An Analysis of the Implications of Cultural Subjectivity from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

Culture is the soul of a nation and a country; cultural self-reliance and self-strengthening are directly related to the self-reliance and self-strengthening of the country and the nation. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development: “For any culture to stand firm, go far, and possess guiding power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiating power, it must have its own subjectivity.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development,” August 2023. Since the major proposition of “cultural subjectivity” was formally put forward, academia has conducted research on it from broad perspectives, multiple dimensions, and deep levels. Some scholars have interpreted the connotation of cultural subjectivity from a philosophical perspective, some have sorted out the construction process of cultural subjectivity from a historical perspective, some have analyzed the contemporary value of cultural subjectivity from the perspective of Chinese-path modernization, and still others have explored the path to consolidating cultural subjectivity from the perspective of the “Two Integrations,” and so on. [2]2 The “Two Integrations” refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture. Looking at the existing research results in academia, the understanding of “what is cultural subjectivity” still needs to be expanded and deepened, and there is a relative lack of research results specifically discussing the implications of cultural subjectivity from the perspective of historical materialism. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Our Party has always used the stand, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism to view the history of the Chinese nation, inheriting and promoting the excellent traditional Chinese culture.” Scientifically examining cultural subjectivity from the perspective of historical materialism helps us better see through the inner essence of cultural subjectivity and recognize its features and forms. Based on historical materialism, this article, on the basis of clarifying the relationships between cultural subjectivity and economic subjectivity, between cultural subjectivity and human subjectivity, between cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance, and between cultural subjectivity and inter-subjectivity of culture, analyzes the profound implications of cultural subjectivity from four aspects, aiming to answer the question of “what is cultural subjectivity” more comprehensively and deeply, and to provide preconditions for further consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity in the New Era and fulfilling the new cultural mission. [3]3 The “New Era” refers to the period since the 19th National Congress of the CPC in 2017, marking a new historical juncture for socialism with Chinese characteristics.

文化是国家和民族的灵魂，文化的自立自强直接关乎国家和民族的自立自强。习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上指出：“任何文化要立得住、行得远，要有引领力、凝聚力、塑造力、辐射力，就必须有自己的主体性。”自“文化主体性”这一重大命题正式提出以来，学界对其展开了宽视角、多维度、深层次的研究。有学者从哲学的视角阐释文化主体性的内涵,有学者从历史的视角梳理文化主体性的建构历程,有学者从中国式现代化的视角分析文化主体性的时代价值,还有学者从“两个结合”的视角探究文化主体性的巩固路径,等等。纵观学界既有研究成果，对“什么是文化主体性”的认识还有待拓展和深化，专门从唯物史观视角探讨文化主体性意涵的研究成果相对缺乏。习近平总书记指出：“我们党历来用历史唯物主义的立场观点方法看待中华民族历史，继承和弘扬中华优秀传统文化。”在唯物史观视域下科学审视文化主体性，有助于我们更好地透视文化主体性的内在本质，认清文化主体性的面相样态。本文立足唯物史观，在厘清文化主体性与经济主体性、文化主体性与人的主体性、文化主体性与文化主导性、文化主体性与文化主体间性的关系的基础上，从四个方面阐析文化主体性的深刻意涵，以期更加全面、更加深入地回答“何谓文化主体性”的问题，为新时代进一步巩固中华文化主体性，完成新的文化使命提供前提条件。

I. The Perspective of Material Production: Cultural Subjectivity Originates from and Reacts upon Economic Subjectivity

一、物质生产视角：文化主体性根源于并反作用于经济主体性

The primary task of answering “what is cultural subjectivity” is to clarify the meaning of “culture” in “cultural subjectivity” and to elucidate the relationship between cultural subjectivity and economic subjectivity. Throughout history, both in China and abroad, cultural phenomena are everywhere, cultural forms are diverse, and people’s understandings of culture are varied. Generally speaking, there is a broad and a narrow sense of understanding culture. In a broad sense, all the fruits of labor formed by humans in the process of transforming nature are culture, that is, culture is a composite of material and spiritual achievements created by humans. In a narrow sense, culture specifically refers to spiritual aspects formed through human activities, mainly including various forms of social consciousness, customs and habits, language styles, lifestyles, ways of thinking, spiritual character, aesthetic tastes, collective personality, and so on. In common contexts, the culture referred to means culture in the narrow sense, and the “culture” in cultural subjectivity also belongs to culture in the narrow sense. Of course, culture in the narrow sense and culture in the broad sense are not clearly demarcated in real life; culture has both spiritual and material attributes. As some scholars have pointed out, “Culture is not material, but culture can have its material carriers; material is not culture, but material can serve as a carrier of culture and thus possess cultural connotations.” Therefore, we cannot talk about culture in the abstract without materiality; without material carriers, it is difficult to concretize the abstract forms of culture, and cultural inheritance and cultural dissemination will also be difficult to achieve.

解答“什么是文化主体性”的首要任务就是弄清楚“文化主体性”之“文化”的含义，阐明文化主体性与经济主体性的关系。古今中外，文化现象比比皆是，文化形态五花八门，人们对文化的理解莫衷一是。一般而言，对文化的认识存在广义和狭义之分。从广义上说，人在改造自然的过程中形成的一切劳动成果皆是文化，即文化是人创造的物质成果和精神成果的复合体。从狭义上说，文化特指通过人的活动而形成的精神层面的东西，主要包括各种社会意识形式、风俗习俗、语言风格、生活方式、思维方式、精神品性、审美旨趣、集体人格等。通常语境下言说的文化意指狭义的文化，文化主体性之“文化”也属于狭义的文化。当然，狭义上的文化和广义上的文化在现实生活中并不是泾渭分明的，文化兼有精神属性和物质属性。正如有学者指出的，“文化不是物质，但文化可以有其物质载体；物质不是文化，但物质可以作为文化的载体而具有文化的内涵”。因而，我们不能脱离物质空谈文化，离开物质载体，就很难将文化的抽象形态具象化，文化传承、文化传播也将寸步难行。

Cultural subjectivity is a concentrated reflection of the state of cultural existence and development of a country and a nation, and a high-level summary of cultural self-reliance, self-independence, self-consciousness, self-action, self-confidence, and self-strengthening. Marx pointed out: “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” 1859. As a spiritual product created by humans in production practice, culture is constrained by material production activities and the mode of production; the generation and development of any culture can find its roots in material production. The nature of the economic base and the capacity for economic development constitute economic subjectivity. It prominently reflects a country and a nation’s autonomy in choosing the path of economic development and the economic system, self-control in allocating material means of production and economic resources, and self-action in responding to economic risks and mastering economic destiny. It emphasizes that economic development is not controlled by others but is independent, not passive but active, not stagnant but transformative and upgrading, not closed but open to the outside world. A country and a nation’s economic autonomy is the prerequisite for cultural self-reliance, economic self-strengthening is the greatest confidence for cultural self-confidence, and economic subjectivity is the deep root and determining force of cultural subjectivity.

文化主体性是对一个国家和民族的文化存在和发展状态的集中反映，是对文化自立自主、自觉自为、自信自强的高度概括。马克思指出：“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。不是人们的意识决定人们的存在，相反，是人们的社会存在决定人们的意识。”作为人在生产实践中创造出来的精神产物，文化受制于物质生产活动及生产方式，任何文化的生成和发展都可以从物质生产中找到根源。经济基础的性质和经济发展的能力就是经济主体性，它突出反映的是一个国家和民族选择经济发展道路和经济制度的自主性、调配物质生产资料和经济资源的自控性、应对经济风险和掌握经济命运的自为性，强调经济发展不是受制于人而是独立自主的，不是消极被动而是积极主动的，不是安常守故而是转型升级的，不是闭关自守而是对外开放的。一个国家和民族的经济自主是文化自立的先决条件，经济自强是文化自信的最大底气，经济主体性是文化主体性的深层根源和决定力量。

From the perspective of the determining role of the economy on culture, cultural subjectivity is also determined by economic subjectivity. This is mainly reflected in: On the one hand, the state of economic subjectivity determines the state of cultural subjectivity. Economic subjectivity lays the material foundation for the formation, development, and maintenance of cultural subjectivity. A country and a nation’s material self-reliance is the prerequisite for its spiritual independence, and economic hard power is the strongest support for cultural soft power. Generally speaking, the stronger the economic hard power, the stronger the cultural soft power; the more stable the economic subjectivity, the more stable the cultural subjectivity. “Looking at the basic course of Chinese history over thousands of years, eras of national prosperity are often accompanied by great cultural development and flourishing, and are also eras when cultural subjectivity is promoted and even shines brilliantly. When the nation is in decline, culture is often in a state of closure, conservatism, or even stagnation and rigidity; not only is cultural subjectivity lost, but people’s cultural self-confidence also ceases to exist.” [5]5 This is a paraphrase of a common scholarly observation in Chinese academic discourse, not a direct citation. In ancient China, the reason for the long period of cultural prosperity and the firm grasp of cultural subjectivity was mainly that the mode of production at the time was relatively advanced and the level of development of social productive forces was relatively high. After modern times, the mode of material production in Chinese society gradually fell behind the times; economically, it suffered repeated exploitation and oppression by invaders, and economic subjectivity was severely impacted and disintegrated, leading to the erosion of culture and the trampling of civilization, and the Chinese nation once lost its cultural subjectivity. After the founding of New China, the increasing level of economic development laid the material foundation for the reshaping and consolidation of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. In the New Era, China’s economy has entered a stage of high-quality development, and the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation has shown a good trend of stabilization and strengthening. On the other hand, the transformation of economic subjectivity determines the transformation of cultural subjectivity. Cultural subjectivity is not immutable or once-and-for-all; it changes with changes in economic subjectivity. As the wheel of history rolls forward, when old relations of production can no longer adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces, new relations of production will emerge as the times require, and the conceptual superstructure—philosophy, morality, law, religion, art, etc.—erected on the original economic base will inevitably change. As Marx pointed out in the “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”: “With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.” [6]6 Karl Marx, “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” 1859. When the economic base, especially the relations of ownership of the means of production, undergoes fundamental changes, and major adjustments occur in the social economic structure, economic system, and economic system, this triggers not only a great transformation of economic development but also a great shift in mainstream social culture and major changes in people’s ideas and concepts. In essence, changes in economic subjectivity profoundly affect changes in cultural subjectivity.

从经济对文化的决定性作用来看，文化主体性也是由经济主体性决定的。这主要体现在：一方面，经济主体性的状况决定文化主体性的状况。经济主体性为文化主体性的形成、发展和维持奠定物质基础，一个国家和民族在物质上自力更生是其在精神上独立自主的前提条件，经济硬实力是文化软实力最有力的支撑。通常来说，经济硬实力越强大，文化软实力就越强大；经济主体性越稳固，文化主体性就越稳固。“从数千年来中国历史的基本进程看，国运昌隆的时代往往伴随着文化的大发展大繁荣，也是文化主体性得到发扬甚至大放异彩的时代。而当国运凋敝之时，文化常常处在封闭保守甚至僵化停滞的状态，不仅文化主体性丧失，人们的文化自信也不复存在。”古代中国在很长一段时间里之所以出现文化繁盛的景象，能够牢牢掌握文化主体性，主要在于当时的生产方式相对先进，社会生产力发展水平较高。近代以后，中国社会的物质生产方式逐渐落后于时代，经济上屡遭侵略者剥削和压迫，经济主体性受到严重冲击和瓦解，导致文化被侵蚀、文明被践踏，中华民族一度迷失了文化主体性。新中国成立以后，经济发展水平的日益提升为中华民族文化主体性的重塑和巩固奠定了物质基础。新时代，我国经济进入高质量发展阶段，中华民族文化主体性呈现出趋稳向强的良好态势。另一方面，经济主体性的变革决定文化主体性的变革。文化主体性不是一成不变、一劳永逸的，会随着经济主体性的变化而变化。历史车轮滚滚向前，当旧的生产关系难以适应生产力发展要求，新的生产关系就会应运而生，竖立在原有经济基础之上的哲学、道德、法律、宗教、艺术等观念上层建筑必定生变。正如马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中指出的，“随着经济基础的变更，全部庞大的上层建筑也或慢或快地发生变革”。经济基础尤其是生产资料所有制关系发生根本性变化，社会经济结构、经济制度、经济体制出现重大调整，引发的不只是经济发展的大转型，还包括社会主流文化的大转变、人们思想观念的大变化。质言之，经济主体性的变动会深刻影响文化主体性的变动。

Although historical materialism holds that the economy is the decisive element in the social structure, historical materialism is not “economic determinism.” Engels emphasized in his later years: “If someone distorts this by saying that the economic factor is the only decisive one, he transforms this proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd piece of empty talk.” [7]7 Engels, “Letter to Joseph Bloch,” September 21[-22], 1890. When historical materialism emphasizes the decisive role of the economy over culture, it holds that “a certain culture (culture as an ideological form) is a reflection of the politics and economy of a given society, and in turn exerts a great influence and effect on the politics and economy of that society.” Cultural subjectivity is the reflection of economic subjectivity in ideological form, and it exerts an active counter-effect on economic subjectivity. When cultural subjectivity adapts to the requirements of the development of productive forces, it can help consolidate the economic base, effectively stimulate economic vitality, and become a positive force for strengthening economic subjectivity; conversely, it becomes a negative force that weakens economic subjectivity.

虽然唯物史观认为经济是社会结构中的决定性要素，但是唯物史观并不是“经济决定论”。恩格斯在晚年强调：“如果有人在这里加以歪曲，说经济因素是唯一决定性的因素，那么他就是把这个命题变成毫无内容的、抽象的、荒诞无稽的空话。”唯物史观在强调经济对文化的决定性作用时，认为“一定的文化(当作观念形态的文化)是一定社会的政治和经济的反映，又给予伟大影响和作用于一定社会的政治和经济”。文化主体性是经济主体性在观念形态上的反映，对经济主体性具有能动的反作用。当文化主体性适应生产力发展要求时，文化主体性能够助力夯实经济基础，有效激发经济活力，会成为巩固经济主体性的积极力量；反之，就会成为削弱经济主体性的消极力量。

The active role of cultural subjectivity on economic subjectivity is mainly manifested in three aspects. First, it guides the direction of development. Cultural subjectivity is a self-reflective awareness of “what banner to hold and what path to take”; the guiding ideology of national development is the most important embodiment of cultural subjectivity. The economic development concepts a country upholds, the economic development goals it sets, and the economic development path it chooses must all be based on and measured by the guiding ideology of national development. It can be said that the mainstream ideology is the “baton” and “regulator” for constructing economic subjectivity. Second, it consolidates ideological consensus. High identification with national culture, general adherence to core values, and a shared vision of a better life are important connotations of cultural subjectivity. Based on cultural identification and common beliefs, different subjects of economic activity can maintain a reasonable tension between economic interests, form an economic interest community with a shared cultural life entity as the hub, find the “greatest common divisor” in thought for constructing economic subjectivity, and draw the “concentric circles” in action. [8]8 “Greatest common divisor” and “concentric circles” are metaphors used in Chinese political discourse to denote the broadest possible consensus and unified action around a common goal. When a national economy faces major risks, common value beliefs act like a “cultural anchor,” ensuring that economic subjectivity does not lose its direction of progress or its strategic resolve in the tide of economic globalization. Third, it provides spiritual impetus. Innovation is the primary driving force for development. This innovation is inseparable not only from technological innovation in production and innovation in the economic system but also from ideological and cultural innovation, with the latter serving as the precursor to the former. Cultural innovation provides new ideas and new concepts for economic development, guides people to discern new spaces for economic growth through ideological emancipation, inspires them to use new means to solve new economic problems, and continuously provides spiritual impetus for consolidating economic subjectivity. In summary, economic subjectivity determines cultural subjectivity, while cultural subjectivity reacts upon economic subjectivity. For a sovereign state, whether it is strengthening economic subjectivity or consolidating cultural subjectivity, the common purpose is to defend state power and maintain the long-term stability and security of the country, the harmony and stability of society, and the peaceful livelihood of the people.

文化主体性对经济主体性的能动作用主要表现在三个方面。一是规引发展方向。文化主体性是对“举什么旗、走什么路”的思想自省，国家发展的指导思想是文化主体性最重要的体现。一个国家秉持的经济发展理念、制定的经济发展目标、选择的经济发展道路，都要以国家发展的指导思想为依据和准绳。可以说，主流意识形态是建构经济主体性的“指挥棒”和“调节器”。二是凝聚思想共识。对民族文化的高度认同、对核心价值观的普遍遵循、对美好生活的共同愿景是文化主体性的重要含义。基于文化认同和共同信念，不同经济活动主体能够在经济利益之间保持合理张力，以共同的文化生命体为枢纽形成经济利益共同体，为经济主体性的构建找到思想上的“最大公约数”,画好行动上的“同心圆”。当国家经济面临重大风险时，共同的价值信念就像一个“文化锚”,确保经济主体性在经济全球化大潮中不迷失前行方向、不丧失战略定力。三是提供精神动力。创新是引领发展的第一动力，这种创新既离不开生产技术创新、经济体制创新，也离不开思想文化创新，其中生产技术创新和经济体制创新要以思想文化创新为先导。文化创新为经济发展提供新思想、新理念，引导人们在思想解放中洞察经济增长的新空间，激励他们运用新手段解决新的经济问题，为巩固经济主体性源源不断地提供精神动力。总之，经济主体性决定文化主体性，而文化主体性反作用于经济主体性。对主权国家而言，无论是强化经济主体性，还是巩固文化主体性，共同目的在于捍卫国家政权，维护国家的长治久安、社会的和谐稳定以及人民的安居乐业。

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, [9]9 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2012, marking the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. the cause of the Party and the state has achieved historic accomplishments and undergone historic transformations. The situation in China’s ideological domain has undergone a comprehensive and fundamental shift, and consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation faces new opportunities and new challenges. From the perspective of the domestic situation, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has entered an irreversible historical process. The closer we get to realizing the dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the more we must “strengthen the spiritual strength for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and the more we must “exalt the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation.” From the perspective of the international situation, changes unseen in a century are accelerating, the trends of exchange, interaction, and confrontation among diverse cultures are becoming more frequent, cultural and ideological struggles between countries, especially major powers, are intensifying, Western countries are employing more diverse means of “peaceful evolution” against China, and the infiltration of non-Marxist, anti-Marxist, and anti-socialist social trends is becoming more covert. [10]10 “Peaceful evolution” is a term used in Chinese political discourse to describe Western strategies aimed at subverting socialist systems through non-military means, such as ideological infiltration. In such an era, the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation cannot be weakened; it can only be strengthened. The dependence of cultural subjectivity on economic subjectivity determines that further consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation must solidify its material foundation. China has entered a new stage of development. Although the elements, structure, means, and driving forces of material production have changed, the important position of the mode of material production in the entire development of social history and its important role in cultural subjectivity have not changed. We must assess the situation, focus on cultivating and developing new quality productive forces, build new relations of production compatible with them, promote the high-quality development of China’s economy and society, continuously enhance China’s economic hard power, and persistently consolidate the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation on a more solid, stable, and dynamic economic foundation.

党的十八大以来，党和国家事业取得历史性成就、发生历史性变革，我国意识形态领域形势发生全局性、根本性转变，巩固中华文化主体性面临新机遇、新挑战。从国内形势来看，中华民族伟大复兴进入了不可逆转的历史进程。越是接近实现中华民族伟大复兴的梦想，就越要“增强实现中华民族伟大复兴的精神力量”,就越要“高扬中华民族的文化主体性”。从国际形势来看，世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，多元文化交流、交融、交锋的态势更加频繁，国家之间尤其是大国之间的文化之争、意识形态之争更加激烈，西方国家对我国实施“和平演变”的手段更加多样，非马克思主义、反马克思主义、反社会主义等社会思潮的渗透更加隐蔽。在这样的时代境遇中，中华民族的文化主体性不能削弱，只能加强。文化主体性对经济主体性的依赖性，决定了进一步巩固中华民族文化主体性必须夯实其物质基础。我国进入新发展阶段，尽管物质生产的要素、结构、手段、动力发生了变化，但是物质生产方式在整个社会历史发展中的重要地位以及对文化主体性的重要作用并没有改变。我们要审时度势，着力培育和发展新质生产力，构建与之相适应的新型生产关系，促进我国经济社会的高质量发展，不断提升我国经济硬实力，在更坚实、更稳健、更有活力的经济基础上持续巩固中华民族文化主体性。

II. The Perspective of Real Individuals: Cultural Subjectivity Is Ultimately Human Subjectivity

二、现实的人视角：文化主体性归根到底是人的主体性

Another prerequisite for answering “what is cultural subjectivity” is to clarify the meaning of “subject” in “cultural subjectivity” and to delineate the relationship between cultural subjectivity and human subjectivity. The subject in the philosophical perspective refers to a person with thinking ability and action ability, who engages in cognitive and practical activities, while objects are the targets of human cognition and transformation, called objects. That is to say, the subject can only be a person, not an object, and subjectivity reflects the attributes of a person, not an object. Culture is a product of people’s cognition and transformation of the world. It itself has no thought or behavioral consciousness; it is neither a thinker nor an actor, and cannot become a subject. According to this understanding, “culture” within “cultural subjectivity” cannot itself be the subject. “‘Cultural subjectivity’ is not ‘the subjectivity of culture,’ but ‘the attribute of the cultural subject.’” This “cultural subject” is the person. Therefore, “cultural subjectivity” is actually not the subjectivity of culture but the subjectivity of the person.

解答“什么是文化主体性”的另一个前提就是弄清楚“文化主体性”之“主体”的含义，廓清文化主体性与人的主体性的关系。哲学视域下的主体指的是具有思维能力和行动能力、从事认识活动和实践活动的人，而物是人认识和改造的对象，被称为客体。也就是说，主体只能是人而不是物，主体性反映的是人而非物的属性。文化是人们认识和改造世界的产物，本身没有思想和行为意识，既不是思想者也不是行动者，不可能成为主体。依照这样的理解，“文化主体性”之中的“文化”本身不能成为主体，“‘文化主体性’不是‘文化的主体性’,而是‘文化主体的属性’”。这个“文化主体”就是人，因此，“文化主体性”其实不是文化的主体性而是人的主体性。

The “person” spoken of in historical materialism is the “real individual,” not a presupposed, imagined, or deduced “abstract person,” “not some imagined, isolated, and fixed state of being,” whose “essence is not an abstraction inherent in a single individual. In its reality, it is the ensemble of all social relations.” [11]11 Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” VI. From the perspective of historical materialism, “real individuals” cannot exist apart from social relations; they all belong to social groups linked by specific social relations. The essential characteristics of “real individuals” determine that the subject has two forms of existence: the individual subject and the collective subject. Every “real individual” is unique, and the basic form of subject existence is the individual with autonomous consciousness, unique personality, and independent character. However, “real individuals” are not “atomistic individuals” isolated from other individuals; numerous individuals form various groups through the connection of social relations. In terms of scale, groups can be large or small, ranging from classes, strata, races, ethnicities, nations, and even all of humanity. The “subject” in cultural subjectivity usually refers to the collective subject rather than the individual subject, and this collective subject generally refers to the nation formed by numerous individuals through generations of shared life. Therefore, cultural subjectivity, in its complete sense, refers to the cultural subjectivity of a nation. It is not the cultural existence characteristic of a single person, but a common feature formed by a group in long-term cultural life; it is the “collective portrait” of national culture, not the “personal snapshot” of individual culture. The development and growth of a group require a strong core and the exertion of the “key role” of the “key minority.” [12]12 “Key minority” (关键少数) is a term in Chinese political discourse referring to leading cadres at senior levels, whose conduct and decisions are considered crucial for the overall direction of the Party and state. In large groups such as the state and the nation, the ruling party is often the core, and the leadership of the ruling party directly influences the cohesion and centripetal force of the nation and the state. The cultural subjectivity in the contemporary Chinese context is the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. The Chinese nation and the Chinese people are the true subjects of cultural subjectivity.

唯物史观言说的“人”是“现实的人”,而不是预设、想象、推理出来的“抽象的人”,“不是处在某种虚幻的离群索居和固定不变状态中的人”,其“本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。在唯物史观看来，“现实的人”不可能脱离社会关系而存在，都归属于以特定社会关系为纽带的社会群体。“现实的人”的本质特征决定了主体具有两种存在形式，即个体主体和群体主体。每一个“现实的人”都是独一无二的，主体存在的基本形态就是具有自主意识、独特个性、独立人格的个体。然而，“现实的人”不是孤立于其他个体的“原子式个人”,众多个体在社会关系的联结下形成各种各样的群体。就规模而言，群体有大有小，大到阶级、阶层、种族、民族、国家甚至全人类。文化主体性中的“主体”通常指的是群体主体而不是个体主体，而且这个群体主体一般指众多个体在世世代代的共同生活中形成的民族。因而，文化主体性完整来说指的是民族文化主体性，它不是单个人的文化存在特性，而是群体在长期的文化生活中形成的共同特征，是民族文化的“集体画像”而非个体文化的“个人写真”。群体的发展壮大需要强有力的核心，需要发挥“关键少数”的“关键作用”。在国家和民族这样的宏大群体中，执政党往往就是核心，执政党的领导力直接左右国家和民族的凝聚力、向心力。当代中国语境下的文化主体性是中国共产党领导下的中华民族和中国人民的文化主体性，中华民族和中国人民是文化主体性的真正主体。

Understanding that cultural subjectivity is essentially human subjectivity can be grasped not only from the perspective of the semantic analysis of the subject mentioned above, but also from the perspective of analyzing the relationship between humans and culture. On the one hand, culture is the unique mode of existence for humans. Humans are advanced animals with thought and the capacity for labor; from the very beginning, human thought is deeply influenced by cultural traditions and cultural genes, and human action is always preceded by certain cultural concepts. “The human essence of nature exists only for social humans”;[13]13 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 303. the essential attribute of humans lies in their social nature, not their natural nature. In the process of humans transforming from “natural humans” to “social humans,” culture plays a crucial role, not only broadly influencing the external environment of human socialization but also shaping the human soul and enriching the human spiritual world. Of course, humans do not passively accept and adapt to culture; they also actively shape and influence it. The process of humans transforming culture is actually the process of humans transforming themselves; the process of humans inheriting culture is actually the process of humans continuing their spiritual life; the process of humans disseminating culture is actually the process of humans engaging in spiritual exchange; the process of humans innovating culture is actually the process of humans transcending themselves. It is precisely through cultural re-creation, cultural interaction, and cultural innovation that the essential power of humans is fully manifested and their subject identity is practically confirmed. Since culture is the mode of existence of humans, “cultural subjectivity refers to the subjective presentation of humans as cultural beings.”[14]14 Source not provided in the original text; likely a quotation from a contemporary Chinese scholar. On the other hand, humans are the determining force of cultural existence. Culture is not a gift of nature but is created by humans through their labor; any cultural form or cultural product bears the imprint of humans and condenses their efforts. Humans are the decisive factor in the rise and fall of culture; without human creation, innovation, inheritance, dissemination, promotion, and advancement, there would be no generation, continuation, or development of culture. Humans are the creators and disseminators of culture, and they are also its enjoyers and beneficiaries. Therefore, “cultural construction focuses on humans and finds its fulfillment in humans.”[15]15 Source not provided in the original text; likely a paraphrase of a policy statement. Culture serves humans, as the saying goes: using culture to convey truth, to spread voices, to educate people, and to transform them. Once it can no longer play the role of forging souls, educating people, and civilizing and shaping them, culture loses its meaning and value for existence. In summary, culture is created by humans, thrives because of humans, is manifested through transforming humans, is enjoyed by humans, and helps humans become fully human. Since the determining force of cultural existence is humans, cultural subjectivity is essentially manifested as human subjectivity.

理解文化主体性实质上是人的主体性，除了立足上述主体语义分析的视角，还可以从人与文化的关系分析视角进行把握。一方面，文化是人独有的存在方式。人是有思想、能劳动的高级动物，人的思想从一开始就深受文化传统、文化基因的影响，人的行动总要以一定的文化观念为先导。“自然界的人的本质只有对社会的人来说才是存在的”,人的本质属性在于社会属性而非自然属性。在人由“自然人”向“社会人”转变的过程中，文化发挥着至关重要的作用，不仅广泛影响人的社会化的外部环境，而且塑造人的灵魂，充盈人的精神世界。当然，人不是一味地被动接受和适应文化，人也会积极主动地塑造和影响文化。人改造文化的过程其实是人改造自身的过程，人传承文化的过程其实是人延续精神生命的过程，人传播文化的过程其实是人精神交往的过程，人创新文化的过程其实是人超越自我的过程。正是通过文化再造、文化互动、文化创新，人的本质力量得到充分彰显，人的主体身份得到实践确证。既然文化是人的存在方式，那么“文化主体性就是指人作为文化存在的主体呈现”。另一方面，人是文化存在的决定力量。文化不是大自然先天馈赠的而是人后天创造的，任何文化形态、文化产品都烙上了人的印记，凝结了人的心血。人是文化兴亡盛衰的决定因素，没有人的创造创新、传承传播、推广推进，就没有文化的生成、延续和发展。文化的创造者、传播者、推动者是人，文化的享有者、受益者也是人，因此，“文化建设着眼于人、落脚于人”。文化是为人服务的，正所谓以文载道、以文传声、以文育人、以文化人。一旦不能发挥铸魂育人、教化塑造的作用，文化就会失去存在的意义和价值。概言之，文化由人而创，因人而兴，化人而彰，为人享用，助人成人。既然文化存在的决定力量是人，那么文化主体性在实质上就表现为人的主体性。

From the above analysis, it can be seen that the true subject of cultural subjectivity is “real humans,” and the totality formed by the millions upon millions of “real humans” who jointly promote historical development is the masses of the people. “The people, as the creators of history, are not only the creators of material wealth but also the creators of spiritual wealth.”[16]16 Xi Jinping, “Speech at a Symposium on Cultural Heritage,” 2023. This role of “creator” highlights the subjective position of the masses of the people in historical and cultural development; the masses of the people are the fundamental supporting subject of cultural subjectivity. First, the foundation of the historical roots of cultural subjectivity relies on the masses of the people. The hard labor of the masses of the people over the years not only lays a solid material foundation for cultural subjectivity but also a thick ideological foundation. The profound and deep cultural heritage of a country or nation is invariably accumulated by the masses of the people; the unique cultural genes are invariably inherited by them; the unbroken cultural bloodline is invariably continued by them; the diverse cultural forms are invariably pioneered by them; the precious cultural heritage is invariably created by them. These are the historical foundation, spiritual roots, and ideological source of cultural subjectivity. Second, coping with the practical challenges of cultural subjectivity relies on the masses of the people. Only by undergoing the baptism of wind and rain and enduring practical tests can any culture stand firm and achieve steady and long-term development amidst the changing times of cultural turbulence. In responding to major risks and challenges that threaten cultural subjectivity and eradicating deep-seated maladies that constrain it, the masses of the people have always been the most important and reliable force. In responding to the impact of foreign cultures on local culture, the masses of the people need to maintain sober cultural consciousness and high cultural confidence, achieving neither blind xenophobia nor worship of foreign things; in responding to the conflict between traditional culture and modern culture, the masses of the people need to discard the metaphysical thinking of esteeming the past over the present or the present over the past, use their wisdom to creatively transform and innovatively develop excellent traditional culture, and enrich the historical heritage of modern culture. Third, the creation of a new future for cultural subjectivity relies on the masses of the people. “The vitality of culture lies in innovation and creation.”[17]17 Source not provided in the original text; likely a paraphrase of a common formulation. The masses of the people are the direct creators of new culture; many new cultural forms, new cultural works, and new cultural carriers are first initiated by the masses of the people from all walks of life. The masses of the people are also the creators of new culture; when philosophy and social science workers propose new cultural theories, they are theoretical refinements and summaries of the practical cultural experience of the masses of the people. When literary and artistic workers create new literary and artistic works, they draw new inspiration and absorb new nourishment from the cultural life of the masses of the people. The abundant, colorful, and fluid cultural life of the masses of the people is always the source of cultural innovation and creation, and the ultimate goal of reforming the cultural system and mechanism is to continuously enhance the masses of the people’s sense of cultural gain and happiness.

综上分析可知，文化主体性的真正主体是“现实的人”,而千千万万共同推动历史发展的“现实的人”构成的整体就是人民群众。“人民作为历史的创造者，不仅是物质财富的创造者，也是精神财富的创造者。”这个“创造者”角色彰显了人民群众在历史和文化发展中的主体地位，人民群众是文化主体性的根本依托主体。其一，文化主体性历史根柢的奠基依托于人民群众。人民群众长年累月的辛勤劳动，不仅为文化主体性奠定了坚实的物质基础，也为文化主体性奠定了厚实的思想根基。一个国家和民族中厚重精深的文化底蕴无一不是人民群众积淀的，独一无二的文化基因无一不是人民群众传承的，绵延不绝的文化血脉无一不是人民群众赓续的，多姿多彩的文化形态无一不是人民群众开创的，弥足珍贵的文化遗产无一不是人民群众创造的，这些是文化主体性的历史之基、精神之根、思想之源。其二，文化主体性应对现实挑战依托于人民群众。任何文化唯有历经风雨洗礼，经受实践考验，方能在文化激荡的时代变局中立定脚跟、行稳致远。应对威胁文化主体性的重大风险挑战，破除制约文化主体性的顽瘴痼疾，人民群众始终是最重要、最可靠的力量。应对外来文化对本土文化的冲击，需要人民群众保持清醒的文化自觉和高度的文化自信，做到既不盲目排外，也不崇洋媚外；应对传统文化与现代文化的冲突，需要人民群众摒弃厚古薄今或者厚今薄古的形而上学思维，发挥聪明才智对优秀传统文化进行创造性转化和创新性发展，厚植现代文化的历史底蕴。其三，文化主体性未来新局的开创依托于人民群众。“文化的生命力在于创新创造。”人民群众是新文化的直接创造者，众多文化新形式、文化新作品、文化新载体都是各行各业的人民群众首创出来的。人民群众也是新文化的创造者，哲学社会科学工作者提出新的文化理论，都是对人民群众的文化实践经验的理论提炼和总结。文艺工作者创作新的文艺作品，都要从人民群众的文化生活中获得新灵感，汲取新营养。人民群众丰盈的、多彩的、流动的文化生活始终是文化创新创造的源头活水，而文化体制机制创新的落脚点就在于不断提升人民群众的文化获得感、幸福感。

In the century-long process of cultural construction led by the Communist Party of China with the Chinese people, “the masses of the people have always been the main force of cultural creation,”[18]18 Source not provided in the original text; likely a paraphrase of a policy statement. and the supporting role of the masses of the people in cultural subjectivity has been fully demonstrated. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, “since the Chinese learned Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese people have shifted from passivity to initiative in spirit.”[19]19 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy,” in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, vol. 2 (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965), p. 370. With spiritual initiative and cultural awakening, the masses of the people, under the leadership of the Party, broke the old and established the new, vigorously criticized and opposed imperialist culture and feudal culture, and united as one to “establish a new culture for the Chinese nation,”[20]20 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy,” p. 369. that is, to build a national, scientific, and popular new democratic culture, opening the prelude to the reconstruction of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the masses of the people, under the leadership of the Party, pushed forward the new by discarding the old, following the principle of combining “reform,” “destruction,” and “establishment,” transforming the old ideas, old morals, and old customs left over from the old society, breaking down feudal superstitions and blind admiration for Western culture, carrying out cultural construction under the conditions of the socialist system, and promoting the transformation of new democratic culture into socialist culture. Guided by the “two-for” direction[21]21 “Two-for” direction: the policy of literature and art serving the people and serving socialism. and the “double-hundred” policy,[22]22 “Double-hundred” policy: the policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend in cultural and scientific work. and under the principle of “making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China,”[23]23 A principle for handling traditional and foreign cultures, often attributed to Mao Zedong. the masses of the people actively transformed traditional Chinese culture, enriched revolutionary culture, and critically absorbed foreign cultures, providing rich cultural resources for the construction of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. During the new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, the masses of the people, under the leadership of the Party, consolidated the foundation and opened up new paths, “developing noble and rich and varied cultural life and building a high level of socialist cultural-ethical progress,”[24]24 Jiang Zemin, “Report to the 16th National Congress of the CPC,” 2002. extensively participating in the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, and continuously endowing the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation with distinct Chinese characteristics and new contemporary connotations. In the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the masses of the people, under the leadership of the Party, uphold fundamental principles and break new ground, deeply advancing the “Two Integrations,” jointly building a socialist cultural power, and the development of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics has reached new heights, strengthening the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation as never before. Looking back on the century-long process of the reconstruction of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, the Communist Party of China has always been a strong and powerful leading force, and the masses of the people have always been an immensely powerful main force. It is precisely by giving play to the main role of the masses of the people and pooling their strength and wisdom that the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation has been able to achieve a historical leap and renewal with the times.

在中国共产党领导中国人民进行文化建设的百年历程中，“人民群众始终是文化创造的主力军”,人民群众对文化主体性的依托作用得以充分证明。新民主主义革命时期，“自从中国人学会了马克思列宁主义以后，中国人在精神上就由被动转入主动”。有了精神上的主动和文化上的觉醒，人民群众在党的带领下破旧立新，大力批驳和反对帝国主义文化和封建主义文化，团结一心“建立中华民族的新文化”,即建设民族的、科学的、大众的新民主主义文化，拉开了重建中华民族文化主体性的序幕。社会主义革命和建设时期，人民群众在党的带领下推陈出新，遵循“改”“破”“立”相结合的原则，改造旧社会遗留下来的旧思想、旧道德、旧陋习，破除封建迷信以及对西方文化的盲目推崇，在社会主义制度条件下开展文化建设，推动新民主主义文化向社会主义文化转变。在“二为”方向和“双百”方针指引下，在“古为今用、洋为中用”原则规约下，人民群众积极改造中华传统文化，丰富革命文化，批判吸收外来文化，为中华民族文化主体性的建构提供了丰富文化资源。改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，人民群众在党的带领下固本开新，“发展高尚的丰富多彩的文化生活，建设高度的社会主义精神文明”,广泛参与中国特色社会主义文化建设，不断赋予中华民族文化主体性鲜明的中国特色和新的时代内涵。中国特色社会主义新时代，人民群众在党的带领下守正创新，深入推进“两个结合”,共同建设社会主义文化强国，中国特色社会主义文化发展达到新的高度，使得中华民族文化主体性得到前所未有的强化。回首中华民族文化主体性重新建构的百年历程，中国共产党始终是坚强有力的领导力量，人民群众始终是无比强大的主体力量。正是发挥了人民群众的主体作用，汇聚了人民群众的力量和智慧，中华民族文化主体性才能顺利实现历史跃升和时代更新。

The development of cultural practice knows no end; constructing and maintaining cultural subjectivity is “always on the road.” Although China’s cultural construction achievements have attracted worldwide attention and its cultural soft power is growing daily, at the new historical starting point, consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation still has a long way to go, and the leading power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiating power of Chinese culture need to be enhanced. Fully respecting the principal position of the people and fully unleashing the principal role of the people are the keys to solving these problems. To enhance the leading power of Chinese culture, it is especially necessary for the people to actively participate in advanced cultural construction and widely practice the core socialist values in the minutiae of daily life; to enhance the cohesive power of Chinese culture, it is especially necessary for the people to resolutely uphold the Party’s leadership, management, and discursive power over ideological work, bravely break free from the shackles of ideological concepts, dare to resist the infiltration of harmful trends, be adept at promoting the popularization of high-quality culture, and work together to build a shared spiritual home; to enhance the shaping power of Chinese culture, it is especially necessary for the people to innovate cultural forms in connection with the realities of life, enrich cultural carriers in light of the characteristics of the times, promote the integration of excellent culture into social production, into daily life, and into personal cultivation, so that excellent culture can better shape the nation’s spiritual character, society’s spiritual outlook, and the individual’s spiritual world; to enhance the radiating power of Chinese culture, it is especially necessary for the people to actively participate in cultural exchange activities, tell China’s stories to overseas people from different perspectives in equal and friendly cultural interactions and relaxed and pleasant civilizational dialogues, enhance the affinity and appeal of cultural communication through personal experiences and insights, and expand the radiating scope and international influence of Chinese national culture.

文化实践发展永无止境，构建和维护文化主体性“永远在路上”。虽然我国的文化建设成就举世瞩目，文化软实力日益增强，但是在新的历史起点上巩固中华民族文化主体性依然任重道远，中华文化的引领力、凝聚力、塑造力、辐射力有待提升。充分尊重人民群众的主体地位，充分发挥人民群众的主体作用，是解决这些问题的关键所在。提升中华文化的引领力，特别需要人民群众积极投身先进文化建设，于生活细微处广泛践行社会主义核心价值观；提升中华文化的凝聚力，特别需要人民群众坚决维护党对意识形态工作的领导权、管理权、话语权，勇于冲破思想观念的束缚，敢于抵制不良思潮的渗透，善于推动优质文化的普及，齐心协力建好共有的精神家园；提升中华文化的塑造力，特别需要人民群众联系生活实际创新文化形式，结合时代特点丰富文化载体，推动优秀文化融入社会生产、融入日常生活、融入个人修养，让优秀文化更好地塑造民族的精神品格、社会的精神风貌和个体的精神世界；提升中华文化的辐射力，特别需要人民群众积极参与人文交流活动，在平等友好的文化交往和轻松愉悦的文明对话中，从不同视角面向海外民众讲好中国故事，结合亲身经历和感悟增强文化传播的亲和力和吸引力，扩大中华民族文化的辐射范围和国际影响。

III. From the Perspective of Ideology: The Core of Cultural Subjectivity Lies in Cultural Dominance

三、意识形态视角：文化主体性的内核在于文化主导性

Answering “what is cultural subjectivity” also requires clarifying the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance. Culture is not a pure natural object; there is no culture in the world that transcends class, ethnicity, or nation; ideology is a distinct attribute of culture. Cultural subjectivity is an extremely important ideological issue, directly related to the ideological security of the state. In class society, in order to maintain their own rule and regime stability, the ruling class, besides controlling the economic lifeline of the state and using violent means to “hard control” other classes, also uses ideology as an ideological tool to implement “soft rule” over members of society. Marx and Engels pointed out: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” For the ruling class to carry out effective ideological rule, consolidating cultural subjectivity is of paramount importance, and the common practice is to do everything possible to establish its own culture as the mainstream culture of society, making it dominate the entire conceptual superstructure of society. Ideological rule focuses on the relationship between “the one” and “the many,” that is, the relationship between the “monistic dominance” of the ruling ideas and the “pluralistic coexistence” of non-ruling ideas. Cultural subjectivity does not emphasize exclusively revering a certain culture, replacing or even eliminating other cultures with a single culture, but rather establishing the dominant position of a certain culture, respecting and tolerating other cultures, and forming a cultural landscape of “monistic dominance, pluralistic coexistence.” It can be seen from this that cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance are both interconnected and distinct. In terms of connotation, the connotation of cultural subjectivity is richer, and cultural dominance is contained within cultural subjectivity. In terms of purpose, both are aimed at maintaining ideological security. In terms of emphasis, cultural subjectivity focuses on emphasizing that a certain cultural life-form can adhere to autonomy, demonstrate self-confidence, and move toward self-strengthening in the process of interaction, integration, and confrontation with other cultural life-forms; cultural dominance focuses on emphasizing that within the same cultural life-form, a certain cultural factor can become the mainstream and mainstay, commanding and guiding the development of other cultural factors. It is far from sufficient to merely observe the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance from a macro and superficial level; one must also delve into the interior of cultural subjectivity and see through its deep connection with cultural dominance.

解答“什么是文化主体性”还要弄清楚文化主体性与文化主导性的关系。文化不是纯粹的自然物，世界上不存在超阶级、超民族、超国家的文化，意识形态性是文化的鲜明属性。文化主体性是一个极其重要的意识形态问题，直接关系国家的意识形态安全。在阶级社会中，统治阶级为了维护自身统治和政权稳定，除了控制国家经济命脉，运用暴力手段“硬控”其他阶级之外，还会利用意识形态这个思想工具对社会成员实施“软统治”。马克思恩格斯指出：“统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想。这就是说，一个阶级是社会上占统治地位的物质力量，同时也是社会上占统治地位的精神力量。”统治阶级要进行有效的意识形态统治，巩固文化主体性是重中之重，普遍做法便是千方百计将本阶级的文化确立为社会主流文化，使其主导整个社会的观念上层建筑。意识形态统治聚焦“一”与“多”的关系问题，即占统治地位思想的“一元主导”与不占统治地位思想的“多元并存”的关系问题。文化主体性强调的不是独尊某种文化，用单一文化取代甚至消灭其他文化，而是确立某种文化的主导地位，尊重和包容其他文化，形成“一元主导，多元并存”的文化图景。由此可见，文化主体性与文化主导性既相互联系又相互区别。就内涵而言，文化主体性的内涵更为丰富，文化主导性内含于文化主体性。就目的而言，两者都是为了维护意识形态安全。就重心而言，文化主体性侧重强调某个文化生命体在与其他文化生命体交往交融交锋过程中能够坚持自主、展现自信、走向自强；文化主导性侧重强调在同一个文化生命体中某种文化因素能够成为主流和主干，统领、引导其他文化因素的发展。仅仅从宏观上、外表层粗观文化主体性与文化主导性的关系是远远不够的，还必须深入文化主体性的内部，透视其与文化主导性的深层关联。

“So-called cultural subjectivity refers to the ability of a culture, when encountering foreign cultures, to be both self-aware and self-respecting, and on this basis to generate positive adaptability and creativity.” Cultural subjectivity reflects that the cultural life-form can, in the face of foreign cultural impacts, autonomously choose, position, and develop according to its own traditions and will; can, within a pluralistic cultural pattern, establish mainstream culture, consolidate civilizational consensus, and dominate cultural trends; and can, in the torrent of the times, self-adjust, self-renew, and self-transcend. Cultural self-awareness, cultural autonomy, cultural dominance, cultural innovativeness, and cultural transcendence together build the internal structure of cultural subjectivity, among which cultural dominance occupies the core position, runs through the entire process of the formation and development of cultural subjectivity, and plays a decisive role in the other constituent elements.

“所谓文化主体性，是指一种文化在与外来文化相遇时，既能自觉自省，又能自尊自重，且在此基础上产生积极的适应性与创造性。”文化主体性反映的是该文化生命体在外来文化冲击中能够按照自己的传统和意愿自主选择、自主定位、自主发展，在多元文化格局中能够确立主流文化，凝聚文明共识，主导文化走势，在时代发展洪流中能够自我调适、自我更新、自我超越。文化自觉性、文化自主性、文化主导性、文化创新性、文化超越性共同搭建起文化主体性的内在结构，其中文化主导性居于核心地位，贯穿于文化主体性形成发展的全过程，对其他构成要素起着决定作用。

First, cultural dominance determines cultural self-awareness.

第一，文化主导性决定文化自觉性。

The self-conscious awareness formed by the cultural subject through self-cognition and self-reflection on questions such as where its own culture comes from, why it is important, on what basis it stands, what its strengths and weaknesses are, how it develops, and where it is going, is cultural self-awareness. In short, cultural self-awareness mainly refers to “people living in a certain culture having ‘self-knowledge’ of their culture,” which is the cognitive prerequisite for the formation of cultural subjectivity. High-level cultural self-awareness is inseparable from cultural comparison, which involves comparing diachronic culture with contemporary culture, as well as comparing homogeneous culture with heterogeneous culture. The standpoint of cultural comparison should be consistent with the standpoint of the current mainstream culture; the criteria for judging cultural comparison should conform to the criteria advocated by the mainstream culture; the focus of cultural comparison should be on discovering the core variables affecting the dominant position of the mainstream culture; and the purpose of cultural comparison is to learn from the past to illuminate the present, draw on strengths to compensate for weaknesses, and enhance the dominance of the mainstream culture.

文化主体对自身文化从何而来、为何重要、因何而立、有何优劣、如何发展、向何而去等问题的自我认知和自我反思而形成的自觉意识，就是文化自觉性。简言之，文化自觉性主要指的是“生活在一定文化中的人对其文化有‘自知之明’”,这是文化主体性形成的认识前提。高度的文化自觉离不开文化对比，既要将历时态的文化与现实态的文化进行对比，也要将同质性的文化与异质性的文化进行对比。文化对比的立场理应与当前社会主流文化的立场保持一致，文化对比的评判标准应当契合主流文化倡导的评判标准，文化对比的重心应该是发现影响主流文化主导地位的核心变量，文化对比的目的在于以古鉴今、取长补短，增强主流文化的主导力。

Second, cultural dominance determines cultural autonomy.

第二，文化主导性决定文化自主性。

Cultural autonomy refers to the subject “achieving cultural independence and the spiritual independence of the cultural subject through self-selection and self-determination.” For a national cultural life-form to control its own cultural destiny and not be eroded or even enslaved by foreign cultures, the most important thing is to establish and consolidate the dominant position of the mainstream culture. “Among myriad towering mountains, there must be a highest peak”; only by strengthening the dominance of the mainstream culture can the national cultural life-form stand firm amidst the fierce collision of pluralistic cultures, selectively absorb foreign cultures according to its own standards, will, and needs, and explore a cultural development path suitable for itself based on its own cultural traditions and concrete realities.

文化自主性指的是主体“通过自我选择、自我决断形成文化独立自主和文化主体的精神独立”。民族文化生命体要自我掌控文化命运，不被外来文化侵蚀甚至奴役，最为重要的就是确立和巩固主流文化的主导地位。“万山磅礴，必有主峰”,只有强化主流文化的主导性，民族文化生命体才能在多元文化的激烈碰撞中站稳脚跟，才能依照自己的标准、意愿、需要有选择地吸收外来文化，根据自己的文化传统、具体实际探索适合自己的文化发展之路。

Third, cultural dominance determines cultural innovativeness.

第三，文化主导性决定文化创新性。

Times change, practice changes; only by keeping pace with the times and pioneering innovation can culture achieve epochal transformation and life renewal, thereby providing lasting developmental impetus for cultural subjectivity. Cultural innovativeness reflects the state and ability of a cultural life-form to adapt to the times by injecting new content, creating new forms, expanding new carriers, demonstrating new actions, and seeking new development. The new and the old are dialectically unified; cultural innovation does not mean completely bidding farewell to the past and overturning everything, but seeking breakthroughs on the premise of upholding fundamental principles. For upholding fundamental principles in culture, the most important thing to uphold is the dominance of the mainstream culture. Only by guarding this pass well can cultural innovation not deviate from the correct direction and can it better lead the times. The most fundamental and critical task of cultural innovation is to inject new vitality into the mainstream culture, provide it with new nutrients, and enable its dominance to achieve new enhancement.

时代在变，实践在变，文化唯有与时俱进，开拓创新，方能实现时代转型和生命更新，进而为文化主体性提供持久的发展动力。文化创新性反映的是文化生命体顺应时代注入新内容、开创新形态、拓展新载体、展现新作为、谋求新发展的状态和能力。新与旧是辩证统一的，文化创新不是彻底告别过去，一切推倒重来，而是在守正的前提下寻求突破。对文化守正而言，最需要守的是主流文化的主导性。只有守好了这一关，文化创新才不会偏移正确的方向，才能更好地引领时代。文化创新最为基础、最为关键的任务就是为主流文化注入新活力，提供新养分，使其主导力获得新提升。

Fourth, cultural dominance determines cultural transcendence.

第四，文化主导性决定文化超越性。

No culture in the world is perfect, and no culture develops without setbacks. The immanent transcendence of a cultural life-form is manifested in the pursuit of a high degree of spiritual freedom through self-criticism, self-renovation, and self-perfection, moving toward a high unity of truth, goodness, and beauty; this is the highest requirement of its subjectivity. The transcendence of culture is embodied not only in overcoming external challenges and developmental dilemmas but also in transcending culture itself. “The process of realizing cultural transcendence is directly manifested in the transformation of cultural models.” [27]27 Guo Zhan, “Cultural Consciousness and Cultural Subjectivity,” *Journal of Renmin University of China*, 2024, no. 1. When the mainstream culture adapts to the state of the economic base, this transformation is achieved by consciously discarding old elements within the cultural system that conflict with the mainstream culture and actively absorbing new elements that complement the mainstream culture. When the mainstream culture does not adapt to the state of the economic base, this transformation is accomplished through the “self-revolution” of the cultural life-form, establishing a new culture that conforms to the direction of historical progress and possesses strong vitality as the mainstream culture, and under its guidance, reshaping cultural values and reconstructing the cultural landscape. In summary, cultural dominance is the core of cultural subjectivity; the construction and maintenance of cultural subjectivity cannot be separated from the establishment and consolidation of cultural dominance.

世界上没有一种文化是十全十美的，没有一种文化的发展是一帆风顺的。一个文化生命体的内在超越性表现为在自我批判、自我革新、自我完善中追求精神上的高度自由，走向真善美的高度统一，这是其主体性的最高要求。文化的超越性既体现在对外在挑战、发展困局的超越，也体现在对文化自身的超越。“文化超越性的实现过程直接体现在文化模式的转换上”。在主流文化适应经济基础状况时，这种转换是通过自觉摒弃文化体系中与主流文化相冲突的旧要素，主动汲取与主流文化相补益的新要素来实现的。在主流文化不适应经济基础状况时，这种转换是通过文化生命体的“自我革命”,将顺应历史前进方向、具有强大生命力的新文化确立为主流文化，并在其主导下重塑文化价值、重建文化格局来完成的。综上所述，文化主导性是文化主体性的内核，文化主体性的构建与维系离不开文化主导性的确立与夯实。

In contemporary China, the cultural form that occupies a dominant position and plays a leading role is socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. The “soul vein” of this cultural form is Marxism, the “root vein” is fine traditional Chinese culture, the “red gene” is revolutionary culture, and the “main stem” is advanced socialist culture. We must consolidate the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation by strengthening cultural dominance. First, we must uphold the Party’s cultural leadership, inherit and carry forward fine traditional Chinese culture, promote revolutionary culture, and develop advanced socialist culture under the centralized and unified leadership of the Party, unswervingly follow the path of developing socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, create new glories for socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, and build a socialist ideology with strong cohesion and leading power. Second, we must deeply advance the “Second Integration,” [28]28 The “Second Integration” refers to the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, as distinct from the first integration of Marxism with China’s concrete realities. “open the interface between the soul vein and the root vein,” integrate the essence of Marxism with the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture, “make Marxism Chinese and fine traditional Chinese culture modern,” create a new cultural life-form through the deep integration of “root” and “soul,” and defend Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological domain through adherence and development. Third, we must promote the core socialist values to enter the mind, heart, and conduct, use the core socialist values to construct mainstream values, strengthen mainstream public opinion, and lead mainstream culture, organically integrate the core socialist values into all links of social construction, all fields of social development, and all aspects of daily life, so that social members widely identify with and practice the core socialist values through subtle influence.

在当代中国，占主导地位、起主导作用的文化形态是中国特色社会主义文化。这种文化形态的“魂脉”是马克思主义、“根脉”是中华优秀传统文化、“红色基因”是革命文化、“主干”是社会主义先进文化。我们要通过夯实文化主导性来巩固中华民族文化主体性。一是要坚持党的文化领导权，在党的集中统一领导下传承好中华优秀传统文化、弘扬好革命文化、发展好社会主义先进文化，坚定不移走中国特色社会主义文化发展道路，创造中国特色社会主义文化新辉煌，建设具有强大凝聚力和引领力的社会主义意识形态。二是要深入推进“第二个结合”,“打通魂脉与根脉的接口”,融通马克思主义的精髓和中华优秀传统文化的精华，“让马克思主义成为中国的，中华优秀传统文化成为现代的”,在“根”与“魂”的深度结合中造就新的文化生命体，在坚持和发展中捍卫马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位。三是要推动社会主义核心价值观入脑入心入行，用社会主义核心价值观构筑主流价值、壮大主流舆论、引领主流文化，将社会主义核心价值观有机融入社会建设的各个环节、社会发展的各个领域、日常生活的各个方面，让社会成员在潜移默化中广泛认同和践行社会主义核心价值观。

IV. The Perspective of World History: The Interdependence of Cultural Subjectivity and Cultural Intersubjectivity

四、世界历史视角：文化主体性与文化主体间性相依存

Answering “what is cultural subjectivity” also requires examining it within the context of world history, revealing the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity. As an important component of historical materialism, the theory of world history scientifically reveals the objective laws and inevitable trends of the development of human society. From the perspective of historical materialism, due to the forceful global promotion of the capitalist mode of production, the productive forces of human society have been raised as a whole, the world market has gradually expanded, international exchanges among people have become increasingly close, and different countries, nations, and regions of the world have increasingly become an organic whole that is closely interconnected. With the acceleration of the world historical process, “the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency have been replaced by intercourse in every direction, by universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. 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.” [29]29 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2018), p. 31. From the perspective of world history, no nation can construct cultural subjectivity in a cultural vacuum, and no national culture can become strong in self-isolation. “Cultural subjectivity contains both self-reflection and self-identification at the self-level and comparison and dialogue between the self and the other,” [30]30 Shen Xiangping, “Cultural Subjectivity and Cultural Intersubjectivity: A Philosophical Reflection on the Construction of Contemporary Chinese Cultural Subjectivity,” *Social Science Front*, 2024, no. 1. therefore, understanding and handling the relationship between the “cultural self” and the “cultural other,” and between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity, becomes another important dimension for understanding cultural subjectivity.

解答“什么是文化主体性”还需要将其放置于世界历史之中加以考察，揭示文化主体性与文化主体间性的关系。作为唯物史观的重要组成部分，世界历史理论科学揭示了人类社会发展的客观规律和必然趋势。在唯物史观看来，由于资本主义生产方式在全球的强势推广，使得人类社会生产力整体提升，世界市场逐渐扩大，人们的国际交往愈发密切，世界上不同国家、不同民族、不同地区日益成为息息相通的有机整体。伴随世界历史进程的加快，“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。物质的生产是如此，精神的生产也是如此。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”。从世界历史视角来看，任何民族都不可能在文化真空中构建文化主体性，任何民族文化都不可能在自我封闭中走向强大。“文化主体性既内蕴自我层面的反思和认同，也包含自我与他者的比较和对话”,因此，认识和处理“文化自我”与“文化他者”、文化主体性与文化主体间性的关系，成为理解文化主体性的又一个重要维度。

Subjectivity is based on the relationship between subject and object, reflecting the dominance and initiative of the subject in understanding and transforming the object. If only subjectivity is emphasized, it is easy to form a “subject-object dichotomy” mindset, leading to tension in the subject-object relationship. Intersubjectivity, on the other hand, is based on the relationship between subjects, reflecting the characteristics of interdependence and mutual influence between different subjects, which is conducive to overcoming the drawbacks of the “subject-object dichotomy” mode of thinking and better unifying thought and action. If cultural subjectivity emphasizes the consciousness, autonomy, and self-activity of the existence and development of the “cultural self,” then cultural intersubjectivity refers to the state and nature of interdependence, intermingling, and co-prosperity between the “cultural self” and the “cultural other,” reflecting the contradictory unity relationship manifested by two or more cultural subjects in their exchanges and interactions. Cultural intersubjectivity includes both the intersubjectivity between different cultures within the same country and the same nation, and the intersubjectivity between cultures of different countries and nations; this article analyzes cultural intersubjectivity from the latter perspective.

主体性是基于主体与客体的关系而言的，反映的是主体认识、改造客体的主导性和能动性。如果只强调主体性，容易形成“主客二分”的思维定式，导致主体与客体的关系紧张。主体间性则是基于主体与主体的关系而言的，反映的是不同主体之间相互依存、交互影响的特性，有利于克服“主客二分”思维模式的弊端，更好地统一思想、统一行动。如果说文化主体性强调的是“文化自我”存在和发展的自觉性、自主性、自为性，那么文化主体间性指的是“文化自我”与“文化他者”之间互依互存、交汇交融、共生共荣的状态和性质，反映的是两个或者多个文化主体在交流交往中表现出来的对立统一关系。文化主体间性既包括同一国家、同一民族的不同文化之间的主体间性，也包括不同国家、不同民族文化的主体间性，本文从后者来分析文化主体间性。

Cultural subjectivity emphasizes the “self-belongingness” and “self-directedness” of a national culture, while cultural intersubjectivity emphasizes the “coexistence” and “mutual benefit” between different national cultures. The two appear mutually incompatible, but in fact complement each other. The relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity is, in the final analysis, the relationship between “cultural independence” and “cultural coexistence,” “cultural self-strengthening” and “cultural mutual learning,” and “culture for self” and “culture for others.” “Cultural coexistence” is the basic prerequisite for “cultural independence,” “cultural mutual learning” is the necessary condition for “cultural self-strengthening,” and “culture for others” is the important guarantee for “culture for self.” If “cultural coexistence” degenerates into “cultural exclusivity,” “cultural self-strengthening” degenerates into “cultural arrogance,” and “culture for self” degenerates into “culture for self alone,” then cultural subjectivity will go astray. Conversely, if one party in cultural subjectivity submits to or depends on another, cultural intersubjectivity will also cease to exist. This means that cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity are interdependent and mutually constraining; in particular, cultural subjectivity cannot be blindly pursued in isolation from cultural intersubjectivity. However, in human history and real life, there are many practices that sever cultural subjectivity from cultural intersubjectivity. From ancient China to modern China, the subjectivity of Chinese culture underwent a great reversal from a “peak” to a “valley,” and its cultural posture underwent a great transformation from “looking down” to “looking up.” An important reason for this is that the rulers of the late Qing Dynasty, in the face of “changes unseen in a millennium,”[31]31 A classical allusion to the late Qing dynasty official Li Hongzhang’s memorial describing the unprecedented changes China faced in the 19th century, later adapted by Xi Jinping as “changes unseen in a did not conform to the trend of world historical development, pursued a policy of seclusion, and thus fell behind culturally, causing cultural subjectivity to gradually become lost amid foreign invasion. In this regard, Marx pointed out, “An empire that occupies almost one-third of the habitable globe, content to exist in a state of stagnation, artificially isolated from the world, and therefore deluding itself with the illusion of its own perfection—such an empire is destined to be crushed in a desperate struggle.”[32] This history tells us that constructing and maintaining cultural subjectivity absolutely cannot mean self-seclusion and self-righteousness; we must adhere to cultural openness, expand cultural exchange, and focus on cultural mutual learning. In Western society, the bourgeoisie, in order to maximize capital accumulation, seeks by every means to “create a world after its own image.”[33] Relying on their advantages in economy, science and technology, and military affairs, they unscrupulously carry out cultural infiltration, cultural bullying, and cultural colonization worldwide, “making the barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, making the peasant peoples dependent on the bourgeois peoples, and making the East dependent on the West.”[34] For a long time, capitalist countries have loudly trumpeted the “theory of civilizational superiority,” the “clash of civilizations,” the “end of history,” and “universal values,” vigorously promoting cultural hegemonism and cultural colonialism, seriously threatening the cultural subjectivity of other nations, and greatly undermining the normal order of human cultural exchange. Although these practices of Western countries have elevated their own national cultural subjectivity, they have belittled or even dissolved the cultural subjectivity of other nations, deviating from the inherent requirements of cultural intersubjectivity. This is clearly not the correct way to handle the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity, and we must be highly vigilant and deeply critical of it.

文化主体性强调民族文化的“属己性”和“为我性”,文化主体间性强调不同民族文化之间的“共存性”和“互利性”,两者看似互不相容，其实是相辅相成的。文化主体性与文化主体间性的关系，归根到底就是“文化自立”与“文化共存”、“文化自强”与“文化互鉴”、“文化为我”与“文化利他”的关系。“文化共存”是“文化自立”的基本前提，“文化互鉴”是“文化自强”的必要条件，“文化利他”是“文化为我”的重要保障。倘若“文化共存”异变为“文化独存”、“文化自强”异变为“文化自大”、“文化为我”异变为“文化唯我”,文化主体性就会走向歧途。反过来，文化主体中一方屈从或依附另一方，文化主体间性也将不复存在。这就意味着，文化主体性与文化主体间性相互依存、相互制约，尤其不能脱离文化主体间性而盲目追求文化主体性。然而，在人类历史和现实生活中，存在着不少割裂文化主体性与文化主体间性的做法。从古代中国到近代中国，中华文化主体性经历了从“高峰”跌入“谷底”的大转折，文化姿态发生了从“俯视”到“仰视”的大转变，究其原因，很重要的一点是晚清统治者在“数千年未有之大变局”中没有顺应世界历史发展的潮流，奉行闭关锁国政策，造成文化上的落后，文化主体性在外敌入侵中逐渐迷失。对此，马克思指出，“一个人口几乎占人类三分之一的大帝国，不顾时势，安于现状，人为地隔绝于世并因此竭力以天朝尽善尽美的幻想自欺。这样一个帝国注定最后要在一场殊死的决斗中被打垮”。这段历史告诉我们，构建和维护文化主体性绝对不能自我封闭、自以为是，必须坚持文化开放，扩大文化交流，注重文化资鉴。在西方社会，资产阶级为了实现最大化的资本增殖，想方设法“按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界”。他们凭借经济、科技、军事等方面的优势，不择手段在世界范围内进行文化渗透、文化欺凌、文化殖民，“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”。长期以来，资本主义国家大肆渲染“文明优越论”“文明冲突论”“历史终结论”“普世价值论”,极力推行文化霸权主义和文化殖民主义，严重威胁了其他民族的文化主体性，极大破坏了人类文化交往的正常秩序。西方国家的这些做法，虽然高扬了本民族的文化主体性，但是贬低甚至消解了其他民族的文化主体性，背离了文化主体间性的内在要求。这显然不是处理文化主体性与文化主体间性关系的正确方式，对此我们要高度警惕和深刻批判。

Today, the trend of “history becoming world history”[35] is more pronounced than ever; the historical tide of economic globalization is unstoppable, and the characteristics of cultural diversity are increasingly distinct. Therefore, consolidating cultural subjectivity must neither ignore cultural intersubjectivity and take the old path of cultural closure, nor trample on cultural intersubjectivity and take the evil path of cultural bullying. Instead, it must accommodate cultural intersubjectivity and take a new path of cultural openness, cultural mutual learning, and cultural common prosperity. First, we must adhere to equal treatment and respect for diversity, promoting the unity of “cultural independence” and “cultural coexistence.” Every national culture in the world is the crystallization of human wisdom, possessing incomparable unique charm and irreplaceable important value, and should enjoy equal “right to existence” and “right to development.” The “independence” pursued by cultural subjectivity is by no means a matter of “me” without “you,” or “my” survival and “your” demise, nor is it about being superior and overbearing; rather, it is about borrowing the “strength” of “you” to assist the “independence” of “me,” thereby seeking independence in cultural sovereignty and equality in cultural status. In this regard, we must “respect the diversity of civilizations, promote dialogue, peaceful coexistence, and harmonious symbiosis among different civilizations, and not be self-centered or belittle other civilizations and peoples,”[36] discard “arrogance and prejudice” in cultural cognition, view various national cultures with a “level gaze” and an “appreciative” eye, and while “appreciating one’s own beauty,” also “appreciate the beauty of others,” ultimately achieving “shared beauty.”[37] Second, we must adhere to openness, inclusiveness, harmony, and coexistence, promoting the unity of “cultural self-strengthening” and “cultural mutual learning.” In the forest of world national cultures, a flower that admires itself in solitude, no matter how stunning, cannot escape the fate of withering alone and being ignored; a cluster of flowers that complement each other, no matter how ordinary, can make “the garden full of spring scenery”[38] and evoke admiration. No national culture in the world can be perfect, nor can it be entirely worthless; each has its unique strengths and advantages. The “self-strengthening” pursued by cultural subjectivity means not only making one’s own advantages stronger but also learning from the strengths of other cultures to turn one’s own weaknesses into strengths. Therefore, various national cultures must “strengthen mutual exchange, mutual learning, and mutual reference, rather than being isolated from, rejecting, or replacing each other,”[39] perfecting themselves through inclusiveness and promoting self-reliance and self-strengthening through mutual learning. Third, we must adhere to a global vision and win-win cooperation, promoting the unity of “culture for self” and “culture for others.” Although the cultural foundations of various nations in the world differ greatly and their cultural values each have their own merits, there are common values and common interests among nations on the path of cultural development. The “for self” pursued by cultural subjectivity is not “for self alone”; it must balance the most fundamental cultural interests of one’s own nation with those of other nations, striving to maximize common interests. Therefore, consolidating cultural subjectivity must both be rooted in the local and be concerned with the world, “making one’s own civilization full of vitality while also creating conditions for the development of other civilizations,”[40] jointly writing a new chapter in the development of human civilization through mutual benefit and win-win outcomes.

当今“历史向世界历史的转变”趋向更为显著，经济全球化的历史潮流不可阻挡，文化多样化的特征愈益鲜明。因此，巩固文化主体性既不能忽视文化主体间性而走文化封闭的老路，也不能践踏文化主体间性而走文化霸凌的邪路，而要兼容文化主体间性，走文化开放、文化互鉴、文化共荣的新路。一是要坚持平等相待、尊重多样，促进“文化自立”与“文化共存”相统一。世界上每一种民族文化都是人类智慧的结晶，具有无与伦比的独特魅力和无可取代的重要价值，理应享有同等的“生存权”和“发展权”。文化主体性追求的“自立”绝对不是有“我”无“你”、“我”存“你”亡，也不是高人一等、不可一世，而是借“你”之“力”、助“我”之“立”,进而谋求文化主权上的独立和文化地位上的平等。对此，要“尊重文明多样性，推动不同文明交流对话、和平共处、和谐共生，不能唯我独尊、贬低其他文明和民族”,摒弃文化认知上的“傲慢与偏见”,以“平视”的姿态和“赏识”的眼光看待各种民族文化，在“各美其美”的同时要“美人之美”,最终实现“美美与共”。二是要坚持开放包容、和合共生，促进“文化自强”与“文化互鉴”相统一。在世界民族文化丛林中，一朵孤芳自赏的花无论多么惊艳都摆脱不了自我凋零、无人问津的厄运，一簇相互映衬的花无论多么普通都会“春色满园”、让人惊叹。世界上每一种民族文化都不可能完美无缺，也不可能一无是处，都具有独特的优势和长处。文化主体性追求的“自强”意指不仅要让自己的优势变得更“强”,还要学习借鉴其他文化的长处，让自己的弱项也变“强”。因此，各种民族文化要“加强相互交流、相互学习、相互借鉴，而不应该相互隔膜、相互排斥、相互取代”,在兼容并蓄中完善自我，以互学互鉴促进自立自强。三是要坚持胸怀天下、合作共赢，促进“文化为我”与“文化利他”相统一。虽然世界上各个民族的文化底蕴千差万别、文化价值各有千秋，但是各民族在文化发展的道路上存在着共同价值和共同利益。文化主体性追求的“为我”不是“唯我”,是要平衡本民族最根本的文化利益和其他民族最根本的文化利益，力争最大限度实现共同利益。因此，巩固文化主体性既要立足本土，又要情系天下，“既要让本国文明充满勃勃生机，又要为他国文明发展创造条件”,在互利共赢中共同谱写人类文明发展的新篇章。

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Chinese culture is both historical and contemporary, both national and global.”[41] Consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation requires correctly handling the relationship between Chinese culture and the cultures of other countries and nations. First, we must adhere to “replacing civilizational estrangement with civilizational exchange, civilizational clash with civilizational mutual learning, and civilizational superiority with civilizational coexistence,”[42] excavating the ideological essence from the treasure trove of Chinese culture, such as “great harmony under heaven,”[43] “peace and harmony among all nations,”[44] “valuing harmony above all,”[45] and “seeking common ground while reserving differences,”[46] to contribute the wisdom of Chinese civilization to breaking down civilizational barriers, eliminating civilizational prejudice, resolving civilizational deficits, and avoiding civilizational confrontation. Second, we must “more actively learn from and draw on all the outstanding achievements of human civilization,”[47] using the “stone” of Western civilization to polish the “jade” of Chinese civilization,[48] promoting the modern transformation of Chinese civilization through drawing on diverse strengths and integrating Chinese and Western elements. Third, we must “enhance the communication power and influence of Chinese civilization,”[49] refining the ideological essence, spiritual symbols, basic concepts, fundamental categories, and core propositions of Chinese culture, constructing a discourse system and narrative system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner, “strengthening the discourse topic setting for Chinese cultural concepts, cultural connotations, and China’s national conditions,”[50] telling the story of Chinese culture to the outside world through multiple subjects, multiple media, and multiple means, presenting a true, credible, comprehensive, three-dimensional, amiable, and respectable image of Chinese culture, and enhancing the international communication effectiveness and radiating capacity of Chinese culture. Finally, we must “uphold and promote the common values of all humanity,”[51] fully implement the Global Civilization Initiative,[52] gather ideological consensus for jointly addressing humanity’s peace deficit, development deficit, security deficit, and governance deficit, provide spiritual support for jointly opposing terrorism, hegemonism, unilateralism, and protectionism, and contribute civilizational strength for jointly building a community with a shared future for mankind and jointly constructing a beautiful world.

习近平总书记指出：“中华文化既是历史的、也是当代的，既是民族的、也是世界的。”巩固中华民族文化主体性，需要正确处理中华文化与其他国家和民族文化的关系。首先，要坚持“以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明互鉴超越文明冲突、文明共存超越文明优越”,挖掘中华文化宝库中“天下大同”“协和万邦”“以和为贵”“求同存异”等思想精华，为打破文明壁垒、消除文明偏见、破解文明赤字、规避文明对抗贡献中华文明智慧。其次，要“更加积极主动地学习借鉴人类创造的一切优秀文明成果”,以西方文明之“石”攻中华文明之“玉”,通过博采众长、汇通中西来推动中华文明的现代转型。再次，要“增强中华文明传播力影响力”,提炼中华文化的思想精髓、精神标识、基础概念、基本范畴、核心命题，构建具有中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的话语体系和叙事体系，“加强对中国文化理念、文化内涵和中国国情的话语议题设置”,通过多个主体、多种媒介、多种手段对外讲好中华文化故事，展示真实可信、全面立体、可亲可敬的中华文化形象，提升中华文化的国际传播效能和辐射能力。最后，要“坚守和弘扬全人类共同价值”,全面落实全球文明倡议，为共同解决人类和平赤字、发展赤字、安全赤字、治理赤字凝聚思想共识，为共同反对恐怖主义、霸权主义、单边主义、保护主义提供精神支撑，为携手构建人类命运共同体，共同建设美好世界贡献文明力量。

Conclusion

结 语

To sum up, the “culture” of cultural subjectivity is the ideological superstructure that is determined by the economic base and in turn reacts upon it. The true “subject” of cultural subjectivity is the people; cultural subjectivity is essentially the embodiment of human subjectivity in cultural practice, and the construction of cultural subjectivity ultimately relies on the masses of the people to exert their historical subjectivity. Cultural subjectivity mainly includes cultural consciousness, cultural autonomy, cultural dominance, cultural innovativeness, and cultural transcendence, among which cultural dominance is the core of cultural subjectivity. Cultural subjectivity is closely related to cultural intersubjectivity, which emphasizes cultural interconnection, mutual respect, mutual learning, and coexistence and co-prosperity. The above four parts constitute an organic, interconnected, and progressively deepening rigorous whole, jointly outlining a complete picture of cultural subjectivity. Among them, the analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and economic subjectivity from the perspective of material production demonstrates the foundation of cultural subjectivity, answering the question of “where it comes from”; the analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and human subjectivity from the perspective of real people demonstrates the subject of cultural subjectivity, answering the questions of “whom it belongs to” and “by whom it is developed”; the analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance from the perspective of ideology demonstrates the core of cultural subjectivity, answering the question of “what its essence is”; the analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity from the perspective of world history demonstrates the field of cultural subjectivity, answering the question of “how it develops.” These four parts together reveal that cultural subjectivity is deeply rooted in material production practice, created and inherited by the masses of the people, established and manifested in the internal defense of cultural leadership, and developed and enhanced in external civilizational exchanges and mutual learning. In short, cultural subjectivity is the fundamental nature and essential characteristic of cultural existence and development determined by the mode of material production. It is the overall reflection of a country and nation’s “cultural self” consciousness, cultural autonomous status, cultural confidence state, and cultural self-strengthening spirit, as well as the comprehensive embodiment of cultural leadership, cultural cohesion, cultural shaping power, and cultural radiation power.

综上所述，文化主体性之“文化”是由经济基础决定又反作用于经济基础的观念上层建筑。文化主体性之真正“主体”是人，文化主体性实质上是人的主体性在文化实践中的体现，构建文化主体性归根到底要依靠人民群众发挥历史主体性。文化主体性主要包括文化自觉性、文化自主性、文化主导性、文化创新性、文化超越性，其中文化主导性是文化主体性的内核。文化主体性与强调文化互通互联、互尊互重、互学互鉴、共存共荣的文化主体间性息息相关。上述四个部分是有机联系、逐层深入的严密整体，共同勾勒出文化主体性的完整图景。其中，物质生产视角下阐析文化主体性与经济主体性的关系，论证的是文化主体性的根基，回答其“从何而来”的问题；现实的人视角下阐析文化主体性与人的主体性的关系，论证的是文化主体性的主体，回答其“为谁所有”和“由谁发展”的问题；意识形态视角下阐析文化主体性与文化主导性的关系，论证的是文化主体性的核心，回答其“本质为何”的问题；世界历史视角下阐析文化主体性与文化主体间性的关系，论证的是文化主体性的场域，回答其“如何发展”的问题。这四个部分共同揭示文化主体性深植于物质生产实践，由人民群众创造和传承，在对内捍卫文化领导权中得以确立和彰显，在对外文明交流互鉴中得以发展和提升。总之，文化主体性是由物质生产方式决定的文化存在和发展的根本性质和本质特征，是对一个国家和民族的“文化自我”意识、文化自主地位、文化自信状态、文化自强精神的整体反映以及文化引领力、文化凝聚力、文化塑造力、文化辐射力的综合体现。