The Multi-Dimensional Construction of the CPC’s “Chinese Nation” Discourse during the War of Resistance against Japan

I. Problem Statement and Semantic Analysis

一、问题提出与语义分析

The “Chinese nation” is a political symbol and cultural signifier for contemporary China to unite the consensus of the whole people in realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and it is also an important concept for the Communist Party of China to express its political propositions both domestically and internationally. On September 27, 2024, General Secretary Xi Jinping, at the National Conference on Commending Model Units and Individuals for Ethnic Unity and Progress, demanded “strengthening research and theoretical propaganda and interpretation of the history of the Chinese nation and the community of the Chinese nation.” On October 27, 2023, General Secretary Xi Jinping, during the ninth collective study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, emphasized “accelerating the formation of a Chinese autonomous system of historical materials, discourse system, and theoretical system for the community of the Chinese nation.” Concepts are the cornerstone for constructing a discourse system; to a large extent, it can be said that the “Chinese nation” is the most fundamental concept for accelerating the formation of the discourse system of the community of the Chinese nation. However, the complexity and contentiousness of the concept of the “Chinese nation” have always troubled researchers attempting to explain theoretically the process of China’s state-building since the 20th century. A certain degree of academic debate can promote a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of issues related to the Chinese nation, but excessive debate is detrimental to constructing a scientific and complete discourse system for the community of the Chinese nation. In view of this, we might set aside the debates and, with an attitude of seeking truth from facts, seek answers from the concept of the Chinese nation and its discursive practices as used by the Communist Party of China. This article, combined with the macro-social background, analyzes the core meanings, semantic types, and purposes of discourse construction of the CPC’s “Chinese nation” discourse during the War of Resistance against Japan, laying a theoretical foundation and providing historical reference for accelerating the formation of a Chinese autonomous discourse system for the community of the Chinese nation.

“中华民族”是当代中国凝聚全民共识实现中华民族伟大复兴中国梦的一个政治标识和文化符号，也是中国共产党对内对外表达政治主张的重要概念。2024年9月27日，习近平总书记在全国民族团结进步表彰大会上要求，“加强中华民族历史和中华民族共同体理论研究和宣传阐释”。2023年10月27日，习近平总书记在中共中央政治局第九次集体学习时强调，“加快形成中国自主的中华民族共同体史料体系、话语体系、理论体系”。概念是构建话语体系的基石，在很大程度上可以说“中华民族”是加快形成中华民族共同体话语体系最为基础的概念。但“中华民族”概念的复杂性和争议性始终困扰着试图从理论层面解释20世纪以来中国国家构建历程的研究者。一定限度的学术争论可以促进人们对中华民族相关问题形成更深入全面的认知，但争论过大则不利于构建科学完备的中华民族共同体话语体系。鉴于此，我们不妨抛开争论，以实事求是的态度，从中国共产党所使用的中华民族概念及其话语实践中寻找答案。本文结合宏观社会背景分析抗战时期中国共产党“中华民族”话语的核心要义、语义类型和话语构建目的等问题，为加快形成中国自主的中华民族共同体话语体系奠定理论基础、提供历史镜鉴。

(I) Statement of the Problem

（一）问题的提出

At present, the Communist Party of China uses the term “Chinese nation” with increasing frequency. Centered on this core concept of the Chinese nation, over the past hundred-plus years the CPC has gradually formed a set of discourse systems with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner in different contexts. The concept of the “Chinese nation” was born in the modern era’s context of national salvation from extinction; therefore, it is not merely an academic concept but also an important political concept with profound ideological connotations. The process by which the “Chinese nation” grew and expanded from a concept into an important idea influencing modern Chinese people relied on the production, dissemination, and consumption of related discourses. In other words, the discourse on the Chinese nation is not a value-neutral symbolic system but an important resource for political subjects to shape the people’s concept of the Chinese nation and promote the awakening of their consciousness of the community of the Chinese nation; it is also an object of discursive struggle among different political subjects.

当下，中国共产党使用“中华民族”一词的频率越来越高。围绕中华民族这个核心概念，百余年来中国共产党在不同的语境下逐渐形成了一套具有中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的话语体系。“中华民族”概念诞生于近代救亡图存的时代背景之下，因而它不仅仅是一个学术概念，还是具有深刻意识形态内涵的重要政治概念。“中华民族”从概念逐渐生长和扩展成为影响近代中国人的重要观念，中间的核心环节依赖相关话语的生产、传播与消费。换言之，中华民族话语并非价值无涉的符号体系，而是政治主体塑造民众中华民族观念并推动民众中华民族共同体意识觉醒的重要资源，同时也是不同政治主体展开话语权争夺的对象。

Current academic research mainly studies the evolution of the CPC’s concept of the Chinese nation from the perspective of intellectual history, with the underlying theoretical presupposition that discourse is an objective expression of the discourse subject. Matsumoto Masumi believes that the Kuomintang’s view of the Chinese nation points to the entirety of those assimilated into Han Chinese, while the CPC’s view of the Chinese nation is a collective based on recognizing the existence and diversity of ethnic minorities within China. [1]1 Matsumoto Masumi, *Chūgoku minzoku seisaku no kenkyū: 19-seiki kara 1945-nen made no “Chūgoku minzoku” o meguru tōsō* [A Study of Chinese Nationality Policy: The Struggle over the “Chinese Nation” from the 19th Century to 1945] (Tokyo: Shakai Hyōronsha, 1999). Yu Zuhua believes that the Chinese nation is relative to foreign nations; in the early days of the Party’s founding, the semantics of the CPC’s discourse on the Chinese nation were still unclear, and it was only during the War of Resistance against Japan that the semantics gradually became fixed as “the collective term for all ethnic groups within China.” [2]2 Yu Zuhua, “Zhongguo gongchandang minzu guannian de yanbian” [The Evolution of the CPC’s Concept of the Nation], *Minzu yanjiu* [Ethno-National Studies], no. 2 (2012). Some researchers tend to overemphasize placing the Chinese nation within the context of domestic ethnic relations, focusing on understanding the CPC’s view of the Chinese nation from the perspective of the relationship between various ethnic groups and the Chinese nation, or between the Han ethnic group and ethnic minorities. While such a research angle can grasp the core of the concept of the Chinese nation, it risks oversimplifying complex history and fails to fully present the rich connotations of the concept of the Chinese nation. In fact, academia has already paid attention to the complexity and polysemy of concepts such as “minzu” and “Chinese nation.” Weng Hekai notes the multiple semantics of the term “minzu,” including the sovereign entity composed of social members—the nation-state, a community with a common history and unique culture, and an ethnic group based on blood ties. [3]3 Weng Hekai, “Jindai Zhongguo de ‘minzu’ guannian” [The Concept of “Minzu” in Modern China], *Jindaishi yanjiu* [Modern Chinese History Studies], no. 5 (2000). Lin Chunyi and Liu Liping find that in the CPC’s early documents, the use of “Chinese nation” sometimes refers to “China as a whole” or “the Chinese people.” [4]4 Lin Chunyi and Liu Liping, “Zhongguo gongchandang ‘Zhonghua minzu’ huayu de lishi yanbian” [The Historical Evolution of the CPC’s “Chinese Nation” Discourse], *Guangxi minzu yanjiu* [Guangxi Ethnic Studies], no. 3 (2020). Zhao Chao believes that the “Chinese nation” discourse used by the CPC in its early days contained three semantic layers: state, citizenry, and ethnic group. [5]5 Zhao Chao, “Zhongguo gongchandang ‘Zhonghua minzu’ huayu de sanchong yuyi” [The Three Semantics of the CPC’s “Chinese Nation” Discourse], *Sixiang lilun jiaoyu daokan* [Journal of Ideological and Theoretical Education], no. 6 (2021).

当前学界主要从观念史的角度研究中国共产党中华民族观念的变迁，潜在的理论预设是将话语视为话语主体的客观表达。松本真澄认为，国民党的中华民族观指向汉化为汉人的全体，而中国共产党的中华民族观是在承认中国境内少数民族的存在和多元性基础上的集合体。俞祖华认为，中华民族是相对于外国民族而言的，建党初期中国共产党中华民族话语的语义尚不明确，至抗战时期语义逐渐定型为“中国境内各民族的统称”。一些研究者过于注重将中华民族置于国内民族关系的语境来考察，侧重从各民族与中华民族的关系或者汉族与少数民族的关系角度来理解中国共产党的中华民族观。这样的研究角度固然能够抓住中华民族观念的核心，但有将复杂历史简单化之嫌，未能将中华民族概念的丰富内涵充分呈现出来。实际上，学界对于“民族”“中华民族”等概念的复杂性和多义性已有关注。翁贺凯注意到“民族”一词的多重语义，既包括社会成员组成的主权实体——民族国家，也涵盖具有共同历史和独特文化的共同体，还包括基于血缘纽带形成的族性群体。林春逸、刘丽萍发现，中国共产党的早期文献中在使用“中华民族”时有指代“整体中国”“中国人民”等情况。赵超认为中国共产党成立初期所使用的“中华民族”话语包含国家、国民与民族三重语义。

It can be seen that the connotations of the concept of the Chinese nation and its discourse are complex and variable; understanding the Chinese nation only from the narrow perspective of domestic ethnic relations makes it difficult to grasp its full picture. At the same time, the CPC’s discourse on the Chinese nation is not only a means of expressing its cognition of the objective entity of the Chinese nation but also a linguistic symbol used to awaken and mobilize the masses to participate in revolution, and even an object of discursive struggle with different competitors, becoming an important resource for shaping the political identity of specific subjects. It is evident that discourse is not a neutral or transparent medium that objectively reflects reality but a form of ideological practice. Based on this, this article takes the CPC’s “Chinese nation” discourse during the War of Resistance against Japan as the research object, attempting to solve two core problems: first, to conduct a semantic analysis centered on example sentences containing the term “Chinese nation,” revealing the richness and multi-dimensionality of the concept’s connotations in historical contexts; second, to analyze the motivations, influencing factors, and specific strategies of the CPC’s construction of the “Chinese nation” discourse under different semantics, presenting the multi-dimensional aspects of the construction of the “Chinese nation” discourse.

可见，中华民族概念及其话语的内涵是复杂多变的，仅从狭义的国内民族关系来理解中华民族是难以掌握其全貌的。同时，中国共产党的中华民族话语不仅仅是用来表达其对中华民族这个客观实体的认知，也是用来唤醒民众和动员民众参与革命的语言符号，甚至还是其与不同竞争者争夺话语权的对象，成为塑造特定主体政治认同的重要资源。可见，话语不是客观反映现实的中立或透明的媒介，而是一种意识形态的实践形式。基于此，本文以抗战时期中国共产党“中华民族”话语为研究对象，试图解决两个核心问题：一是以含“中华民族”一词的例句为中心进行意义解析，揭示历史情境中“中华民族”概念内涵的丰富性和多维性；二是分析不同语义下中国共产党构建“中华民族”话语的动因、影响因素和具体策略等，呈现“中华民族”话语构建的多维面向。

(II) Semantic Analysis of the “Chinese Nation”

（二）“中华民族”语义分析

To accurately understand the “Chinese nation” in different contexts, a semantic analysis centered on example sentences containing the term “Chinese nation” is conducted, and common co-occurring words (the main words that appear together with it) for different semantics are listed. Due to space limitations, only a portion is selected for illustration. As can be seen from Table 1, the term “Chinese nation” used by the CPC during the War of Resistance against Japan contains three semantics: state, citizenry, and ethnic group.

为准确理解不同语境下的“中华民族”，以含“中华民族”一词的例句为中心进行意义解析，并列举不同语义的常见共现词（与其共同出现的主要词语）。限于篇幅，只选取了其中一部分进行举例。从表1可以看出，抗战时期中国共产党所使用的“中华民族”一词包含国家、国民与民族三种语义。

The state semantics of the “Chinese nation” (meaning equivalent to China) are mainly reflected in the context of opposing imperialism externally, focusing on the goal of achieving national sovereignty independence and territorial integrity. In discourse, it is generally expressed as “realizing the independence of the Chinese nation” or “realizing the liberation of the Chinese nation,” with co-occurring words mainly being imperialism, Japanese imperialism, China, and state. All communities have specific boundaries; the boundary of the state is the basis for distinguishing different national communities. The Chinese nation in the political sense is bounded by China’s territorial boundaries and sovereign boundaries. Therefore, the Chinese nation is first and foremost a national community framed by the state’s territorial and sovereign boundaries. Territorial integrity and sovereign independence of the state are the modern political prerequisites for the Chinese nation as a state-nation, and they also became the target orientation of the CPC’s discourses such as “independence of the Chinese nation” and “liberation of the Chinese nation.” Realizing national sovereignty independence was undoubtedly an important historical mission undertaken by the CPC during the War of Resistance against Japan, determined by the semi-colonial and semi-feudal social nature of modern China. Thus, the state defines the semantic scope of the Chinese nation, and statehood becomes a basic attribute of the Chinese nation.

“中华民族”的国家语义（含义等同于中国）主要体现在对外反对帝国主义的语境中，侧重于实现国家主权独立与领土完整的目标，在话语上一般表述为“实现中华民族独立”“实现中华民族解放”等，共现词主要是帝国主义、日本帝国主义、中国、国家。共同体都有特定的边界，国家的边界是区分不同国族共同体的基础，政治意义上的中华民族以中国的领土边界和主权边界为范围。因此，中华民族首先是一个被国家领土和主权边界框定的国家共同体。国家领土完整和主权独立是中华民族作为一个国家民族的现代政治前提，也成为中国共产党“中华民族独立”“中华民族解放”等话语的目标指向。实现国家主权独立无疑是抗战时期中国共产党承担的一个重要历史使命，这是由近代中国半殖民地半封建的社会性质决定的。如此，国家定义中华民族的语义范围，国家性成为中华民族的基本属性。

The citizenry semantics of the “Chinese nation” (meaning equivalent to Chinese people) focus internally on awakening the identity consciousness of all Chinese people to unite. In discourse, it is generally expressed as “the Chinese nation of 450 million people” or “the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation,” with co-occurring words mainly being 450 million people, slaves without a country, compatriots, and sons and daughters. The core purpose of shaping citizenry consciousness in modern China was to integrate the people from a socially fragmented state of loose sand into a highly cohesive community. How to shift the people’s long-standing identification with family, clan, class, region, and ethnic group to identification with the nation representing the state—the Chinese nation—became a crucial issue of the times concerning the survival or extinction of modern China.

“中华民族”的国民语义（含义等同于中国人）侧重于对内唤起全体中国人团结起来的身份意识，在话语上一般表述为“四万万五千万人的中华民族”“中华民族的儿女们”等，共现词主要是四万万五千万人、亡国奴、同胞、儿女们。近代中国塑造国民意识的核心目的是将民众从一盘散沙的社会状态整合为具有强大凝聚力的共同体。如何将民众长久以来对家族、宗族、阶级、地域、族群的认同转移到代表国家的民族——中华民族的认同，便成为一项关乎近代中国生死存亡的时代课题。

The ethnic semantics of the “Chinese nation” (equivalent in meaning to a pluralistic and integrated national community) are mainly reflected in the context of relations among ethnic groups within the state, emphasizing the meaning of the Chinese nation’s pluralistic and integrated structure and community attributes. In discourse, this is generally expressed as “the Chinese nation is composed of multiple ethnic groups” or “a certain ethnic group is a constituent part of the Chinese nation.” Co-occurring terms are mainly various ethnic groups, the Hui ethnic group, the Mongol ethnic group, etc. Ethnic semantics and national-citizen semantics overlap to a certain extent but also differ, namely, that each ethnic group belongs to a part of the entire citizenry but not the entirety of the citizenry. The national-citizen semantics of the Chinese nation include all classes, all groups, all political parties, all ethnic groups, compatriots in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, and overseas Chinese. Ethnic semantics mainly highlight that the Chinese nation is a national community formed from pluralism into unity over thousands of years of historical development, fully reflecting the particularity and extreme importance of ethnic work. During the War of Resistance, this semantics was mainly reflected in the context of the Party’s ethnic work, emphasizing the nature of the Chinese nation as a community composed of multiple ethnic groups, especially in the context of countering the discourse of ethnic division created by Japan and criticizing the “lineage theory” of the Chinese nation.

“中华民族”的民族语义（含义等同于多元一体的民族共同体）主要体现在国家内部民族关系的语境下，侧重于表征中华民族多元一体结构和共同体属性的含义，在话语上一般表述为“中华民族由多个民族组成”“某个民族是中华民族的构成部分”，共现词主要是各民族、回族、蒙古族等。民族语义与国民语义有一定的重叠但又有所区别，即各民族属于全体国民的一部分但不是国民全部。国民语义的中华民族包括各阶级、各团体、各党派、各民族、港澳台同胞、海外侨胞等。民族语义主要凸显中华民族是一个在几千年历史发展过程中由多元汇成一体的民族共同体，充分体现民族工作的特殊性和极端重要性。抗战时期这一语义主要体现在党的民族工作语境中，侧重强调中华民族是由多个民族组成的共同体的性质，特别是在回击日本制造的民族分裂话语和批判中华民族“宗族论”的语境中使用。

Therefore, this article advocates understanding the Chinese Communist Party’s “Chinese nation” discourse during the War of Resistance from the three semantics of state, national-citizen, and ethnic group, thereby constructing an analytical framework. This in turn helps to understand the richness of the conceptual connotation of the Chinese nation and the complexity and multi-dimensionality of its discursive construction. However, the division into three semantics is more for the needs of academic analysis. In actual discursive practice, these three semantics are difficult to completely separate, and the “Chinese nation” discourse in a specific context may simultaneously have multiple semantics.

因此，本文主张从国家、国民与民族三重语义理解抗战时期中国共产党的“中华民族”话语，以此来搭建分析框架，进而有助于理解中华民族概念内涵的丰富性以及话语构建的复杂性和多维性。不过，三重语义的划分更多出于学术分析的需要，在实际的话语实践中这三重语义难以完全割裂开来，特定语境中的“中华民族”话语可能同时具有多种语义。

II. The Construction of the “Chinese Nation” Discourse in the Semantics of “State”

二、“国家”语义的中华民族话语构建

During the War of Resistance, as the pace of Japan’s invasion pressed closer, the Chinese Communist Party’s frequency of using “Chinese nation” increased markedly, and it was mostly used to express the meaning of “state” in the context of opposing Japanese imperialism. In the early period of its founding, following the instructions of the Communist International and combining them with the experience of Soviet Russia, the Chinese Communist Party consciously integrated national independence with the liberation of the proletariat of the whole world, viewing the Chinese revolution more from the standard of class struggle. The early Chinese Communist Party declared that “proletarian nationalism” meant overthrowing the oppression of global capital-imperialism while simultaneously opposing domestic capitalism, and struggling against bourgeois nationalism that “based revolution on the interests of one nation and one state.” After the North China Incident [6]6 The North China Incident (Huabei Shibian) refers to a series of events in 1935, orchestrated by Japan, aimed at separating the five northern Chinese provinces from the control of the Nationalist government, which heightened the national crisis., the contradictions between China and Japan escalated. The Chinese Communist Party promptly put forward the patriotic proposition of opposing Japanese aggression and establishing an anti-Japanese national united front, making the achievement of national independence the primary goal of the revolution. Against the backdrop of the full-scale outbreak of the War of Resistance, whether one could hold high the banner of patriotism and emphasize the priority of the nation-state became an important yardstick for judging the legitimacy of a political organization and its policies. Conducting extensive patriotic mobilization among the people became a major issue of the times that political subjects needed to confront. Under the semantics of “state,” the Chinese Communist Party mainly used the discourse of “Japanese imperialism and the Chinese nation,” which characterized state relations, and the discourse of “the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese nation,” which explained the relationship between the Party and the state.

抗战时期，随着日本入侵步伐的迫近，中国共产党对“中华民族”的使用频率明显增多，而且多是在反对日本帝国主义的语境中表达“国家”的含义。中国共产党成立初期根据共产国际的指示并结合苏俄经验，有意识地把国家独立和全世界无产阶级的解放融为一体，更多以阶级斗争的标准来看待中国革命。中国共产党早期宣称“无产阶级的民族主义”就是要推翻全世界资本帝国主义的压迫，同时反对本国的资本主义，并同把革命“立脚在一民族一国家的利益”之上的资产阶级民族主义作斗争。华北事变后，中日两国的矛盾升级，中国共产党及时提出了反对日本侵略、建立抗日民族统一战线的爱国主义主张，将实现国家独立作为革命的首要目标。在抗战全面爆发的背景下，能否高举爱国主义旗帜、强调民族国家优先成为评判一个政治组织及其政策合法性的重要标尺，对民众进行广泛的爱国主义动员成为政治主体需要面对的重大时代课题。在“国家”语义下，中国共产党主要使用表征国家关系的“日本帝国主义与中华民族”话语和阐释政党与国家关系的“中国共产党与中华民族”话语。

(I) Characterizing State Contradictions: The Discursive Construction of the “Japanese Imperialism and the Chinese Nation” Relationship

（一）表征国家矛盾：“日本帝国主义与中华民族”关系的话语构建

During the War of Resistance, at the critical juncture of national survival, discourses such as “proletarians of all countries, unite!” and “defend the Soviet Union” were, to a certain extent, detached from China’s specific context, exceeded the conceptual scope of China’s state idea, and found it difficult to gain the recognition of the Chinese people. After the North China Incident in 1935, the Chinese Communist Party more deeply recognized that the contradiction between China and Japan had become the principal contradiction in Chinese society, and subsequently adjusted its political propositions and discursive expressions to adapt to the surging patriotic sentiment. Mao Zedong emphasized, “In the national struggle, class struggle appears in the form of national struggle; this form expresses the consistency of the two… All demands of class struggle should take the needs of the national struggle (for the War of Resistance) as their starting point.” [7]7 This is a quotation from Mao Zedong’s 1938 report “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War.” In fact, after the September 18th Incident in 1931 [8]8 The September 18th Incident refers to a staged event on September 18, 1931, used by Japan as a pretext to invade and occupy Northeast China., the principal contradiction in Chinese society had already begun to change. Whether one could soberly recognize this change in contradiction and put forward targeted national salvation strategies was related to whether the Chinese Communist Party could gain the support of public opinion. The Chinese Communist Party’s cognition of the principal contradiction in Chinese society and its political propositions were mainly expressed through a series of discourses on the relationship between “Japanese imperialism and the Chinese nation.” In this context, the semantics of “Chinese nation” were equivalent to the state, essentially characterizing the contradiction between China and Japan and the goal of achieving national independence. During the War of Resistance, discourses such as “liberation of the Chinese nation” and “independence of the Chinese nation” spoken by the Chinese Communist Party mainly referred to achieving national independence. In these discourses, the co-occurring terms of “Chinese nation” were mainly “imperialism,” “Japanese imperialism,” “China,” “state,” etc.

抗战时期，在国家生死存亡的紧要关头，“全世界无产阶级联合起来”“保卫苏联”等话语显然在一定程度上脱离了中国的具体语境，超出了中国国家观念的意域，难以获得中国民众的认同。1935年的华北事变之后，中国共产党更加深刻地认识到中日两国的矛盾已成为中国社会的主要矛盾，进而调整了中国共产党的政治主张和话语表达以适应高涨的爱国主义情绪。毛泽东强调，“在民族斗争中，阶级斗争是以民族斗争的形式出现的，这种形式，表现了两者的一致性……一切阶级斗争的要求都应以民族斗争的需要（为着抗战）为出发点”。实际上，1931年九一八事变以后，中国社会的主要矛盾就已经发生变化，能否清醒地认识到这种矛盾的转变并提出具有针对性的救国方略，关系到中国共产党能否得到社会舆论的支持。对中国社会主要矛盾的认知和政治主张，中国共产党主要是通过一系列关于“日本帝国主义与中华民族”二者关系的话语来表达，此语境下“中华民族”的语义等同于国家，实质上表征的是中日两国的矛盾和实现国家独立的目标。抗战时期，中国共产党所说的“中华民族解放”“中华民族独立”等话语主要指的是实现国家独立，在这些话语中“中华民族”的共现词主要是“帝国主义”“日本帝国主义”“中国”“国家”等。

In December 1935, the progressive student organization led by the Chinese Communist Party—the Beiping Student Union—issued its propaganda outline, the second point of which stated: “First, China is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country; therefore, the future of the Chinese nation is to oppose imperialism and oppose feudal forces.” The “Chinese nation” in this discourse was used in the context of externally opposing Japanese imperialism, co-occurring with “China” and “state,” emphasizing the state contradiction between Japan and China. On April 5, 1936, the Red Army’s Eastern Expeditionary Force proposed: “For the freedom, independence, and territorial integrity of the Chinese nation, we swear to use all our strength to eliminate the traitorous and national-sellout armies that block our vanguard army’s path to resist Japan and disrupt the rear areas of the War of Resistance, in order to smash Japanese imperialism’s new plan to destroy China and strive for a prompt direct war against Japan.” The independence and territorial integrity of the Chinese nation mentioned here actually referred to the sovereignty independence and territorial integrity of the state; achieving national independence was the overall goal and basic requirement of modern Chinese nationalism. On April 3, 1937, the propaganda outline of the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee clearly identified the Sino-Japanese contradiction as the principal contradiction in the current stage of the Chinese revolution, “subordinating domestic contradictions to the principal Sino-Japanese contradiction, and regarding the interests of the Chinese nation as above all else.” The phrase “the interests of the Chinese nation are above all else” in the discourse actually referred to highlighting the priority of national interests under the national crisis of Japanese imperialist aggression.

1935年12月，中国共产党领导的进步学生团体——北平学生联合会发表该会的宣传大纲，其中第二条指出：“首先，中国是半殖民地半封建的国家，因此中华民族的前途，是反对帝国主义，反对封建势力。”话语中的“中华民族”是在对外反对日本帝国主义的语境中使用，并与“中国”“国家”共现，强调的是日本与中国之间的国家矛盾。1936年4月5日，红军东征部队提出：“为了中华民族的自由独立与领土完整，我们誓以全力消灭拦阻我先锋军抗日去路与捣乱抗日后方的汉奸卖国贼军队，以粉碎日本帝国主义灭亡中国的新计划，以争取迅速的对日直接作战。”这里所说的中华民族独立与领土完整，实际上指的是国家主权独立和国家领土完整，实现国家独立是近代中国民族主义的总体目标和基本要求。1937年4月3日，中共中央宣传部的宣传大纲明确将中日矛盾确定为中国革命现阶段的主要矛盾，“把国内的矛盾服从于中日的主要矛盾，把中华民族的利益看作高于一切”。话语中的“中华民族利益高于一切”实际上指的是在日本帝国主义侵略的国家危机下，凸显国家利益的优先性。

In September 1937, the founding declaration of the Shanxi-Suiyuan War of Resistance General Council elaborated on the contradiction between China and Japan: “The great War of Resistance has been going on for two and a half months. This war is a war of liberation waged by the Chinese nation against Japanese imperialist aggression. It is also a violent solution for the re-division of the world produced by the development of Japanese imperialism. The Chinese nation and Japanese imperialism can never coexist under such circumstances. Japanese imperialism attempts to reduce China from a semi-independent country to a complete colony under its iron heel, and to completely turn the Chinese nation into slaves under its domination; however, the aggressors have encountered the revolutionary response of the Chinese nation. This response is to sweep away all Japanese imperialist forces in China, recover all lost territories and sovereign rights, and establish a free and independent new China.” [9]9 The Shanxi-Suiyuan War of Resistance General Council was a united front organization established in September 1937 in the Shanxi-Suiyuan border region, involving the CPC, the Nationalist Party, and local military forces. Analyzing the context, the “Chinese nation” in this declaration is opposed to Japanese imperialism, and its meaning is equivalent to China. In particular, the phrase “recover all lost territories and sovereign rights, and establish a free and independent new China” characterizes the goal of national independence, because territory and sovereignty are the core elements of a state. In August 1943, the Shandong Sub-bureau of the CPC also defined “national contradiction” as a state contradiction: “‘National contradiction’ is the most basic contradiction among all contradictions in the current revolutionary stage. It is the driving force pushing the entire people of the Chinese nation onto the path of the War of Resistance; it is the organizational force uniting the anti-Japanese people of all strata in China; it is the objective basis for our Party’s strategic policy of the anti-Japanese national united front.” The anti-Japanese national united front aligned with the surge of patriotic consciousness. The “Chinese nation” discourse in the semantics of “state” provided important resources for the Chinese Communist Party to raise the banner of patriotism and win the recognition of the general public.

1937年9月，晋绥抗战总会成立宣言对中日两国的矛盾进行了详细阐述：“伟大的抗战已经进行了两个半月了，这一战争是中华民族反对日本帝国主义侵略的解放战争。同时也是日本帝国主义的发展所产生的再分割世界的暴力解决。中华民族与日本帝国主义在这种形势之下是决不能两立的。日本帝国主义企图使中国从半独立国降为他的铁蹄下的完全殖民地，使中华民族完全变为他支配下的奴隶；然而侵略者却遭遇了中华民族的革命的回答，这一回答是扫除日本帝国主义在华的一切势力，恢复一切失去的领地和主权，建立自由独立的新中国。”结合语境分析，这份宣言中的“中华民族”与日本帝国主义相对，其含义等同于中国，特别是其中的“恢复一切失去的领地和主权，建立自由独立的新中国”表征的就是国家独立的目标，因为领土和主权是国家的核心要素。1943年8月，中共山东分局对“民族矛盾”的界定也是国家矛盾：“‘民族矛盾’，这是当前革命阶段中一切矛盾中之最基本的矛盾。它是推动中华民族全体人民走上抗日战争的动力；它是中国各阶层抗日人民团结的组织力量；它是我党抗日民族统一战线战略方针之客观的基础。” 抗日民族统一战线契合了爱国主义意识的高涨，“国家”语义的中华民族话语为中国共产党举起爱国主义旗帜、赢得社会大众认同提供了重要资源。

(II) Highlighting the Priority of the State: The Discursive Construction of the Relationship between “the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nation”

（二）凸显国家优先：“中国共产党与中华民族”关系的话语构建

The North China Incident [10]10 The North China Incident (华北事变) refers to a series of events in 1935, including the He-Umezu Agreement and the Chin-Doihara Agreement, through which Japan expanded its control over North China, intensifying the national crisis. brought a new surge in China’s resistance to Japan and national salvation, and also brought a new surge in patriotic sentiment. The anti-Japanese patriotic tide in the cities rose continuously; the anti-Japanese sentiment of young students, workers, and urban commoners was high; people from all walks of life in industry and commerce, intellectuals, and the news media all criticized the Nationalist government’s policy of non-resistance to varying degrees, and some even demanded the lifting of the ban on political parties and the implementation of democracy to facilitate resistance to Japan. Against the backdrop of the transformation of the principal contradiction in Chinese society into a contradiction between China and Japan, how to coordinate the relationship between patriotism and internationalism (or, the relationship between class and the state) at the theoretical and discursive levels became an important issue facing the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party mainly shaped its image as a patriotic party that resolutely safeguarded national interests through a series of discourses on the relationship between “the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese nation.” In the context of the relationship between the party and the state, the meaning of “Chinese nation” leaned towards the state, essentially emphasizing the priority of national interests, which also signified the decline of the Chinese Communist Party’s class discourse during this period.

华北事变使中国的抗日救亡掀起新的高潮，也使爱国主义情绪达到新的高潮。城市里的反日爱国浪潮不断涌起，青年学生、工人、城市平民的抗日情绪高涨，工商各界人士、知识分子以及新闻舆论都程度不同地批判国民党政府的不抵抗政策，甚至要求开放党禁实行民主以有利于抗日。在中国社会主要矛盾转变为中日两国矛盾的背景下，如何从理论和话语层面协调爱国主义与国际主义的关系（或者说是阶级与国家的关系），成为中国共产党面临的一个重要问题。中国共产党主要通过一系列关于“中国共产党与中华民族”二者关系的话语来塑造中国共产党坚决维护国家利益的爱国主义者形象。政党与国家关系语境下“中华民族”的含义侧重于国家，实质上强调的是国家利益优先，也意味着这一时期中国共产党阶级话语 的式微。

Mao Zedong did not deny that the Chinese Communist Party was internationalist, but he emphasized that the Chinese Communist Party was “at the same time a patriotic party defending the motherland, willing to resist Japan to the last drop of blood to defend the motherland.” In the August First Declaration [11]11 The August First Declaration (八一宣言), formally the “Letter to All Compatriots on Resistance to Japan and National Salvation,” was issued by the Chinese Communist Party on August 1, 1935, calling for a united front against Japan., the Chinese Communist Party raised the banner of patriotism, calling out “Compatriots! China is our motherland! The Chinese nation is all of us compatriots!” and proposed that at the moment of national crisis, “everyone should have the sincere realization of ‘brothers quarreling at home but joining forces to resist aggression from without’.” [12]12 “Brothers quarreling at home but joining forces to resist aggression from without” (兄弟阋墙外御其侮) is a classical Chinese idiom from the *Book of Songs*, used here to urge unity against the external Japanese threat. The Wayaobu Conference [13]13 The Wayaobu Conference (瓦窑堡会议) was a key meeting of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo in December 1935 that formally adopted the policy of a national united front against Japan. was another important node in the Chinese Communist Party’s transformation into a patriotic party. The resolution of this conference pointed out that, against the backdrop of Japanese imperialism turning China into a colony, the Chinese people should unite, forming a national united front that did not distinguish between class, faction, or group. The change in policy “was precisely to more fully demonstrate that the Soviets represent not only the workers and peasants, but also the Chinese nation.” This declaration also pointed out that “the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation lie in China’s freedom, independence, and unity.” The discourse of “the Soviets represent the Chinese nation” and the proposal of the patriotic united front indicated the Chinese Communist Party’s identity transformation from an internationalist emphasizing class struggle to a patriot. On April 11, 1937, in response to those who questioned whether the Chinese Communist Party was sincere and loyal to the country, Zhang Wentian [14]14 Zhang Wentian (张闻天, 1900-1976) was a senior leader of the Chinese Communist Party, serving as General Secretary from 1935 to 1943. answered affirmatively, “The thorough liberation of the Chinese nation is the highest immediate interest of the Chinese proletariat.” On April 15 of the same year, a circular letter from the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party to all Party members emphasized, “The Chinese Communist Party truly regards striving for the thorough liberation of the Chinese nation as its sole task at present.” If previously safeguarding national interests as the goal of the Chinese Communist Party’s revolution might have been a slogan for external propaganda, this intra-Party circular letter meant that the Chinese Communist Party had already actively shaped the concept of the supremacy of national interests within the entire Party. This circular letter regarded the liberation of the Chinese nation as the primary task of the proletarian party in the stage of the national-democratic revolution, requiring all Party members to firmly grasp the fundamental contradiction between China and Japan.

毛泽东并不否认中国共产党是国际主义者，但他强调中国共产党“同时又是保卫祖国的爱国主义者，为了保卫祖国，愿意抵抗日本到最后一滴血”。中国共产党在《八一宣言》中举起爱国主义旗帜，呼吁“同胞们！中国是我们的祖国！中国民族就是我们全体同胞！”并提出在国家危亡关头，“大家都应当有‘兄弟阋墙外御其侮’的真诚觉悟”。瓦窑堡会议是中国共产党向爱国主义者转变的另一个重要节点，该会议的决议指出，在日本帝国主义要将中国变为殖民地的背景下，中国人应该联合起来，结成不分阶级、派别、队伍的民族统一战线，政策的改变“就是在更充分的表明苏维埃自己不但是代表工人农民的，而且是代表中华民族的”。这份宣言同时指出“中华民族的基本利益，在于中国的自由独立与统一”。“苏维埃代表中华民族”的话语和爱国统一战线的提出，表明中国共产党从强调阶级斗争的国际主义者向爱国主义者的身份转变。1937年4月11日，针对有人质疑中国共产党是否有诚意、是否忠诚于国家，张闻天肯定地回答，“彻底解放中华民族，就是中国无产阶级当前的最高利益”。同年4月15日，中共中央发给全体党员的通告书强调，“中国共产党确是把争取中华民族的彻底解放，当做了他在目前的唯一任务”。如果说，之前将维护国家利益视为中国共产党革命目标可能是一种对外宣称的口号的话，这份党内通告书则意味着中国共产党已经在全党范围内积极塑造国家利益至上的观念。这份通告书将解放中华民族作为无产阶级政党在民族民主革命阶段最主要的任务，要求全体党员紧紧抓住中日两国之间的基本矛盾。

Subsequently, the Chinese Communist Party emphasized the consistency of the interests of the Chinese nation and the interests of the Chinese Communist Party in its propaganda documents. The discourse that the Chinese Communist Party represented the interests of the Chinese nation became increasingly frequent. These discourses signified the Chinese Communist Party’s proposition of resolutely safeguarding national interests. On June 24, 1938, the first article of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda outline for the 17th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party emphasized, “The highest interests of the Chinese working class are consistent with the highest interests of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people.” In this way, the Chinese Communist Party effectively coordinated the interests of the working class with the interests of the state. On March 25, 1939, in response to a trend of thought that used a national standpoint to erase the class standpoint, the Chinese Communist Party theoretically explained the consistency between the class standpoint and the national standpoint of Communists. Zhang Wentian published “On the Consistency of the Communists’ Class Standpoint and National Standpoint” in *Liberation* [15]15 *Liberation* (解放) was a weekly journal published by the Chinese Communist Party in Yan’an from 1937 to 1941., repeatedly explaining that the Chinese Communist Party is not only the representative of the interests of the working class but also the representative of the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation, pointing out that “the class interests of the Chinese working class are completely consistent with the national interests of the Chinese nation.” On April 5 of the same year, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party issued instructions on the National Spiritual Mobilization [16]16 The National Spiritual Mobilization (国民精神总动员) was a campaign launched by the Nationalist government in 1939 to rally popular support for the war effort, which the Chinese Communist Party sought to co-opt., requiring “to prove with facts that Communists inherit and carry forward the traditional virtues of the Chinese nation.” On June 30 of the same year, in response to rumors spread by “anti-communist” and “anti-communist” elements that the Chinese Communist Party was hindering the War of Resistance, Zhang Wentian retorted: “There is not a single proposition or action of the Communist Party that is not beneficial to the Chinese nation.” In June 1941, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party’s instructions on the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party clearly stated: “Outside the Party, we must deeply publicize the history of the Chinese Communist Party over the past twenty years as a history of heroic struggle for the cause of liberating the Chinese nation and the Chinese people.” The Chinese Communist Party declared that it had no interests other than safeguarding the interests of the nation-state and the broad masses of the people.

随后，中国共产党在宣传文件中强调中华民族利益与中国共产党利益的一致性，强调中国共产党代表中华民族利益的话语越来越频繁，这些话语表征了中国共产党坚决维护国家利益的主张。1938年6月24日，中共中央关于中共十七周年纪念宣传纲要的第一条就强调，“中国工人阶级的最高利益，是同中华民族与中国人民的最高利益一致的”。如此，中国共产党将工人阶级利益与国家利益有效协调起来。1939年3月25日，针对当时一股借口以民族立场抹杀阶级立场的思潮，中国共产党从理论上说明共产党人的阶级立场与民族立场一致。张闻天在《解放》上发表《论共产党的阶级立场与民族立场的一致》，文中反复说明中国共产党不但是工人阶级利益的代表者，也是中华民族根本利益的代表者，指出“中国工人阶级的阶级利益，是同中华民族的民族利益完全一致的”。同年4月5日，中共中央发布关于国民精神总动员的指示，要求“以事实证明共产党员继承和发扬中华民族的传统美德”。同年6月30日，针对“防共”“反共”分子散布中国共产党阻碍抗战的谣言，张闻天回击：“共产党的一切主张与行动，没有一件是对中华民族没有利益的。” 1941年6月，中共中央关于中国共产党诞生20周年的指示明确提出：“在党外要深入的宣传中共二十年来的历史，是为中华民族与中国人民解放事业英勇奋斗的历史。”中国共产党声明除了维护民族国家利益和广大人民利益之外，再没有什么自己的利益。

In March 1943, Chiang Kai-shek published the book *China’s Destiny* [17]17 *China’s Destiny* (中国之命运) was a 1943 book by Chiang Kai-shek that asserted the Kuomintang’s exclusive right to lead China, provoking a strong ideological counterattack from the Chinese Communist Party., declaring that one nation could only have one doctrine, one political party, and one leader, and that this political party was the Nationalist Party, and this doctrine was the Three Principles of the People. Chiang Kai-shek’s central goal was to oppose communism and the Chinese Communist Party. The publication of this book attracted great attention from the Chinese Communist Party, sparking a discursive battle between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party over who represented the Chinese nation. Zhou Enlai, Fan Wenlan, Ai Siqi, Qi Yanming [18]18 Fan Wenlan (范文澜), Ai Siqi (艾思奇), and Qi Yanming (齐燕铭) were prominent Chinese Communist Party intellectuals and propagandists active in Yan’an., and others published articles criticizing it. In response to Chiang Kai-shek’s remarks and various propaganda in the Kuomintang camp calling for the “dissolution of the Chinese Communist Party,” *Liberation Daily* [19]19 *Liberation Daily* (解放日报) was the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, first published in Yan’an in 1941. published an editorial titled “The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nation,” providing a targeted response. The author believed that the Chinese Communist Party was not foreign, nor did it emerge from nothing, but arose to meet the requirements of China’s historical development, “precisely because the historical development of the Chinese nation required such a political party, just as the historical development of the Chinese nation required a revolutionary bourgeois political party.”

1943年3月，蒋介石发表《中国之命运》一书，宣称一个民族只能有一种主义、一个政党、一个领袖，而这个政党就是国民党，这个主义就是三民主义。蒋介石的中心目标是反对共产主义与中国共产党。这本书的出版引起了中国共产党的高度重视，掀起了国共两党谁是中华民族代表的话语争夺战。周恩来、范文澜、艾思奇、齐燕铭等纷纷发文批评。针对蒋介石的言论以及国民党阵营中各种“解散中国共产党”的宣传，《解放日报》发表题目为《中国共产党与中华民族》的社论，进行了富有针对性的回应。作者认为中国共产党不是外来的，也不是凭空产生的，而是顺应中国历史发展要求而产生，“那是因为中华民族的历史发展要求有这样一个政党，犹之乎中华民族的历史发展要求有一个革命的资产阶级政党一样”。

The Chinese Communist Party also published books such as *The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nation* and *The Chinese Communist Party’s Contribution to the Chinese Nation*, clarifying the positive relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese nation, and demonstrating the important role of the Chinese Communist Party in the development process of the Chinese nation. In addition, the Chinese Communist Party also shaped the positive relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese nation through discourses such as “outstanding sons and daughters of the Chinese nation” and “outstanding descendants of the Chinese nation.” Zhang Wentian proposed that, to counter the malicious propaganda that “the Communist Party is imported from abroad and unsuitable for ‘national conditions’,” it was necessary, in theory and in fact, “to publicize that the Communist Party is the party of the outstanding elements of the Chinese nation, inheriting the revolutionary tradition of the Chinese nation,” emphasizing that the Chinese Communist Party bore the historical mission of liberating the Chinese nation and the Chinese people. The political resolution of the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee [20]20 The Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee (六届六中全会) was held in September-November 1938 in Yan’an; it affirmed Mao Zedong’s leadership and emphasized the sinification of Marxism. expressed the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese nation as “the Chinese Communist Party is a part of the advanced sons and daughters of the Chinese nation,” requiring Communist Party members to play the role of model soldiers in the struggle for national liberation and national independence. After the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee, expressions such as “the Chinese Communist Party is the advanced sons and daughters of the Chinese nation” gradually became fixed.

中国共产党还出版了《中国共产党与中华民族》《中国共产党对中华民族的贡献》等书籍，明确中国共产党与中华民族的正面关系，论证中国共产党在中华民族发展历程中的重要作用。除此之外，中国共产党还通过“中华民族的优秀儿女”“中华民族的优秀子孙”等话语塑造中国共产党与中华民族的正面关系。张闻天提出，为回击“共产党是外国搬来的不适合于‘国情’的恶意宣传”，要在理论和事实上“宣传共产党是中华民族中优秀分子的党，它继承着中华民族革命的传统”，强调中国共产党担负着解放中华民族和中国人民的历史使命。六届六中全会政治决议案中将中国共产党与中华民族的关系表述为“中国共产党是中华民族的一部分先进儿女”，要求共产党员在民族解放和国家独立的斗争中应该起到模范战士的作用。六届六中全会之后，“中国共产党是中华民族先进儿女”这类表述逐渐被固定下来。

III. The Discursive Construction of the Chinese Nation in the Semantics of “Nationals”

三、“国民”语义的中华民族话语构建

Although modern China was a large country, its strength was dispersed, and the people had not been consolidated into an integrated force. An important reason for the fragmentation and disunity of national strength was the loose political structure of traditional China. The basic political structure during the period of the traditional Chinese dynastic state was the integration of family and state: the family was the most basic social unit, and the state was composed of countless families. In this political structure, the significance of individual action could only be correctly understood within the framework of the family; the relationship between the individual and the state was severed by intermediate organizations such as clans and lineages. The individual’s identification with and loyalty to blood-based groups like clans and lineages occupied a central position; to a certain extent, it can be said that identification with the state was actually an extension of clan identification. The political structure of the integration of family and state undoubtedly had its own rationality in the relatively closed agricultural society and created a brilliant civilization. However, when competing with the highly organized nation-states of the modern West, Chinese society lacked overall strength and exhibited a phenomenon of collapsing at the first blow. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, in addition to direct military, political, and economic aggression, Japan also adopted strategies of divide and rule and using Chinese to control Chinese, attempting to disintegrate the strength of the national community as a whole. In particular, it vigorously implemented enslavement education in the occupied areas to extinguish the patriotic consciousness of the Chinese people. Therefore, exposing Japan’s conspiracy to divide and disintegrate the integrity of the people, awakening the patriotic consciousness of national unity and solidarity among the people, and mobilizing the people to participate in the War of Resistance and national salvation were undoubtedly an important task of the times facing the Communist Party of China. At the same time, the task of overcoming the defeatist sentiment, “Japan-fear disease,” and capitulationist sentiment among some members of the people, and of establishing national self-confidence and self-esteem for inevitable victory in the War of Resistance, was also quite urgent. The Communist Party of China cultivated the patriotic heart of the people, established their self-esteem, and enhanced their confidence in victory in the War of Resistance by praising the Chinese national spirit, propagating the long history of the Chinese nation, and other discourses.

近代中国国家虽大但力量分散，国民没有凝聚起来形成整体性的力量。造成民族力量分裂和不团结的一个重要原因，是传统中国松散的政治结构。中国传统王朝国家时期的基本政治结构是家国一体化，家庭是最基本的社会单元，国由无数家组成。在这种政治结构中个人行动的意义只有放在家的框架下才能被正确理解，个人与国家的关系被家族、宗族等中间组织割裂。个人对于家族、宗族等血缘群体的认同和忠诚处于中心位置，在一定程度上可以说对国家的认同实际上不过是家族认同的扩散。家国一体的政治结构在相对封闭的农业社会无疑具有自身的合理性，并创造出了辉煌的文明，但在与近代西方高度组织化的民族国家竞争时，中国社会整体性力量匮乏，出现一击即散的现象。抗战时期，日本除了运用军事、政治、经济等多种直接侵略的手段之外，还采用了分而治之、以华制华的策略，试图瓦解作为整体的国民共同体的力量，尤其是在沦陷区大肆实行奴化教育以泯灭中国人的爱国意识。因此，揭露日本分化瓦解国民整体性的阴谋，唤醒国民团结统一的爱国意识和动员国民参与抗战救国无疑是中国共产党面临的一项重要时代课题。与此同时，克服部分国民存在民族失败主义情绪、“恐日病”、投降主义情绪以及树立抗战必胜的民族自信心和自尊心的任务也相当紧迫。中国共产党通过颂扬中华民族精神、宣传中华民族悠久历史等话语培育国民的爱国心、树立国民的自尊心和提升国民对抗战胜利的信心。

(I) Exposing Japan’s Enslavement Education of “De-nationalizing National Consciousness”

（一）揭露日本“去民族国家意识”的奴化教育

Japan vigorously implemented enslavement education in the occupied areas, using textbooks to fabricate facts and tamper with history, employing the thought of “loyalty and filial piety” to extinguish the national consciousness of the Chinese people and confuse Japan’s identity as an aggressor. For example, the Japanese Kwantung Army issued a secret order in the document “Service Experience of Autonomy Instructors” to “resolutely eradicate anti-Japanese teaching materials,” proposing that “it is necessary to thoroughly popularize the kingly way… the founding spirit of ethnic harmony and the concept of Japan-Manchukuo integration, to infuse Japanese culture and crowd out the Three People’s Principles and communism.” [21]21 “On the New Stage” (《论新阶段》) refers to a political report delivered by Mao Zedong at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in October 1938, which outlined the Party’s strategy for the War of Resistance and emphasized the importance of national unity. Another example: the puppet East Hebei Autonomous Anti-Communist Government’s primary school textbooks deleted all content with national consciousness from the textbooks printed by the Commercial Press, which were then exclusively sold by the puppet East Hebei Autonomous Anti-Communist Government. Under the name of “reviving China’s inherent

日本在沦陷区大肆推行奴化教育，利用教科书捏造事实、篡改历史，运用“忠孝”思想来泯灭中国人的民族国家意识，混淆日本作为侵略者的身份。比如，日本关东军在《自治指导员服务心得》的秘密文件中发出“排日教材要断然铲除”的密令，提出“必须彻底普及王道主义……民族协和的建国精神和日满融合之观念，倾注日本文化，排挤三民主义和共产主义”。再如，伪冀东防共自治政府各小学课本把商务印书馆印制的课本删去一切带民族意识的内容后，由冀东防共自治政府专销。伪中华民国临时政府在“复兴中国固有文化”的名义下大肆推行封建复古主义，倡导“日满华亲善”，利用中国原有的封建道德，宣扬所谓的亲日思想。教科书中充满了“中日共存共荣”“中日同文同种”“建设东亚新秩序”“大和民族的优秀”等错误思想。伪教育部删除原有教科书内容的原则是“教育方针既确定在于反共，则凡各级学校的教科书上含有阶级斗争，或有足以引起阶级斗争的一切思想，皆当全部删除”。日本实施的奴化教育引起了中国共产党的高度重视，陆定一指出：“敌寇在敌占区实行毒化政策和奴化教育，要把中华民族‘高丽化’，使所有的男子变成白面客，所有的女子变成传播梅毒的娼妓，使我们中华民族灭种，和丧失民族意识，永不翻身……我们必须到敌占区去，铲除毒品梅毒，振奋民众的民族意识，以粉碎敌寇之毒计。”除了奴化教育之外，日本还大肆散布中国速亡论等言论打击国民的自信心。

(2) The Zhonghua Minzu Discourse of Awakening National Unity Consciousness and Boosting National Confidence

（二）唤醒国民团结意识并提振国民信心的中华民族话语

Faced with the cultural invasion of Japanese imperialism, the Chinese Communist Party needed to expose Japan’s conspiracy to disintegrate the Chinese people’s national-state consciousness, awaken the patriotic consciousness of national unity among the people, and build up the people’s self-confidence. On December 27, 1935, the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League, in its declaration on the student patriotic movement, used the term Zhonghua minzu when referring to the 400 million people: “We, the intellectual and student circles, have long harbored patriotic fervor and cannot bear to sit idly by and watch our Zhonghua minzu fall into the hands of the Japanese bandits… With our China, vast in territory and rich in resources, and the Zhonghua minzu of 400 million people, fighting a decisive battle against a mere small island like Japan, final victory should naturally not be difficult.” The Zhonghua minzu referred to in the declaration denotes the 400 million Chinese people, its meaning equivalent to all Chinese people, highlighting the semantic content of the citizenry. The contrast in the discourse between China’s vast territory and rich resources and Japan’s small island, as well as the difference in population size, was undoubtedly helpful in strengthening the people’s confidence in victory in the War of Resistance. On August 23, 1936, the article “The Soviet Government and the People’s Red Army Raise Anti-Japanese Funds at Home and Abroad” stated: “The Zhonghua minzu of 450 million people now stands at a very critical historical juncture. The world’s most ferocious Japanese imperialism, on the one hand, drives its running dogs in China—traitors and national

面对日本帝国主义的文化入侵，中国共产党需要揭露日本试图瓦解中国人民族国家意识的阴谋，唤起国民团结统一的爱国意识以及树立国民的自信心。1935年12月27日，共青团中央关于学生爱国运动的宣言在指称四万万人的情况下使用中华民族一词：“我学生知识界，夙具爱国热忱，不忍坐视我中华民族，沦于倭奴之手……以我地大物博的中国，占有四万万人口的中华民族，与区区一小岛日本决战，其最后胜利，自非难事。”宣言中所说的中华民族指的是四万万的中国人，其含义等同于全体中国人，凸显的是国民的语义。话语中的中国地大物博与日本区区一小岛的国土面积差异和人口数量差别形成强烈的对比，这对于增强国民对抗战胜利的自信心无疑是有帮助的。1936年8月23日，《苏维埃政府与人民红军向海内外筹募抗日基金》一文指出：“四万万五千万人的中华民族，现在处在非常危急的历史关头，世界上最凶暴的日本帝国主义，一方驱使其在中国的走狗——汉奸卖国贼——进攻中国爱国民众，一方用大批军队开进中国内地，大量走私，蹂躏中国的经济，张开疯狂的、惨酷的虎口，吞噬中华民族，已经被吞噬了的，有半个中国之多！四万万五千万人的中华民族，任其吞噬吗？甘心做亡国奴吗？”此处“四万万五千万人的中华民族”实际上指的是全体国民，“亡国奴”一词有助于唤醒国民的危机意识和爱国意识。1945年5月5日，《解放日报》刊载的《中国人民胜利的指南》一文更进一步从国民的角度对中华民族的构成要素进行阐释。“四万万五千万人的中华民族，百年以来处在半殖民地半封建的落后的悲惨的状态中。这个占世界人口五分之一到四分之一的大民族，应该怎样才能求得自己的解放？”接着文章对四万万五千万人口的结构进行了分析，即包括产业工人、手工业工人、农民、小资产阶级、自由资产阶级、开明绅士、其他爱国分子等。

After the outbreak of the War of Resistance, boosting the national spirit of all citizens, promoting traditional culture, and reviewing the nation’s long history became an important means of raising morale, overcoming national inferiority, and enhancing national self-confidence. National spirit is the psychological pillar on which a nation depends for survival and development, and it is also the internal driving force that impels national members to form collective action. In October 1937, Mao Zedong elaborated on the important role of a positive Chinese national spirit in enhancing the people’s self-confidence, stating that the resolute and heroic national self-defensive war of resistance “has unprecedentedly promoted the greatness and resolute and courageous spirit of the Chinese nation, broken the former ‘Japan-fear disease,’ and dealt a considerable blow to the Japanese aggressors.” In 1938, Zhang Wentian clearly pointed out that one of the guidelines for propaganda and education work was to “use all the great deeds and figures in the past history of the Chinese nation to propagate the greatness of the Chinese nation, thereby fostering national self-respect and striking down the psychology of capitulation and compromise.” The effect of promoting the greatness of the Chinese nation and the brilliance of its history in boosting the national spirit and enhancing the people’s confidence was self-evident. The Marxist historian Deng Tuo, in his article “On National Self-Respect and Confidence in Victory in the War of Resistance,” wrote: “Our Chinese nation is one of the few lofty, great, and excellent nations in the history of the world. We have a glorious culture with a history of more than four thousand years. The countless stirring and tragic historical achievements created by our ancestors and martyrs have written countless brilliant pages in the history of all mankind, and the entire Chinese nation is today striving to write another glorious and great page in history.” Deng Tuo’s exposition of the Chinese nation’s long history, splendid culture, and national characteristics was aimed at enhancing the people’s national self-respect, pride, and self-confidence.

抗战爆发后，提振全体国民的民族精神、弘扬传统文化和回顾民族悠久历史成为鼓舞士气、克服民族自卑感、增强民族自信心的一种重要方式。民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的心理支柱，也是推动民族成员形成集体行动的内在动力。1937年10月，毛泽东阐述积极的中华民族精神对于提升国民自信心的重要作用，即坚决英勇的抗日民族自卫战“空前地发扬了中华民族的伟大与坚决勇敢的精神，打破了过去的‘恐日病’，给了日寇相当的打击”。1938年，张闻天明确指出宣传教育工作的方针之一是“利用中华民族过去历史上一切伟大的事迹与人物，宣传中华民族的伟大，以造成民族自尊心，以击破投降妥协的心理”。宣扬中华民族的伟大和历史的辉煌对于提振国民精神和提高国民信心的作用是显而易见的。马克思主义史学家邓拓在《论民族自尊心与抗战胜利的自信心》一文中写道：“我们中华民族，是世界人类历史上屈指可数的崇高伟大的优秀民族，我们有着四千余年悠久的光荣的文化，我们的祖宗和先烈所创造的无数可歌可泣的雄浑悲壮的史绩，曾经在全人类的历史上写下了无数光辉灿烂的史页，而整个中华民族，今天更在努力写着光辉伟大的历史的一页。”邓拓对于中华民族的悠久历史、灿烂文化、民族特性都进行了阐释，目的在于增强国民的民族自尊心、自豪感和自信心。

IV. The Construction of the Chinese Nation Discourse under the Semantics of “Minzu”

四、“民族”语义的中华民族话语构建

The Chinese Communist Party mobilized ethnic minorities to participate in the War of Resistance not only because ethnic minorities were an important force, but also because Japan adopted the tactic of using Chinese to control Chinese, attempting to exploit contradictions among various ethnic groups to divide China, and the Chinese Communist Party had to respond. Japan organized the puppet state of Manchukuo in the northeast, using the means of ethnic separatism to disperse and undermine national unity and state unification, “thereby weakening our great anti-Japanese forces of the Chinese nation and trapping us in isolation”; in Inner Mongolia, it used the slogan of “reviving the Mongol nation” to stir up conflicts between Mongols and Han, and supported Prince Demchugdongrub in establishing a puppet regime; in the northwest, it instigated the establishment of a “Huihui state,” spreading fallacies such as “the War of Resistance is for the Han people” and “Japan is your protector.” To this end, the Chinese Communist Party needed to counter the ethnic separatist discourse manufactured by Japan, emphasizing that all ethnic groups constitute an indivisible community with a shared future under the name of the Chinese nation. At the same time, it also had to criticize the “lineage view” of the Chinese nation held by Han chauvinists. In the view of the Chinese Communist Party, the theories and policies of the Han chauvinists not only failed to break through Japan’s deceptive propaganda but, to a certain extent, abetted Japan’s schemes. Against this backdrop, the Chinese Communist Party systematically elaborated on the origins, structure, culture, and ethnic characteristics of the Chinese nation, actively expressing its cognition of the Chinese nation as an objective entity.

中国共产党动员少数民族参与抗战不仅因为少数民族是一个重要力量，还因为日本采取以华制华的手段，试图利用各民族之间的矛盾分化中国，中国共产党必须予以回应。日本在东北组织伪满洲国，用民族分裂的手段分散和破坏民族团结和国家统一，“以削弱我中华民族伟大的反日势力，使我们限（陷）于孤立”；在内蒙古则打着“复兴蒙古民族”旗号挑拨蒙汉矛盾，并扶持德王建立傀儡政权；在西北鼓动建立“回回国”，散布“抗战为了汉人”“日本是你们的保护者”等谬论。为此，中国共产党需要回击日本制造的民族分裂话语，强调各民族是一个以中华民族为族称的不可分割的命运共同体。与此同时，还要批评大汉族主义者的中华民族“宗族观”。在中国共产党看来，大汉族主义者的理论和政策不但不能击破日本的欺骗性宣传，反而在一定程度上助长日本的阴谋。在这样的背景下，中国共产党对中华民族的起源、结构、文化、民族特征等进行系统阐述，积极表达对中华民族这个客观实体的认知。

(1) Countering Japan’s “Ethnic Separatist” Discourse

（一）回击日本制造的“民族分裂”话语

Long before its invasion of China, Japan had concocted a series of discourses aimed at splitting China, the core purpose of which was to deny that China was a nation-state and to incite ethnic minorities to secede from China. For instance, Yano Jin’ichi, in his article “The Theory That Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet Are Not Originally Chinese Territory,” claimed

日本早在侵华前就炮制了一系列试图分裂中国的话语，话语的核心目的是否认中国是一个民族国家，鼓动少数民族从中国分裂出去。如矢野仁一在《满蒙藏非中国本来领土论》一文中声称中国没有国境，并将少数民族与“中国”对立起来。广为流传的《田中奏折》提出“欲征服中国必先征服满蒙”的策略。抗战爆发之后，日本继续炮制分裂中国的话语，甚至展开了民族分裂行动。比如，在回族聚居地区日本提出“大回教主义”“回民自治”“成立回回国”“抗战是为了汉人，为了蒋委员长”“日本是回民的保护者”“日本帮助回民防共”等欺骗性话语。同时，在沦陷区组织“回民总会”开办培训班，伪装提倡回教，实际上进行分裂回汉团结的活动。因此，“揭破日寇的各种欺骗宣传，在实行民族平等的基础上，争取和团结回族到坚决抗日的阵线中来，是目前抗战中的严重任务之一”。中国共产党对此极为重视，积极揭穿日本分裂中国的话语和行动阴谋，强调中华民族与少数民族的“多元一体”关系。

On April 24, 1938, an editorial in the *Xinhua Daily* [New China Daily] exposed: “The ambition of the Japanese invaders is to conquer the whole of China. That is to say, to conquer the Chinese nation, which includes the Han, Mongols, Hui, Tibetans, and all other minority nationalities.” This editorial clearly pointed out that the Chinese nation includes the Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, Tibetan, and all other minority nationalities, and that all nationalities together constitute the Chinese nation as a whole. In August of the same year, Yang Song, Deputy Minister of the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee, published an article titled “On the Nation,” criticizing the Japanese invaders’ fallacy that “the Chinese people are not a nation.” In Yang Song’s view, the Chinese nation is composed of different tribes and races, among which the minority nationalities have already merged with the Han people. “They are neither their original race nor the Han people, but a newly formed modern nation—the Chinese nation.” At the same time, all domestic nationalities “are, in terms of nationality, citizens of the Republic of China.” Defining domestic nationalities as part of the Chinese nation, thereby criticizing the divisive discourse created by Japan, gradually became a discursive strategy used by the Chinese Communist Party. Wang Ming, drawing on Stalin’s definition of a nation, criticized the Japanese slogan of “Manchurian national self-determination” as untenable. He clearly stated that “the Japanese invaders are a foreign race, while the Yuan and Qing are part of the Chinese nation,” and also pointed out that ethnic relations had already undergone great changes: “The various nationalities that previously lacked sufficient trust and harbored deep animosity—Han, Manchu, Hui, Tibetan, Miao, Yi, Fan, etc.—are now closely united as the Chinese nation resisting Japan in unison.”

1938年4月24日，《新华日报》社论揭露：“日寇的野心，是征服整个中国。也就是说，要征服包括汉蒙回藏及其他一切少数民族的中华民族。”这篇社论明确指出中华民族包含汉满蒙回藏及其他一切少数民族，各民族共同构成作为一个整体的中华民族。同年8月，中共中央宣传部副部长杨松发表《论民族》一文，批判日本侵略者说“中国人不是一个民族”的谬论。在杨松看来，中华民族由不同部落、种族组成，其中的少数民族已与汉人融合，“他们既非原来的种族，也非汉人，而是一个新形成的近代民族——中华民族”，同时，国内各民族“就国籍来说，都是中华民国的国民”。将国内各民族界定为中华民族的一部分，以此来批判日本制造的分裂话语逐渐成为中国共产党使用的一个话语策略。王明根据斯大林的民族定义批判日本人所谓“满洲民族自决”的口号不成立，他明确指出“日寇为异族，元、清为中华民族的一部分”，同时指出民族关系已经发生了很大的变化，“过去信任不够和仇忌甚深的各民族——汉、满、回、藏、苗、夷、番等，现在紧密团结为一致抗日的中华民族”。

The Chinese Communist Party frequently used the discourse of “Chinese nation” in contexts discussing issues related to the Hui and Mongol nationalities. On July 21, 1939, Liu Chun criticized the Japanese invaders for adopting the strategy of “using Chinese to control Chinese,” “attempting to create serious contradictions within the great Chinese nation,” and using every means to widen the contradictions between the Hui and Han. Based on this, Liu Chun proposed that “the Hui nationality is a nationality within the Chinese nation with a glorious history of over a thousand years and the most combative spirit.” An article titled “Fragments from the Daqingshan Newsletter” criticized the Japanese for deliberately provoking contradictions between the Mongols and Han: “The enemy uses Han forces to suppress the Mongols, and also stirs up Mongol hostility toward the Han.” The article called for all nationalities to unite closely to smash Japan’s conspiracy when the entire Chinese nation was suffering disaster, “to complete the thorough liberation of the Chinese nation.” Wang Ming also pointed out that Japan’s purpose in invading China was to annihilate the entire Chinese nation, and that Japan was the common enemy of all nationalities: “The Hui, Han, and all nationalities within China must forever unite closely to defeat the common mortal enemy.”

中国共产党在讨论回族和蒙古族相关问题的语境中较多使用“中华民族”话语。1939年7月21日，刘春批评日本侵略者采取以华制华的策略，“企图造成伟大的中华民族内部的严重矛盾”，用尽一切办法扩大回汉矛盾。刘春据此提出，“回族是中华民族中具有一千数百年光荣历史并且最富于斗争精神的一个民族”。《大青山通讯片段》一文批评日本故意挑拨蒙汉矛盾，“敌人利用汉人力量去镇压蒙人，又挑拨蒙人仇视汉人”，文章呼吁在整个中华民族遭受灾难之时，各民族应当亲密团结起来粉碎日本的阴谋，“完成中华民族的彻底解放”。王明也指出日本侵华的目的是消灭整个中华民族，日本是各个民族共同的敌人，“回汉及中国境内一切民族必须永远亲密团结，打倒共同的死敌”。

(II) Constructing the Discourse of “Plurality and Unity” of the Chinese Nation

（二）构建“多元一体”的中华民族话语

As the understanding of China’s ethnic issues gradually matured, and with the intensification of the national crisis brought about by Japan’s divisive discourse and actions regarding ethnicity, the Chinese Communist Party’s cognition of the relationships among various nationalities, the relationship between minority nationalities and the Chinese nation, and the relationship between minority nationalities and the state also gradually matured. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, the Chinese Communist Party gradually shifted from its earlier advocacy of a federal system to the implementation of regional ethnic autonomy, advocating the establishment of a unified multi-ethnic state. Against this backdrop, the Chinese Communist Party developed a relatively deep understanding of the geographical environment, ethnic structure, historical development, and ethnic characteristics of the Chinese nation. In the crisis of national subjugation and genocide, the fates of all domestic nationalities became more closely linked. The discourse of “plurality and unity” helped the masses of all nationalities form a community consciousness of sharing blessings and misfortunes, and of being bound together in weal and woe. Here, we focus on examining the Chinese Communist Party’s cognition of the connotation of the Chinese nation under the semantics of “nation,” from the perspective of the relationship between minority nationalities and the Chinese nation.

随着对中国民族问题认识的逐步成熟，加之日本制造的民族分裂话语与行动带来的国家危机加剧，中国共产党对各民族之间的关系、少数民族与中华民族的关系以及少数民族与国家关系的认知也逐渐成熟。抗战时期，中国共产党由此前主张联邦制逐步转为实行民族区域自治，主张建立统一的多民族国家。在这样的背景下，中国共产党对中华民族的地理环境、民族结构、历史发展和民族特性等有了比较深入的认知。在亡国灭种的危机中，国内各民族的命运更为紧密地联系在一起，“多元一体”的话语有助于各民族群众形成福祸与共、休戚相关的共同体意识。在此，我们重点从少数民族与中华民族关系的角度来梳理“民族”语义下中国共产党对中华民族内涵的认知。

Emphasizing that the nationalities composing the Chinese nation share a common destiny and are indivisible was a frequently used discourse by the Chinese Communist Party. On July 22, 1938, Xu Teli published an article in the *Observation Daily* [Guancha Ribao]. When discussing the issues of sincere unity and unified command, he pointed out: “If China is destroyed, the entire Chinese nation, regardless of Han

强调组成中华民族的各民族之间命运与共、不可分割，是中国共产党常使用的话语。1938年7月22日，徐特立在《观察日报》发文，在谈到精诚团结与统一指挥问题时指出：“中国灭亡了、整个中华民族无分汉满蒙回藏苗瑶都成为日本的奴隶，不独任何一党派无独存之理，即任何中华民族之一部分都不能独立存在。”徐特立不仅强调中华民族由各民族构成，而且强调中华民族整体与部分之间的紧密关系。1939年出版的《中国革命和中国共产党》一书对中华民族的内涵、结构、特性等进行了详细的阐释，标志着中国共产党中华民族观念的确立。该书叙述了中国人由汉族和几十个少数民族构成，实际上表达的就是中华民族“多元一体”的观念。同年出版的《抗日战士政治课本》上册对中华民族的内涵进行了详细的阐述：“中国有四万万五千万人口，组成中华民族。中华民族包括汉、满、蒙、回、藏、苗、瑶、番、黎、夷等几十个民族，是世界上最勤苦耐劳，最爱和平的民族。”这一界定从国民构成和民族构成的双重维度对中华民族的“多元一体”结构进行了清晰的界定，同时还对民族特性进行阐发。

Under the premise of united resistance against Japan, the Chinese Communist Party practiced the concept of the Chinese nation as “pluralistic and integrated,” with relevant discourse particularly evident in work concerning the Hui and Mongol ethnic groups. In February 1940, Liu Chun, in the opening of his “The Hui Nationality Issue in the War of Resistance and National Reconstruction,” cited the content of “On the New Stage,” [21]21 “On the New Stage” (《论新阶段》) refers to a political report delivered by Mao Zedong at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in October 1938, which outlined the Party’s strategy for the War of Resistance and emphasized the importance of national unity. emphasizing that victory in the War of Resistance could not be achieved without the participation of all ethnic groups, and referred to the Hui as one nationality of the Chinese nation, stressing that the Hui bore the responsibility for the cause of Chinese national liberation. “The Hui nationality has long resided in areas such as Gansu, Ningxia, Qinghai, and Shaanxi, and is scattered throughout China. It is a nationality within the Chinese nation with a long and glorious history and the most combative spirit.” In April 1940, Li Weihan elaborated on the close relationship between the Hui and the Chinese nation: “The liberation of the Hui is inseparable from the liberation of the Chinese nation. Only with the victory of China’s New Democratic Revolution can the Hui achieve true liberation and true freedom.” On August 9, 1943, the *Liberation Daily* reported on the memorial service for Nasu, a Mongol revolutionary leader and member of the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region Government. The eulogy from the General Office of the Central Committee of the CPC stated: “Comrade Nasu was not only a pioneer of Mongol culture but also a revolutionary vanguard for Mongol compatriots. The death of Comrade Nasu is a great loss to the people of the entire border region and to Mongol compatriots! Let the entire Chinese nation—Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, and Tibetan—unite to strive for the final victory of the national revolutionary war of resistance, so as to comfort his spirit.” Lin Boqu attended the memorial service and spoke: “Our government council member Comrade Nasu has passed away! This not only causes Mongol compatriots to lose a leader but is also a loss for the Chinese nation!” “Nasu’s path is the path of the Chinese nation.” On August 12 of the same year, the *Liberation Daily* also reported on speeches by representatives of ethnic minorities at Nasu’s memorial service, including the Tibetan representative Tianbao, who said: “Nasu’s death is not only a loss for the Mongol nationality, but a loss for the Chinese nation, and also a loss for the people of Tibet.”

在团结一致抗日的前提下，中国共产党践行中华民族“多元一体”的理念，相关话语尤其体现在有关回族、蒙古族的工作中。1940年2月，刘春在《抗战建国中的回回民族问题》的开篇便引用了《论新阶段》的内容，强调抗战的胜利离不开各民族参加，并将回族称为中华民族的一个民族，强调回族肩负中华民族解放事业的责任。“回回民族长期居住于甘、宁、青、陕等地区，并散布在中国各地，他是中华民族中具有长期光荣历史并且最富于斗争精神的一个民族”。1940年4月，李维汉阐述回族与中华民族的紧密关系：“回族解放同中华民族解放不可分离，只有中国新民主主义革命的胜利，回族才能获得真正的解放与真正的自由。” 1943年8月9日，《解放日报》报道蒙古族革命领袖、陕甘宁边区政府委员那素的追悼会，中共中央书记处办公厅的悼词提到：“那素先生不仅是蒙古文化的先进，而且是蒙古同胞革命的先驱。那素先生之死，是全边区人民和蒙古同胞的巨大损失！全中华民族——汉、满、蒙、回、藏团结起来，争取抗日民族革命战争最后胜利，以慰英灵。”林伯渠出席追悼会并发言：“我们政府委员那素先生逝世了！这不仅使蒙古同胞失去领导者，而且是中华民族的损失！”“那素的道路，就是中华民族的道路”。同年8月12日《解放日报》还报道了那素追悼会上少数民族代表的演讲词，其中藏族代表天宝说：“那素的死，不仅是蒙古民族的损失，是中华民族的损失，也是西藏人民的损失。”

Beyond this, the Chinese Communist Party also criticized Chiang Kai-shek’s “lineage theory” of the Chinese nation. The “lineage theory” of the Chinese nation, proposed in Chiang Kai-shek’s book *China’s Destiny*, held that China had only one nation, the Chinese nation, and that all other ethnic groups were its branches. After this book was published, it drew high attention from the Chinese Communist Party. The *Liberation Daily* published a series of articles criticizing it, including critiques of the “lineage theory” of the Chinese nation. Zhou Enlai criticized Chiang Kai-shek’s view of the nation as thoroughgoing Han chauvinism: “In name, he simply refers to the Mongol, Hui, Tibetan, and Miao as border peoples, without recognizing them as nationalities. In action, he also practices ethnic discrimination and oppression.” On the basis of deconstructing the “lineage theory” of the Chinese nation, the Chinese Communist Party’s emphasis on a view of the Chinese nation based on ethnic equality was undoubtedly more likely to gain recognition from all ethnic groups.

除此之外，中国共产党也对蒋介石的中华民族“宗族论”展开批判。蒋介石《中国之命运》一书提出的中华民族“宗族论”认为，中国只有中华民族一个民族，其他民族都是其宗支。这本书出版后引起了中国共产党的高度重视，《解放日报》发表了一系列文章进行批判，其中包括对中华民族“宗族论”的批判。周恩来批判蒋介石的民族观是彻头彻尾的大汉族主义，“在名义上，他简直将蒙、回、藏、苗等称为边民，而不承认其为民族。在行动上，也实行民族的歧视和压迫”。在解构中华民族“宗族论”的基础上，中国共产党强调民族平等的中华民族观无疑更容易得到各民族的认同。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

The emergence of the concept of the “Chinese nation” is undoubtedly inseparable from the political background of modern China facing a national crisis of extinction. Therefore, opposing imperialism externally to achieve national independence, and integrating all citizens internally into a political community, constitute the basic connotations of the concept of the Chinese nation. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, the frequency of the Chinese Communist Party’s use of the discourse of the “Chinese nation” markedly increased, primarily constructing a multidimensional discourse of the “Chinese nation” in three semantic dimensions: state, citizenry, and nationality. The discourse of the “Chinese nation” in the state semantic dimension was mainly used in the context of the contradiction between China and Japan, and in explaining the relationship between the Party and the state; the Chinese Communist Party discursively shaped itself as a patriot. The discourse of the “Chinese nation” in the citizenry semantic dimension was constructed mainly to eliminate the negative influence of Japan’s enslavement education, while simultaneously awakening the people’s sense of unity and boosting their confidence in resisting Japan and saving the nation. The discourse of the “Chinese nation” in the nationality semantic dimension was used more frequently during this period. By constructing a discourse of the Chinese nation as “pluralistic and integrated,” it not only forcefully countered the discourse of ethnic division manufactured by Japan but also criticized the “lineage theory” of the Chinese nation. It can be seen that the concept of the Chinese nation used by the Chinese Communist Party had multiple connotations, requiring analysis of its specific semantics in conjunction with particular contexts. The Chinese Communist Party’s construction of the discourse of the “Chinese nation” was not only a means of expressing its cognition of the objective entity of the Chinese nation but also a linguistic symbol used to awaken the masses and mobilize them to participate in the revolution. It is worth noting that the Chinese Communist Party’s construction of the discourse of the “Chinese nation” during the War of Resistance Against Japan was not arbitrary; the construction of the discourse was constrained not only by the cognitive level of the discourse subjects but also by the domestic and international political environment and other political actors. This reveals the multidimensionality of the connotations of the concept of the Chinese nation and the complexity of the struggle for discursive power over the Chinese nation. This inspires us, in subsequent research, to analyze the connotations of the concept of the Chinese nation according to specific contexts, especially to clarify its semantics and discursive construction under different contexts and for different purposes. Only in this way can we grasp the essence of the concept of the Chinese nation, and only then can we deeply understand the important value of accelerating the construction of an independent Chinese discourse system on the community of the Chinese nation.

“中华民族”这一概念的产生与近代中国面临亡国灭种国家危机的政治背景无疑是分不开的。因此，对外反对帝国主义以实现国家独立，以及对内整合全体国民为一个政治共同体，是中华民族概念的基本内涵。抗战时期，中国共产党使用“中华民族”话语的频率明显上升，主要是在国家、国民与民族三种语义上构建多维的“中华民族”话语。国家语义的“中华民族”话语主要是在用于中日两国矛盾，以及在阐释政党与国家关系的语境下使用，中国共产党从话语上将自身塑造为爱国主义者；国民语义的“中华民族”话语构建的目的主要是消除日本奴化教育的消极影响，同时为了唤醒国民团结意识和提振国民抗战救国的自信心；民族语义的“中华民族”话语在这一时期使用较多，通过构建中华民族“多元一体”的话语，不仅有力回击了日本制造的民族分裂话语，也对中华民族“宗族论”进行批判。可见，中国共产党所使用的中华民族概念具有多重内涵，需要结合特定的语境来分析具体语义。中国共产党构建“中华民族”话语不仅仅用来表达其对中华民族这个客观实体的认知，也是用来唤醒民众和动员民众参与革命的语言符号。值得注意的是，抗战时期中国共产党构建“中华民族”话语并非随心所欲，话语的构建不仅受到话语主体认知水平的约束，也受到国内外政治环境和其他政治主体的影响，可见中华民族概念内涵的多维性和中华民族话语权争夺的复杂性。这启发我们在后续的研究中，需要根据具体的语境来分析中华民族概念的内涵，尤其是厘清不同语境和不同目的之下的语义及其话语构建。如此才能抓住中华民族概念的实质，也才能深刻理解当下加快构建中国自主的中华民族共同体话语体系的重要价值。

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆