On a New Model of Human Civilizational Interaction

In today’s world, interactions among different civilizations are increasingly frequent, yet phenomena such as civilizational conflict and confrontation, civilizational hegemony, and bullying still occur from time to time. What kind of outlook on human civilizational interaction should we establish? “Civilizations become richer through exchange, learn from each other through mutual engagement, and develop through mutual learning.” Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has profoundly grasped the evolutionary trends of human civilization and put forward a new model of human civilizational interaction — “civilizational exchange and mutual learning.” This model transcends the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction and provides Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach for effectively handling relations among different civilizations and promoting the healthy development of human civilization. The main task of this article is to thoroughly critique the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction and, on this basis, to systematically elaborate the theory of “civilizational exchange and mutual learning” in depth, revealing the core logic it presents as a new model of human civilizational interaction.

当今世界，不同文明之间的交往越来越频繁，但文明冲突对抗、文明霸权霸凌等现象时有发生。我们应当树立一种什么样的人类文明交往观？“文明因多样而交流，因交流而互鉴，因互鉴而发展。”党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央深刻把握人类文明演进趋势，提出了人类文明交往新模式——“文明交流互鉴”。这一模式超越了西方中心论文明交往模式，为有效处理不同文明之间关系、促进人类文明健康发展提供了中国智慧和中国方案。本文的主要任务就是对西方中心论文明交往模式进行彻底批判，在此基础上，深入系统阐述“文明交流互鉴”理论，揭示其作为一种新的人类文明交往模式所呈现的核心逻辑。

I. World History and Universal Human Interaction

一、世界历史与人类普遍交往

The history of human social development is, in essence, a history of the “interaction” of human civilizations. Fei Xiaotong pointed out that in the pre-modern period, human civilizational interaction could be called a historical period of “each appreciating its own beauty.” “When groups could survive and develop in a self-sufficient, closed state, each unrelated group could go its own way, appreciate its own beauty, and have nothing to do with each other.” [1]1 Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005) was a pioneering Chinese sociologist and anthropologist. The phrase “each appreciating its own beauty” (各美其美) is part of his well-known formulation on cultural relations: “Each appreciates its own beauty, appreciates the beauty of others, shares and appreciates beauty together, and achieves unity under heaven.” As narrow, isolated history transformed into world history, social interaction among humans continuously expanded, shifting from “interaction” to “universal interaction.” These “two transformations” are two sides of the same coin. The transformation of history into world history constituted the precondition for universal human interaction; conversely, the universalization of interaction was a fundamental driving force behind the formation of world history. “The more the original closed state of each nation is eliminated by increasingly perfected modes of production, interaction, and the division of labor among different nations that naturally arises from interaction, the more history becomes world history.” [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846). Different groups, nations, and countries in human society have undergone a world-historical process from each being closed off to gradually moving toward universal interaction. In the past, there was civilizational interaction of “each appreciating its own beauty”; now, there is civilizational interaction against the backdrop of universal world interaction. Interaction has moved from “national” and “regional” to “worldwide” and “global.” In terms of material production and material interaction, “by exploiting the world market, the bourgeoisie has made production and consumption in all countries cosmopolitan.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). In terms of spiritual production and spiritual interaction, “the intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, a world literature arises.” [4]4 Ibid. The term “literature” (Literatur in the original German) is used in the broad sense of written works, including science, art, philosophy, etc. The former interaction confined to narrow regions or the occasional, partial interaction among different nations has gradually been replaced by universal interaction characterized by worldwide mutual influence and interdependence. Marx incisively pointed out: “The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” [5]5 Ibid. The quotation in the source text is slightly adapted; the standard English translation is given here.

人类社会发展史，本质上就是人类文明的“交往”史。费孝通指出，在前现代时期，人类文明交往可以称之为“各美其美”的历史时期。“在群体能够在自给自足的封闭状态下生存和发展时，各个不相关联的群体尽可以各是其是，各美其美，各不相干。”随着狭隘的、孤立的历史向世界历史转变，人类社会交往不断扩大，从“交往”向“普遍交往”转变。“两个转变”是一体两面的关系。历史向世界历史的转变，构成了人类普遍交往的前提，当然，交往的普遍化也是推动世界历史形成的基本动力。“各民族的原始封闭状态由于日益完善的生产方式、交往以及因交往而自然形成的不同民族之间的分工消灭得越是彻底，历史也就越是成为世界历史。”人类社会的不同群体、民族、国家经历了从各自封闭逐步走向普遍交往的世界历史过程。过去是“各美其美”的文明交往，现在是世界普遍交往背景下的文明交往。交往从“民族性”“区域性”走向了“世界性”“全球性”。从物质生产、物质交往看，“由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了”。从精神生产、精神交往看，“各民族的精神产品成了公共的财产。民族的片面性和局限性日益成为不可能，于是由许多种民族的和地方的文学形成了一种世界的文学”。以往那种囿于狭隘区域的交往或不同民族之间的偶然性、局部性交往逐步被世界范围内的相互作用、相互依赖的普遍交往所取代。马克思精辟指出：“过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。”

The fundamental force behind the transformation of history into world history and interaction into universal interaction is capital — the global expansion of the mode of production centered on capital. “It was the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.” [6]6 Ibid. Capital breaks down natural barriers such as geographical conditions, sweeps away the closed and self-sufficient state of nation-states, establishes the world market, global trade systems, and transportation networks, and creates frequent, deep, and multidirectional universal interaction in the economic, political, cultural, and other spheres. Capital-driven economic globalization opened up world history, constantly rushing across the globe, “settling everywhere, establishing connections everywhere,” [7]7 Ibid. bringing about civilizational interaction in the sense of universal interaction. Although Western (modern) civilization can be defined from different angles, from the fundamental dimension of the mode of production, it is essentially a modernity civilization driven by capital. Western countries, through capital, opened up world history, elevating Western civilization from a particular civilization to a universal civilization. It holds absolute power in universal human interaction: “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” [8]8 Ibid. The universal interaction of today’s world is interaction dominated by capital, leading to the capitalization of the entire network of world relations, “drawing all nations, even the most barbarian, into civilization”; [9]9 Ibid. human civilizational interaction is civilizational interaction in which Western civilization occupies an absolutely dominant position, with the logic behind it being Western-centrism, and the result being the “Europeanization of humanity and the earth”: “It has made the barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.” [10]10 Ibid.

历史向世界历史、交往向普遍交往的转变，根本力量是资本，是以资本为核心的生产方式的全球扩张。“它首次开创了世界历史，因为它使每个文明国家以及这些国家中的每一个人的需要的满足都依赖于整个世界，因为它消灭了各国以往自然形成的闭关自守的状态。”资本打破地理条件等自然障碍，扫除民族国家闭关自守状态，建立了世界市场、全球贸易体系、交通体系等，形成了经济、政治、文化等领域的频繁、深入、多向的普遍交往。资本驱动经济全球化开辟了世界历史，不断奔走于全球各地，“到处落户，到处开发，到处建立联系”，带来了普遍交往意义上的文明交往。尽管可以从不同角度界定西方（现代）文明，但是，从生产方式这一根本维度看，其本质上是由资本驱动的现代性文明，西方国家通过资本开辟了世界历史，使得西方文明由特殊性文明上升到普遍性文明，它在人类普遍交往中具有绝对权力：“它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓的文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。”当今世界普遍交往是资本主导的交往，导致整个世界交往关系的资本化，“把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了”；人类文明交往是西方文明处于绝对支配地位的文明交往，其背后的逻辑是西方中心论，导致的结果是“人类和地球的欧洲化”：“它使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方。”

As Fei Xiaotong pointed out, since 1500, and especially since the 18th-century Industrial Revolution, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the modern scientific and technological revolution, and particularly the expansion of the capitalist mode of production have closely linked all nations and countries of the world together. However, they have not enabled human civilizational interaction to develop from “each appreciating its own beauty” to “appreciating the beauty of others.” “On the contrary, starting with maritime plunder, armed aggression, and forcible seizure of resources, then establishing colonial rule and dividing spheres of influence, a situation has formed where the strong bully the weak, contend for world domination, and wars never cease.” What is the reason? “It is that when groups that ‘each appreciate their own beauty’ come into contact, a ‘self-centered’ ethnocentrism, or sense of self-superiority, emerges, rejecting value standards different from one’s own.” [11]11 Fei Xiaotong, “Reflections on Cultural Self-Awareness” (1997). Although capital has driven the historical process of universal world interaction, it has not brought about equal exchange and mutual learning among different civilizations. Instead, it has brought the global expansion of a single civilization, unequal civilizational relations, colonial rule carried out in the name of “civilization,” and so on. The root cause lies in the fact that the current model of human civilizational interaction is flawed; it is a Western-centric “self-centered” approach and a hegemonic one that forces others to “appreciate one’s own beauty.”

正如费孝通指出的，1500年以来特别是18世纪工业革命以来，文艺复兴、宗教改革、现代科技革命尤其资本主义生产方式的扩张，把整个世界的各个民族、国家紧密联系起来，但是并没有实现人类文明交往从“各美其美”发展到“美人之美”，“相反，从海上掠夺，武装侵略，强占资源开始，进而建立殖民统治和划分势力范围，形成了以强制弱，争霸天下，战争不绝的形势”。原因是什么？“那就是各个‘各美其美’的群体在相互接触中，发生了‘唯我独美’的本位中心主义，或称自我优越感，排斥和自己不同的价值标准。”尽管资本推动了世界普遍交往的历史进程，但是，并没有带来不同文明的平等交流互鉴，而是单一文明的全球扩张、不平等的文明关系、以“文明”之名展开的殖民统治，等等。究其根源在于，当今世界文明交往模式出了问题，它是“唯我独美”的西方中心主义、强制别人“美我之美”的霸权主义。

Against the backdrop of world history, Western civilization has interpreted its own particular civilization as the sole universal civilization, constructing a model that governs exchanges between different civilizations and regulates the direction of human civilization. We call this the “Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange.” From the perspective of Marx’s theory of world history, this model possesses historical progressiveness; the world-wide exchange it promoted profoundly changed the course of human history. First, the Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange drove the global expansion of the capitalist mode of production, creating enormous productive forces. Second, this model promoted universal exchange among human societies, transcending the narrow limitations of nations, states, and regions, facilitating the global spread of modern industrial civilization, accelerating the dissolution of old modes of production, fostering exchanges between different civilizations, and bringing progress to the entire world. Third, the Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange facilitated the transformation of localized individuals into world-historical individuals, creating necessary conditions for the emancipation of humanity. Although the Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange has historical progressiveness, its inherent contradictions and antagonisms cannot be ignored. In the practice of inter-civilizational exchange, this model has led to serious consequences, which can be summarized in four main aspects: First, through universal exchange, Western civilization extended the logic of capital [12]12 The logic of capital: the inherent drive of capital to expand, accumulate, and commodify all aspects of life, as theorized by Marx. worldwide, expanding the fundamental contradictions of capitalism from individual nations to the globe, thereby “universalizing” and “globalizing” the conflicts inherent in Western capital civilization. Although the logic of Western civilization cannot be entirely equated with the logic of capital, capital, as the dominant modern relation of production, has become the decisive force of Western civilization, reconstructing its modern form. Since modern times, the global expansion of Western civilization has inevitably “exported” the logic of capital and its internal crises to all parts of the world. Second, Western civilization’s intervention, colonization, and aggression against other civilizations have brought profound disasters to non-Western nations and peoples. Third, the Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange provides a so-called legitimacy for civilizational intervention and civilizational export, making it a major source of conflict between different civilizations. “Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world.” [13]13 Samuel P. Huntington, *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order* (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 321. Fourth, Western civilization, claiming to be the most superior and advanced civilization in human society, lacks the awareness and capacity to draw beneficial elements from other civilizations, gradually losing its civilizational vitality and heading toward decline.

在世界历史背景下，西方文明把自己的特殊文明阐释为唯一的普遍性文明，构建起一种支配不同文明交往、规制人类文明走向的模式。我们将其称为“西方中心论文明交往模式”。从马克思世界历史理论看，这一模式具有历史进步性，其所推动的世界交往深刻改变了人类历史进程。其一，西方中心论文明交往模式推动了资本主义生产方式在全球的扩张，创造了巨大生产力。其二，西方中心论文明交往模式推动了人类社会的普遍交往，超越了民族、国家和地区的狭隘限制，推动了现代工业文明在全球的传播，促进了旧生产方式的解体，推动了不同文明的交流，带来了整个世界的进步。其三，西方中心论文明交往模式推动了地域性的个人向世界历史性的个人的转变，为实现人的解放创造了必要条件。尽管西方中心论文明交往模式具有历史进步性，但其内在的矛盾性与对抗性是无法忽视的，这一模式在文明交往的实践中导致了严重后果，概要说来，主要是四个方面：一是西方文明通过普遍交往，将资本逻辑在世界范围扩张，资本主义基本矛盾从一国扩展到全球，西方资本文明内含的矛盾冲突“普遍化”“全球化”。尽管不能把西方文明逻辑完全等同于资本逻辑，但是，资本作为占支配地位的现代生产关系，成为西方文明的决定性力量，资本逻辑重构了西方文明的现代形态。近代以来，西方文明的全球扩张，也就必然把资本逻辑及其内在危机“输送”至世界各地。二是西方文明对其他文明的干预、殖民、侵略，给非西方国家和民族带来了深重灾难。三是西方中心论文明交往模式为文明干预、文明输出等提供了所谓的合法性，是造成不同文明冲突的主要根源。“西方对其他文明事务的干预，可能是造成多文明世界中的不稳定和潜在全球冲突的唯一最危险的因素。”四是西方文明自诩为人类社会最优越、最先进的文明，缺乏从其他文明中汲取有益成分的意识和能力，会逐步丧失文明的生机活力，走向衰落。

The Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange has a historical rationality in promoting universal human exchange, but this rationality is, after all, “historical” and temporary. The increasingly severe consequences it produces at the practical level compel us to subject the Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange to the most resolute and thorough critique. Only through theoretical critique can we better understand the transcendence and uniqueness of the new model of inter-civilizational exchange—exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations.

西方中心论文明交往模式对于促进人类普遍交往是有历史合理性的，但这样的合理性毕竟是“历史性”的、暂时性的，其在实践层面上导致的越来越严重的后果，使得我们不得不对西方中心论文明交往模式进行最坚决、最彻底的批判。唯有理论上的批判，才能更好理解文明交流互鉴这一人类文明交往新模式的超越性和独特性。

II. The Western-Centric Model of Inter-Civilizational Exchange and Its Critique

二、西方中心论文明交往模式及其批判

As history transformed into world history, Western states, through capital, opened up a new “era of civilization,” namely the era of modern capital civilization. In the global expansion of capital, Western civilization gradually rose to become the first “universal civilization” with world-historical significance. Western civilization dominated the practice of inter-civilizational exchange across the entire world. Confined by its own ethnocentrism, Western civilization, in understanding the essence of civilization, handling relations between different civilizations, and conducting exchanges among them, formed a model of inter-civilizational exchange absolutely dominated by the West—the “Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange.” In essence, this model is the global expansion of Western civilization, a one-way export of a single civilization. Broadly speaking, the Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange has four core theoretical elements, which we will now critically elaborate in some detail.

随着历史向世界历史转变，西方国家通过资本开辟出一个崭新的“文明时代”即现代资本文明时代，在资本的全球扩张中，西方文明逐步上升为第一个具有世界历史意义的“普遍性文明”。西方文明支配了整个世界人类文明交往实践，西方文明囿于自我中心论，看待文明本质、处理不同文明之间的关系、展开不同文明之间的交往，形成了西方绝对主导的文明交往模式即“西方中心论文明交往模式”。这一模式就其实质而言，是西方文明的全球扩张，是单一文明单向的对外输出。大体说来，西方中心论文明交往模式有四个核心理论要素，我们接下来进行较为详细的批判性阐释。

First, the singular view of civilization. Generally speaking, “civilization” refers to the state of progress in which human society has emerged from barbarism. The Western-centric model of inter-civilizational exchange uses the singular form of “civilization.” The 19th-century French historian François Guizot, in his *History of Civilization in Europe*, defined civilization in the singular sense, constructing the mainstream concept of civilization in the English and French contexts since the Enlightenment. Civilization is the development of universal human nature and the development of society. “In this great fact (referring to civilization—author’s note) are contained two facts; it exists by virtue of two conditions, and manifests itself by two signs: the development of social activity and the development of individual activity; the progress of society and the progress of humanity.” [14]14 François Guizot, *The History of Civilization in Europe*, trans. William Hazlitt (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997), p. 16. Guizot inherited the Enlightenment’s progressivist view of civilization. “Let us firmly, faithfully, and unswervingly hold to the principles of our civilization—justice, legality, openness, liberty.” [15]15 Ibid., p. 254. Guizot’s “civilization” takes European civilization as the sole universal civilization, with France as its center and focus. The modern Japanese Enlightenment thinker Fukuzawa Yukichi accepted Guizot’s singular view of civilization and further elaborated on it. He argued that Western civilization is the most advanced civilization in the modern world. The only path for any nation or country pursuing civilization is Western civilization. “If one wishes to advance the civilization of one’s own country, one must take European civilization as the goal, establish it as the standard for all arguments, and use this standard to measure the advantages and disadvantages of things.” [16]16 Fukuzawa Yukichi, *An Outline of a Theory of Civilization*, trans. David A. Dilworth and G. Cameron Hurst (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1973), p. 14. Guizot, Fukuzawa, and others adhered to a “singular” monistic view of civilization, taking the West as the sole subject to explain civilization, regarding Western civilization as the only form of civilization, denying the legitimacy of other civilizations, and using the singular concept of civilization to construct a “linear-progressive” view of civilization. This view of civilization is a kind of linear theory in historical perspective, holding that the evolution of human civilization is a linear, gradient process, in which all nations and states of the world unfold their civilizational process according to a predetermined order and model set by the West, with reaching Western civilization as the ultimate goal. In the singular view of civilization, Western civilization and other civilizations are constructed as a unidirectional relationship between subject and object. The basic meaning of inter-civilizational exchange refers to bidirectional or multidirectional interactions between different civilizations. However, the singular view of civilization advocates a unidirectional effect of Western civilization on other civilizations. With the increasingly strengthened dominance of Western civilization in the process of modernization, “the sporadic and limited multidirectional collisions between civilizations gave way to a sustained, irresistible, and unidirectional impact of the West on all other civilizations.” [17]17 Huntington, *The Clash of Civilizations*, p. 51. The so-called inter-civilizational exchange dominated by Western civilization is merely a process of externally “transmitting civilization”: “They (Western states—author’s note) consider themselves to be the providers of an existing or stable ‘civilization,’ a standard-bearer transmitting ‘civilization’ to the outside world.” [18]18 Wang Hui, *The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought* (Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2004), p. 3. Unidirectional inter-civilizational exchange cannot be equal or dialogical; “rather, it is a unidirectional command and domination exercised by a ‘superior’ civilization over an ‘inferior’ one.”

一是单数文明观。一般说来，“文明”（civilization）指人类社会脱离野蛮的进步状态。西方中心论文明交往模式使用的是civilization的单数形式。19世纪法国历史学家基佐在其《欧洲文明史》中，在单数意义上界定了文明，构建了启蒙时代以来英法语境中主流的文明概念。文明是普遍人性的发展与社会的发展。“在这个大事实（指文明——引者注）中包含着两个事实，它靠两个条件存在，并通过两个标志显示出来：社会活动的发展和个人活动的发展，社会的进步和人性的进步。”基佐继承了启蒙进步主义的文明思想。“让我们牢牢地、忠实地、坚定不移地抓住我们文明的那些原则——正义、合法性、公开性、自由。”基佐的“文明”以欧洲文明为唯一普遍性文明，并且，法国是欧洲文明的中心和焦点。日本近代启蒙思想家福泽谕吉接受了基佐的单数文明观，并在此基础上作了进一步阐释。他指出，西方文明是现代世界最先进的文明。一切民族或国家追求文明的唯一出路就是西方文明。“如果想使本国文明进步，就必须以欧洲文明为目标，确定它为一切议论的标准，而以这个标准来衡量事物的利害得失。”基佐、福泽谕吉等人坚持“单数”一元文明观，把西方作为单一主体来解释文明，以西方文明为文明的唯一形态，否定了其他文明存在的合法性，并且以单数文明概念，构建了“线性-进步”的文明观。该文明观是一种历史观上的直线论，认为人类文明演进是一个直线式、梯度化的过程，世界上各民族国家都按照西方预先设定的顺序和模式展开文明化进程，并以达到西方文明为最终目标。在单数文明观那里，西方文明与其他文明被构建成主体与客体之间的单向关系。文明交往的基本含义指不同文明之间的双向、多向作用。但是，单数文明观主张的却是西方文明对其他文明的单方向作用。随着西方文明在现代化进程中的日益强化的支配地位，“文明之间断断续续的或有限的多方向的碰撞，让位于西方对所有其他文明持续的、不可抗拒的和单方向的冲击”。西方文明主导的所谓文明交往不过是一种对外“传递文明”的过程：“他们（西方国家——引者注）自认为自己是一个现存的、或者是稳固的‘文明’的提供者，是一个向外界传递‘文明’的旗手”。单方向的文明交往不可能是平等的、对话性的，“而是‘优等’文明对‘劣等’文明实施的单向命令与支配”。

From the perspective of general principled critique, in terms of conceptual definition, the singular view of civilization takes Western civilization as the sole type of civilization, denying civilizational diversity; in terms of civilizational evolution, it advocates a “linear-progressive” model of civilizational development, denying the nonlinearity and diversity of paths of human civilizational development; in terms of inter-civilizational exchange, it emphasizes the unidirectional effect of Western civilization outward, denying the bidirectional, multidirectional, and dialogical nature of human inter-civilizational exchange.

从一般原则性批判视域看，在概念界定上，单数文明观以西方文明为唯一文明类型，否定文明多样性；在文明演进上，单数文明观主张“线性-进步”的文明发展模式，否定人类文明发展道路的非线性、多样性；在文明交往上，单数文明观强调西方文明对外的单向作用，否定了人类文明交往的双向性、多向性以及对话性。

The second is the theory of civilizational hierarchy. The term “civilization” in the Western context is not a simple concept; it conceals a discourse system concerning civilizational hierarchy, corresponding to a world order model constructed by Western societies. “The so-called theory of civilizational hierarchy refers to a doctrine about the developmental models of human civilization that became prevalent in countries such as Britain, the United States, and France from the early 19th century. This doctrine divides the developmental paths of different countries and nations around the world into hierarchical models, establishing through this hierarchy a systematic body of knowledge suited to colonial rule, an intellectual order.” [19]19 Liu He, “The Discourse on the Standard of Civilization and the Construction of World Order in the Late Qing Dynasty,” in *The Standard of Civilization and the Construction of World Order*, ed. Liu He (Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing Press, 2010), p. 3. The theory of civilizational hierarchy is Western-centric, classifying human civilizations into higher and lower, superior and inferior tiers. Western civilization is considered the most superior, occupying the apex of the “civilizational ladder,” while non-Western civilizations, depending on their level of development, are placed on different rungs of this ladder. Generally speaking, the theory of civilizational hierarchy has models such as the three-tier, four-tier, and five-tier systems. For instance, Fukuzawa Yukichi advocated a three-tier system: “In the current state of world civilization, the countries of Europe and the United States are the most civilized, Turkey, China, Japan, and other Asian countries are semi-civilized, while African and Australian countries are considered barbaric… The terms civilized, semi-civilized, and barbaric are universally accepted and recognized by people worldwide.” [20]20 Fukuzawa Yukichi, *An Outline of a Theory of Civilization*, trans. Beijing Compilation and Translation Society (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1995), p. 9. However, whether it is the three-tier, four-tier, or five-tier system, there is no essential difference; their common ideological root is the civilization-barbarism binary. The West regards itself as the model of civilization and the “standard-bearer” for spreading civilization, while non-Western countries are seen as barbaric or uncivilized. “Excluding and denigrating the ‘other’ is a fundamental psychological mechanism used to highlight oneself. Civilization is a means (a tool) to achieve this goal.” [21]21 Norbert Elias, *The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners*, trans. Wang Peili and Yuan Zhiying (Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1998), p. 5. Through the civilization-barbarism binary, Western countries construct a structural relationship between Western and non-Western civilizations: modern versus traditional, civilized versus barbaric, advanced versus backward. The civilization-barbarism binary cannot lead to equal exchange between different civilizations; it inevitably results in a “clash of civilizations.” “The hierarchical notion of the binary opposition between civilization and barbarism, and the ideological yardstick of progress versus backwardness, still permeate our general knowledge today, constantly generating discrimination and hatred between individuals and even between nations.” [22]22 Chen Xiaoming, “The ‘Civilization’ Discourse and the ‘Civilizing Mission’ of Imperialism,” *Literature and Art Studies*, no. 4 (2004).

二是文明等级论。西方语境中的“文明”不是一个简单概念，其背后隐含一套关于文明等级论的话语系统，与其对应的是西方社会构建的一种世界秩序模式。“所谓文明等级论，是指从19世纪初年开始风行于英、美、法等国的一种关于人类文明发展模式的学说。这种学说将世界各地不同国家和民族的发展道路划分为包含不同等级的发展模式，并且通过等级的划分建立起一套适合殖民统治的系统知识，一种思想秩序。”文明等级论以西方为中心，把人类文明分为高低、优劣不同层级，西方文明是最优等文明，处于“文明阶梯”的顶端，非西方文明根据发展程度不同，处于“文明阶梯”的不同层级之上。一般说来，文明等级论有三级制、四级制和五级制等模式。比如，福泽谕吉就主张三级制：“现代世界的文明情况，要以欧洲各国和美国为最文明的国家，土耳其、中国、日本等亚洲国家为半开化的国家，而非洲和澳洲的国家算是野蛮的国家……文明、半开化、野蛮这些说法是世界的通论，且为世界人民所公认。”不过，无论是三级制，还是四级制或五级制都没有本质上的区别，其共同的思想根源就是文明-野蛮的二元论。西方自认为是文明的典范，是传播文明的“旗手”，非西方国家是野蛮的或未开化的。“排斥和诋毁‘他者’是一种基本的心理机制，借此来达到突显自身的目的。文明是实现这一目标的一种方式（手段）。”西方国家通过文明-野蛮二元论，构建起西方文明与非西方文明之间的结构性关系：现代与传统、文明与野蛮、先进与落后等。文明-野蛮二元论带来的不可能是不同文明之间的平等交往，必然是“文明冲突”。“文明和野蛮二元对抗的等级化观念、进步与落后的意识形态化衡量标准，至今依然散见于我们的一般知识当中，不断制造着人与人之间乃至国与国之间的歧视和仇恨。”

The theory of civilizational hierarchy constructs a so-called “enduring order” and also determines the basic logic of human civilizational exchange. Western civilization becomes the most dominant civilization, achieving dominance and control over other civilizations, forming a civilizational order in which other civilizations are subordinate to and dependent on Western civilization. The theory of civilizational hierarchy inevitably shapes a world order of civilizational dependency: “Four hundred years of inter-civilizational relations have been constituted by the subordination of other societies to Western civilization.” [23]23 Samuel P. Huntington, *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*, trans. Zhou Qi et al. (Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House, 2010), p. 35. The entire world exhibits a center-periphery, inner-outer circle civilizational structure. Western civilization is the center and inner circle of the modern world civilizational system, while non-Western countries are peripheral civilizations and outer circles. “Europeans are seen as ‘makers of history.’ Europe is always advanced, progressive, and modern. The rest of the world either progresses slowly or stagnates: it belongs to ‘traditional society.’ Thus, the world has a permanent center and a semi-permanent periphery: an inner circle and an outer circle. The inner circle leads, the outer circle lags. The inner circle innovates, the outer circle imitates.” [24]24 Immanuel Wallerstein, *The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century*, trans. Peng Yiping (Kaohsiung: Juliu Book Company, 2001), p. 183. Under the dominance of the theory of civilizational hierarchy and civilizational dependency, the basic logic of human civilizational exchange is exceptionally clear: Western civilization, as the center and inner circle, radiates, dominates, transforms, and even colonizes non-Western civilizations, while non-Western civilizations, as peripheral and outer circles, depend on, imitate, or even directly transplant Western civilization. With the widespread dissemination of the theory of civilizational hierarchy, the notion that Westerners are civilized people, while people of other nations or countries are “semi-civilized” or even “barbaric” has become a so-called common sense in international society, even internalized as a psychological consciousness in some nations. In the process of civilizational exchange, these nations instinctively feel inferior when encountering people or events.

文明等级论构造了所谓的“持久秩序”，也决定了人类文明交往基本逻辑。西方文明成为最强势的文明，实现对其他文明的统治与支配，形成了其他文明对西方文明从属、依附的文明秩序。文明等级论必然塑造文明依附论的世界秩序，“400年之久的文明间关系是由其他社会对西方文明的从属所构成的”。整个世界呈现出中心-边缘、内圈-外圈的文明结构。西方文明是现代世界文明体系中的中心、内圈，非西方国家是边缘文明、外圈文明。“欧洲人被看做是‘历史的创造者’。欧洲永远是先进的、进步的、现代化的。世界其他各地或者进步缓慢，或者停滞不前：属于‘传统社会’。因此，世界有一个永久的中心和一个半永久的外围：一个内圈，一个外圈。内圈领先，外圈落后。内圈创新，外圈模仿。”在文明等级论、文明依附论的支配下，人类文明交往基本逻辑异常清晰：西方文明作为中心、内圈文明，辐射、支配、改造甚至殖民非西方文明，而非西方文明作为边缘文明、外圈文明，依附、模仿甚至直接移植西方文明。随着文明等级论的广泛传播，西方人是文明人，其他民族或国家的人是“半文明”人甚至“野蛮人”成为国际社会所谓常识，甚至内化为一些民族的心理意识，这些民族在文明交往过程中，遇人遇事下意识地矮三分。

The West “believes that its own race and civilization are superior and is determined to transform or even replace other civilizations.” [25]25 Xi Jinping, “Deepening Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilizations to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” *Qiushi*, no. 11 (2019). The theory of civilizational hierarchy provides a certain legitimacy for the West’s external “civilizational promotion” and colonial expansion. “To this day, many universal problems of imperialism still revolve around notions of superiority and hierarchical concepts of civilization, race, nation, or any particular collective.” [26]26 Edward W. Said, *Orientalism*, trans. Wang Yugen (Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2007), p. 45. But in essence, behind the theory of civilizational hierarchy lies a Western-centric view of civilization, replete with imprints of Western civilizational superiority and Western hegemonic logic.

西方“认为自己的人种和文明高人一等，执意改造甚至取代其他文明”，文明等级论为西方对外进行“文明推广”、殖民主义扩张提供了某种合法性论证。“直到今天，帝国主义的许多普遍问题仍然围绕着优越感和文明、种族、国家或任何特殊集体的等级观念。”但究其实质而言，文明等级论背后是西方中心论的文明观，充满了西方文明优越论、西方霸权逻辑等印记。

The third is the theory of the civilizing mission. How do different civilizations interact? The core proposition of the Western-centric model of civilizational exchange is the “theory of the civilizing mission.” “For centuries, ‘civilization’ and imperial missionary zeal have sought to erase the ‘uncivilized’ peoples, ‘backward’ cultures, and ways of life on earth, and we (regrettably) may be forced toward a homogenized unified civilization—one brought by the international community or an empire with a high degree of uniformity.” [27]27 Immanuel Wallerstein, *The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century*, trans. Peng Yiping (Kaohsiung: Juliu Book Company, 2001), p. 183. The root of the theory of the civilizing mission is the singular view of civilization and the narrative of universal civilization: all nations or countries in the world will move toward a unified civilization, whose manifestation is Western civilization. Western countries, according to their own civilization, carry out activities to “civilize” “semi-civilized” or even “barbaric” countries. This has been the main axis of human civilizational exchange in the modern world. From the Western perspective, the impetus for “civilizing” uncivilized nations or countries comes from two aspects: first, a missionary-like zeal derived from Christianity; second, the need to eliminate the threat that uncivilized nations or countries pose to the civilized world. By what means does the West promote its civilizing mission globally? This requires both force or hegemony and legitimizing power. Western countries construct “standards of civilization” to justify their civilizing mission and external civilizational expansion. Australian scholar Brett Bowden examines an important issue: “How the standard of civilization has gone hand in hand with the ‘civilizing mission’ that Europeans have been carrying out in the non-European world for centuries, evolving into full-scale colonial expansion.” [28]28 Brett Bowden, *The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea*, trans. Tian Ye and Yang Guang (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2011), p. 2. The function of the standard of civilization is, on the one hand, to reinforce the advanced nature of Western civilization, and on the other hand, to reinforce the backwardness of non-Western civilizations. The result is that using Western civilization to carry out “civilizational transformation” in the non-Western world is considered legitimate and progressive. “The standard of civilization was used to spread civilizational norms in the global order, and this plan included denigrating non-European worldviews, promoting the integration of a sense of backwardness into culture, and encouraging or supporting local civilizational offensives to imitate European lifestyles.” [29]29 Brett Bowden, *The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea*, trans. Tian Ye and Yang Guang (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2011), p. 2. The standards of civilization constructed by the West have many elements or paradigms, but the core is the “standard of modernity.” The West constructs market economy, liberal democracy, human rights, and autonomy as universal standards of modernity. The civilizing mission is to implement these “universal standards of modernity” in the non-Western world, driving them toward continuous progress toward civilized society. “Progress means moving along a specific path toward a specific state of socio-political and economic organization, namely Western modernity.” [30]30 Brett Bowden, *The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea*, trans. Tian Ye and Yang Guang (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2011), p. 2. The civilizational exchange dominated by the West is nothing more than the “standard-bearer” of civilization, according to the standards of civilization, implementing a “modernity project” in non-Western societies. “The only way—if possible—for ‘uncivilized’ peoples to rise and embark on the path of civilization is to accept the guidance of civilized Europeans, who can instill the necessary codes of conduct and training to make them capable of becoming a civilized society.” [31]31 Brett Bowden, *The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea*, trans. Tian Ye and Yang Guang (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2011), p. 2. Western countries, through the standard of civilization-modernity, justify their civilizing mission. Once the standard of civilization is accepted, even the people of “uncivilized” and “barbaric” countries come to believe that they “‘need’ the care of ‘civilized developed countries’ to look after societies whose development is stagnant, and that they ‘must be protected from the harm of their own actions.’” [32]32 Brett Bowden, *The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea*, trans. Tian Ye and Yang Guang (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2011), p. 2. “Their own actions” refer to backward or even barbaric behaviors that do not meet the standard of civilization.

三是文明开化使命论。不同文明如何交往？西方中心论文明交往模式的核心主张就是“文明开化使命论”。“数个世纪以来，‘文明开化’及帝国传教士般的热忱一直试图抹去地球上‘未开化的’民族、‘落后的’文化和生活方式，我们（很遗憾地）可能被迫走向同质化的统一文明——由国际社会所带来的统一文明或具有高度一致性的帝国。”文明开化使命论根源就是单数文明观、普遍性文明叙事，世界上所有民族或国家都会走向一种统一文明，其表现形式就是西方文明，西方国家按照自身文明，对“半开化”甚至“野蛮”国家进行“文明开化”的活动。这便是现代世界人类文明交往的主轴。从西方自身维度来说，对未开化民族或国家进行“文明开化”的动力有两个方面：一是来自于基督教传教士般的使命；二是消除未开化民族或国家对文明世界所产生的威胁。西方依靠什么力量，在全球推广其文明开化使命？这既需要强力或霸权，也需要合法性力量。西方国家通过构建“文明标准”，来为其文明开化使命、对外文明扩张辩护。澳大利亚学者布雷特·鲍登考察的一个重要议题就是：“文明标准是如何与数个世纪以来欧洲在非欧洲世界实施的‘文明开化使命’携手并进，并演变为全面扩张的殖民主义的。”文明标准的功能一方面强化西方文明的先进性，另一方面强化非西方文明的落后性，带来的结果就是，用西方文明在非西方世界进行“文明改造”是具有合法性、进步性的。“文明标准被用来在全球秩序中传播文明规范，而该计划包括贬低非欧洲世界观、提倡将落后感融入文化，以及鼓励或支持当地文明攻势以模仿欧洲生活方式。”西方构建的文明标准有诸多要素或范式，但最核心的还是“现代性标准”。西方将市场经济、自由民主、人权、自治等构建为普遍的现代性标准，文明开化使命就是将“普遍的现代性标准”贯彻到非西方世界中，推动它们朝着文明社会不断进步。“进步意味着沿着一条特定的道路向特定的社会政治和经济组织状态发展，即西方现代性。”西方主导的文明交往无非就是文明“旗手”对照文明标准，在非西方社会实施“现代性计划”。“‘未开化’的民族想要崛起而走上文明坦途的唯一途径——若有可能的话——就是接受文明的欧洲人的指导，欧洲人可向其灌输必要的行为准则和训练，使之有可能成为文明社会。”西方国家借助于文明-现代性标准，为其文明开化使命辩护。一旦接受了文明标准，就连“未开化的”“野蛮的”国家民众也认为“‘需要’由‘文明的发达国家’照顾发展处于停滞状态的社会，而且‘必须保护它们不受自己的行为的伤害’”。“自己的行为”就是不符合文明标准的落后的甚至野蛮的行为。

The West has long used a set of ideas and concepts such as civilization, progress, universality, and modernity to explain the legitimacy of its “civilizing mission.” Mazlish points out that civilization is a colonial ideology: “When Europeans ruled and dominated other peoples and established their own dominant position, they used the concept of civilization to excuse their actions and provide a legitimate basis.” But no matter how it is disguised, the logic behind the “civilizing mission” is imperialism and colonialism. The “civilizing mission” is the act of Western states exporting civilization to non-Western countries in the name of civilization; it is the global expansion of Western civilization. The process of “civilization” is inevitably accompanied by violence, bringing extremely tragic fates to the peoples of non-Western nations or states. “‘The civilizing mission, carried out smoothly under the name of expanding the empire of civilization, one can say without exaggeration that the harm inflicted by the colonial ‘civilizing mission’ on many non-Western races is largely comparable to a forgotten genocide.’” On the surface, “civilization” appears to be the global promotion of universal values and ways of life; in essence, it is the “universalization” and homogenization of Western particular values and ways of life across the entire world, an expansion of an “empire of civilization.” Western civilization, which attempts to impose “standards of modernity” globally, inevitably leads to confrontation between Western civilization and the nation-states upon which these standards are forced.

西方一直用文明、进步、普遍性、现代性等一套思想和概念，解释其“文明开化使命”的合法性。马兹利什就指出，文明是一种殖民意识形态，“欧洲人统治支配其他民族，确立自身主导地位时，用文明概念为其行为开脱，提供合法依据”。但是不管如何掩饰，“文明开化使命”背后的逻辑是帝国主义、殖民主义。“文明开化使命”是西方国家以文明之名，向非西方国家输出文明的行为，是西方文明的全球扩张。“文明开化”的过程必然伴随着暴力，给非西方民族或国家的人们带来极其悲惨的命运。“‘文明开化使命’在拓展文明帝国的名义下顺利实施，人们可以毫不夸张地认为，殖民‘开化使命’对许多非西方种族造成的伤害在很大程度上类似于被人们所遗忘的大屠杀。”“文明开化”表面看来是普遍性的价值观和生活方式在全球推广，实质上是西方特殊的价值观和生活方式在整个世界范围的“普遍化”、同质化，是一种“文明的帝国”（empire of civilization）的扩张。企图在全球范围内推行“现代性标准”的西方文明，必然会导致西方文明与被强加该标准的民族国家之间的对抗。

Fourth, the end of history thesis. What is the ultimate goal of interaction between different civilizations? The answer provided by the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction is the end of history thesis. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the upheavals in Eastern Europe and the severe setbacks of world socialism, arguments such as “the twentieth century will end with the defeat of socialism and the victory of capitalism” were incessant. Against this backdrop, Fukuyama put forward the “end of history” thesis: “liberal democracy may constitute ‘the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution’ and ‘the final form of human government,’ and as such constitute the ‘end of history.’”[33]33 Francis Fukuyama, *The End of History and the Last Man* (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. xi. Although the end of history thesis is a relatively recent discourse, its ideological claims have long existed; in essence, it is the “superiority of Western civilization,” inheriting Guizot’s tradition of Enlightenment progressivist civilizational narrative. “Guizot was deeply convinced of the indisputable superiority of European civilization; this is a characteristic of his *History of Civilization in Europe*.” The only difference is that Fukuyama replaced France with the United States as the most civilized country within Western civilization. The root of the end of history thesis is also a “linear-progressive” view of history: “In the development models of all societies, a basic program is at work, namely a universal history of mankind oriented toward liberal democracy.”[34]34 Ibid., p. xii. Human society will ultimately reach its endpoint along the civilizational path designed and practiced by Westerners. The ultimate direction of interaction between different civilizations, or of human civilization as a whole, is the unification of the world under Western capitalist civilization—this is the terminus of the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction. The end of history thesis mainly constructs “civilizational standards” based on political systems, using the “democracy-authoritarianism” binary to regulate capitalist and socialist civilizations. In essence, it is a reprint of the civilization-barbarism binary. World civilizational interaction is nothing more than attacking, denigrating, and eliminating other civilizations, advocating the transformation of other nations or states using the modern standard of liberal democracy, ultimately moving toward a unified and universal civilization. “In today’s world, it is difficult for us to imagine a world fundamentally better than ours, or a future not based on democracy and capitalism.”[35]35 Ibid., p. 46. From the perspective of the model of civilizational interaction, the “civilizational logic” presented by the end of history thesis is: (1) In the relationship between Western civilization and other civilizations, it advocates “civilizational superiority.” Western civilization is superior to all other civilizations, representing the highest and final stage of human history, at the apex of the “civilizational ladder.” As Hegel pointed out in his *Philosophy of History*: “World history travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of history, Asia the beginning.”[36]36 G. W. F. Hegel, *The Philosophy of History*, trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), p. 103. (2) In the process of human civilization, it advocates “civilizational uniqueness.” The process of human civilization is the globalization and universalization of Western civilization, holding that human society will ultimately have only one civilization, namely Western civilization centered on liberal democracy. (3) In civilizational change, it advocates “civilizational culmination.” Western civilization has no defects or contradictions; it is a perfect form of civilization. Human civilization ends with Western capitalist civilization, and once human history reaches the capitalist stage, there is no further room for change or progress.

四是历史终结论。不同文明交往，最终目标是什么？西方中心论文明交往模式提供的答案是历史终结论。20世纪80年代末90年代初，东欧剧变，世界社会主义遭遇严重曲折，类似于“二十世纪将以社会主义的失败和资本主义的胜利而告终”等论调不绝于耳。在此背景下，福山提出了“历史终结论”：“自由民主制度也许是‘人类意识形态发展的终点’和‘人类最后一种统治形式’，并因此构成‘历史的终结’”。历史终结论虽是晚近提出的话语，但其思想主张很早就存在，本质上就是“西方文明优越论”，承继了基佐的启蒙进步主义文明叙事传统。“基佐深信欧洲文明具有不可辩驳的优越性，这是他的《欧洲文明史》的一个特点。”只不过，福山将西方文明中最文明的国家由法国换为美国。历史终结论根子也是“线性-进步”的历史观：“在所有社会的发展模式中，都有一个基本程序在发挥着作用，这就是以自由民主制度为方向的人类普遍史。”人类社会最终要按照西方人设计、践行的文明路线走向终点。不同文明交往或人类文明最终的走向就是西方资本主义文明一统天下，这是西方中心论文明交往模式的归宿点。历史终结论主要着眼于政治制度构建“文明标准”，用“民主-专制”的二元论规制资本主义文明与社会主义文明，就其实质而言，是文明与野蛮的二元论的翻版。世界文明交往无非是攻击、贬损、消灭其他文明，主张用自由民主的现代性标准改造其他民族或国家，最终走向一种统一而普遍的文明。“当今世界上，我们却难以想象出一个从根本上比我们这个世界更好的世界，或一种不以民主主义和资本主义为基础的未来。”从文明交往模式看，历史终结论呈现的“文明逻辑”是：（1）在西方文明与其他文明关系上，主张“文明优越论”。西方文明是优于其他一切文明的，代表着人类历史的最高和最终阶段，处于“文明阶梯”的顶端。正如黑格尔在《历史哲学》中指出的：“世界历史从‘东方’到‘西方’，因为欧洲绝对地是历史的终点，亚洲是起点。”（2）在人类文明进程上，主张“文明唯一论”。人类文明进程是西方文明的全球化、普遍化，认为人类社会最终只有一种文明，即以自由民主制度为核心的西方文明。（3）在文明变革上，主张“文明顶峰论”。西方文明不存在缺陷或矛盾，是十全十美的文明形态，人类文明终结于西方资本主义文明，人类历史到达资本主义阶段就不再有变革、进步的空间。

“History has not ended, nor can it be ended.”[37]37 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Commemoration of the 95th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (1 July 2016). The process of human civilization has not and cannot develop unidirectionally or converge along the path of Western capitalist civilization and its institutional model. The contradictions, problems, and even catastrophic consequences that Western capitalism continuously produces have shattered the optimistic illusions pervading the end of history thesis. Even Fukuyama later had to admit that Western liberal democracy may not be the endpoint of human historical evolution. With the rise of China, the so-called “end of history” thesis requires further scrutiny and refinement. The treasure house of human thought needs to reserve a place for the Chinese tradition. Not only Chinese-path modernization and Chinese civilization have a place; all other civilizations also have the legitimacy to exist. Human civilizational interaction is not about moving toward a single civilization, but about the coexistence of civilizations. The goal should be a garden of world civilizations that is colorful and vibrant. We will elaborate on this later, as it also constitutes a critique of the end of history thesis and the entire Western-centric model of civilizational interaction.

“历史没有终结，也不可能被终结。”人类文明进程没有也不可能沿着西方资本主义文明及其制度模式单向发展、趋同进化，西方资本主义不断出现的矛盾、问题乃至带来的灾难性后果，粉碎了历史终结论弥漫的乐观幻想。就连福山后来也不得不承认，西方自由民主可能并非人类历史进化的终点。随着中国崛起，所谓“历史终结论”有待进一步推敲和完善。人类思想宝库需为中国传统留有一席之地。不仅中国式现代化、中国文明有一席之地，其他文明都有存在的合法性。人类文明交往不是走向单一文明，而是文明共存。世界文明之园万紫千红、生机盎然才是目标。我们在后文会具体展开，其也构成对历史终结论以及整个西方中心论文明交往模式的批判。

From the above four aspects, we can reveal the basic characteristics of the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction: (1) “Linear” progressivism. It defines the process of human civilization as a unidirectional, linear progression of a single civilization. (2) “Conquering” hegemonism. Western civilization contains a hegemonic logic of conquering and dominating the “Other.” (3) “Destructive” nihilism. Western-dominated civilizational interaction is nothing more than a process of Western civilization completely eliminating the historical and cultural traditions of other civilizations. (4) “Export-oriented” universalism. Western civilization considers itself a universal civilization; in civilizational interaction, it advocates leveling all particularities and differences, exporting Western civilization and its institutional model to other countries.

从以上四个方面的阐释，我们可以揭示出西方中心论文明交往模式的基本特征：（1）“线性的”进步主义。把人类文明进程规定为单一文明的单方向的线性进步的过程。（2）“征服性的”霸权主义。西方文明内含着对“他者”进行征服与支配的霸权逻辑。（3）“破坏性的”虚无主义。西方主导的文明交往无非是西方文明彻底消灭其他文明历史传统、文化传统的过程。（4）“输出性的”普世主义。西方文明认为其是普世文明，在文明交往中，主张夷平各种特殊性、差别性，将西方文明及其制度模式输入到其他国家。

III. Mutual Learning among Civilizations: Constructing a New Model of Human Civilizational Interaction

三、文明交流互鉴：构建人类文明交往新模式

The root cause of a series of problems in contemporary world civilizational interaction is the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction. This model runs counter to the trends of the times and the direction of the evolution of human civilization. Human civilizational interaction requires new choices and new models. The Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, “raising the telescope of the laws of history,”[38]38 A phrase used by Xi Jinping, e.g., in his speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to Foreign Affairs (28 June 2018), emphasizing a strategic and long-term perspective on historical trends. has diagnosed the direction of human civilization, inherited Marxist theory of interaction, and carried forward the excellent traditional Chinese culture. It has put forward the theory of mutual learning among civilizations, constructing a new model of human civilizational interaction that transcends the Western-centric model.

当今世界文明交往中存在一系列问题的根源是西方中心论文明交往模式。这一模式与当今时代发展潮流和人类文明演进趋势背道而驰。人类文明交往需要新的选择、新的模式。以习近平同志为核心的党中央“端起历史规律的望远镜”，把脉人类文明走向，继承马克思主义交往理论，传承中华优秀传统文化，提出了文明交流互鉴理论，构建了超越西方中心论的人类文明交往新模式。

The Chinese Communists have solemnly proposed a new model of human civilizational interaction, which is by no means a "wishful thinking" or "subjective desire," but is grounded in a real historical foundation, and the conditions for promoting the transformation of human civilizational interaction from the old model to the new model are also fully present. First, the world is undergoing accelerated changes unseen in a century, with deepening multipolarity; as a large number of emerging market economies and developing countries rise "as a group," the Western-centric narrative is increasingly unsustainable, and civilizational interaction is gradually shifting from a unipolar, unidirectional model to a multipolar, multidirectional one. Second, countries are interconnected and interdependent more frequently and closely than ever before, with an increasing number of converging interests, forming a community of shared interests where each has a stake in the other, laying a realistic foundation for exchanges and mutual learning among different civilizations. Third, in the face of endless global problems and challenges, no country can address them alone, nor can any country retreat into a self-enclosed island; only through mutual exchange and cooperation can different countries and civilizations effectively respond. Jointly addressing global problems and challenges is the most direct practical need for constructing a new model of human civilizational interaction. Fourth, as the crisis of modernity becomes increasingly prominent, Western civilization has not produced an effective "prescription"; human society, on the one hand, needs to draw intellectual resources and life wisdom from other civilizations to treat the crisis of modernity, and on the other hand, needs to find effective solutions to the crisis of modernity and achieve civilizational renewal through exchanges, mutual learning, integration, and reconstruction among different civilizations. Fifth, with the continuous rise of China's comprehensive national power and international status, China's international influence, appeal, and shaping power have significantly improved; the new concept of human civilizational interaction is increasingly widely recognized by the international community, providing fundamental support conditions for practicing this model. Although constructing a new model of human civilizational interaction has a sufficient historical foundation and historical conditions, practicing this model also requires a series of specific mechanisms. New types of civilizational dialogue mechanisms, such as the Belt and Road Initiative international cooperation and the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, provide feasible paths for realizing exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations.

中国共产党人郑重提出人类文明交往新模式，绝不是“一厢情愿”或“主观愿望”，而是有着现实的历史基础，推动人类文明交往由旧模式向新模式的转化也有着充分的历史条件。其一，世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，世界多极化深入发展，随着一大批新兴市场国家和发展中国家“群体性崛起”，西方中心论越来越难以为继，文明交往逐步从一元单向模式向多元多向模式转变。其二，各国相互联系和彼此依存比过去任何时候都更频繁、更紧密，各国的利益交汇点越来越多，形成你中有我、我中有你的利益共同体，为不同文明交流互鉴奠定了现实基础。其三，面对层出不穷的全球性问题和挑战，没有哪个国家能够独立应对，也没有哪个国家能够退回到自我封闭的孤岛，不同国家、不同文明只有相互交流、相互合作，才能有效应对。携手应对全球性问题和挑战，是构建人类文明交往新模式最直接的现实需求。其四，面对现代性危机不断凸显，西方文明并未开出有效的“药方”，人类社会一方面需要从其他文明中汲取治疗现代性危机的思想资源和生命智慧，另一方面更需要通过不同文明的交流互鉴、交融重构，找到解决现代性危机、实现文明更新的有效方案。其五，随着中国综合国力和国际地位持续上升，中国国际影响力、感召力、塑造力显著提升，人类文明交往新理念越来越得到国际社会的广泛认可，为践行这一模式提供了根本支撑条件。虽然构建人类文明交往新模式具有充分的历史基础和历史条件，但践行这一模式，还需要一系列具体的机制。“一带一路”国际合作、亚洲文明对话大会等新型文明对话机制，为实现人类文明交流互鉴提供了切实可行的路径。

Social being determines social consciousness. The world today calls for a new model of human civilizational interaction. To advance the transformation of the civilizational interaction model across the entire world, we need to better grasp the internal logic and rich connotations of the model of civilizational exchanges and mutual learning.

社会存在决定社会意识。当今世界呼唤着人类文明交往新模式。为了推进整个世界的文明交往模式的变革，我们需要更好地把握文明交流互鉴模式的内在逻辑和丰富内涵。

The first is the pluralistic view of civilization. Many Western thinkers have discussed the pluralistic view of civilization, civilizational diversity, and related issues at various levels. For example, Fernand Braudel pointed out: "In fact, using the plural form implies the gradual decline of an idea—a typical 18th-century idea that there exists something called civilization, something linked to the belief in progress, possessed only by a few privileged nations or privileged groups (that is, the 'elite' of humanity)." [39]39 Fernand Braudel, *A History of Civilizations*, trans. Richard Mayne (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 9. Karl Jaspers' "Axial Age" can be said to be the most systematic elaboration of the pluralistic view of civilization. During the period from 800 BCE to 200 BCE, centered around 500 BCE, several regions of the world (China, India, Greece, etc.) independently experienced spiritual movements, and almost simultaneously, the first great awakening of the human spirit occurred. This marked the birth of Axial Age civilizations. The "Axial Age" criticizes the traditional Western-centric narrative, pointing out that Eastern and Western civilizations are on an equal footing, affirming the status and value of Eastern civilizations in world civilizational history. "When the West separated from the East, the East still possessed equally important and astonishing power in political and spiritual authority, a place for the West to learn from and be attracted to." [40]40 Karl Jaspers, *The Origin and Goal of History*, trans. Michael Bullock (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), p. 75.

一是复数文明观。西方有诸多思想家从不同层面论述过复数文明观、文明多样性等相关问题。比如，布罗代尔指出：“事实上，使用复数形式意味着一种观念的逐渐式微——这个观念是一个典型的18世纪的观念，它主张存在文明这样一种东西，这种东西与进步的信念相关，仅为少数特权民族或特权集团(也就是人类的‘精英’)所拥有。”雅斯贝尔斯的“轴心时代”可以说是对多元文明观最系统的阐释。公元前800年至公元前200年时期，以公元前500年为中心，世界上几个地区（中国、印度、希腊等地）独立地发生了精神运动，几乎同时出现了人类精神的第一次大觉醒。这标志着轴心期文明的诞生。“轴心时代”批判了传统的西方中心论，指出东方文明与西方文明处在平等的地位，肯定了东方文明在世界文明史中的地位和价值。“当西方从东方分离出来后，东方在政治和精神权力中依然具有同等重要、令人惊叹的力量，是西方学习和对它具有诱惑力的地方。”

Although many scholars within the West have critically reflected on the singular view of civilization, the true and comprehensive critique and transcendence come from the theory of civilizational exchanges and mutual learning proposed by the Chinese Communists in the New Era and the pluralistic view of civilization it contains. The core of the pluralistic view of civilization is civilizational diversity, and its essence is the pluralistic view of civilization. (1) Objective reality. Civilizational diversity is an objective reality and universal phenomenon of human society. "Without diversity, there would be no human civilization. Diversity is an objective reality that will exist for a long time." [41]41 Xi Jinping, "Jointly Promoting the Building of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. The civilization of each country and nation is rooted in its own soil, with its own characteristics and differences. Civilizational diversity is manifested not only in the spatial dimension but also in the temporal dimension. "Over the long course of history, humanity has created and developed a variety of civilizations. From primitive hunting and gathering to pastoral farming, from the Industrial Revolution to the information society, this constitutes a magnificent civilizational tapestry and writes a stirring civilizational chapter." [42]42 Xi Jinping, "Carry Forward the Spirit of the Silk Road and Deepen Global Cooperation," keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, May 14, 2017. (2) Civilizational evolution. The pluralistic view of civilization opposes the unilinear progressivist model of civilizational development, emphasizing the nonlinearity and diversity of paths of human civilizational development. "Things are not uniform; that is the nature of things." [43]43 A classical Chinese saying from the *Book of Changes* (Yijing), often cited by Xi Jinping to emphasize the natural diversity of things. Different civilizations not only differ in form but also in their historical evolution, exhibiting diverse and varied characteristics of civilizational evolution. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: "The history of human social development is a history of the coexistence and parallel progress of multiple civilizations. Different countries, regions, and nations, with different histories, religions, and customs, mutually illuminate and interact with each other, jointly delineating this splendid world." [44]44 Xi Jinping, "Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. The historical logic of the coexistence and parallel progress of multiple civilizations inevitably negates the unilinear and singular schema of civilizational development. "Human history tells us that attempting to establish a single civilization's dominance over the world is merely an unrealistic fantasy." [45]45 Xi Jinping, "Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. (3) Civilizational driving force. "The world is rich and colorful; diversity is the charm of human civilization and, moreover, the vitality and source of driving force for world development." [46]46 Xi Jinping, "Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. Civilizational diversity is the foundation for mutual exchange, learning, and reference among different civilizations. Different civilizations, through interaction with other civilizations, absorb nourishment, promote their own continuous development and progress, and thereby jointly advance the progress of the entire world civilization. "All things in the world are always diverse and colorful; if everything were uniform, the development of things and the progress of the world would cease." [47]47 Xi Jinping, "Carry Forward the Spirit of the Civilizational exchanges and mutual learning oppose the unidirectional role of Western civilization in civilizational interaction. Civilizational diversity as the driving force for civilizational development and progress emphasizes the bidirectional and multidirectional effects of different civilizations, as well as the driving role of civilizational dialogue for the development of human civilization. Especially since the beginning of the 21st century, human society has entered a period of multiple civilizations, where Western civilization no longer exerts a unidirectional and dominant influence over all civilizations. "Non-Western societies are far from being merely the objects of Western-created history; they are increasingly becoming the drivers and shapers of their own histories and of Western history as well." [48]48 Xi Jinping, “Carry Forward the Spirit of the Silk Road and Deepen China-Arab Cooperation” (address at the opening ceremony of the China-Arab States Cooperation Forum, June 5, 2014). On this point, Western civilization needs to reflect: "In the days ahead, the West must see itself more as a relative term rather than an absolute one, and must understand other countries and learn from them." [49]49 Xi Jinping, “Carry Forward the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind” (address at the Conference Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, June 28, 2024). Jaspers once said: "In every new leap forward, humanity recalls the Axial Age and rekindles the flame there. Since then, this has always been the case: the recollection and revival of the possibilities of the Axial Age—renaissance—has triggered spiritual leaps." [50]50 Xi Jinping, “Deepening Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilizations to Build an Asian Community with a Shared Future” (address at the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, May 15, 2019). As human society develops into the 21st century, it has reached another historical stage where a recollection of the Axial Age is needed, and human civilization has entered a "new Axial Age" where multiple civilizations coexist.

尽管西方内部有不少学者对单数文明观进行了批判性反思，但是真正的、全面的批判与超越，则是新时代中国共产党人提出的文明交流互鉴理论及其蕴含的复数文明观。复数文明观的核心是文明多样性，其本质就是多元文明观。（1）客观现实。文明多样性是人类社会的客观现实、普遍现象。“没有多样性，就没有人类文明。多样性是客观现实，将长期存在。”每一个国家和民族的文明都扎根于本国本民族的土壤之中，都有自己的特色、差异。文明多样性不仅体现在空间维度上，也表现在时间维度上。“人类在漫长的历史长河中，创造和发展了多姿多彩的文明。从茹毛饮血到田园农耕，从工业革命到信息社会，构成了波澜壮阔的文明图谱，书写了激荡人心的文明华章。”（2）文明演进。复数文明观反对单线进步论的文明发展模式，强调人类文明发展道路的非线性、多样性。“物之不齐，物之情也。”不同文明不仅在形态上是有差异的，而且其历史演进也是有差别的，呈现出多元多样的文明演进特点。习近平总书记指出：“人类社会发展史是一部多元文明共生并进的历史。不同国家、地区、民族，不同历史、宗教、习俗，彼此交相辉映、相因相生，共同擘画出这个精彩纷呈的世界。”多元文明共生并进的历史逻辑必然否弃单线论、单一论的文明发展图式。“人类历史告诉我们，企图建立单一文明的一统天下，只是一种不切实际的幻想。”（3）文明动力。“世界是丰富多彩的，多样性是人类文明的魅力所在，更是世界发展的活力和动力之源。”文明多样性是不同文明相互交流、相互学习、相互借鉴的基础，不同文明正是在与其他文明交往中吸收营养，促进自身不断发展进步，从而共同推动整个世界文明进步。“世界万物万事总是千差万别、异彩纷呈的，如果万物万事都清一色了，事物的发展、世界的进步也就停止了。”文明交流互鉴反对文明交往中的西方文明单向作用论。文明多样性是文明发展进步的动力，强调的乃是不同文明的双向、多向作用，以及文明对话对于人类文明发展的动力作用。特别是进入21世纪以来，人类社会进入到一个多元文明时期，不再由西方文明对所有文明起单方向影响支配作用了。“非西方社会远不只是西方创造的历史的客体，而是日益成为它们自己的历史和西方的历史的推动者和塑造者。”在这一点上，西方文明要反思，“在未来的日子里，西方必须更多地将自己看成是相对值而不是绝对项，必须了解其他国家并向它们学习”。雅斯贝尔斯曾说过：“在人类每一新的飞跃之中，他们都会回忆起轴心时代，并在那里重燃火焰。自此之后，情况一直如此：对轴心时代可能性的回忆和重新复苏——复兴——引发了精神的飞跃。”人类社会发展到21世纪，又到了一个需要对轴心时代进行回忆的历史阶段，人类文明进入到一个多元文明并存的“新的轴心时代”。

The second is the theory of civilizational equality. Civilization is essentially determined by a specific mode of production and mode of exchange. From the dimensions of the mode of production and social formation, different civilizations inevitably exhibit differences in the degree of development, stage of development, and even the social formation to which they belong; the uneven development of human civilization is also an undeniable objective fact. However, acknowledging differences in the degree of civilizational development is not a justification for dividing civilizations into different grades. Some in the West, using differences in the degree of civilizational development as a pretext, construct a so-called “theory of civilizational hierarchy,” believing their own civilization to be more developed than others, and thus adopt an attitude of condescension, arrogance, and violent coercion toward other civilizations, even considering Western civilization’s external “civilizational export” and colonial expansion to be legitimate. We must resolutely refute this. On the premise of acknowledging the existence of differences in the degree of civilizational development, Chinese Communists advocate that different civilizations should coexist on an equal footing. The theory of civilizational equality constitutes the theoretical cornerstone of civilizational exchange and mutual learning. “Civilizations are equal; it is because of equality that human civilizations have the prerequisite for exchange and mutual learning.” [48]48 Xi Jinping, “Carry Forward the Spirit of the Silk Road and Deepen China-Arab Cooperation” (address at the opening ceremony of the China-Arab States Cooperation Forum, June 5, 2014). (1) Equality in value. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “All human civilizations are equal in value; each has its own strengths and its own shortcomings. There is no perfect civilization in the world, nor is there a civilization that is utterly worthless; civilizations have no hierarchy of high or low, superior or inferior.” This assertion is an explanation of civilizational equality based on axiology. Different countries and nations may differ in strength and size, but their civilizational forms, ideologies, and cultures have no hierarchy; each has its own characteristics and advantages. The civilization of every country and nation is unique and irreplaceable. “Even if the forms of civilization differ, one must never pursue their non-equivalence. No civilization can possibly be a civilization that monopolizes all values.” [49]49 Xi Jinping, “Carry Forward the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind” (address at the Conference Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, June 28, 2024). (2) Respect and equality in attitude. In civilizational interaction, different civilizations should be treated with an attitude of mutual respect and equal treatment. “We should uphold equality and respect, discard arrogance and prejudice, deepen our understanding of the differences between one’s own civilization and other civilizations, and promote exchange, dialogue, and harmonious coexistence among different civilizations.” General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes: “Arrogance and prejudice are the greatest obstacles to civilizational exchange and mutual learning.” The theory of Western civilizational superiority is filled with arrogance and prejudice; it is a mentality of “self-worship,” which greatly affects the equal interaction of different civilizations in today’s world. Joseph Needham once exposed: “Many Western Europeans and Americans consider themselves representatives of civilization, with a mission to unify the entire world. In their minds, only Western civilization is universal, because it is itself unified and complete, and thus can encompass all other civilizations. This self-glorification is utterly groundless.” The theory of Western civilizational superiority inevitably leads to attacks on, denigration of, and even intervention in and transformation of other civilizations by Western civilization: “When they see that another’s civilization differs from their own, they feel displeased and will go to great lengths to transform and assimilate it, even attempting to replace it with their own civilization.” The logic behind the theory of civilizational superiority is a “subject-object dichotomy” schema; the West is the ruling subject, while the non-West is the conquered and ruled object; the West is civilized, while the non-West is barbaric. The model of civilizational exchange and mutual learning follows the philosophical view of “subject-subject equality”; different civilizations are all equal subjects, rejecting the power logic of “the subject dominating the object.” Although differences exist among civilizations, they do not constitute a basis for civilizational transformation or civilizational confrontation. “We must rationally handle the differences between one’s own civilization and other civilizations, recognize that the civilization of every country and nation is unique, persist in seeking common ground while reserving differences and learning from each other’s strengths to offset weaknesses, and refrain from attacking or denigrating other civilizations.” [50]50 Xi Jinping, “Deepening Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilizations to Build an Asian Community with a Shared Future” (address at the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, May 15, 2019). (3) Equality in order. The model of civilizational exchange and mutual learning most resolutely opposes unequal civilizational orders and advocates “building a partnership that promotes diverse civilizations.” [51]51 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind” (address at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017). The “partnership of diverse civilizations” is an alternative to the Western-dominated hierarchical civilizational order, creating a new model of civilizational interaction and committed to realizing a civilizational order of equal treatment and peaceful coexistence. A partnership (order) of diverse civilizations possesses at least three attributes. First, equality. The partnership of diverse civilizations is based on the principle of civilizational equality, respecting the cultural traditions, social systems, and paths of civilizational development of different peoples and countries. Among partners, there is no distinction between master and subordinate, no division into camps, and no parochial bias. Second, peacefulness. The partnership of diverse civilizations transcends the old practice of dividing civilizations into different camps and engaging in alliance-based confrontation, and is committed to handling relations between civilizations through cooperation rather than confrontation, and with the concept of win-win rather than zero-sum. Third, inclusiveness. Regarding relations between civilizations, those sharing the same ideals follow the same path and are partners; those seeking common ground while reserving differences are also partners. Different civilizations can tolerate, cooperate with, and exchange with each other. Different civilizations can establish partnerships based on common interests and pursuits, building a shared rather than exclusive “circle of friends.” Although peacefulness and inclusiveness differ slightly from equality, they are essentially basic requirements of an equal civilizational order.

二是文明平等论。文明本质上是由一定的生产方式和交换方式所决定的。从生产方式、社会形态维度看，不同文明必然会存在发展程度、发展阶段乃至所属的社会形态的差异；人类文明发展不均衡也是一个不可否认的客观事实。但是承认文明发展程度差异，并不是把文明划分为不同等级的理由。西方一些人以文明发展程度差异为借口，构建所谓的“文明等级论”，自认为自己的文明比别的文明发展程度高，因而对其他文明采取一种居高临下、颐指气使、暴力胁迫的态度，甚至认为西方文明对外进行“文明输出”、殖民扩张是具有合法性的。对此，我们要坚决批驳。中国共产党人在承认文明发展程度存在差异的前提下，主张不同文明要平等相处。文明平等论构成文明交流互鉴的理论基石。“文明是平等的，人类文明因平等才有交流互鉴的前提。”（1）价值上的平等。习近平总书记指出：“各种人类文明在价值上是平等的，都各有千秋，也各有不足。世界上不存在十全十美的文明，也不存在一无是处的文明，文明没有高低、优劣之分。”这一论断是基于价值论对文明平等的阐释。不同国家、民族也许有强弱、大小之分，但是其文明形态、思想文化没有等级之分，都有其自身的特色、优势。每一个国家和民族的文明都是独特的，具有不可替代性。“即使文明的形态不同，也绝不能追究其不等价性。任何文明都绝对不可能是独占所有价值的文明。”（2）态度上的尊重与平等。在文明交往上，对待不同文明应该秉持相互尊重、平等相待的态度。“我们应该秉持平等和尊重，摒弃傲慢和偏见，加深对自身文明和其他文明差异性的认知，推动不同文明交流对话、和谐共生。”习近平总书记强调：“傲慢和偏见是文明交流互鉴的最大障碍。”西方文明优越论充满傲慢和偏见，是一种“唯我独尊”的心态，极大地影响了当今世界不同文明的平等交往。李约瑟曾揭露：“许多西欧和美洲人认为自己是文明的代表，负有统一全世界的使命。在他们思想上只有西方的文明是具有普遍性的，因为它本身是统一的，完整的，所以能统摄其他一切文明。这种自我吹嘘是毫无根据的。”西方文明优越论必然导致西方文明对其他文明的攻击、贬损乃至干预、改造：“看到别人的文明与自己的文明有不同，就感到不顺眼，就要千方百计去改造、去同化，甚至企图以自己的文明取而代之。”文明优越论背后的逻辑是“主客二分”的思维图式，西方是统治的主体，非西方是被征服、被统治的客体；西方是文明的，非西方是野蛮的。文明交流互鉴模式遵循的是“主主平等”的哲学观，不同文明都是平等主体，否弃“主体支配客体”的权力逻辑，不同文明虽有差异，但不构成文明改造或文明对抗的依据。“要理性处理本国文明与其他文明的差异，认识到每一个国家和民族的文明都是独特的，坚持求同存异、取长补短，不攻击、不贬损其他文明。”（3）秩序上的平等。文明交流互鉴模式最坚决地反对不平等的文明秩序，主张“构建弘扬多元文明的伙伴关系”。“多元文明的伙伴关系”是对西方主导的文明等级秩序的替代方案，开创了文明交往新模式，致力于实现平等相待、和平相处的文明秩序。多元文明的伙伴关系（秩序）至少具有三个方面的属性。一是平等性。多元文明的伙伴关系以文明平等为原则，尊重不同民族、国家的文化传统、社会制度和文明发展道路等。伙伴之间没有主从之分，没有阵营之别，也没有门户之见。二是和平性。多元文明的伙伴关系超越了把文明划分为不同阵营、进行结盟式对抗的老套路，致力于以合作而非对抗的方式，以共赢而非零和的理念处理文明之间的关系。三是包容性。对于文明之间的关系，志同道合，是伙伴；求同存异，也是伙伴。不同文明之间可以相互包容、相互合作、相互交流。不同文明可以建立基于共同利益和追求的伙伴关系，构建起共同而非排他的“朋友圈”。虽然和平性、包容性与平等性稍有不同，但本质上都是平等文明秩序的基本要求。

Third is the theory of mutual learning among civilizations. The theory of mutual learning among civilizations is the core content of constructing a new model of human civilizational interaction. (1) The essential requirement of civilizational development. “Exchange and mutual learning among civilizations are the essential requirement of civilizational development. Only through exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations, drawing on each other’s strengths, can a civilization maintain its vigorous vitality.” Civilizations are like living organisms; they require metabolism and need to draw nourishment from other civilizations to continuously promote civilizational renewal. Fernand Braudel put it vividly: “All civilizations are constantly borrowing from their neighboring civilizations, even if they ‘reinterpret’ and assimilate what they have taken in. Indeed, at first glance, each civilization looks more like a railway freight yard, ceaselessly receiving and dispatching a vast array of goods.” Since ancient times, Chinese civilization has been enduring and ever-renewing precisely through continuous exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations. Hegel once gave this example: Greek civilization was able to usher in its period of independence and prosperity precisely because it possessed both its own original culture and foreign cultures from the Eastern world, undergoing the exercise of a dual cultural integration. An important manifestation of the “exercise of dual cultural integration” is the borrowing and absorption of foreign cultures. “Civilizations become colorful through exchange, and civilizations become rich through mutual learning. Any civilization, no matter which country or nation’s social soil it grows from, is fluid and open. This is an important law of the spread and development of civilizations.” Exchange and mutual learning among civilizations follow the basic laws of civilizational development and renewal. (2) The basic stance of exchange and mutual learning among civilizations. Openness and inclusiveness are the basic stance of exchange and mutual learning among civilizations. Civilizational differences are not a reason for civilizational conflict. “As long as we uphold the spirit of inclusiveness, there is no such thing as a ‘clash of civilizations,’ and civilizational harmony can be achieved.” Only by adhering to openness and inclusiveness can different civilizations learn from each other, draw on each other’s strengths, and compensate for their weaknesses. “Different social systems can be mutually inclusive, different development models can cooperate with each other, and different values and cultures can engage in exchange. We must adhere to openness and inclusiveness, learn from each other’s strengths in exchange and mutual learning, and advance together while seeking common ground and reserving differences.” General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Civilizations are like water, moistening things silently.” The relationship between different civilizations is not a “solid model” of mutual isolation, exclusion, or even confrontation, but a “liquid model” of mutual flow, mutual integration, and mutual shaping. In civilizational interaction, always use openness and inclusiveness to transcend zero-sum thinking; use mutual learning among civilizations to transcend the clash of civilizations. (3) The principles of exchange and mutual learning among civilizations. In a sense, the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction also emphasizes interaction and exchange between different civilizations, but its model is coercive and unidirectional, essentially the global expansion of a single civilization, ignoring the subjectivity and agency of non-Western civilizations in civilizational interaction under the background of world history, and disregarding the positive significance of non-Western civilizations for the development of human civilization. The exchange and mutual learning among civilizations advocated by the Chinese Communists constructs an equal, pluralistic, and multi-directional model of civilizational interaction. “Exchange and mutual learning among civilizations should be reciprocal and equal, should be pluralistic and multi-directional, and should not be coercive or forced, nor should they be singular or unidirectional.” Every civilization can be an active subject of civilizational interaction, rather than only Western civilization being the “agent,” with non-Western civilizations forever being passive objects, recipients under the “impact-response” model. During the specific period when history was transforming into world history, Western civilization indeed held absolute power advantages in human civilizational interaction. However, as humanity enters the 21st century, this unidirectional logic of civilizational interaction no longer conforms to the historical trend. Even mainstream Western scholars have to admit: “The relationship between civilizations has moved from a stage dominated by the unidirectional influence of one civilization on all others, to a stage of intense, sustained, and multi-directional interaction among all civilizations.” Looking at the entire history of human civilization, the unidirectional model of civilizational interaction has never been the mainstream of history. The essential attribute of civilizational interaction is interactivity and reciprocity. The interaction and reciprocity between different civilizations are both a historical reality and logically self-consistent. “Civilizational interaction is dynamic, and the greatest characteristic of dynamism is interdependence and interactivity. The process of civilizational interaction is an unceasing process of two-way or multi-directional interaction.” (4) The basic method of exchange and mutual learning among civilizations. Civilizational dialogue is the basic method of exchange and mutual learning among civilizations. Dialogue is not about hastily peddling one’s own ideas to the other side, trying to persuade others to accept our values and beliefs. The “underlying logic” behind dialogue is to acknowledge the other, respect the other, use the other as a mirror to reflect on oneself and examine oneself, and better improve oneself by learning from the other, thereby promoting common development for all. “We should acknowledge the other, acknowledge that the other is indispensable in our interaction with the world; we should develop a consciousness of respecting the other, a consciousness that will provide a foundation for mutual reference and mutual learning.” (Tu Weiming) Civilizational dialogue is a critique and transcendence of the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction. Western civilization considers itself a “higher civilization,” denying the legitimacy of the other’s existence, and even more so denying the necessity of learning from the other. Civilizational dialogue acknowledges the legitimacy of the existence of all civilizations, emphasizes the unique value of different civilizations, and stresses that all civilizations, including Western civilization, have the necessity to learn from the other. Even Western scholars fully recognize: “European civilization has lost its qualification for self-arrogated superiority; the past is no longer under its control; now, Europe and ‘other’ civilizations jointly face a task—to engage in dialogue, and then to seek to construct a new civilization, a global civilization.” China establishes a view of civilization based on equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and inclusiveness, actively advocates civilizational dialogue, and advocates continuously expanding people-to-people and cultural exchanges between different countries, “surpassing civilizational superiority with diverse coexistence, surpassing civilizational conflict with harmonious coexistence, surpassing civilizational estrangement with integration and sharing, and surpassing civilizational rigidity with shared prosperity and progress.”

三是文明互鉴论。文明互鉴论是构建人类文明交往新模式的核心内容。（1）文明发展的本质要求。“交流互鉴是文明发展的本质要求。只有同其他文明交流互鉴、取长补短，才能保持旺盛生命力。”文明如同生命有机体，需要新陈代谢，需要从其他文明中汲取养分，不断推动文明更新。布罗代尔说的很形象：“各种文明都在不停地借鉴它们所邻近的文明，哪怕它们‘重新解释’和同化了它们所接纳的东西。的确，每种文明乍看之下都更像一个铁路货场，在不断地接受和发送包罗万象的货物。”自古以来，中华文明正是在同其他文明不断交流互鉴中历久弥新的。黑格尔曾举过这样一个例子：希腊文明之所以能开创出其独立和繁荣时期，就在于它既有自己的原有文化，又有来自东方世界的外来文化，进行了两重文化结合的锻炼。“文化结合的锻炼”的重要表现就是对外来文化的借鉴与吸纳。“文明因交流而多彩，文明因互鉴而丰富。任何一种文明，不管它产生于哪个国家、哪个民族的社会土壤之中，都是流动的、开放的。这是文明传播和发展的一条重要规律。”文明交流互鉴遵循了文明发展和文明更新的基本规律。（2）文明交流互鉴的基本立场。开放包容是文明交流互鉴的基本立场。文明差异不是文明冲突的理由，“只要秉持包容精神，就不存在什么‘文明冲突’，就可以实现文明和谐”。只有坚持开放包容，不同文明才能相互学习、相互借鉴、取长补短。“不同社会制度可以相互包容，不同发展模式可以相互合作，不同价值文化可以相互交流。我们要坚持开放包容，在交流互鉴中取长补短，在求同存异中共同前进。”习近平总书记指出：“文明如水，润物无声。”不同文明之间的关系不是相互隔离、相互排斥甚至相互对抗的“固体模式”，而是相互流动、相互交融、相互塑造的“液体模式”。在文明交往中，始终以开放包容超越零和思维；以文明互鉴超越文明冲突。（3）文明交流互鉴的原则。从某种意义上说，西方中心论文明交往模式也强调不同文明之间的交往交流，但其模式是强制性的、单向度的，本质上是单一文明的全球扩张，忽视了世界历史背景下文明交往中非西方文明的主体性和能动性，无视非西方文明对人类文明发展的积极意义。中国共产党人倡导的文明交流互鉴构建了平等的、多元多向的文明交往模式。“文明交流互鉴应该是对等的、平等的，应该是多元的、多向的，而不应该是强制的、强迫的，不应该是单一的、单向的。”每一种文明都可以是文明交往的能动主体，而非只有西方文明才是“能动者”，非西方文明永远是被动的客体、“冲击-反应”模式下的受动者。在历史向世界历史转变的特定时期，西方文明的确在人类文明交往中具有绝对权力优势，但是，当人类进入到21世纪，这一单向的文明交往逻辑不再符合历史潮流。就连西方主流学者也不得不承认：“文明之间的关系从一个文明对所有其他文明单方向影响所支配的阶段，走向所有文明之间强烈的、持续的和多方向的相互作用的阶段。”纵观人类文明史，单向的文明交往模式从来不是历史的主流，文明交往的本质属性是互动性、交互性，不同文明之间的互动、交互既是历史上的真实，也是逻辑上的自洽。“文明交往是动态的，而动态的最大特征是互相依存性和互动性。文明交往过程就是一个双向的或多向互动的奔流不息的过程。”（4）文明交流互鉴的基本方式。文明对话是文明交流互鉴的基本方式。对话不是急于向对方兜售自己的观念，试图说服他者接受我们的价值信仰。对话背后的“底层逻辑”是承认他者、尊重他者，以他者为镜反观自身、审视自身，通过向他者学习更好完善自己，促进大家共同发展。“我们应该承认他者，承认他者在我们与世界交流中是不可或缺的；我们要发展尊敬他者的意识，这种意识将为相互参照和相互学习提供基础。”（杜维明）文明对话是对西方中心论文明交往模式的批判与超越。西方文明自诩为“高阶文明”，否定他者存在的合法性，更是否定向他者学习的必要性。文明对话承认所有文明存在的合法性，强调不同文明独特价值，强调包括西方文明在内的所有文明都有向他者学习的必要性。就连西方学者也充分认识到：“欧洲文明已经失去了自视优越的资格，过去不再由它控制；现在，欧洲和‘其他’文明共同面临着一个任务——展开对话，继而设法构建一个新的文明，一个全球文明。”中国树立平等、互鉴、对话、包容的文明观，积极倡导文明对话，主张不断扩大不同国家的人文交往，“以多样共存超越文明优越，以和谐共生超越文明冲突，以交融共享超越文明隔阂，以繁荣共进超越文明固化”。

Fourth is the theory of civilizational coexistence. The ultimate goal of human civilizational interaction is not the unification of the world under a single civilization, nor is it a clash of civilizations, but rather the coexistence and dialogue of civilizations. Differences among civilizations are objectively present, and the different values with which these differences are approached determine the direction of human civilization. The theory of the clash of civilizations understands civilizational differences as the root of conflict and confrontation between different civilizations. “The most important countries of the world come overwhelmingly from different civilizations. The local conflicts most likely to escalate into broader wars are those between groups and states from different civilizations.” [54]54 Samuel P. Huntington, *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order* (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 28. In a certain sense, the clash-of-civilizations theory also grants non-Western civilizations a legitimacy of existence; the end-of-history thesis, by contrast, views civilizational differences entirely through the lens of a hierarchy of civilizations, where non-Western civilizations have no place in the treasure house of human civilization, civilizational differences are ultimately leveled flat, and the Western civilization at the apex of the “civilizational ladder” will eventually unify the world. The theory of civilizational coexistence takes the co-presence of civilizations (the common existence of different civilizations) as its premise, the irreplaceability and uniqueness of all civilizations as its basis of legitimacy, the equality of civilizations as its fundamental principle, and the harmonious coexistence of civilizations as its ultimate goal. The theory of civilizational coexistence defines civilizational differences, from an ontological perspective, as manifestations of civilizational diversity; from an axiological perspective, it understands civilizational differences as distinctions in the characteristics of different civilizations, not as distinctions of superiority or inferiority; from an interactional perspective, it understands civilizational differences as the driving force for civilizational exchange and mutual learning. The theory of civilizational coexistence not only correctly views civilizational differences but also provides an important principle or concept for effectively handling the relationship between the “one” and the “many,” and between “sameness” and “difference,” among civilizations — namely, “harmony in diversity.” [55]55 “Harmony in diversity” (和而不同) is a classical Confucian concept from the *Analects*, meaning that harmony is achieved through the respectful coexistence of differences, not through forced uniformity. Confucius said: “The gentleman seeks harmony but not uniformity; the petty person seeks uniformity but not harmony.” [56]56 *Analects* 13.23. A person of moral cultivation, the gentleman, values harmony and can achieve harmonious coexistence amid difference; a person lacking moral cultivation often forces others to accept his views and cannot coexist harmoniously. The Chinese Communists have creatively applied the essence of this traditional Chinese civilization, “harmony in diversity,” to contemporary world civilizational interaction, providing Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach for effectively handling relations among different civilizations and achieving civilizational coexistence. “Civilizational interaction requires a spirit of harmony in diversity. Only by respecting one another, learning from one another, and coexisting harmoniously amid diversity can this world be rich, colorful, and thriving. Different civilizations embody the wisdom and contributions of different peoples; there is no distinction of high or low, still less of superior or inferior. Civilizations should engage in dialogue, not exclusion; they should engage in exchange, not replacement. Human history is a grand picture of different civilizations exchanging, learning from one another, and fusing. We must respect all civilizations, treat them as equals, learn from one another, draw on their strengths, and promote the creative development of human civilization.” [57]57 Xi Jinping, “Carry Forward the Spirit of the Silk Road and Promote Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilizations,” speech at the UNESCO Headquarters, March 27, 2014. The civilizational exchange and mutual learning advocated by the Chinese Communists adhere to the principle of “harmony in diversity” and are committed to building a civilizational community of harmonious coexistence among diverse civilizations. This community has at least three attributes. First, diversity. The Western-centric model of civilizational interaction focuses on “sameness”; in handling relations among different civilizations, it in fact takes Western civilization as its goal and pursues the homogenization of human civilization, inevitably leading to “uniformity without harmony.” A civilizational community built on the principle of “harmony in diversity” is not an “international version” of a single civilization but an aggregation of diverse civilizations. Second, harmony. “All things are nurtured together without harming one another; the ways run parallel without interfering with one another.” [58]58 A classical Chinese saying from the *Doctrine of the Mean* (Zhongyong), Chapter 30. “All things are nurtured together” and “the ways run parallel” refer to “difference”; “without harming one another” and “without interfering with one another” are “harmony.” “Difference” does not imply “harm” or “interference”; diversity does not imply conflict. The relations among civilizations within a civilizational community are harmonious and dialogical, not conflictual or substitutive. Third, consensus (or commonality). A civilizational community is not a “loose assembly” of different civilizations but an aggregation of civilizations constituted on the basis of commonality. A civilizational community is not fixed but constantly changing; there is a process from “difference” to mutual “identification,” that is, different civilizations seek points of convergence through dialogue and exchange, reach “consensus,” identify with one another, and continuously expand commonality. Of course, building a civilizational community of “harmony in diversity” is a long historical process. It requires us to transcend the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction and its old cultural mentality, and it requires a thorough transformation of our view of civilization. “In order for humanity to live in a world of ‘harmony in diversity,’ it is necessary from now on to advocate, at the aesthetic and humanistic level, the establishment of a cultural mentality of ‘beauty in diversity’ [59]59 “Beauty in diversity” (美美与共) is a phrase popularized by the Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong, meaning that each civilization should appreciate its own beauty and also appreciate the beauty of others, thereby achieving shared beauty. in people’s social activities. This is a profound and great transformation in people’s ideas and concepts, and it may conflict with the habitual modes of thinking and behavior of many people in the world today.” [60]60 Fei Xiaotong, “Reflections on ‘Cultural Self-Awareness’,” *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)*, 1997, no. 3.

四是文明共存论。人类文明交往，最终目标不是单一文明一统天下，也不是文明冲突，而是文明的共存与对话。文明差异是客观存在的，对待文明差异的不同价值观决定了人类文明的走向问题。文明冲突论把文明差异理解为不同文明冲突、对抗的根源。“世界上最重要的国家绝大多数来自不同的文明。最可能逐步升级为更大规模的战争的地区冲突是那些来自不同文明的集团和国家之间的冲突。”文明冲突论在某种意义上还给予非西方文明存在的合法性，历史终结论则完全是基于文明等级论看待文明差异，非西方文明在人类文明宝库中没有一席之地，文明差异最终被夷平，处于“文明阶梯”顶端的西方文明终将一统天下。文明共存论以文明共在（不同文明的共同存在）为前提，以所有文明不可替代性、独特性为合法性基础，以文明平等为基本原则，以文明和谐共存为终极目标。文明共存论从本体论上把文明差异界定为文明多样性的表现；从价值论上把文明差异领会为不同文明的特色之分，而非高下之别；从交往论上把文明差异理解为文明交流互鉴的动力。文明共存论不仅正确看待文明差异，而且为有效处理文明的“一”与“多”、“同”与“异”之间的关系提供了重要理念或原则——“和而不同”。孔子说：“君子和而不同，小人同而不和。”有道德修行的君子以和为贵，能够在不同中求得和谐相处；无道德修行的人常常强迫他人接受他的主张而不能和谐相处。中国共产党人将“和而不同”这一中华传统文明的精髓创造性地运用到当今世界文明交往中，为有效处理不同文明之间关系、实现文明共存提供了中国智慧和中国方案。“文明相处需要和而不同的精神。只有在多样中相互尊重、彼此借鉴、和谐共存，这个世界才能丰富多彩、欣欣向荣。不同文明凝聚着不同民族的智慧和贡献，没有高低之别，更无优劣之分。文明之间要对话，不要排斥；要交流，不要取代。人类历史就是一幅不同文明相互交流、互鉴、融合的宏伟画卷。我们要尊重各种文明，平等相待，互学互鉴，兼收并蓄，推动人类文明实现创造性发展。”中国共产党人倡导的文明交流互鉴坚持“和而不同”原则，致力于构建多元文明和谐共存的文明共同体。这一共同体至少具有三个方面的属性。第一，多元性。西方中心论文明交往模式着眼于“同”，处理不同文明的关系，实际上以西方文明为目标，追求人类文明的同质化，导致的结果必然是“同而不和”。遵循“和而不同”原则构建的文明共同体不是单一文明的“国际版”，而是多元文明的集合体。第二，和谐性。“万物并育而不相害，道并行而不相悖。”“万物并育”“道并行”指“不同”；“不相害”“不相悖”则是“和”。“不同”并不意味着“相害”“相悖”，多元并不意味着冲突。文明共同体内部的文明间的关系是和谐性的、对话性的，而非冲突性的、取代性的。第三，共识性（或共同性）。文明共同体不是不同文明的“散装”，而是基于共同性构成的文明集合。文明共同体不是固化的，而是不断变化的，存在一个从“不同”到相互“认同”的过程，即不同文明通过对话交流寻求交汇点，达成“共识”，相互认同，不断扩大共同性。当然，构建一个“和而不同”的文明共同体是一个长期的历史过程，需要我们超越西方中心论的文明交往模式及其旧的文化心态，需要一场彻底的文明观的变革。“为了人类能够生活在一个‘和而不同’的世界上，从现在起就必须提倡在审美的、人文的层次上，在人们的社会活动中树立起一个‘美美与共’的文化心态，这是人们思想观念上的一场深刻大变革，它可能与当前世界上很多人习惯的思维模式和行为方式相抵触。”

Transcending the Western-centric model of civilizational interaction and promoting civilizational exchange and mutual learning are the major trend and great logic of the development of human civilization in the world today. The Chinese Communists have always followed the laws of the dissemination and development of human civilization, creatively put forward the theory of civilizational exchange and mutual learning, and constructed a model of human civilizational interaction of “exchange-mutual learning-coexistence,” contributing Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to promoting civilizational dialogue and guiding the direction of world civilization.

超越西方中心论文明交往模式，促进文明交流互鉴，是当今世界人类文明发展的大趋势大逻辑。中国共产党人始终遵循人类文明传播与发展的规律，创造性提出了文明交流互鉴理论，构建了“交流-互鉴-共存”的人类文明交往模式，为推动文明对话，引领世界文明走向贡献了中国智慧和中国方案。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗