Marx’s Reflections on “the Shaping of the Human” and Their Implications

Both Chinese and Western philosophy attach great importance to the study of “the shaping of the human” (cultivation/education). Whether it is China’s “transforming people through culture” or the Western individual’s externalization and return to human nature’s elevation, the shaping of the human means enhancing people’s spiritual and practical capacities through culture, education, institutions, and other means, so that they become beings conforming to some ideal paradigm. The shaping of the human concerns the awakening and construction of subjectivity; it points toward the free and comprehensive development of the individual and toward liberation in the sense of community. Faced with the call of the Second Integration [1]1 The Second Integration refers to the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s excellent traditional culture, a concept formally proposed by Xi Jinping at a symposium on cultural heritage in June 2023. for ideological innovation, and with the high importance that Chinese-path modernization attaches to the ethical goals of “the comprehensive development of the human” and “common prosperity,” we need to deepen our understanding of “the shaping of the human” from the perspective of Marx’s philosophy.

中西方哲学都十分重视关于“人的塑造”（教化）的思想研究。无论是中国的“以文化人”，还是西方个体外化与复归的人性升华，人的塑造都意味着通过文化、教育、制度等手段提升人的精神与实践能力，使其成为符合某种理想范式的存在。人的塑造关乎主体性的觉醒与建构，它指向人的自由全面发展以及共同体意义上的解放。面对“第二个结合”对思想创新的呼唤，以及中国式现代化对“人的全面发展”与“共同富裕”的伦理目标的高度重视，我们需要在马克思哲学的视域下深化对“人的塑造”的理解。

Marx’s philosophy contains profound reflections on “the shaping of the human.” The “alienated labor” in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* includes the alienation of the product of labor, the alienation of the labor process, the alienation of species-being, and the alienation of human from human, revealing that capitalist relations of production trap individual shaping in a structural predicament. At the same time, however, Marx’s “restoration of the human species-being” also elucidates the path of liberation for humanity from the dehumanized state of capitalism toward free and comprehensive development. This is because labor, as objectifying activity, when restored to its character as free, creative species-activity, is precisely the subject’s transformation of the world and, through the negation of the negation, the sublation of the thinghood of the object, achieving self-elevation and liberation. Communism is “the positive transcendence of private property, i.e., of human self-alienation,” [2]2 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, MECW, vol. 3, p. 296. providing a path for the revolutionary reconstruction of the shaping of the human, making the proletariat the subject that realizes the transformation of the mode of social existence, and ultimately achieving the goal of “the all-round development of the individual.”

马克思的哲学中蕴含着关于“人的塑造”的深刻思考。《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的“异化劳动”包含劳动产品异化、劳动过程异化、类本质异化、人与人之间的异化，揭示了资本主义生产关系使个体塑造陷入结构性困境。但同时，马克思关于“人的类本质复归”也阐明了人类从资本主义非人化状态向自由全面发展的解放之途。这是因为，劳动即对象化活动恢复作为自由创造性类活动的性质，便是主体改造世界，并通过否定之否定扬弃对象的物性，实现自我升华的解放。共产主义是对“私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃”，为人的塑造提供了革命性重构的路径，使无产阶级成为实现社会存在方式变革的主体，最终实现“个人全面发展”的目标。

Marx’s *Theses on Feuerbach* implicitly contains a fundamental subversion of traditional thinking about “the shaping of the human” through practice. In the third thesis, Marx criticizes Hegel’s philosophy of absolute spirit and Feuerbach’s old materialist view of “abstract sensuous intuition” as passively accepting environmental transformation, and instead takes practice as the ontological basis for shaping the human, emphasizing that practice is the dual mediation of the shaping of the human: in labor, people both create objects and reshape their own cognitive structures and capacities; and through cooperative practice, individuals develop language, thought, moral consciousness, etc., forming the essence of the “social human.” In the second thesis, Marx fundamentally overturns the epistemological foundation of traditional “shaping of the human,” forming an epistemology of verification through practice, highlighting the practical standard and question of validity of truth. Marx also, with practice as the core, profoundly reveals the dialectical process of the subject’s formation within the reproduction of social relations, which is embodied in the sixth thesis. Thus, in Marx’s view, “the shaping of the human” should also be the shaping of the subject within specific social relations.

马克思《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》暗含着实践对传统关于“人的塑造”思想的根本颠覆。在第三条命题中，马克思批判黑格尔的绝对精神思想和费尔巴哈“抽象感性直观”的被动接受环境改造的旧唯物主义观，而以实践作为塑造人的本体论基础，强调实践是人的塑造的双重中介：人在劳动中既创造客体，也重塑自身的认知结构与能力，且个体通过协作实践，发展出语言、思维与道德意识等，形成“社会人”的本质。在第二条命题中，马克思从根本上颠覆了传统关于“人的塑造”的认识论基础，形成了实践检验的认识论，彰显了真理的实践标准与有效性问题。马克思还以实践为核心，深刻揭示了主体在社会关系再生产中的辩证形塑过程，这体现在第六条命题中。由此，在马克思看来，“人的塑造”也应该是特定社会关系中的主体形塑。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx, by deconstructing the idealist conception of history, places human development on the foundation of social material practice, shifting the shaping of the human from abstract spiritual activity to historical practice. Marx proposes that “men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc.” [3]3 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*, MECW, vol. 5, p. 36. The generative character of “real individuals” determines that the shaping of the human is not a process of the spirit’s self-externalization, but rather the self-construction of individuals in practice, interacting with nature and others in material productive activity; moreover, language, consciousness, and the shaping of labor share the same origin. Marx also holds that the division of labor has a decisive influence on the form of the shaping of the human: it leads to the ruling class monopolizing systematic knowledge production, while the ruled class is confined to the transmission of empirical skills, reflecting the relationship between the type of division of labor and the cognitive mode and form of human shaping. Marx reveals that social relations are the field of human generation: “definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 35. Therefore, the shaping of the human is not only individual self-improvement but is also formed within social relations and is constrained by social structures. The bourgeoisie, through the education system, law, religion, etc., universalizes its own interests as “eternal truths,” so ideology becomes the tool of the ruling class for shaping the human. Thus, in Marx’s view, the genuine shaping of the human requires breaking the shackles of ideology through collective cognitive change in revolutionary practice, making counter-hegemony possible; that is, the proletariat, through united action in class struggle, breaks the state of “atomized” existence, develops new cognitive modes and value systems in collective practice, and achieves the unity of self-shaping and social shaping.

马克思在《德意志意识形态》中通过解构唯心主义历史观，将人的发展置于社会物质实践的根基之上，将人的塑造从抽象的精神活动转向历史性的实践之中。马克思提出，“人们是自己的观念、思想等等的生产者”。“现实的个人”的生成性决定了人的塑造不是精神自我外化的过程，而是个体在物质生产活动中与自然、他人互动的实践中的自我建构，并且语言、意识与劳动塑造也具有同源性。马克思还认为，分工对人的塑造形式具有决定性影响，它导致统治阶级垄断系统化知识生产，被统治阶级则被限定在经验性技能的传承中，体现出分工类型与塑造的认知模式和人的塑造形式的关系。马克思揭示出，社会关系是人的生成场域，“以一定的方式进行生产活动的一定的个人，发生一定的社会关系和政治关系”。因此，人的塑造不仅是个人的自我提升，更是在社会关系中形成的，而且受到社会结构的限制。资产阶级通过教育系统、法律、宗教等将自身利益普遍化为“永恒真理”，所以意识形态成为统治阶级对人的塑造的工具。因此，在马克思看来，真正的人的塑造需要通过革命实践中的集体认知变革打破意识形态的桎梏，使反霸权成为可能，即无产阶级在阶级斗争中通过联合行动打破“原子化”生存状态，在集体实践中发展出新的认知方式与价值体系，实现自我塑造与社会塑造的统一。

Marx’s theory of reproduction in *Capital* involves the dialectical relationship between the logic of capital and the shaping of the subject. In Marx’s view, the logic of capital not only shapes the material production system but also, through the reproduction of social relations, reshapes people’s cognitive structures, value orientations, and modes of existence. Marx argues that in capitalist society, the disciplining of the labor subject is achieved through the internalization of relations of production. He reveals how the logic of capital, through the triple action of economic relations, production organization, and social mechanisms, reshapes workers into production subjects that meet the needs of valorization. This includes the colonization of workers’ subjective consciousness by the value form, the taming of workers’ bodies by the production space, and the mental manipulation of workers by relative surplus-value production. Moreover, this disciplining is systematic, covering the entire field of production, distribution, and consumption. At the same time, Marx’s *Capital* also explains the awakening of the labor subject in crises, prompting the transformation of the proletariat from a “class-in-itself” to a “class-for-itself.” This was fully developed in the theories of Marx’s successors, such as Lukács’s theory of “class consciousness” and Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony.

马克思在《资本论》中的再生产理论涉及资本逻辑与主体形塑的辩证关系。在马克思看来，资本逻辑不仅塑造物质生产体系，更通过社会关系的再生产重塑人的认知结构、价值取向与存在方式。马克思认为，在资本主义社会，劳动主体被规训是通过生产关系的内化实现的。他揭示了资本逻辑如何通过经济关系、生产组织和社会机制的三重作用，将劳动者重塑为符合增殖需要的生产主体。它包含价值形式对工人主体意识的殖民、生产空间对工人身体的驯服、相对剩余价值生产对工人的精神操控。而且，这种规训具有系统性，覆盖生产、分配、消费全领域。同时，马克思的《资本论》还阐释了劳动主体在危机中的觉醒，促使无产阶级从“自在阶级”向“自为阶级”转化。这在马克思的后继者卢卡奇的“阶级意识”理论和葛兰西的文化霸权理论中都得到了充分发展。

In addition, Marx’s late anthropological notebooks also contain relevant ideas on “the shaping of the human.” Through his in-depth investigation of primitive societies, he reveals the existence of non-alienated forms of “the shaping of the human” in pre-class societies, such as the transmission of skills and ecological wisdom in collective hunting, and the acquisition of knowledge by clan members through collective labor, rituals, and oral traditions. He criticizes the colonizers’ destruction of primitive communes, stating that “open and, more recently, concealed slavery always accompanies civilization.” [5]5 Marx, *Ethnological Notebooks*, referring to Engels’s *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, MECW, vol. 26, p. 271. Thus, Marx tears off the hypocritical mask of exploitation and sharply criticizes the class essence of so-called civilized society. Regarding Maine’s treatment of Roman law as a universal model of “civilizing cultivation,” Marx points out that legal cultivation is merely a means of legitimizing exploitative relations. In his annotations on Kovalevsky’s analysis of the disintegration of Indian village communities, Marx also indicates that the private property imposed by the colonizers destroyed traditional knowledge-sharing networks, reducing “the shaping of the human” to the barbarism of civilization.

此外，马克思晚期的人类学笔记也涉及“人的塑造”的相关思想内容。他通过对原始社会的深入考察，揭示了前阶级社会中存在非异化的“人的塑造”形式，例如集体狩猎中的技能传授与生态智慧的传递，以及氏族成员通过集体劳动、仪式和口头传统习得知识等。他批判殖民者对原始公社的摧毁，认为“公开的而近来是隐蔽的奴隶制始终伴随着文明时代”。所以，马克思撕下剥削的虚伪面具，并尖锐批判了所谓文明社会中的阶级本质。对于梅恩将罗马法视为“文明教化”普世典范的做法，马克思指出，法律教化不过是使剥削关系合法化的手段。他还在批注柯瓦列夫斯基对印度村社瓦解的分析时表明，殖民者强加的私有制摧毁了传统知识共享网络，使“人的塑造”沦为文明化的野蛮。

Thus it can be seen that there exists a hidden thread running through the development of Marx’s philosophy concerning the reflection on “the shaping of the human.” It connects Marx’s critique of economics, politics, and philosophy, becoming a key category of the totality of his thought. Marx completely shifted the field of “the shaping of the human” into material labor-practice, deepening the meaning of “becoming human” within labor-practice, transforming social relations from the background of “the shaping of the human” into a core object of critique and a variable medium, and, on the basis of the universality and comprehensiveness of the community, took revolutionary consciousness as the goal of shaping the human. In Marx’s philosophy of labor-practice, “the shaping of the human” is no longer a purely conceptual indoctrination or cultural transmission in the traditional sense, but is profoundly reconstructed as a process of mutual generation and mutual shaping between the individual and the community in the material practice of transforming the world. It is also a dialectical process in which humanity, through the critique and transformation of the alienated world, ultimately realizes the free essence of being human. In summary, Marx’s reflections on “the shaping of the human” are embedded within his historical materialism and theory of human liberation, emphasizing the comprehensive development of the essential powers of the human being through social practice, productive labor, and class struggle. In the process of Chinese-path modernization, rethinking Marx’s thought on “the shaping of the human” can promote the coordinated development of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress. Its core lies in combining Marx’s theories of “human liberation” and “comprehensive development” with China’s concrete realities and fine traditional Chinese culture, forming a set of cultural-practical systems that are both critical and constructive. Marx’s “human liberation” presupposes the elimination of class oppression and the realization of the liberation of the proletariat. In the New Era of China, this logic has developed into “the modernization of the human,” which not only requires the elimination of material poverty but also demands the breaking of class solidification through institutional guarantees (such as the common prosperity policy), providing opportunities for individual development and shaping. Marx’s “comprehensive development” includes the unity of labor capacity, social relations, and the spiritual world. In the New Era, China has proposed “comprehensive development in morality, intelligence, physique, aesthetics, and labor,” concretizing the ideal of comprehensive development into an operable educational system. Marx’s reflections on “the shaping of the human” provide both the ultimate concern of “human liberation” and the systematic project of “comprehensive development.” This systematic practice not only injects spiritual impetus into Chinese-path modernization but also contributes Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions to humanity’s response to universal global dilemmas, profoundly embodying the historical resonance of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times.

由此可见，关于“人的塑造”的思考在马克思哲学的发展历程中存在一条隐形线索，它连接起马克思的经济学、政治学和哲学批判，成为其思想的总体性关键范畴。马克思将“人的塑造”的场域彻底转向物质性的劳动—实践之中，在劳动—实践中深化了“成人”的意蕴，将社会关系从“人的塑造”的背景转变为核心批判对象和可变媒介，并以共同体的普遍性和全面性为基础，将革命意识作为塑造人的目的。在马克思的劳动—实践哲学中，“人的塑造”不再是传统意义上纯粹的观念灌输或文化传承，而是被深刻地重构为个体与共同体在改造世界的物质实践中双向生成、相互塑造的过程，也是人类在对异化世界的批判与改造中，最终实现人之为人的自由本质的辩证过程。概言之，马克思关于“人的塑造”的思考内嵌于其历史唯物主义与人的解放理论之中，强调通过社会实践、生产劳动与阶级斗争实现人的本质力量的全面发展。在中国式现代化进程中，重思马克思关于“人的塑造”的思想，可以推动物质文明和精神文明协调发展。其核心在于，将马克思关于“人的解放”和“全面发展”的理论同中国具体实际、中华优秀传统文化相结合，形成一套既具批判性又具建设性的文化实践体系。马克思提出的“人的解放”以消灭阶级压迫、实现无产阶级解放为前提，在新时代中国，这一逻辑已发展为“人的现代化”，它不仅要求消除物质贫困，更要求通过制度保障（如共同富裕政策）打破阶层固化，为个体发展和塑造提供机遇。马克思的“全面发展”包括劳动能力、社会关系、精神世界的统一，新时代中国提出“德智体美劳全面发展”，将全面发展的理想具体化为可操作的育人体系。马克思关于“人的塑造”的思考，既提供了“人的解放”的终极关怀，又落实为“全面发展”的系统工程。这一系统性实践不仅为中国式现代化注入了精神动力，更为人类应对具有普遍性的全球困境贡献了中国智慧与中国方案，深刻体现出马克思主义中国化时代化的历史回响。

(The authors are a professor at the School of Philosophy, Heilongjiang University; and a doctoral candidate at the School of Philosophy, Heilongjiang University, and an assistant researcher at Harbin University.)

（作者系黑龙江大学哲学学院教授；黑龙江大学哲学学院博士研究生、哈尔滨学院助理研究员）