A Historical Materialist Interpretation of Spatial Ethics

Time and space are the basic forms of human social existence. The explicit concept of time provides historical thinking for understanding the development of human society, while the implicit concept of space reveals the real coordinates within which social relations unfold in practice. Space is not merely an abstract physical container but a product of human social practice. In the process of understanding and transforming the world, humanity has realized the humanization of space, and has furthermore inscribed specific purposive needs and ethical values into spatial construction. Every active exploration by humanity of an ideal society is an ethical inquiry into spatial practice. In the practical process of advancing new-type urbanization, how to resolve the developmental dilemmas of typical spaces such as cities, villages, and global space has become a question of the times.

时间和空间是人的社会性存在的基本形式。显性的时间观为思考人类社会发展提供了历史思维，隐性的空间观则揭示了社会关系在实践中展开的现实坐标。空间并非只是抽象的物理容器，而是人类社会实践的产物。人类在认识世界与改造世界的过程中实现了空间的人化，更将特定的目的需要与伦理价值镌刻于空间建构之中。人类对理想社会的每一次积极探索都是对空间实践的伦理追问。在推进新型城镇化的实践进程中，如何破解城市、乡村、全球空间等典型空间的发展困境已成为时代之问。

The 15th Five-Year Plan [1]1 The 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030) is the next in the series of national five-year plans for economic and social development formulated by the Chinese government. has clarified the development goals for the production, living, and ecological spaces of the people, proposing to “advance the construction of livable, workable, and harmonious villages” and to “build modern people’s cities that are innovative, livable, beautiful, resilient, civilized, and smart.” These concrete deployments comprehensively manifest a people-centered [2]2 “People-centered” (以人民为中心) is a core principle of the CPC’s governance philosophy in the New Era, emphasizing that development must be for the people, by the people, and its fruits shared by the people. orientation of spatial ethics. Interpreting the historical materialist implications of spatial ethics within the practice of Chinese spatial ethics is not only a theoretical self-consciousness in constructing an independent knowledge system for Chinese philosophy and social sciences, but also lays a theoretical foundation for our construction of harmonious villages and modern people’s cities during the period of the 15th Five-Year Plan.

“十五五”规划纲要明确了人民群众生产生活生态空间的发展目标，提出“推进宜居宜业和美乡村建设”，“建设创新、宜居、美丽、韧性、文明、智慧的现代化人民城市”。这些具体部署全面彰显出以人民为中心的空间伦理取向。在中国空间伦理实践中阐释空间伦理的历史唯物主义意蕴，既是构建中国哲学社会科学自主知识体系的理论自觉，又为我们在“十五五”时期建设和美乡村和现代化人民城市奠定理论基础。

Since the spatial turn, Western scholars, taking capitalist spatial production as their practical soil and observational background, have successively produced representative achievements such as the theory of spatial production, urban critical theory, and the theory of spatial justice. Although spatial critical theory has effectively revealed key issues such as the alienation of spatial rights and the homogenization of urban landscapes, in the process of construction it has over-focused on space itself while weakening the subjective position of human beings within space. To ask, from the standpoint of historical materialism, what constitutes a “good space” is essentially to return to people’s real needs in order to understand the meaning of spatial existence. Without human needs, space loses its ethical foundation. The Rural Revitalization Strategy, the concept of the People’s City, and the building of a community with a shared future for mankind [3]3 “A community with a shared future for mankind” (人类命运共同体) is a diplomatic concept promoted by Xi Jinping, envisioning a global order based on mutual benefit, cooperation, and shared security. are scientific responses by the Chinese Communists of the New Era [4]4 “New Era” (新时代) refers to the period of socialism with Chinese characteristics beginning with the 19th National Congress of the CPC in 2017, under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. to the question of “spatial ethics.” They not only integrate the fundamental principles of Marxism with the concrete realities of China’s spatial governance but also, in resolving spatial contradictions such as urban-rural development and global interaction, achieve a transcendence of Western spatial theory, providing a Chinese solution under the perspective of historical materialism for the demonstration of spatial ethics.

自空间转向以来，西方学者以资本主义空间生产为实践土壤和观察背景，先后提出了空间生产理论、都市批判理论与空间正义理论等代表性成果。空间批判理论虽然有力地揭示了空间权利异化、城市景观同质化等关键问题，但都在建构过程中过度关注空间本身而弱化了空间中人的主体性地位。立足历史唯物主义的立场追问何为“好的空间”，本质上是回到人的现实需要来理解空间存在的意义。如果没有人的需要，空间就失去了伦理根基。乡村振兴战略、人民城市理念与构建人类命运共同体等，是新时代中国共产党人对“空间伦理”问题的科学应答，不仅将马克思主义基本原理同中国空间治理的具体实际相结合，更在解决城乡发展、全球交往等空间矛盾中，实现了对西方空间理论的超越，为论证空间伦理提供了历史唯物主义视域下的中国方案。

Although the classic works of Marx and Engels do not contain a thematic discussion of the problem of space, in their critique of the capitalist mode of production they inevitably touch upon spatial factors such as the laborer’s body, urban-rural relations, and the world market. This indicates that space is not an external background for ethical relations but rather the object and carrier upon which ethical relations unfold; at the same time, ethical relations in turn shape differentiated spatial forms. The two-way dialectical relationship between space and ethics constitutes the core thread of the study of spatial ethics.

马克思恩格斯的经典著作虽未对空间问题进行专题论述，但他们在批判资本主义生产方式时，不可避免地涉及劳动者身体、城乡关系与世界市场等空间因素。这表明，空间并非伦理关系的外在背景，而是伦理关系赖以展开的对象和载体；同时，伦理关系也反过来塑造出差异性的空间样态。空间与伦理的双向辩证关系，构成空间伦理研究的核心脉络。

The real individual is the logical premise for constructing spatial ethics. In *The German Ideology*, Marx points out that “the first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals.” Through a dual critique of Feuerbach’s “species-being” and Stirner’s “Unique One,” Marx and Engels reveal the reality of the human being from the perspective of real productive activity: the real individual is a subject who engages in practical activity under definite material conditions of life and is situated within concrete social relations. The fundamental reason why the real individual constitutes the logical premise of spatial ethics is that the ethical character of space can only be established through human practice. The real individual engages in material productive practice to satisfy the needs of survival and development; practice necessarily unfolds in a specific space and continuously transforms that space, whereby space is converted from a natural object-in-itself into a social product stamped with the imprint of human practice. Furthermore, in practice the real individual must handle relations with others and with nature, and these relations give rise to multi-layered ethical demands. As Marx points out, “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” By the same token, the particularity of a concrete space lies not only in its external configuration but also, and more importantly, in the social relations and practical imprints condensed within it. The social relations in space are embodied both in the feelings and identifications at the level of the individual body, unfold in the interactions and tensions between city and countryside, and extend further to the interactions and order on a global scale. Thus, spatial ethics can be progressively unfolded along three scales: bodily space, urban-rural space, and global space.

现实的个人是构建空间伦理的逻辑前提。马克思在《德意志意识形态》中指明“全部人类历史的第一个前提无疑是有生命的个人的存在”。马克思恩格斯通过对费尔巴哈“类本质”与施蒂纳“唯一者”的双重批判，从现实的生产活动中揭示出人的现实性：现实的个人是一定物质生活条件下从事实践活动、处于具体社会关系中的主体。现实的个人之所以构成空间伦理的逻辑前提，根本原因在于空间的伦理性只能通过人的实践才得以确立。现实的个人为满足生存与发展需要而从事物质生产实践，实践必然在特定空间中展开并不断改造空间，空间由此从自在的自然物转化为打上人的实践烙印的社会产物。进而言之，现实的个人在实践中需要处理自身与他人及自然之间的关系，这些关系衍生出多层次的伦理诉求。正如马克思所指出的，“人的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”。同理，具体空间的特殊性也不仅在于其外在格局，更在于其中凝结的社会关系与实践印记。空间中的社会关系既体现于个体身体层面的感受与认同，也展开于城乡之间的互动与张力，更延伸至全球范围内的交往与秩序。由此，空间伦理可沿着身体空间、城乡空间与全球空间三个尺度递进展开。

Social being is the objective basis for the generation of the content of spatial ethics. The real individual has been established as the logical premise of spatial ethics, but the premise itself has not yet answered the question of where the concrete content of spatial ethics comes from. The fundamental principles of historical materialism indicate that social consciousness is a reflection of social being. Ethics, as a form of social consciousness rooted in material relations of production and regulating social relations, does not derive its content from a priori moral imperatives but arises from people’s real life process. Marx points out: “Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process.” Spatial ethics follows the same principle: the ethical norms and value demands in different spaces are, in the final analysis, the conceptual expression of the specific mode of production and social relations of intercourse in that space. Specifically, the ethical demands in bodily space originate from the bodily experiences and existential conditions of laborers in the production process; when the laborer’s body is reduced to a tool for the valorization of capital, ethical demands concerning bodily dignity and labor liberation emerge accordingly. The ethical problems in urban-rural space arise from the structural differentiation between city and countryside in resource allocation, public services, and developmental opportunities; the developmental imbalance caused by this differentiation gives rise to ethical concern for the countryside. The ethical norms in global space originate from the unequal relations of intercourse between nation-states within the world market system; the spatial hierarchy of core and periphery constitutes the real object of critique for global justice. It can thus be seen that the rich content of spatial ethics is not a simple application of some universal abstract moral schema at different scales, but rather the concrete transformation of the specific social being in each level of space into the realm of ethical consciousness. In sum, the historicity of social being determines the historicity of the content of spatial ethics.

社会存在是空间伦理内容生成的客观依据。现实的个人作为空间伦理的逻辑前提已经确立，但前提本身尚未回答空间伦理的具体内容从何而来的问题。历史唯物主义的基本原理表明，社会意识是对社会存在的反映。伦理作为根植于物质生产关系并调节社会关系的社会意识形式，其内容并非出自先验的道德律令，而是生发于人们的现实生活过程。马克思指出：“意识在任何时候都只能是被意识到了的存在，而人们的存在就是他们的现实生活过程。”空间伦理同样遵循这一原理：不同空间中的伦理规范与价值诉求，归根结底是对该空间中特定生产方式与社会交往关系的观念表达。具体而言，身体空间中的伦理诉求源于劳动者在生产过程中的身体体验与生存境遇，当劳动者的身体沦为资本增殖的工具时，关于身体尊严与劳动解放的伦理要求便应运而生；城乡空间中的伦理问题源于城市与乡村在资源配置、公共服务与发展机会上的结构性分化，这种分化所造成的发展不平衡催生了对乡村的伦理关切；全球空间中的伦理规范则发端于世界市场体系下民族国家之间不对等的交往关系，核心与边缘的空间等级秩序构成了全球正义批判的现实对象。由此可见，空间伦理的丰富内容并非某种普遍抽象的道德图式在不同尺度上的简单套用，而是各层次空间中特殊的社会存在向伦理意识领域的具体转化。总的来说，社会存在的历史性决定了空间伦理内容的历史性。

The free and comprehensive development of the human being is the value goal of spatial ethics. Spatial ethics is rooted in the living practice of the subject and is influenced by the mode of production. Spatial ethics from the perspective of historical materialism is not only about understanding and explaining the existing spatial order but is also committed to transforming the alienated state of space. In Marx’s view, the future form of human society is “a social form in which the free and comprehensive development of each individual is the fundamental principle.” Therefore, the human being as the subject of society is the key to all social forms; having cast off dependence on persons and dependence on things, the free and comprehensive development of the human being becomes the ultimate value of the future form of society. As a practical product of human social history, the ethical goal of space likewise points toward the free and comprehensive development of the human being. Guided by this, the good governance of space in the New Era of China can become a distinctive practice possessing both actuality and transcendence. The 15th Five-Year Plan has clarified the goals of good governance for rural space, urban space, and global space. From the perspective of actuality, the developmental goals of “livable, workable, and harmonious villages,” “modern people’s cities that are innovative, livable, beautiful, resilient, civilized, and smart,” and “a world of lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness and inclusiveness, clean and beautiful” are put forward on the basis of the real needs of the people for a better life in the current process of new-type urbanization, rather than being abstract speculative concepts or theoretical assumptions. This constitutes a critique and transcendence of the capitalization of space and the spatialization of capital in the capitalist mode of production.

人的自由全面发展是空间伦理的价值旨归。空间伦理植根于主体的生动实践，并受到生产方式的影响。历史唯物主义视域下的空间伦理，不仅在于认识和解释既有的空间秩序，更致力于改造被异化的空间状态。在马克思看来，人类未来社会形态是“以每一个个人的全面而自由的发展为基本原则的社会形式”。因此，人作为社会主体是一切社会形态的关键，摆脱了人的依赖关系与物的依赖性，人的自由全面发展成为未来社会形态的终极价值。空间作为人类社会历史的实践产物，其伦理旨归同样指向人的自由全面发展。以此为指引，新时代中国的空间善治才能成为具有现实性与超越性的特色实践。“十五五”规划纲要明确了乡村空间、城市空间与全球空间的善治目标。从现实性来看，“宜居宜业和美乡村”，“创新、宜居、美丽、韧性、文明、智慧的现代化人民城市”与“持久和平、普遍安全、共同繁荣、开放包容、清洁美丽的世界”的发展目标是基于当前新型城镇化过程中人民美好生活的现实需要提出的，而不是抽象的思辨概念和理论设想。这是对资本主义生产方式中空间资本化与资本空间化的批判与超越。

In conclusion, only by elucidating the logical premise, objective basis, and value goal of spatial ethics from the perspective of historical materialism, and by interpreting the direct actuality and inherent transcendence of spatial ethics, can space truly become a field for the confirmation of the human being’s essential powers, and can spatial ethics realize the dialectical unity of theoretical conception and practical exploration.

总之，只有从历史唯物主义视域阐明空间伦理的逻辑前提、客观依据与价值旨归，诠释空间伦理的直接现实性与内在超越性，才能真正让空间成为人的本质力量的确证场域，空间伦理也才能实现理论构想与实践探索的辩证统一。

(Author: Li Jiali, Lecturer at the School of Marxism, Chongqing University)

（作者：李家丽，系重庆大学马克思主义学院讲师）