The Triple Logic of Cultural Subjectivity

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “For any culture to stand firm and travel far, to have guiding power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiating power, it must possess its own subjectivity.” Cultural subjectivity is an important component of Xi Jinping’s cultural thought and also its fundamental standpoint. “Cultural subjectivity reflects a nation’s and a people’s conscious awareness of their own culture and their proactive spirit of cultural innovation and creation.” Cultural subjectivity is a highly original and emblematic concept within Xi Jinping’s cultural thought, possessing extremely profound and rich connotations. We can understand it through the following triple logic.

习近平总书记指出：“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。”文化主体性是习近平文化思想的重要内容，也是其基本立场。“文化主体性反映了一个国家和民族对自身文化的自觉意识和进行文化创新创造的主动精神。”文化主体性是习近平文化思想中一个极具原创性、标识性的概念，有着极其深刻丰富的内涵。我们可以从以下三重逻辑加以理解。

Historical Logic

历史逻辑

From the perspective of historical logic, the subjectivity of Chinese culture is first confirmed by the outstanding continuity of Chinese civilization. “Chinese civilization is the only great civilization in the world that has continued uninterrupted and developed in the form of a state to the present day. This fully proves that Chinese civilization possesses the cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality for self-development, responding to challenges, and breaking new ground.” Chinese civilization has continued uninterrupted for thousands of years, enduring repeated hardships without decline; this is a miracle of human civilization and also a confirmation of cultural subjectivity. The German scholar Norbert Elias once pointed out that civilization (or civilizing process) is a kind of “national self-consciousness.” [1]1 Norbert Elias, *The Civilizing Process* (1939). Losing cultural subjectivity inevitably leads to the loss of “national self-consciousness,” and the consequences are extremely severe. “A nation that abandons or betrays its own history and culture not only cannot develop but is likely to stage one historical tragedy after another.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, speech at a symposium on literature and art work (2014). In modern times, Chinese civilization was subjected to a tremendous impact from foreign civilizations, encountering a profound crisis of being unable to sustain itself. In the past, the so-called “law of civilization” was that barbarians “are always conquered by the higher civilization of the peoples they have conquered.” [3]3 A paraphrase of a thesis from Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). However, the invasion of the Eastern world by Western civilization broke this law. Since 1500, and especially after the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, Western modern civilization has achieved “absolute power” in the course of world history. As Marx pointed out, “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst.” [4]4 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). Faced with the powerful Western civilization, the entire Eastern civilization confronted the question of survival and the path of civilization. After 1840, in the face of the challenge from Western civilization, Chinese civilization continuously responded and reacted. From the Westernization Movement, which responded on the level of material technology, to the Hundred Days’ Reform, which responded on the level of institutional systems, and then to the New Culture Movement, which responded on the level of culture, all were seeking a way out for the Chinese nation and Chinese civilization. [5]5 The Westernization Movement (c. 1861-1895) was a self-strengthening effort adopting Western military and industrial technology; the Hundred Days’ Reform (1898) was a failed attempt at institutional and political reform; the New Culture Movement (c. 1915-1920s) promoted modern values and vernacular language. Schemes such as “mastering the barbarians’ superior techniques to control them,” “Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for practical use,” “total Westernization,” and “the separate paths of Chinese and Western culture” were all aimed at saving the Chinese nation and Chinese civilization. [6]6 These are slogans from late 19th- and early 20th-century Chinese debates on how to respond to the West.

从历史逻辑看，中华文化主体性首先确证于中华文明突出的连续性。“中华文明是世界上唯一绵延不断且以国家形态发展至今的伟大文明。这充分证明了中华文明具有自我发展、回应挑战、开创新局的文化主体性与旺盛生命力。”中华文明历经数千年而绵延不绝、迭遭忧患而经久不衰，这是人类文明的奇迹，也是文化主体性的确证。德国学者诺贝特·埃利亚斯曾指出，文明（或文明化）是一种“民族的自我意识”。丧失文化主体性，必然会丧失“民族的自我意识”，其后果是极其严重的。“一个抛弃了或者背叛了自己历史文化的民族，不仅不可能发展起来，而且很可能上演一幕幕历史悲剧。”近代以后，中华文明受到外来文明的巨大冲击，遭遇到文明难以赓续的深重危机。以往，所谓的“文明规律”是野蛮人“总是被那些他们所征服的民族的较高文明所征服”。然而，西方文明对东方世界的文明入侵，打破了这一规律。1500年特别是18世纪工业革命以来，西方现代文明在世界历史进程中取得了“绝对权利”，正如马克思所指出的，“它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓的文明”。面对西方强势文明，整个东方文明都面临能否存活的问题、文明出路的问题。1840年以后，面对西方文明的挑战，中华文明不断应对、回应。从基于器物层面进行回应的洋务运动，到基于制度层面进行回应的戊戌变法，再到基于文化层面进行回应的新文化运动，都是在寻求中华民族和中华文明的出路。“师夷长技以制夷”“中学为体，西学为用”“全盘西化”“中西文化分途”等方案无不是为了拯救中华民族和中华文明。

What truly and thoroughly terminated the decline of Chinese civilization and activated its inner vitality was the integration of Marxism with China’s specific realities, “using the proletarian world outlook as a tool for observing the fate of the nation and reconsidering one’s own problems.” [7]7 Mao Zedong, *On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship* (1949). Marxism brought advanced ideological theory to China, activating the genes of Chinese civilization with the light of truth, leading China into the modern world, and promoting the life renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization. Under the guidance of Marxism and nurtured by Chinese civilization, we successfully created the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, “enabling the Chinese nation, with its over 5,000 years of civilization history, to comprehensively advance toward modernization, and allowing Chinese civilization to radiate new vigorous vitality in the process of modernization.” [8]8 Xi Jinping, speech at the commemoration of the 95th anniversary of the founding of the CPC (2016). A key criterion for judging whether a culture possesses subjectivity is whether, when faced with the impact of foreign cultures, it can adhere to its own cultural development logic and can draw upon new cultural strength. From this point of view, compared with other ancient civilizations, Chinese civilization possesses an extremely strong capacity for adaptation, an extremely strong vitality for responding to others and maintaining itself. Activated by Marxism, Chinese civilization has stood firm amidst the global cultural ferment and continued its cultural lineage. The over 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization is the result of our adherence to cultural subjectivity; it can also be said that adherence to cultural subjectivity is the reason why Chinese civilization has never been interrupted.

真正彻底终止中华文明衰败、激活中华文明内在活力的，是把马克思主义同中国具体实际相结合，“用无产阶级的宇宙观作为观察国家命运的工具，重新考虑自己的问题”。马克思主义把先进的思想理论带到中国，以真理之光激活了中华文明的基因，引领中国走入现代世界，推动了中华文明的生命更新和现代转型。在马克思主义指导下、在中华文明的滋养中，我们成功开创了中国特色社会主义道路，“使具有五千多年文明历史的中华民族全面迈向现代化，让中华文明在现代化进程中焕发出新的蓬勃生机”。判断一种文化是否具有主体性，一个关键标准就是看其在面对外来文化的冲击时，能否坚守住自身文化发展逻辑，并且能否汲取到新的文化力量。从这一点上看，与其他古老文明相比，中华文明具有极强的应变能力，极强的应对他者、坚守自我的旺盛生命力。在马克思主义的激活下，中华文明在世界文化激荡中站稳了脚跟，延续了文脉。中华五千多年文明史是我们坚守文化主体性的结果，也可以说，坚守文化主体性是中华文明从未中断的原因。

Practical Logic

实践逻辑

From the perspective of practical logic, adhering to cultural subjectivity means insisting on taking our own path. Independence and self-reliance are the soul of the Chinese national spirit and an important principle for our Party’s founding and governance. Chinese-path modernization was independently explored and created by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China; the Chinese chapter of Marxism was written by Chinese Communists relying on their own strength. A fundamental point running through all this is that China’s problems must be solved by the Chinese people themselves, starting from China’s basic national conditions. This spirit of independent exploration is the spiritual expression of cultural subjectivity, embodied on the practical level as insisting on taking our own path. The so-called “dispute between the ancient and the modern, China and the West” is essentially a “dispute over the path” since modern times, resolving the question of “where is China going” and exploring the Chinese path, especially the path of modernization. Whether cultural subjectivity can be maintained depends crucially on whether the Chinese people can successfully explore an independent development path. After modern times, under the invasion of powerful Western civilization, the Chinese people tenaciously adhered to cultural subjectivity, constantly seeking the path to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The history of seeking the path to national rejuvenation is a history of continuously exploring an independent and feasible path to modernization. From the second half of the 19th century to the early 20th century, China explored the path of modernization under the old feudal system, which was the initial stage of exploring the path to modernization. From the 1911 Revolution to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, it was a historical stage of exploring the path to modernization under conditions of national disunity. The founding of New China and the establishment of the basic socialist system created fundamental social conditions for realizing modernization and laid the fundamental political premise and institutional foundation for modernization. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the original theoretical achievements and great accomplishments we made around “striving to build our country into a powerful socialist country with modern agriculture, modern industry, modern national defense, and modern science and technology” provided valuable experience, theoretical preparation, and material foundation for modernization. [9]9 This formulation, known as the “Four Modernizations,” was first proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1964 and reiterated in 1975. After reform and opening up, our Party embarked on a new Long March of modernization. How to realize modernization? We did not blindly imitate Western countries step by step but always emphasized “taking our own path.” Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “Taking our own path and building socialism with Chinese characteristics—this is the basic conclusion we have drawn from summing up long-term historical experience.” [10]10 Deng Xiaoping, opening speech to the 12th National Congress of the CPC (1982). “Taking our own path” means we must both break free from the shackles of traditional socialist concepts and systems and avoid the influence of Western capitalist concepts and models. Its positive achievement was combining the basic socialist system with the market economy, establishing the socialist market economy system; combining modernization with socialism, clarifying the goal of common prosperity and the modernization objective with the highest value orientation of the people’s interests. The exploration during this period provided institutional guarantees full of new vitality and rapid material conditions for Chinese-path modernization. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has successfully advanced and expanded Chinese-path modernization, promoting historic achievements and historic changes in the cause of the Party and the state, providing more complete institutional guarantees, a more solid material foundation, and a more proactive spiritual force for Chinese-path modernization.

从实践逻辑看，坚守文化主体性就是坚持走自己的路。独立自主是中华民族精神之魂，是我们立党立国的重要原则。中国式现代化是中国共产党领导中国人民独立自主探索开辟的，马克思主义的中国篇章是中国共产党人依靠自身力量谱写的，贯穿其中的一个基本点就是中国的问题必须从中国基本国情出发，由中国人自己来解答。这种独立自主的探索精神，就是文化主体性的精神表达，在实践层面上体现为坚持走自己的路。所谓“古今中西之争”，本质上就是近代以来的“道路之争”，破解“中国向何处去”的问题，探索中国道路特别是现代化道路的问题。能否坚守文化主体性，关键看中国人能否成功探索出一条独立自主的发展道路。近代以后，中国人民在西方强势文明的入侵下，苦苦坚守文化主体性，不断寻求中华民族复兴之路。寻求民族复兴之路的历史就是一部不断探索自主的、切实可行的现代化道路的历史。从19世纪下半叶到20世纪初，是中国在封建主义旧体制下探索现代化道路的历史阶段，也是中国探索现代化道路的初始阶段。从1911年辛亥革命到1949年新中国成立，是在国家四分五裂下探索现代化道路的历史阶段。新中国的成立和社会主义基本制度的确立，为实现现代化创造了根本社会条件，为现代化建设奠定了根本政治前提和制度基础。社会主义革命和建设时期，我们围绕“努力把我国建设成为一个具有现代农业、现代工业、现代国防和现代科学技术的社会主义强国”取得的独创性理论成果和巨大成就，为现代化建设提供了宝贵经验、理论准备、物质基础。改革开放后，我们党开启了现代化的新长征。如何实现现代化？我们并没有亦步亦趋地跟在西方国家后面简单模仿，而是始终强调“走自己的道路”。邓小平指出：“走自己的道路，建设有中国特色的社会主义，这就是我们总结长期历史经验得出的基本结论。”“走自己的道路”，意味着我们既要破除传统社会主义观念和体制的束缚，也要避免西方资本主义观念和模式的影响，其积极成果就是将社会主义基本制度与市场经济结合起来，建立了社会主义市场经济体制；将现代化与社会主义结合起来，明确了共同富裕方向、人民利益为最高价值取向的现代化目标。这个时期的探索为中国式现代化提供了充满新的活力的体制保证和快速发展的物质条件。党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央成功推进和拓展了中国式现代化，推动党和国家事业取得历史性成就、发生历史性变革，为中国式现代化提供了更为完善的制度保证、更为坚实的物质基础、更为主动的精神力量。

We have always insisted on taking our own path, and have successfully blazed a Chinese-path modernization. “China’s practice has demonstrated a truth to the world: governing a country and advancing its modernization is not a path exclusive to the Western institutional model; all countries can find their own way.” The successful creation of Chinese-path modernization on the deep foundation of over five thousand years of Chinese civilization is the most powerful illustration of Chinese cultural subjectivity. Taking our own path means not only upholding economic and political independence, but also achieving spiritual independence. Chinese-path modernization’s break from the Western modernization model and its avoidance of dependency on it implies not only that we have achieved economic and political independence, but also that we have achieved genuine spiritual independence. Spiritual independence and path autonomy complement and support each other; both are important components or manifestations of upholding cultural subjectivity. Mao Zedong once pointed out: “Since the Chinese learned Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese people have moved from passivity to initiative in spirit.” [11]11 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy” (1940), Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2. Today, under the guidance of Marxism, we have successfully opened up an independent path of modernization, which means that the Chinese nation and the Chinese people have completely shaken off their spiritual passivity and truly realized spiritual initiative.

我们始终坚持走自己的路，并且成功走出了一条中国式现代化道路。“我国的实践向世界说明了一个道理：治理一个国家，推动一个国家实现现代化，并不只有西方制度模式这一条道，各国完全可以走出自己的道路来。”在五千多年中华文明深厚基础上成功开创中国式现代化是对中华文化主体性最有力的说明。走自己的路，不仅要坚持经济、政治上的独立自主，也要实现精神上的独立自主。中国式现代化摆脱西方现代化模式，避免对其依附，不仅仅意味着我们实现了经济、政治上的独立自主，更意味着我们在精神上实现了真正的独立自主。精神独立性与道路自主性是相辅相成、相互支撑的，两者都是坚守文化主体性的重要内容或表现形态。毛泽东当年曾指出：“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。”今天，我们在马克思主义的指导下，成功开辟了一条独立自主的现代化道路，意味着中华民族和中国人民彻底摆脱了精神上的被动状态，真正地实现了精神主动。

Theoretical Logic

理论逻辑

From the perspective of theoretical logic, cultural subjectivity is ultimately manifested in theoretical originality and discursive subjectivity. Since modern times, Western countries, through the global expansion of capital, have gradually formed a world pattern of “the East being subordinate to the West.” This dominance-subordination pattern is reflected not only in the world economy and international politics, but also in academic theoretical systems, narrative and discursive systems, and even systems of social values. “Under the instigation of Western values, some countries have been tossed into a terrible state—some torn apart, some engulfed in war, some in constant chaos.” [12]12 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Concerning Foreign Affairs” (2014). The loss of cultural subjectivity inevitably leads to the impact of foreign cultures, endangering national independence and security. A “theoretical porter” who has lost cultural subjectivity cannot produce theories with subjectivity and originality. One of the signs of cultural maturity is to shake off the “apprentice state” in terms of theoretical paradigms and discursive systems, and to achieve genuine “self-assertion.”

从理论逻辑看，文化主体性最终要表现在理论原创性、话语主体性上。近代以来，西方国家通过资本在全球扩张，逐步形成了“东方从属于西方”的世界格局。这样的支配—从属格局，不仅体现在世界经济、国际政治等方面，而且体现在学术理论体系、叙事话语体系甚至社会价值观体系等方面。“在西方价值观念鼓捣下，一些国家被折腾得不成样子了，有的四分五裂，有的战火纷飞，有的整天乱哄哄的。”丧失了文化主体性，必然会受到外来文化的冲击，危及民族独立和国家安全。丧失了文化主体性的“理论上的搬运工”，是提不出具有主体性和原创性理论的。文化成熟的标志之一就是从理论范式、话语体系等方面摆脱“学徒状态”，实现真正的“自我主张”。

Upholding cultural subjectivity means insisting on a China-centered position in ideology and theory, and insisting on building a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner. “Based on the great historical practice and contemporary practice of the Chinese nation, use Chinese reasoning to summarize Chinese experience well, elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory, neither blindly follow various dogmas nor copy foreign theories, and achieve spiritual independence.” [13]13 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development” (2023). Faced with Western cultural hegemony, the key to effectively upholding cultural subjectivity lies in whether we can construct an independent knowledge system of China and build philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The characteristics, style, and manner of philosophy and social sciences are products of development at a certain stage, signs of maturity, symbols of strength, and manifestations of confidence.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences” (2016). The general approach to constructing an independent knowledge system of China is to take China as the focus and the times as the reference, base it on China’s actual conditions, solve China’s problems, systematically refine and summarize the new theories and new practices of Chinese-path modernization, continuously deepen the systematization and theorization of the Party’s innovative theories, continuously promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and continuously advance knowledge innovation, theoretical innovation, and methodological innovation. The ultimate embodiment of a modernized strong country, cultural confidence, and cultural subjectivity is the presentation of Chinese theories and Chinese discourse with subjectivity and originality, and the construction of an independent knowledge system of China. Of course, achieving this goal is not something that can be done overnight; it requires sustained and persistent effort.

坚守文化主体性，就是要坚持思想理论上的中国本位，坚持构建中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的学科体系、学术体系、话语体系。“立足中华民族伟大历史实践和当代实践，用中国道理总结好中国经验，把中国经验提升为中国理论，既不盲从各种教条，也不照搬外国理论，实现精神上的独立自主。”面对西方文化霸权，能否有效坚守文化主体性，关键在于能否建构中国自主的知识体系，构建中国特色哲学社会科学。习近平总书记指出：“哲学社会科学的特色、风格、气派，是发展到一定阶段的产物，是成熟的标志，是实力的象征，也是自信的体现。”建构中国自主的知识体系，总的思路就是要以中国为观照、以时代为观照，立足中国实际，解决中国问题，系统提炼概括中国式现代化的新理论和新实践，不断深化党的创新理论体系化学理化，不断推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化、创新性发展，不断推进知识创新、理论创新、方法创新。现代化强国、文化自信、文化主体性等的最终体现就是提出具有主体性和原创性的中国理论、中国话语，建构起中国自主的知识体系。当然，达成这一目标，不是一蹴而就的，需要久久为功。

(The author is a professor at the School of Marxism, Central Party School (National Academy of Governance))

（作者系中共中央党校（国家行政学院）马克思主义学院教授）

Online Editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁