation reveals that the construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization encounters problems such as a lack of narrative depth in Chinese-path modernization, the hegemony of the Western modernization narrative paradigm, and barriers in narrative discourse. These issues make it difficult to transform localized “Chinese stories” into global and systematic “international narratives,” thereby hindering Chinese-path modernization from going global.

在“两个大局”相互激荡的历史交汇点，植根于百年实践的中国式现代化叙事面临着更加艰难繁杂的对外叙事与国际传播任务。全面立体地展示中国式现代化形象，有赖于构建既契合现代化本土发展要求，又能够融入国际传播大格局的叙事体系。基于叙述方法的基本规定审视现实，可以发现中国式现代化的叙事体系构建遭遇着中国式现代化叙事深度匮乏、西方现代化叙事范式霸权以及叙事话语阻隔的问题，致使本土化的“中国故事”难以转化为世界性与体系性的“国际叙事”，进而阻碍了中国式现代化走向世界。

(I) Lack of Narrative Depth: The Absence of a Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization “Rising from the Abstract to the Concrete”

（一）叙事深度匮乏：中国式现代化“从抽象上升到具体”叙事阙如

“Chinese-path modernization” is a high-level condensation of the “real material” of the CPC’s century-long practice, firmly embodying the process of conceptual abstraction and structuration “from the concrete to the abstract.” Marx emphasized that “language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other people as well, and therefore exists for me personally as well.” From “modernization” to “Chinese-path modernization,” the innovative transformation of the concept harbors a unique discursive consciousness formed on the basis of modernization practice. The awakening of this consciousness enables China’s modernization practice to be transformed, through “the power of abstraction,” into modernization categories, concepts, and theories rich in Chinese elements. Looking back at China’s early explorations of modernization, one finds that the marginality and limitations of the subjects of modernization practice often caused modernization to point toward Westernization and capitalist modernization. In the debate between “native culture” and “wholesale Westernization,” Chen Xujing, in *The Way Out for Chinese Culture*, emphasized that for China to move from a traditional agricultural society into a modern industrial society, it must wholly accept Western culture to transform Chinese culture. With the introduction of Marxism, which carried a vision of modernization theory, into China, the modernization consciousness of the Chinese people gradually awakened, and judgments about the nature and content of modernization discourse also shifted. From the “industrialization of China and modernization of agriculture” proposed by the CPC before and after the victory of the Chinese revolution, to the “three modernizations” and “four modernizations” during the period of socialist construction, to “Chinese-style modernization” at the beginning of the new period of socialist modernization, and finally to the successful expansion of Chinese-path modernization in the New Era, the CPC, in the process of advancing modernization with “Chinese characteristics,” has used its independent discursive capacity to refine the practical experience of China’s modernization path, forming the historical category of “Chinese-path modernization.”

“中国式现代化”是对中国共产党百年实践的“现实材料”的高度凝练，坚实地体现了“从具体到抽象”的概念抽象化、结构化进程。马克思强调，“语言是一种实践的、既为别人存在因而也为我自身而存在的、现实的意识”。从“现代化”到“中国式现代化”，概念的创新变革就潜藏着现代化实践基础上形成的独特话语意识。这种意识的觉醒使得中国的现代化实践得以通过“抽象力”转化为饱含丰富中国要素的现代化范畴、概念、理论。回溯中国早期对现代化的探索，可以发现现代化实践主体的边缘性与局限性，使得现代化往往指向西化与资本主义现代化。在“本位文化”与“全盘西化”论战中，陈序经在《中国文化之出路》中强调中国要从传统农业社会迈进现代工业社会，就必须全盘接受西方文化以改造中国文化。随着带有现代化理论视野的马克思主义传入中国，国人的现代化意识逐渐觉醒，对现代化话语性质与内容的判断也出现转向。从中国共产党在中国革命胜利前后所提的“中国的工业化和农业近代化”到社会主义建设时期的“三个现代化”“四个现代化”再到社会主义现代化建设新时期之初的“中国式的现代化”最后到新时代中国式现代化的成功拓展，中国共产党在推进具有“中国特色”的现代化建设过程中，以独立的话语能力提炼中国现代化道路的现实经验，形成了“中国式现代化”这一历史性范畴。

In terms of the systematic interpretation of discourse narrative, Chinese-path modernization suffers from a lack of narrative that “rises from the abstract to the concrete.” If the discursive study of Chinese-path modernization is “the process of taking the rich perceptual materials, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories,” then the discursive narration of Chinese-path modernization is the reverse of this process: it proceeds from established discourse, moving from “a chaotic conception of the whole” to reach “a rich totality of many determinations and relations.” At present, the construction of the discourse and narrative system of Chinese-path modernization has already achieved a series of fruitful results. The academic community has conducted in-depth research on the scientific connotation, essential characteristics, and historical significance of Chinese-path modernization, and has carried out comprehensive explorations from multiple dimensions such as philosophy, economics, anthropology, political science, and history, providing important material for the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization. However, many narratives still face numerous difficulties in how to combine dialectical logic with actual history to achieve a concrete understanding and holistic grasp of Chinese-path modernization. First, the “intelligible” interpretation of the concepts, categories, and theories of Chinese-path modernization lags behind China’s modernization practice. This is prominently manifested in the following: narratives about Chinese-path modernization are confined to the abstract determinations of its elements, neglecting the endogenous driving forces, unfolding links, and formative movements that connect these elements, thereby obscuring the internal connection between Chinese-path modernization and world modernization, and leaving a gap in the demonstration of the inevitability of Chinese-path modernization as a plan for constructing a new modernity. Second, the Western modern narrative system has long constrained the narrative of Chinese-path modernization. Under the influence of capital power, the Western modernization narrative affects and constrains the practice of world modernization, using Western concepts, discourses, and frameworks to impose a template on the practice of Chinese-path modernization. This not only lacks a summation of local modernization experience but also flattens the Chinese characteristics of the narrative system. Third, the political nature and academic rationality of the discourse of Chinese-path modernization have not yet been fully integrated. There is a problem of “two separate skins” between the political discourse and the academic discourse of Chinese-path modernization: political discourse pursues breadth but lacks depth, and academic achievements are difficult to directly supply the needs of political discourse. “If separated from political discourse, academic discourse loses its direction, making it difficult to form discursive power or have a practical impact on practice; if separated from academic discourse, political discourse may become mere and empty slogans.”

在话语叙事的体系化诠释上，中国式现代化存在“从抽象上升到具体”的叙事匮乏问题。如果说中国式现代化的话语研究是“将丰富的感觉材料加以去粗取精、去伪存真、由此及彼、由表及里的改造制作工夫，造成概念和理论的系统”，那么中国式现代化的话语叙述则与这一过程相反，它是在既定话语的基础上从“一个混沌的关于整体的表象”抵达“一个具有许多规定和关系的丰富的总体”。当前，中国式现代化话语与叙事体系建构已然取得一系列丰硕成果，学界对中国式现代化的科学内涵、本质特征、历史意义等方面展开了深入研究，并从哲学、经济学、人类学、政治学、历史学等多重维度进行了全方位探讨，为中国式现代化的叙事体系提供了重要素材。然而，大部分叙事在如何结合辩证逻辑与现实历史实现对中国式现代化的具体理解与整体把握，仍然存在诸多难题。其一，对中国式现代化概念、范畴、理论的“可理解性”阐释滞后于我国的现代化实践。这突出表现为：关于中国式现代化的叙述局限于要素的抽象规定，忽视中国式现代化各要素相联系的内生动力、展开环节与形成运动，遮蔽中国式现代化与世界现代化的内在联系，从而为确证中国式现代化作为新现代性建构方案的必然性留下缺口。其二，西方现代叙事体系长期制约着中国式现代化叙事。西方现代化叙事在资本权力的加持下影响和制约着世界现代化实践，以西方的概念、话语、框架嵌套中国式现代化的实践，不仅缺乏对本土现代化经验的总结，也抹平了叙事体系的中国特色。其三，中国式现代化话语的政治性与学理性尚未充分融合。中国式现代化的政治话语与学术话语存在“两张皮”问题，即政治话语追求广度而缺乏深度、学术成果难以直接供给政治话语需求，“如果脱离了政治话语，学术话语会失去方向，难以形成话语权，也难以对实践产生实际影响；如果脱离了学术话语，政治话语就可能成为单纯而空洞的口号”。

(II) Deviation of Narrative Paradigm: The Nesting of Unitary Narrative onto the Narrative Noumenon of Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）叙事范式异轨：一元化叙事对中国式现代化叙事本体的嵌套

Western countries pioneered their own modernization path and its global expansion, thereby forming a unitary, linear modernization narrative and attempting to hegemonically nest it onto the modernization practices of other countries. The modernization narrative is a general expression of a specific stage of modernization. Western countries, relying on technological innovation, external expansion, and capital accumulation, first opened up the path of modernization, using their own modernization practice to define the “meta-model” of modernization. This modernization model, summarized by Western academia, became classical modernization theory, and constructed a unified modernization narrative paradigm based on the values, institutional models, and development paths of Western modernization. As Foucault pointed out, discourse is “linked to the power effects it induces and renews.” The Western modernization narrative is inseparable from capital power; the endogenous drive of capital impels the Western modernization narrative to continuously break through the boundaries of regions, nations, and states, attempting to erase the heterogeneous characteristics of other countries’ modernization practices and indiscriminately graft this homogenizing narrative onto their practices. For example, Weber argued that “the so-called advance toward capitalism is the sole measure of economic modernization,” while China’s Confucian ethics hindered the rise of capitalism. Another example: Michael E. Latham pointed out that “American modernization theorists continued the Enlightenment’s explanation of Western superiority, inheriting the imperialist rhetoric that selfless and benevolent Westerners needed to provide material aid and moral guardianship to guide the progress of peoples lacking ‘advancement’.” In essence, the intermingling of justification and superiority makes the Western modernization narrative paradigm an abstract form that strips away the “matter” of modernization experience, as if any modernization practice can be placed within this “universally applicable” narrative coordinate.

西方国家率先开启自身现代化道路及其全球铺展，据此形成一元单线的现代化叙事，并试图将其霸权式嵌套在他国的现代化实践之上。现代化叙事是对特定现代化阶段的总体性表达。西方国家凭借技术革新、对外扩张与资本积累先行开辟现代化道路，以自身的现代化实践规定了现代化的“元模式”。这种现代化模式经由西方学界总结而成为经典现代化理论，并以西方现代化的价值观、制度模式与发展道路为基准建构了统一性的现代化叙事范式。恰如福柯所指，话语“与它所诱发并更新它的权力效果联系在一起”，西方现代化叙事与资本权力不可分割，资本的内生驱动促使西方现代化叙事不断冲破地域、民族、国家界域，妄图抹平他国现代化实践的异质特征，将这种同一性现代化叙事无差别地嫁接在他国实践之上。譬如，韦伯认为“所谓的迈向资本主义的进步是经济现代化唯一的尺度”，而中国的儒教伦理则阻碍了资本主义的兴起。再如，雷迅马指出，“美国的现代化论者接续了启蒙运动对西方优越性的解释，承袭了那种认为无私而慈善的西方有必要向缺乏‘先进性’的民族提供物质援助和道义监护以指导其前进的帝国主义论调”。质言之，辩护性与优越性的相互混杂，使得西方现代化的叙事范式成为祛除现代化经验“质料”的抽象形式，仿佛任何现代化实践都能被置于这个“放之四海而皆准”的叙事坐标中。

Marx emphasized that “the dialectical form of presentation is correct only when it knows its own limits.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Postface to the Second Edition. Marx distinguishes between the method of inquiry (Forschungsweise), which appropriates the material in detail and analyzes its forms of development, and the method of presentation (Darstellungsweise), which presents the results so that the movement of the material appears as if from a logical construction. The quotation warns against confusing the two. How presentation unfolds depends on the nature of the “narrative subject.” Chinese-path modernization, based on a unique modernization practice, has formed a “new narrative” that differs from the unilinear narrative of Western modernization. The difference in narrative paradigms has led the West, in its struggle for narrative hegemony, to breach narrative boundaries, intensifying its suppression of the narrative of Chinese-path modernization. As a modernization model that “develops independently” rooted in China’s reality, Chinese-path modernization takes people-centered modernization as its core “humanistic kernel,” coupled with national and indigenous premises. This obviously cannot be mechanically incorporated into the narrative paradigm of Western modernization for explanation. The concrete evidence of the ills of Western modernization and the open challenge to the “authority” of the Western modernization narrative inevitably subject Chinese-path modernization to attacks in the field of discourse and narrative. First, there is the fabrication of slanderous discourse. In response to the great achievements of Chinese-path modernization, Western countries continuously use neologisms such as “economic coercion,” “authoritarianism,” and “neocolonialism” to stigmatize, demonize, and derogate Chinese-path modernization, misleading the world’s understanding and judgment of the developmental logic of Chinese-path modernization, thereby defending the legitimacy of capitalism. Second, there is the waging of public opinion warfare through discourse infiltration. Indirect cultural immersion and the subtle export of values to influence the cognition, values, and belief systems of other countries are common tactics of Western countries. To weaken domestic and international recognition of Chinese-path modernization, Western countries, on the one hand, infiltrate their modernization logic into the economic, political, and cultural spheres, and on the other hand, exploit information asymmetries between domestic and international contexts to spread false narratives and malicious information about Chinese-path modernization to other countries. Third, there is the struggle for the digital field of discourse. With the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the virtual field constructed by digital-intelligent technologies such as big data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence has become a new battlefield for ideological struggle. Relying on their advantage in controlling core digital-intelligent technologies, developed Western countries attempt to shape a hegemonic modernization discourse space, that is, to seize and monopolize the right to expression in the digital field, and to use intelligent algorithms to manipulate the “visibility” of Chinese discourse in digital space, squeezing the space for the expression of the discourse of Chinese-path modernization.

马克思强调，“叙述的辩证形式只有明了自己的界限时才是正确的”v，叙述如何展开取决于“叙事本体”的性质，中国式现代化基于独特的现代化实践形成了异于西方现代化一元化叙事的“新叙事”，叙事范式的差异致使西方为争夺叙事霸权而冲破叙事界限，加剧对中国式现代化叙事的打压。作为立足中国现实而“独立式发展”的现代化模式，中国式现代化以人的现代化为核心的“人本内核”，加之民族性与本土性前提，这显然无法机械地纳入西方现代化的叙事范式之中加以阐释。对西方现代化弊病的现实例证、对西方现代化叙事“权威”的公然撼动，使得中国式现代化必然在话语叙事领域遭受攻讦。一是炮制诽谤性话语。针对中国式现代化发展的巨大成就，西方国家不断通过“经济胁迫”“威权主义”“新殖民主义”等名词重建术来污名化、妖魔化和贬义化中国式现代化，误导世界对中国式现代化发展逻辑的认知与判断，从而为资本主义合法性辩护。二是开展话语渗透的舆论战。通过间接的文化浸润、潜移默化的价值观输出来影响他国的认知、价值与信仰体系是西方国家的惯用手段。为了削弱中国式现代化的国内外认同，西方国家一方面在经济、政治与文化领域渗透其现代化逻辑，另一方面通过国内外信息差向他国传播中国式现代化的虚假叙事与恶意信息。三是争夺话语斗争的数字场域。随着第四次工业革命的到来，大数据、算法和人工智能等数智技术所建构的虚拟场域已成为意识形态斗争的新战场。西方发达国家凭借对核心数智技术的掌控优势，试图塑造霸权化的现代化话语空间，即抢占和垄断数字场域的表达权，并且运用智能算法操控中国话语在数字空间的“可视度”，挤压中国式现代化话语的表达空间。

(III) Narrative Discourse Barrier: Cognitive Bias of Readers toward the Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization

（三）叙事话语阻隔：中国式现代化叙事的读者认知偏差

An important purpose of constructing a narrative system is to break the inherent “siloing” barriers of narrative, enabling the narrative system to form an equal dialogic relationship with other countries’ modernization narratives in the field of international communication, and to transcend the boundaries of nation-states to be understood and recognized by audiences worldwide. However, the particularity of the Chinese-path modernization path, coupled with the ideological encirclement of Chinese-path modernization by Western countries, has resulted in a cognitive gap between the local discourse of Chinese-path modernization and the modernization discourse of others. It is difficult to achieve the goal stipulated by Marx’s method of presentation of being understood and accepted by a broad readership. On the one hand, this gap manifests as overseas scholars, based on the fundamental premise of the superiority of Western modernity, measuring and interpreting the development model of Chinese-path modernization by the standards of Western modernization. In recent years, foreign academic circles have closely followed the construction model and developmental effectiveness of Chinese-path modernization, combining the historic achievements of China’s modernization practice to conduct scholarly research on how the Chinese path differs from the Western modernization path. Although some Western scholars have turned their modernization perspective toward the Chinese path, they still inevitably interpret the basic concepts and historical practices of Chinese-path modernization from the “Western-centric” “impact-response” perspective. For example, Marius Meinhof studies the applied value of Western modernization through the development model of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizing the advanced nature of the Western modernization model. Even worse, some distort the fundamental nature of the Chinese path as “Chinese-style state capitalism.” On the other hand, this gap manifests as Western publics lacking discourse cognition rooted in China’s modernization practice; their understanding of Chinese-path modernization is not only “insufficiently deep” but also prone to “bias.” Whenever we read a narrative, we tend to organize and interpret it based on “certain codes and language.” The cultural distance between China and the West inevitably leads to differences in their cognitive codes, thus creating an “incompleteness problem” in the translation of the narrative of Chinese-path modernization to the West. At the same time, mainstream Western media tend to portray China’s “tough image,” frequently using pejorative terms such as “hardline” and “defiant” in related reports, causing Western publics’ negative attitudes toward the narrative of Chinese-path modernization to not only persist but also remain at a high level.

叙事体系建构的重要目的在于打破固有的叙事“圈层化”壁垒，让叙事体系在国际传播场域中与他国现代化叙事形成平等的对话关系，并超越民族国家界限而为世界范围内的受众所理解与认同。然而，中国式现代化道路的特殊性，加之西方国家对中国式现代化的意识形态围堵，致使中国式现代化的本土话语与他者现代化话语仍存在认知隔膜，难以达成马克思叙述方法所规定的为广大读者所理解与接受。一方面，这种隔膜表现为海外学者基于西方现代性之优越性的基本前提，以西方现代化标准衡量与解读中国式现代化的发展模式。近年来，国外学界密切关注中国式现代化建设模式与发展实效，结合中国现代化实践所取得的历史性成果，展开对中国道路区别于西方现代化道路的学理研究。虽然部分西方学者将现代化视野投射到中国道路上，但仍不可避免地从“西方中心主义”的“冲击—回应”视角解读中国式现代化的基本理念与历史实践。譬如，马里乌斯·迈因霍夫通过中国式现代化的发展模式研究西方现代化的应用价值，强调西方现代化模式的先进性。更有甚者，将中国道路的根本性质歪曲为“中国式国家资本主义”。另一方面，这种隔膜表现为西方民众缺乏植根于中国现代化实践的话语认知，对中国式现代化的理解不仅“不够深入”且易于出现“偏颇”。每当我们阅读一个叙事，我们往往是依据“某些符码、语言”来组织它、解释它，中国与西方的文化距离致使二者的认知符码不可避免地存在差异，由此形成中国式现代化叙事向西方转换的“不可能完全性问题”。同时，西方主流媒体倾向于刻画中国“强硬形象”，在相关报道中经常性使用“hardline”（强硬路线)、“defiant”(挑衅)等贬义词汇，致使西方民众对中国式现代化叙事消极态度不减反增并仍在高位运行。

In fact, from the actual state of China’s current external narrative practice of Chinese-path modernization, there are still many obstacles to dissolving the cognitive gap of other countries’ publics regarding the narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization. From the perspective of the main content of the narrative discourse, the narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization is primarily composed of national “self-sculpting” discourse, emphasizing the particularity dimension of the “Chinese solution” to world problems, while neglecting to explain the universality dimension of the “world solution” to Chinese problems from the Western cognitive logic. This leads Western countries to tend to understand the narrative of Chinese-path modernization as completely opposed to Western experience, making it difficult to escape the trap of ideological attacks. From the perspective of the interaction between narrative discourse and international narratives, in the process of external narration, Chinese-path modernization has an obvious political propaganda orientation, tending to adopt a unidirectional, grand narrative discourse method for self-promotion and information transmission, without fully balancing “self-narrative” and “other-narrative” or establishing a logic for linking local discourse with world narratives. This results in foreign publics developing a “confrontational” and “rebellious” psychology toward China’s narrative. From the perspective of the narrative form of discourse narration, using digital-intelligent technologies to enhance narrative soft power and seize the dominant discourse power in digital-intelligent space has become a common opportunity and challenge for countries in their external narratives. The technological hegemony of the West in the field of digital intelligence has caused China’s modernization narrative in digital-intelligent space to be constrained by Western technical norms. Only by actively formulating technical governance norms that align with Chinese values can China effectively rely on digital-intelligent technologies to expand the dissemination forms of the narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization and achieve communication and dialogue with the modernization discourse of others. In summary, the cognitive gap in the narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization weakens the initiative in constructing the narrative system and reduces the density of external dissemination of the discourse and narrative system.

事实上，从当前中国式现代化对外叙事实践的实然状态上看，他国民众对中国式现代化叙事话语认知隔膜的消解仍存在诸多阻碍。从叙事话语的主要内容上看，中国式现代化叙事话语主要以民族性的“自塑”话语为主，强调世界问题之“中国方案”的特殊性之维，忽视从西方的认知逻辑阐释中国问题之“世界方案”的普遍性之维，致使西方国家倾向于将中国式现代化叙事理解为与西方经验完全对立的存在，进而难以走出意识形态攻讦之困。从叙事话语与国际叙事的交互上看，中国式现代化在对外叙事的过程中存在明显的政治宣传本位，更加倾向于采用单向度的、宏大的话语叙事方式进行自我宣介与信息传递，没有充分兼顾“自我叙事”与“他者叙事”、建立本土话语与世界叙事的接轨逻辑，致使国外民众形成对中国叙事形成“对抗性”“逆反性”心理。从话语叙事的叙述形式上看，利用数智技术提升叙事软实力、抢占数智空间的话语主导权成为各国对外叙事共同面临的机遇与挑战。西方在数字智能领域的技术霸权，导致中国在数智空间所展开的现代化叙事受制于西方的技术规范，只有主动制定符合中国价值理念的技术治理规范，才能有效依托数智技术拓展中国式现代化叙事话语的传播形式，实现与他者现代化话语的沟通对话。总之，中国式现代化叙事话语的认知区隔削弱了叙事体系建构的主动权，降低了话语与叙事体系的对外传播密度。

IV. How Is the Narrative System Possible: The Mirror of Marx’s Method of Presentation for Constructing the Narrative System of Chinese-Path Modernization

四、叙事体系何以可能：马克思叙述方法对建构中国式现代化叙事体系的镜鉴

Constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization is an urgent task for advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization. If a systematic, complete, and rigorous narrative system is an indispensable key link for enhancing domestic and international recognition of Chinese-path modernization, then the scientific method of presentation, as a key factor influencing “in what nature,” “from what perspective,” and “for what purpose” the narrative system is constructed, occupies the core position of this “key link.” Faced with the multiple difficulties encountered in the current construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, Marx’s method of presentation provides many insights for clarifying the purpose, stipulations, and form of the narrative, and for moving beyond the problem of “narrating for the sake of narrating.” Accordingly, we urgently need to maintain a high degree of methodological consciousness, take Marx’s method of presentation as a scientific guide, construct a narrative foundation that unifies the method of inquiry and the method of presentation, adhere to a narrative discourse that combines terminological revolution and reader consciousness, and follow the form of “real historical narrative,” thereby forming a narrative system of Chinese-path modernization that reflects the characteristics of the times and has Chinese characteristics.

构建中国式现代化叙事体系是推进和拓展中国式现代化的紧迫任务。如果说系统、完整、严密的叙事体系是增进中国式现代化国内国际认同所不可或缺的关键一环，那么科学的叙述方法作为影响叙事体系“在何种性质”“从何种视角”“向何种目的”构建的关键因素，就处在这“关键一环”的核心位置。面对当前中国式现代化叙事体系构建所遭遇的多重困境，马克思的叙述方法为我们明晰叙事的目的、规定、形态，走出“为叙事而叙事”的问题提供诸多镜鉴。借此，我们亟须保持高度的方法自觉，以马克思叙述方法为科学指引，构建研究方法与叙述方法相统一的叙事基础、坚持术语革命与读者意识的叙事话语以及遵循“现实的历史叙事”形态，形成反映时代特征、具有中国特色的中国式现代化叙事体系。

(I) The Narrative Foundation of Chinese-Path Modernization: Achieving the Dialectical Unity of the Method of Inquiry and the Method of Presentation

（一）中国式现代化的叙事基础：实现研究方法和叙述方法的辩证统一

In Marx’s view, although the method of inquiry and the method of presentation are clearly demarcated and hierarchically distinct in form, they are functionally complementary and mutually coupled. After the method of inquiry, by means of the power of abstraction, processes the actual material to obtain the “real movement,” it objectively becomes necessary to rely on the method of presentation to concretely reproduce its general determinations, enabling the narrative audience to establish a value-link with the research results and thereby activate the living reality of the narrative. The unfolding of the narrative also requires, as a basic precondition, that the method of inquiry grasp the essential determinations of the narrative object, thereby securing the content-source of the narrative. It can be said that without the method of presentation to express the research results, those results would be difficult for readers to recognize and understand; conversely, lacking the process of inquiry into the “real movement” of things, presentation can only degenerate into empty verbiage.

在马克思看来，虽然研究方法和叙述方法在形式上边界清晰、层次分明，但在功能上却相辅相成、相互耦合。在研究方法借助抽象力对现实材料进行加工得到“现实的运动”之后，客观上就必须依托叙述方法对其一般规定进行具体再现，使叙事受众能够与研究成果达成价值链接，进而激活叙事的现实生命；叙事的展开在基本前提上也需要借助研究方法对叙事客体的本质性规定加以掌握，进而获取叙事的内容来源。可以说，没有叙述方法对研究成果的表达，研究成果就难以被读者所认识和理解，而缺少了对事物“现实的运动”的研究过程，叙述也只能沦为空洞的语词。

The dialectical unity of the method of presentation and the method of inquiry is the foundation for constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization. On the one hand, systematic research on Chinese-path modernization is a key prerequisite for profoundly grasping its essential determinations and forming a scholarly discourse. One reason that cannot be ignored for why Western modernization narratives have been able to monopolize the discursive hegemony of modernization is that they have formed a relatively complete theoretical discourse and knowledge system. Paul Cohen, in *Knowledge Exchange between China and the West in the Late Twentieth Century*, points out that for a long time the basic pattern of knowledge flow between China and the West has been that the West understands China, while China focuses on learning from the West. When the asymmetry of knowledge flow between China and the West becomes entrenched, Chinese-path modernization not only finds it difficult to escape a state of knowledge dependency but also faces the risk of its narrative system being displaced by the West. Therefore, confronting Chinese-path modernization as an organic theoretical whole, it is necessary to uphold a high degree of theoretical consciousness and carry out scholarly research, “completely appropriating the actual material”—that is, the living experience of the practice of Chinese-path modernization—to refine original concepts, categories, and theories; to argue incisively for the important connotations and basic features of Chinese-path modernization; to summarize and generalize the Chinese characteristics and universal commonalities of Chinese-path modernization and the relationship between them; and to explore the original contributions of Chinese-path modernization in the process of socialist modernization. Only in this way can the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization obtain the source for its articulation, interpretation, and dissemination. On the other hand, the systematic presentation of Chinese-path modernization is an indispensable link for the theoretical results to be understood and recognized by people around the world. In the overall narrative of the first volume of *Capital*, Marx starts from the “cell” of bourgeois society—the commodity—and constructs a narrative path “from the abstract to the concrete,” moving from commodity to money to capital, profoundly presenting the important results of the study of political economy, namely the origin and essence of capital. The concept of Chinese-path modernization is a scientific refinement of the practical experience of China’s advancement of modernization; “the life of the material” is thereby expressed through “new categories.” However, the construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization must never stop at the generalization of concepts and categories; it must also follow the “correct path” of “rising from the abstract to the concrete,” grasping the internal logical levels of the theory, presenting the conceptual system of the movement of categories, and devising the formal structure of arrangement and layout, so as to transform Chinese-path modernization into a narrative discourse that people of all countries can clearly grasp and understand, thereby breaking the state of “aphasia” and “voicelessness” in the narrative of Chinese-path modernization and fully presenting its unique value implications. Therefore, one cannot construct a narrative system one-sidedly by departing from the method of inquiry, thereby detaching the narrative system from the essential determinations of Chinese-path modernization; nor can one neglect the method of presentation that is mutually coupled with the method of inquiry, thereby rendering the research results incomprehensible and unrecognizable to readers. To construct the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization with high quality, it is necessary, in the synchronous interaction of the method of presentation and the method of inquiry, to advance both the scholarly research and the systematic presentation of Chinese-path modernization.

叙述方法和研究方法的辩证统一关系是构建中国式现代化叙事体系的基础。一方面，中国式现代化的系统性研究是深刻把握其本质规定、形成学理性话语的关键前提。西方现代化叙事之所以能够掌握现代化的话语霸权，一个不可忽视的原因在于其形成了一套较为完整的理论话语与知识体系。柯文在《20世纪晚期中西之间的知识交流》中指出，长期以来，中西之间知识流动的基本模式表现为西方了解中国，而中国着眼于学习西方。当中西知识流动的不对称性固化，中国式现代化不仅难以摆脱知识依附状态，也面临叙事体系被西方置换的风险。因此，面对中国式现代化这个有机的理论整体，必须秉持高度的理论自觉展开学理性研究，在“充分地占有现实材料”即中国式现代化实践的鲜活经验中，提炼原创性概念、范畴与理论；鞭辟入里地论证中国式现代化的重要内涵与基本特征；概括与总结中国式现代化的中国特色和世界共性以及二者的关系；探讨中国式现代化在社会主义现代化进程中的原创性贡献。唯有如此，中国式现代化的叙事体系才能获得言说、阐释与传播的来源。另一方面，中国式现代化的系统性叙述是理论成果为世界民众理解与认同所不可或缺的环节。马克思在《资本论》第一卷的整体叙事中，从资产阶级社会的“细胞”商品出发，建构了从商品到货币再到资本的“从抽象上升到具体”叙事路径，深刻呈现了政治经济学研究的重要成果即资本的起源与本质。中国式现代化概念是对中国推进现代化实践经验的科学提炼，“材料的生命”得以通过“新范畴”表现出来。然而，中国式现代化叙事体系的建构绝不能停滞于概念和范畴的概括，还必须按照“抽象上升到具体”的“正确道路”，把握理论的内在逻辑层次、呈现范畴运动的概念体系、构思编排布局的形式结构，将中国式现代化转化为世界各国民众能够清晰理解和把握的叙事话语，以破除中国式现代化叙事的“失语”“失声”状态，完整呈现中国式现代化独特的价值意蕴。因此，既不能离开研究方法片面建构叙事体系，使叙事体系脱离中国式现代化的本质规定；也不能忽视与研究方法相互耦合的叙述方法，使研究成果无法为读者所理解与认同。要高质量构建中国式现代化的叙事体系，必须在叙述方法与研究方法的同步交互中，推进中国式现代化的学理性研究与体系化叙述。

(II) The Narrative Discourse of Chinese-Path Modernization: Upholding Terminological Revolution and Reader Consciousness

（二）中国式现代化的叙事话语：坚持术语革命与读者意识

Marx attached great importance to the perfection of narrative discourse, which is directly reflected in his terminological revolution and reader consciousness. Engels once stated in the preface to the English edition of *Capital*: “Every new aspect of a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of that science.” [6]6 Engels, “Preface to the English Edition,” in Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1996), 30. [Translator’s note: The English translation of Engels’s preface uses “technical terms”; the Chinese text cited by the authors uses “术语的革命” (terminological revolution).] Looking at the innovative concepts involved in *Capital*, such as the dual character of labor, surplus value, and wages, all manifest the intellectual power of Marx’s terminological revolution. Behind the terminological revolution lies Marx’s profound insight into the laws of development and historical destiny of capitalism: “The terminology of a theory that views modern capitalist production merely as a transitory stage in the economic history of mankind is necessarily different from that of authors who regard this form of production as the eternal and final stage.” [7]7 Engels, “Preface to the English Edition,” 30. At the same time, in order for scientific categories, terms, and theories to be “rapidly understood on a large scale,” [8]8 Karl Marx, “Preface to the First German Edition,” in *Capital*, vol. 1, 12. Marx and Engels took as much account as possible of the readers’ actual conditions, modes of thinking, and reading habits, constantly explaining, supplementing, and clarifying theoretical discourse in terms of translation, citation, and expression. This demonstrates the importance of reader consciousness in narrative.

马克思十分重视叙述话语的完善，这直接体现在马克思的术语革命与读者意识上。恩格斯曾在《资本论》英文版序言中谈到“一门科学提出的每一种新见解都包含这门科学的术语的革命”。从《资本论》中涉及的创新概念上看，劳动二重性、剩余价值与工资等都彰显了马克思主义术语革命的思想伟力。术语革命背后蕴含着马克思对资本主义发展规律与历史命运的深刻洞察，“把现代资本主义生产只看作是人类经济史上一个暂时阶段的理论所使用的术语，和把这种生产形式看作是永恒的、最终的阶段的那些作者所惯用的术语，必然是不同的”。与此同时，为了让科学的范畴、术语、理论在“大范围内迅速得到理解”，马克思、恩格斯尽可能照顾读者的现实状况、思维特点和阅读习惯，在翻译、引用与表述方面不断地对理论话语进行解释、补充和说明，由此可见叙事之读者意识的重要性。

Chinese-path modernization is neither a “simple continuation of the template of our historical culture,” nor a direct application of the conceptual theories of classical writers, nor a simple appropriation of the categories of Western modernization; it is a terminological revolution in modernization theory carried out by socialist China. Since reform and opening up, China’s theoretical circles, by means of transforming existing concepts and creating new ones, have put forward important concepts such as “socialist market economy,” “core socialist values,” “new development philosophy,” “a new form of human civilization,” and “new quality productive forces.” This has not only enabled the narrative system to keep pace with the times but also profoundly influenced China’s modernization process. To construct the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, it is necessary to continue promoting a terminological revolution on the basis of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, to condense and forge new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that can be recognized by the world, and to follow the “terminology–system” path to elevate the theoretical level and ideological depth of the narrative system. At the same time, to construct a narrative system that bridges China and the foreign, the narrative of Chinese-path modernization must uphold a reader consciousness, fully consider the discourse reception status of domestic and foreign audiences, and actively seek to establish a discourse generation mechanism that connects with and engages in dialogue with the international context. At the level of narrative content, it is necessary to grasp the dialectical relationship between universality and particularity. In the study of the international workers’ movement, Marx and Engels not only earnestly considered the specific conditions of the workers’ movement in each country but also deeply realized that whether in Britain or the United States, “the same economic laws are at work, so the results, though not identical in every respect, are still of the same nature.” [9]9 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, Chapter 2, note on the universality of economic laws. This insight into universality and particularity enabled the narrative of communist theory to be recognized by the working classes of various countries. The narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization must proceed from particularity, highlighting the Chinese characteristics that combine the “root” and the “soul,” [10]10 “Root” refers to the fine traditional Chinese culture; “soul” refers to Marxism. while also basing itself on the universal and common features of each country’s culture, to construct an international narrative system that is “rooted in China, inclusive and mutually beneficial.” At the level of narrative discourse, a high degree of “reader consciousness” must be established, “using methods that international audiences find enjoyable, so that Chinese discourse exhibits a ‘worldly flavor’ and Chinese ideas embody a ‘worldly taste.’” [11]11 Quotation from a contemporary Chinese scholar on international communication strategy. Engels once stated that he would “read through Volume I of *Capital* again from the reader’s perspective, in order to write a review of the book that is more targeted and more capable of attracting the reader’s attention,” [12]12 Engels, letter to Marx, 1867, discussing the reception of *Capital*. which highlights the important connection between the reader and the interpretation of the text. The narrative of Chinese-path modernization must, on the basis of fully considering the discourse reception of Western audiences, adjust and refine the expression, rhetoric, citation, translation, and presentation forms of the discourse, skillfully use strategies of emotional connection and psychological empathy, achieve the dialectical unity of popularized interpretation and differentiated expression, and “re-contextualize” Chinese discourse in the international context, so as to achieve deep interaction between readers and the narrative of Chinese-path modernization. Even though readers, due to subjective factors such as their own experience, emotions, beliefs, and modes of thinking, inevitably form a “seeing” horizon laden with private prejudices, the modernization narrative, through reflection on the reader’s interpretive background, can still achieve intellectual communication with the reader as much as possible. Only through adapted and common narrative paths can we tell China’s story well, spread China’s voice, and reveal the spiritual power behind them on a global scale.

中国式现代化既不是“简单延续我国历史文化的母版”，也不是对经典作家概念理论的直接套用，更不是对西方现代化范畴的简单挪用，它是社会主义中国对现代化理论的术语革命。改革开放以来，我国理论界通过改造原有概念和创造新概念的方式，提出了“社会主义市场经济”“社会主义核心价值观”“新发展理念”“人类文明新形态”“新质生产力”等重要概念，不仅实现叙事体系的与时俱进，也深刻影响了中国的现代化进程。构建中国式现代化叙事体系，必须在推进马克思主义中国化时代化的基础上继续推动术语革命，凝练与打造能够为世界所认同的新概念、新范畴、新表述，并沿着“术语—体系”路径提升叙事体系的理论层次与思想纵深。与此同时，要构建一套融通中外的叙事体系，中国式现代化叙事必须秉持读者意识，充分考虑国内外受众的话语接受状态，主动寻求建立与国际语境接轨和对话的话语生成机制。在叙事内容维度，必须把握好普遍性与特殊性的辩证关系。在国际工人运动研究中，马克思、恩格斯既切实考虑了各国工人运动的具体条件，也深刻意识到无论在英国或美国，“都是同样的经济规律在起作用，所以产生的结果虽然不是在各方面都相同，却仍然属于同一性质”。对普遍性与特殊性的洞察，使得共产主义理论叙事能够为各国工人阶级所认同。中国式现代化叙事话语既要从特殊性出发，彰显“根脉”与“魂脉”相结合的中国特色，也要立足各国文化的普遍性与共通性特征，构建“立足中国，包容互鉴”的国际叙事体系。在叙事话语的维度，必须树立高度的“读者意识”，“用国际受众喜闻乐见的方式，使中国话语展现出‘世界地气’、使中国理念体现出‘世界味道’”。恩格斯曾经表示，“要从读者这个角度，再次通读《资本论》第一卷，以期将对该书的评论写得更有针对性，更能引起读者注意”，这突显了读者与文本诠释之间的重要关联。中国式现代化叙事要在充分考虑西方受众话语接受情况的基础上，调整完善话语的表述、修辞、引用、翻译与呈现形式，善用情感链接与心理移情策略，实现大众化阐释与分众化表达的辩证统一，使中国话语在国际语境下“重新语境化”，以达成读者与中国式现代化叙事的深度互动。纵使读者因其自身的经验、情感、信仰与思维方式等主观因素，而不可避免地形成持有私人偏见的“看”的视域，但现代化叙事经由对读者诠释背景的反思，也能够尽可能地实现与读者的思维性沟通。唯有通过适配化与共通性的叙述路径，才能在世界范围内讲好中国故事、传播中国声音以及展现其背后的精神力量。

(III) The Narrative Form of Chinese-Path Modernization: Following the Logic of “Real Historical Narration”

（三）中国式现代化的叙事形态：以“现实的历史叙述”为逻辑遵循

Marx, on the basis of clearly distinguishing between “idealist historical narration” and “real historical narration,” emphasized the importance of the historical materialist narrative method. In Marx’s view, “idealist historical narration” is a “metaphysically disguised” real history, which meanders among concepts and categories, deviating from a materialist and dialectical, logical and historical presentation of real history. In contrast, “real historical narration” dispels the mist of conceptual appearances, flexibly applies narrative methods based on the fundamental nature of the object of narration while grounding itself in real history, and profoundly reveals and presents the essence and laws of real history.

马克思在明确区分“观念的历史叙述”与“现实的历史叙述”的基础上强调了历史唯物主义叙述方法的重要性。在马克思看来，“观念的历史叙述”是“形而上学地改了装的”现实历史，其在概念与范畴中辗转迂回，背离了对现实历史的唯物与辩证地、逻辑与历史地呈现。与之相反，“现实的历史叙述”破除观念表象的迷雾，在立足现实历史的基础上根据叙述对象的根本性质灵活运用叙述方法，深刻揭示与呈现了现实历史的本质和规律。

In light of the rational form of narrative method, constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization should proceed from the investigation of real history, both logically grasping the history of modernization development and historically expounding the logic of modernization development. In a letter to Annenkov, Marx criticized Proudhon’s idealist narration for distorting and ignoring the real social structure, pointing out that subjective narration can only yield “an order in a very disorderly head.” [13]13 Marx, letter to Pavel Annenkov, December 28, 1846, criticizing Proudhon’s *The Philosophy of Poverty*. It must be recognized that some historical narratives of modernization today still bear traces of “idealist historical narration.” Under the narrative orientation of “ontological and epistemological choices with distinct ideology and even special political implications,” [14]14 Quotation from a contemporary Western scholar on the politics of narrative. some countries either fail to correctly evaluate non-capitalist modernization narratives, or construct pragmatic modernization narratives on the basis of cutting, distorting, and fabricating history. This kind of narrative, which violates social history and loses its real foundation, will eventually fade away on its own in the course of historical development. In contrast, the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization is not a subjective pile-up and self-deduction of concepts, but a theoretical system whose source is long-term historical struggle. Only by constructing a narrative model oriented toward the real, the historical, and the dialectical can we grasp the overall logic of Chinese-path modernization within the framework of historical practice, and thereby comprehensively explain the core essence, scientific connotation, and world significance of Chinese-path modernization. First, dissolve the nesting of Western modernization narratives over Chinese-path modernization. The concepts and theories formed by Western modernization are fundamentally based on Western modernization practice; they are theories of the partial practice of human civilization, with one-sidedness and subjectivity. Once these established theories and conclusions are taken as dogma, they will narrow or even dissolve the uniqueness of Chinese-path modernization, flattening the historical and practical dimensions of the narrative of Chinese-path modernization. Second, in the process of constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, we must not fall into the trap of blindly creating narrative concepts for Chinese-path modernization, obsessively seeking to create world-shaking phrases and find speculative relationships between concepts; the myth of concepts will obscure the real foundation behind Chinese-path modernization. It is necessary to see the history and social reality that change points to, and to delve deeply into the practice of Chinese-path modernization within the grand narrative of world history, in order to grasp the general and special laws of Chinese-path modernization construction, understand its internal developmental logic, and thereby construct a narrative system that is logically self-consistent and practically verified. Third, the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization must grasp the main thread of history with a grand view of history, [15]15 “Grand view of history” (大历史观) is a term in Chinese Marxist historiography emphasizing a long-term, holistic perspective on historical development. and understand the historical evolution and practical requirements of Chinese-path modernization. The grand view of history is the contemporary embodiment of Marx’s “real historical narration.” Only by examining the path of modernization development in China since modern times within the depth of human history, with a historical view that connects history, reality, and the future, can we scientifically grasp and narrate issues such as the historical practice of modernization, the universality and particularity of Chinese-path modernization, and the world-historical significance of Chinese-path modernization.

对照叙述方法的合理形态，构建中国式现代化叙事体系应该从对现实历史的考察出发，既合乎逻辑地把握现代化发展历史，又合乎历史地阐述现代化发展逻辑。马克思曾在致安年科夫的信中，批判蒲鲁东的唯心主义叙述忽视与歪曲现实社会结构，指出主观叙述所得到的只能是“一个非常没有秩序的头脑中的秩序”。需要看到，今天部分关于现代化的历史叙事仍然留存着“观念的历史叙述”痕迹。在“具有鲜明意识形态甚至特殊政治意蕴的本体论和认识论选择”的叙事指向下，一些国家或是不能正确评价非资本主义的现代化叙事，或是在剪裁、歪曲、捏造历史的基础上建构实用主义的现代化叙事。这种违背社会历史、失却现实根基的叙事，终将在历史发展中自行走向消逝。与之相反，中国式现代化的叙事体系不是概念的主观堆砌和自我演绎，而是以长期历史奋斗为源头活水的理论体系。只有构塑指向现实的、历史的、辩证的叙事模式，才能在历史实践的框架内把握中国式现代化的整体逻辑，进而全面阐释中国式现代化的核心要义、科学内涵与世界意义。其一，消解西方现代化叙事对中国式现代化的嵌套，西方现代化所形成的概念与理论在根本上建立在西方的现代化实践基础上，是人类文明局部实践的理论，具有片面性与主观性。一旦把这些既定的理论与结论奉为圭臬，将窄化甚至消解中国式现代化的独特性，抹平中国式现代化叙事的历史维度与现实维度。其二，在构筑中国式现代化叙事体系的过程中，不能陷入盲目创造中国式现代化叙事概念的窠臼中，执着于创立震撼世界的词句以及寻找概念之间的思辨关系，概念的迷思将掩盖中国式现代化背后的现实基础。需要看到改变背后指涉的历史与社会现实，在世界历史的宏大叙事下深入中国式现代化实践，才能把握中国式现代化建设的一般规律与特殊规律，了解中国式现代化的内在发展逻辑，进而构建出逻辑自洽与实践证道的叙事体系。其三，中国式现代化叙事体系要以大历史观抓住历史的脉络主线，把握中国式现代化的历史沿革和实践要求。大历史观是马克思“现实的历史叙述”的当代体现，只有在人类历史的纵深中，以历史、现实、未来相贯通的历史观考察中国近代以来的现代化发展道路，才能科学把握与叙述现代化的历史实践、中国式现代化的普遍性与特殊性、中国式现代化的世界历史性意义等问题。

(The authors are: a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; and the Vice Dean of the School of Marxism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor.)

（作者系上海交通大学马克思主义学院博士研究生；上海交通大学马克思主义学院副院长，教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁