The Philosophical Logic of Constructing a Discourse System for Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics

The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized: “Accelerate the construction of a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.” [1]1 The 20th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2022. Against the backdrop of changes unseen in a century in the world, the transformations of the world, the times, and history are accelerating, and the field of discourse systems presents a complex situation of cultural diversity, ideological differentiation, and intense struggle. This issue has increasingly become a focus of academic research. Currently, academia has conducted extensive interpretations from perspectives such as what the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is, why it is needed, how to express it, what to express, and how to construct it. These discussions have further enriched and deepened the understanding of this discourse system. The discourse system is closely related to the theoretical system and the academic system; it is the specific expression of the academic system and the external manifestation of the theoretical system. The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics revolves around answering the fundamental question of “what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics to uphold and develop in the New Era and how to uphold and develop it,” focuses on the core theme of “how to comprehensively advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization,” and is based on the vivid practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It is a cluster of discourses that integrates China’s practical achievements, theoretical achievements, and institutional achievements. It breaks free from the “mold” of “Western-centrist” discourse and generates systematic and logical discursive expressions with its own subjectivity, such as the discourse of “Chinese-path modernization,” the discourse of “common values of all mankind,” the discourse of “a community with a shared future for mankind,” and the discourse of “a new form of human civilization,” providing discursive support for the construction of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Conducting scholarly research on a series of foundational issues in the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics from the perspective of the logical relationships between unity and diversity, critique and construction, the general and the particular, and the ideal and the actual at the philosophical level holds important theoretical and practical significance.

党的二十大报告强调指出：“加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学学科体系、学术体系、话语体系”。在世界百年未有之大变局的时代背景下，世界之变、时代之变、历史之变加速演进，话语体系领域呈现出文化多元、思想分化、斗争激烈的复杂局面，这一问题也日渐成为学术界研究的热点。当前，学术界已经从中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系是什么、为什么、怎么说、说什么、怎么建等角度进行了大量阐释，这些讨论进一步丰富和深化了对中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的认识。话语体系同理论体系、学术体系密切相关，是学术体系的特定表达、理论体系的外化表现。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系是围绕回答“新时代坚持和发展什么样的中国特色社会主义、怎样坚持和发展中国特色社会主义”这一根本问题，聚焦如何“以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴”这一核心主题，立足于中国特色社会主义生动实践，阐述中国实践成果、理论成果与制度成果于一体的话语集群。它打破了“西方中心主义”的话语“窠臼”，生发出譬如“中国式现代化”话语、“全人类共同价值”话语、“人类命运共同体”话语、“人类文明新形态”话语等具有自身主体性的系统化逻辑化的话语表达，为中国特色社会主义事业建设提供话语支撑。在哲学层面从一元与多样、批判与建构、一般与特殊、应然与实然的逻辑关系视角，对中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系建设的一系列基础问题展开学理研究，具有重要的理论和现实意义。

I. Unity and Diversity: The Discourse of Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics

一、一元与多样：中国特色哲学社会科学话语

The Premise Issue in Constructing the System Unity and diversity essentially discuss the dialectical relationship between the “one” and the “many” in the philosophical category, which is a premise issue to be addressed in constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. The “one” here refers to the “Way” behind the discourse; only by safeguarding the “Way” can the foundation of the discourse be protected. The relationship between unity and diversity, or the relationship between the “one” and the “many,” is an ancient yet ever-renewing philosophical proposition. Unity and diversity are interdependent and mutually defining existences. The “unity” in constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics refers to the unified guidance and foundation; “diversity” refers to the composition of the discourse cluster.

体系构建的前提性问题一元与多样实质上讨论的是哲学范畴中“一”与“多”的辩证关系问题，是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系构建要面对的前提性问题。这里的“一”，就是话语背后的“道”，只有守护好“道”，才能守护好话语之根本。一元与多样的关系问题，或者说“一与多”的关系问题，是一个古老而常新的哲学命题。一元与多样是具有相互依赖、相互规定的存在。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系构建的“一元”，即一元的指导和基点；“多样”，即话语集群的组成。

Based on the philosophical logic of unity and diversity, the unity in the discourse system means that discourse theory exists as an indivisible holistic entity, serving as the fundamental theory that governs the whole and sets the direction; diversity manifests as the divisible multiplicity of discourse groups and discourse clusters, that is, the multi-dimensional construction of discourse groups and discourse clusters within the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. The unity of the discourse system can guide diversity and take diversity as the basis for its development; diversity follows and submits to unity and must take unity as the premise for its existence. That is to say, in constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, it is necessary to be guided by fundamental theory, which serves as the guiding ideology and guiding principle for construction methods, construction ideas, and construction paths; at the same time, the construction of the discourse system cannot be separated from the diverse existence of discourses. The multi-dimensional construction of discourse groups and discourse clusters emphasizes breaking through the limitations of thinking in terms of single or fragmented statements, promoting the further concretization of discourse generation, and generating systematic and logical discourse clusters as a “systematic existence.” Starting from this logic, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must first address the premise issue, scientifically understand the relationship between unity and diversity, grasp diversity through unity, and supplement unity through diversity. If the internal connection between the two is severed, it will inevitably lead to a one-sided understanding of both unity and diversity. Starting from the philosophical logic of unity and diversity, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics can be grasped from two dimensions.

基于一元与多样的哲学逻辑，话语体系中的一元，是话语理论作为不可分割的一种整体性存在，是管总、管方向的根本理论；多样则表现为话语组和话语群作为可分性的多样性存在，即中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的话语组、话语群的多维搭建。话语体系的一元能够指导多样，并以多样作为发展的基础；多样则遵循和服从于一元，必须以一元作为存在的前提。即是说，在中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系建构中，必须以根本理论为指导，根本理论是建构方法、建构思路、建构路径的指导思想和指导原则；同时，话语体系的建构离不开话语的多样性存在，话语组、话语群的多维搭建所强调的是突破单一或者零碎语句的思维局限，推进话语的生成进一步具象化，以“呈体系的存在”生发系统化逻辑化的话语集群。从这一逻辑出发，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的建构首先要解决好前提性问题，科学认识一元与多样的关系，通过一元把握多样，通过多样补充一元，如果割裂二者的内在联系，必然导致对一元和多样的片面认识。从一元与多样的哲学逻辑出发，可以从两个维度把握中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系建构。

On the one hand, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics in the New Era has a clear “unified” ideological and theoretical foundation. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Behind discourse lies thought, lies the ‘Way.’” [2]2 Quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech at the symposium on philosophy and social sciences in May 2016. The fundamental theory of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, that is, the fundamental guiding ideology that this discourse system should follow, or the “Way.” This “Way” is Marxism, which guided China’s revolution, construction, and reform and has grown and flourished in Chinese practice, along with its sinicized innovative theoretical achievements; it is also the excellent traditional Chinese culture that has enabled the Chinese nation to unite and cohere and Chinese civilization to become the only great civilization in the world that has continued unbroken and developed in the form of a state to this day. “Why the Communist Party of China can succeed and why socialism with Chinese characteristics works; ultimately, it is because Marxism works, and because Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times works.” [3]3 Quotation from the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC. The formation of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is a discursive presentation and expression guided by the “soul vein” of Marxism and based on the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. From Mao Zedong Thought to Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of the “Three Represents,” and the Scientific Outlook on Development, and then to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the content production and evolutionary trajectory of the discourse of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics have always been consistent with the pace of the CPC’s theoretical innovation; at the same time, regardless of changes in the times or shifts in time and space, the excellent traditional Chinese culture, as the “root vein,” has always been one of the essential elements constituting the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. “Only by not forgetting history can we open up the future; only by being good at inheritance can we be good at innovation. Excellent traditional culture is the foundation for the inheritance and development of a country and a nation.” [4]4 Quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech at the commemoration of the 2,565th anniversary of Confucius’ birth in September 2014. Since the New Era, whether it is the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy, or new concepts, new categories, and new expressions such as the correct view of justice and interests, a community with a shared future for mankind, and common values of all mankind, the elements of excellent traditional Chinese culture can be seen as “clues and threads stretching a thousand miles.” [5]5 A Chinese idiom meaning that clues or hints are scattered throughout, forming a coherent pattern when traced back. Adhering to the “soul vein” of Marxism and the “root vein” of excellent traditional Chinese culture determines the autonomy of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.

一方面，新时代中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的构建，有着明确的“一元”的思想理论基础。习近平总书记指出：“话语的背后是思想、是‘道’。”中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的根本理论，即这一话语体系所应遵循的根本指导思想，或者说“道”。这个“道”就是指导中国革命、建设和改革并在中国实践中生发壮大的马克思主义及其中国化创新理论成果，就是使中华民族凝聚团结、中华文明成为世界上唯一绵延不断且以国家形态发展至今的伟大文明的中华优秀传统文化。“中国共产党为什么能，中国特色社会主义为什么好，归根到底是马克思主义行，是中国化时代化的马克思主义行。”中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的形成是马克思主义“魂脉”指导、基于中国特色社会主义实践的话语呈现和话语表达，从毛泽东思想到邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想和科学发展观，再到习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想，中国特色哲学社会科学话语的内容生产与演进轨迹始终与中国共产党理论创新的步伐保持一致；同时，不管时代如何变迁，时空如何转换，作为“根脉”的中华优秀传统文化始终是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系构成的本质要素之一，“不忘历史才能开辟未来，善于继承才能善于创新。优秀传统文化是一个国家、一个民族传承和发展的根本”，新时代以来无论是“五位一体”总体布局、“四个全面”战略布局，还是正确义利观、人类命运共同体、全人类共同价值等新概念、新范畴、新表述，都可见“草灰蛇线伏脉千里”的中华优秀传统文化要素。坚守马克思主义“魂脉”和中华优秀传统文化“根脉”，决定着中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的自主性。

On the other hand, the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must continuously create and generate a “diverse” collection of distinctive concepts, distinctive summaries, distinctive refinements, and distinctive expressions. This “diversity” is a multi-form, three-dimensional, multi-layered, and all-encompassing discourse cluster. The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is a specific discourse system summarized and refined on the basis of economic and social development practices since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [6]6 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2012, marking the beginning of the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics under Xi Jinping’s leadership.; it is an organic integration of traditional Chinese discourse and modern discourse systems, founded on China’s historical traditions, cultural traditions, and practical foundations. It is a collection of many distinctive concepts, distinctive summaries, distinctive refinements, and distinctive expressions that are continuously created and generated from the vivid practices of contemporary China, possessing both its own subjectivity and universal significance. The ultimate goal of discourse expression is to achieve a theoretical paradigm of self-identification within China’s own discourse system, forming a multi-form, three-dimensional, multi-layered, and all-encompassing discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, fully manifesting China’s subjectivity, fully displaying China’s image, fully telling China’s stories, and fully articulating China’s expressions. For example, the emergence of the discourse of “Chinese-path modernization” profoundly reflects that China’s modernization is a modernization with its own subjectivity, fundamentally different from Western modernization. Chinese-path modernization is neither a footnote to Western modernization nor a modernization “separated” from it; rather, it is a completely different path of modernization led by the Communist Party of China, deeply rooted in the fertile soil of fine traditional Chinese culture, and guided by Marxism and its innovative theoretical achievements adapted to the Chinese context. Compared with “Western modernization,” “Chinese-path modernization” possesses its own discursive subjectivity. Manifesting discursive subjectivity is the foundation for discourse to avoid becoming mere “parroting,” and embodying the thought and the “Way” (道) behind the discourse is the foundation for having discursive subjectivity. Discourses such as “Chinese-path modernization” are a discourse integration that emerges from the “unitary” guidance of Marxist theory and the soil of fine traditional Chinese culture, layered and diverse, with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner.

另一方面，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的构建，要不断创造和生发“多样”的标识性概念、标识性概括、标识性提炼和标识性表达的话语集合。这个“多”就是多样态、立体式、多层次、全方位的话语集群。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系是党的十八大以来基于经济社会发展实践中所总结提炼出来的特定话语体系，是中国传统话语和现代话语体系的有机融合，建立在我国发展的历史传统、文化传统和现实基础之上，是基于当代中国的生动实践，不断创造和生发出的具有自身主体性和普遍意义的诸多标识性概念、标识性概括、标识性提炼和标识性表达的话语集合。话语表达的最终目的是达致中国自己的话语体系认同理论范式，形成多样态、立体式、多层次、全方位的中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系，充分彰显中国主体性、充分展现中国形象、充分讲好中国故事、充分做好中国表达。比如“中国式现代化”话语的出场，就深刻体现了中国的现代化是具有自身主体性的现代化，与西方现代化有着本质区别。中国式现代化既不是西方现代化的注脚，也不是从西方现代化中“分离”出来的一种现代化，而是中国共产党带领中国人民、深植于中华优秀传统文化沃土、在马克思主义及其中国化创新理论成果指导下走出的一条完全不同的现代化道路。与“西方现代化”相比，“中国式现代化”具有自身的话语主体性。彰显话语主体性是话语能够避免成为“人云亦云”的基点，而体现话语背后的思想和“道”又是具有话语主体性的基点。诸如“中国式现代化”这样的中国特色哲学社会科学话语，就是在“一元”的马克思主义理论指导和中华优秀传统文化土壤中生发出来的、分层多样的、具有中国特色、中国风格和中国气派的话语集成。

II. Critique and Construction: The Discourse of Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics

二、批判与建构：中国特色哲学社会科学话语

The strategic issue of system construction. Critique and construction essentially discuss the dialectical relationship between “breaking” (破) and “establishing” (立) within the philosophical category, a strategic issue that the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must confront. Critique and construction are a pair of important philosophical categories. The advancement of human civilization, the progress of human thought, and the development of human society are all accomplished through the alternating interaction and spiral ascent of critique and construction. Their mutual connection and mutual interaction constitute the basic mode of development for theoretical and practical activities. Critique is the prerequisite for construction; “establishing” presupposes “breaking.” Critique is the negation of the object, a result of philosophical reflection: “The purpose of activity is not directed at itself… but rather to obtain reality in the form of external reality by annihilating the determinations (aspects, features, phenomena) of the external world…” [7]7 This is a quotation from Hegel, as cited by Lenin in his *Philosophical Notebooks*, referring to the teleological activity of negating the external world to realize a purpose.; construction is the purpose of critique; “breaking” is for the sake of “establishing.” Critiquing existing or inherent thoughts, concepts, consciousness, and activities aims to obtain new thoughts, concepts, consciousness, and activities based on critical thinking about the original things. Engels, in *Anti-Dühring*, critiqued Dühring’s erroneous views to expound the internal connections among the three components of Marxism and clarify the basic principles of Marxism; in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, he critiqued the class essence of Hegel’s philosophy, affirmed Feuerbach’s materialist stance while critiquing his idealist views, and thereby constructed the basic principles of dialectical materialism and historical materialism.

体系构建的策略性问题批判与建构实质上讨论的是哲学范畴中“破”与“立”的辩证关系问题，是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系构建要面对的策略性问题。批判与建构是一对重要的哲学范畴，人类文明的推进、人类思想的进步、人类社会的发展正是在批判与建构的交替互动和螺旋上升中完成的，两者的相互联系、相互作用，共同构成理论和实践活动发展的基本方式。批判是建构的前提，“立”以“破”为前提。批判是对对象的否定，是一种哲学反思的结果，“目的的活动不是指向自己……而且为了通过消灭外部世界的规定的（方面、特征、现象）来获得具有外部现实形式的实在性……”；建构是批判的目的，“破”是为了“立”。批判已经存在或固有的思维、理念、意识和活动，是为了获得基于对原有事物的批判性思维基础上新的思维、理念、意识和活动。恩格斯在《反杜林论》中通过对杜林错误观点的批判，阐述马克思主义三个组成部分之间的内在联系，阐明马克思主义的基本原理；在《路德维希·费尔巴哈与德国古典哲学的终结》中批判黑格尔哲学的阶级实质、肯定费尔巴哈唯物主义立场的同时批判其唯心主义观点，进而建构辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的基本原理。

Based on the philosophical logic of critique and construction, the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must adhere to the methodological strategy of unifying critique and construction. So-called critique means, based on the cognitive premise of constructing philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, directly confronting the core propositions behind Western discursive hegemony from epistemological and methodological roots, stepping out of the discursive “traps” hidden behind Western social sciences, and breaking the Western discursive myth; so-called construction means, with due cultural consciousness, adhering to and manifesting one’s own subjectivity, constructing a discourse system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner that is grounded in China’s reality. In a situation where Western discourse coexists and has long occupied a dominant position, the discourse of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics—a new and vibrant reality compared with Western discourse—is generated autonomously on Chinese soil and is also generated through construction in critique and critique in construction. The construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics inevitably includes critique of Western discourse. This critique is not blind negation but critique that contains construction, critique aimed at construction. Through the critique of Western discourse, the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics can be better constructed. As Marx pointed out in “On *The Poverty of Philosophy*”: “to clear the way for the critical, materialist socialism that only wants to elucidate the real historical development of social production.” [8]8 This is from Marx’s 1880 “Introduction” to the French edition of *The Poverty of Philosophy*, clarifying the critical and materialist character of his socialism. In terms of methodological strategy, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must both draw on Western discourse and “step out of” Western discourse, constructing and developing it on the basis of critique and one’s own subjectivity.

基于批判与建构的哲学逻辑，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的建构，要坚持批判与建构相统一的方法策略。所谓批判，即基于建构中国特色哲学社会科学的认知前提，从认识论和方法论根源直面西方话语霸权背后的核心命题，跳出西方社会科学背后隐藏的话语“陷阱”，打破西方话语迷思；所谓建构，即以应有的文化自觉，坚持立足和彰显自身主体性，构建接中国地气的具有中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的话语体系。在与西方话语并存且西方话语长期占据优势地位的境遇下，中国特色哲学社会科学话语这一与西方话语相比，全新且富有蓬勃生机的现实存在，既是在中国土壤中自主生成的，也是在批判中建构、在建构中批判而生成的。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系在建构中必然包含对西方话语的批判，这种批判不是盲目的否定，而是批判中内含建构，是以建构为目的的批判。在对西方话语的批判中，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系得以更好地建构。正如马克思在《关于〈哲学的贫困〉》一文中所指出的，“为了给只想阐明社会生产的真实历史发展的、批判的、唯物主义的社会主义扫清道路”。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系建构在方法策略上既要借鉴西方话语又要“跳出”西方话语，在对其批判的基础上基于自身主体性进行建构和发展。

On the one hand, for a long time, the West has grasped and occupied discursive initiative with its first-mover advantage. Based on the epistemology of “Western-centrism,” it uses ideologies and discourse systems generated on the basis of Western civilization to “construct” the “Other” of non-Western civilizations. The discursive “traps” under this mode of thinking must be highly vigilant against and courageously broken. It is necessary to clearly recognize that the Western discourse system is a “local knowledge” of a type of civilization, not a so-called “universal” truth, and certainly cannot be used as a criterion for the so-called “salvation” and “transformation” of other non-Western cultures. For example, the discourse of “modernization” has often evolved in many previous understandings into the discursive “rut” of “modernization = Westernization.” This is a typical erroneous cognition under the epistemology of “Western-centrism.” Modernization in the course of human history did originate in the West; modern Western industrial civilization initiated the process of human modernization and gained a first-mover advantage in modernization. Although Western modernization brought development in economy, technology, and civilization, its starting point was based on the oppression of its own people and the colonization, aggression, and plunder of other countries and nations. Its development process was filled with violence, bloodshed, and inequality, with the alienation and deprivation of human labor and value, with material desires while lacking the dignity of the human subject, and this has become increasingly prominent in the present era. The reason the discursive “trap” of “modernization = Westernization” could be created is that Western countries, based on their first-mover and discursive advantages, use “Western-centric” thinking to “de-subjectivize” other non-Western cultures, thereby constructing a false discursive “mirror image.” Only through a profound critique of the epistemological roots behind this discourse can the essence of modernization be grasped, and then, in the construction of the “Chinese-path modernization” discourse, achieve a more law-conforming and more subjective narrative power and expressive power, and more firmly strengthen the confidence and determination to take the path of “Chinese-path modernization” rather than the old path of “Western modernization.”

一方面，长期以来，西方以其先发优势掌握和占据话语主动，基于“西方中心主义”的认识论，以西方文明基础之上生发出来的意识形态和话语体系“构造”非西方文明的“他者”。对这一思维模式下的话语“陷阱”，必须高度警惕、勇于打破，清醒认知西方话语体系是一种文明类型的“地方性知识”而不是所谓的“普世”真理，更不能以此作为对其他非西方文化进行所谓“拯救”和“改造”的圭臬。比如“现代化”这一话语，在以往诸多认知中往往演化为“现代化=西方化”的话语“窠臼”，这就是典型的“西方中心主义”认识论下的错误认知。人类历史进程中的现代化确实起源于西方，西方近代以来的工业文明开启了人类现代化的历程，取得了现代化的先发优势。西方现代化虽然带来了经济、科技、文明的发展，但是其起步是建立在对本国人民的压迫和对其他国家和民族的殖民、侵略和掠夺基础上的，其发展过程中充满了暴力、血腥和不平等，充满了对人的劳动和价值的异化和剥夺，充满了物欲同时缺失了作为主体的人的尊严，并且在现时代愈加凸显。之所以能够制造“现代化=西方化”的话语“陷阱”，就在于西方国家基于其先发优势和话语优势，以“西方中心主义”的思维将其他非西方文化“去主体化”，进而建构了一种虚假的话语“镜像”。只有通过对这种话语背后的认识论根源进行深刻批判，才能够把握现代化的本质，进而在“中国式现代化”话语建构中更合规律性、更显主体性地达致话语叙事的呈现力和表达力，更加坚定走“中国式现代化”道路而不是“西方现代化”老路的信心和决心。

On the other hand, the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics originates from the autonomous knowledge production carried out by the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people in independently choosing their path and engaging in autonomous practical exploration; it is the product of autonomous construction. Taking the discourse of “Chinese-path modernization” as an example, the theoretical system of “Chinese-path modernization” has clear and distinct connotations and extensions, sufficient content elements, concise basic features, rich value implications, and possesses typical discursive narrative tension. In his important speech at the ceremony marking the centenary of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping stated: “We have created a new path of Chinese-path modernization and created a new form of human civilization.” [9]9 The Four Modernizations: A goal set by Zhou Enlai in 1964 and reiterated in 1975, referring to the modernization of agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology. “Chinese-path modernization” and “a new form of human civilization” are articulated together. The discursive characteristics embedded herein are: “Chinese-path modernization,” as a new path of modernization, is different from Western modernization—it is the Chinese people’s own path of modernization; it is different from capitalist modernization—it is a socialist modernization achieved by the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people; it is different from Western modernization characterized by a wide gap between rich and poor and polarization—it is a modernization of common prosperity for all the people; it is different from Western modernization marked by the distorted development of material civilization and the one-sided development of human beings—it is a modernization where material civilization and cultural-ethical progress are coordinated; it is different from Western modernization characterized by a stark “binary opposition” between humans and nature—it is a modernization where humans and nature coexist in harmony; it is different from Western modernization filled with colonization, aggression, violence, and plunder—it is a modernization that follows the path of peaceful development. Through various “critical constructions” of these “differences” and an “autonomous construction” with its own inherent determinations, the discursive narrative of “Chinese-path modernization” expresses the universal significance of “Chinese-path modernization,” thereby realizing the functions of the signifier, signified, and signification of the discourse. In the construction of the theoretical system and discourse system of “Chinese-path modernization,” we have broken the discursive shackles of “Western-centrism,” generated and created the discursive narrative of “Chinese-path modernization,” and confidently declared the creation of “a new form of human civilization.” Therefore, the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is an interactive process of constructing through critique and critiquing through construction, internally unified within the autonomous knowledge production of a discourse system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner.

另一方面，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的构建，是源于中国共产党领导中国人民在自主选择道路和自主实践探索中进行的自主性知识生产，是自主性建构的产物。还是以“中国式现代化”话语为例，“中国式现代化”理论体系的内涵外延清晰，内容要素充分，基本特征凝练，价值意蕴丰富，具有典型的话语叙事张力。习近平总书记在庆祝中国共产党成立100周年大会上的重要讲话中的表述是“创造了中国式现代化新道路，创造了人类文明新形态”。“中国式现代化”与“人类文明新形态”是连起来表述的，这其中蕴含的话语特质就是：“中国式现代化”作为一条现代化新路，是与西方现代化不同的，中国人民自己的现代化道路；是与资本主义现代化不同的，中国共产党领导中国人民走出来的社会主义现代化；是与贫富悬殊、两极分化的西方现代化不同的，全体人民共同富裕的现代化；是与物质文明畸形发展、人的片面发展的西方现代化不同的，物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化；是与人与自然截然“二元对立”的西方现代化不同的，人与自然和谐共生的现代化；是与充满殖民、侵略、暴力、掠夺的西方现代化不同的，走和平发展道路的现代化。“中国式现代化”话语叙事通过诸种“不同”的“批判性建构”和具有自身内在规定的“自主性建构”，表达出“中国式现代化”的普遍意义，进而达致话语的能指、所指和意指功能实现。在“中国式现代化”理论体系和话语体系的建构中，我们打破了“西方中心主义”的话语桎梏，生发创造出“中国式现代化”话语叙事，理直气壮地宣告创造“人类文明新形态”。因此，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的建构，是一种在批判中建构、在建构中批判的互动过程，内在统一于中国特色、中国风格、中国气派话语体系的自主性知识生产之中。

III. The Universal and the Particular: The Discourse of Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics

三、一般与特殊：中国特色哲学社会科学话语

The issue of generativity in constructing the discourse system: The universal and the particular essentially discuss the dialectical relationship between “commonality” and “individuality” in the philosophical category, which is a generative problem that the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must confront. How should the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics be generated? Based on the philosophical logic of the universal and the particular, it is the unity of the universal (commonality) and the particular (individuality). The universal and the particular are a pair of basic categories that reveal the commonality and individuality of contradictions in things. The universal is the aspect of commonality, while the particular is the aspect of individuality. The universality of contradiction exists within particularity; “the universal can only exist in the individual and can only exist through the individual,” and “any universal is a part (or one aspect, or the essence) of the individual”; the particularity of contradiction contains universality and is a concrete rather than abstract particularity; “the individual is necessarily connected with the universal in its existence.” [10]10 The Two-Step Strategy: A development strategy proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1987, where the first step (from 1981 to 1990) was to double the GNP and ensure basic food and clothing, and the second step (from 1991 to the end of the 20th century) was to quadruple the GNP and achieve moderate prosperity. The dialectics of the combination of the universal and the particular, that is, the dialectics of the combination of commonality and individuality, is the philosophical foundation for adhering to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. In other words, the generation and construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics requires mastering the dialectics of the universal and the particular, properly handling the dialectical relationship of mutual connection, mutual constraint, and mutual transition between the two, so as to achieve the inherent regularity and logical consistency of discourse system construction. As Mao Zedong pointed out: “This truth of the universality and particularity of contradiction, of the absolute and the relative, is the quintessence of the problem of contradiction in things; to be ignorant of it is to abandon dialectics.” [11]11 The Three-Step Strategy: An expanded development strategy also proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1987, adding a third step (from the 21st century to the middle of the century) to reach the level of moderately developed countries and achieve basic modernization.

体系构建的生成性问题一般与特殊实质上讨论的是哲学范畴中“共性”与“个性”的辩证关系，是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系构建要面对的生成性问题。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系应该如何生成？基于一般与特殊的哲学逻辑，是一般（共性）与特殊（个性）的统一。一般与特殊是揭示事物矛盾共性与个性的一对基本范畴，一般就是共性的一面，特殊就是个性的一面。矛盾的一般性存在于特殊性之中，“一般只能在个别中存在，只能通过个别而存在”，“任何一般都是个别的（一部分，或一方面，或本质）”；矛盾的特殊性包含着一般性，是具象而非抽象的特殊性，“个别一定与一般相联而存在”。一般与特殊相结合的辩证法，亦即共性与个性相结合的辩证法，是坚持马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际结合、建构中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的哲学基础，也就是说，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的生成与建构，需要掌握一般与特殊的辩证法，处理好两者相互联结、相互制约、相互过渡的辩证关系，达致话语体系构建内在的合规定性和合逻辑性。正如毛泽东所指出：“这一共性个性、绝对相对的道理，是关于事物矛盾的问题的精髓，不懂得它，就等于抛弃了辩证法。”

The universal emphasizes the “commonality” of the discursive signifier. Discourse, as a medium and tool for systematically expressing the thoughts and concepts of individuals or groups through speech or writing, is an important medium and instrument for the continuation and development of human society across the long span of historical time. Communication is possible between different individuals, different groups, different countries, and different nations. The medium of communication is discourse, and behind discourse lie different civilizations and cultures. Marx’s theory of world history profoundly explains the inevitability of human communication and interconnection. He argued: “The old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency have been replaced by an all-round interdependence and mutual intercourse among nations. And this is true of both material and intellectual production.” [12]12 The New Three-Step Strategy: A refinement of the development strategy proposed at the 15th National Congress of the CPC in 1997, dividing the first half of the 21st century into three stages: 2000-2010 (doubling the GNP), 2010-2020 (further development), and 2020-2050 (achieving basic modernization). The inevitability of exchanges among human civilizations imposes a philosophical “commensurability” as an inherent requirement on the production of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. That is, the production of discourse must conform to the general mechanisms of discourse production, the principles of discourse dissemination, and the logic of discursive power transformation, and must, in the sense of the discursive signifier, align with the general laws and universal logic of discourse, avoiding “talking to oneself.” As Mao Zedong once pointed out: “When shooting an arrow, one must aim at the target; when playing the lute, one must consider the audience; can writing essays and giving speeches ignore the readers and listeners? If we make friends with anyone without understanding their hearts, without knowing what is in their minds, can we become close friends?” [13]13 This is a quotation from Karl Marx’s *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. The particular emphasizes the “individuality” of the discursive signifier. That is, the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must have its own core theories, core issues, core categories, and core expressions. In the sense of the discursive signified, it must not only follow general regularities but also innovate its own modes of discursive expression, showcasing China’s unique linguistic forms, modes of thinking, and historical culture, embodying Chinese temperament and Chinese character. For a long time, Western discourse has attacked and distorted socialism with Chinese characteristics through various discursive “traps,” such as the so-called “end of history,” “China threat theory,” “theory of the failure of socialism,” and “theory of Chinese-style capitalism.” How can China’s story

一般，强调的是话语能指的“共性”。话语作为一种以系统表达个体或群体思想观念的言语或文字，是人类社会得以在漫长的历史时空中延续发展的重要介质和工具。不同的人之间、不同的人群之间、不同的国家和民族之间，都是可以交流的。交流的介质就是话语，话语的背后则是各个不同的文明和文化。马克思的世界历史理论深刻阐释了人类交流和联系的必然性。他认为：“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。”人类文明交流的必然性对中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的生产提出一种哲学意义上的“可通约性”的内在规定性，即话语的生产要符合一般的话语生产机制、话语传播机理、话语权转化逻辑，在话语的能指意义上符合话语的一般规律和普遍逻辑，避免“自说自话”。正如毛泽东曾指出:“射箭要看靶子，弹琴要看听众，写文章做演说倒可以不看读者不看听众吗？我们和无论什么人做朋友，如果不懂得彼此的心，不知道彼此心里面想些什么东西，能够做成知心朋友吗？”特殊，强调的是话语能指上的“个性”，即中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系要有自己的核心理论、核心议题、核心范畴和核心表达。在话语的所指意义上既要遵循一般规律性，更要创新自己的话语表达方式，展现出中国自己独特的语言形式、思维方式以及历史文化，体现中国气质和中国品格。长期以来，西方话语一直以所谓的“历史终结论”“中国威胁论”“社会主义失败论”“中国特色资本主义论”等各式话语“陷阱”对中国特色社会主义进行攻击和歪曲。中国故事如何讲好？中国声音如何表达？解决“挨打”“挨饿”问题之后，如何改变“挨骂”的问题？关键就在于话语构建要把中国故事、中国道路讲得更生动、更具体、更丰富，更有特色和风格，要能够创造出既为各国所接受又具有中国特色的话语表达方式，不能“人云亦云”。正如习近平总书记所强调的，要“着力打造融通中外的新概念新范畴新表述，讲好中国故事，传播好中国声音”。

The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, analyzed semantically, includes two key terms: “Chinese characteristics” and “discourse system.” On the one hand, “discourse system” refers to the common characteristics of all discourse composition and discourse expression—that is, the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics does not depart from the basic laws of knowledge production, does not depart from the fundamental mechanisms of discourse and discursive power generation, does not depart from the basic logic of discourse production mechanisms and the transformation of discursive power, and does not engage in “talking to oneself.” This constitutes the universality and commonality of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, meaning it achieves “integration with China and the world.” For example, the generation of the discourse of “common values of all mankind” is precisely like this. General Secretary Xi Jinping

中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系，从语义上分析，包括“中国特色”和“话语体系”两个关键词。一方面，“话语体系”是指所有话语构成和话语表达的共有特性，即中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系没有脱离知识生产的基本规律、没有脱离话语和话语权生成的基本机理，没有脱离话语生产机制和话语权转化的基本逻辑，没有“自说自话”，这是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的普遍性、共性，即做到了“融通中外”。比如“全人类共同价值”的话语生成就是如此。习近平总书记指出：“中国共产党将继续同一切爱好和平的国家和人民一道，弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值”。和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由是全人类的追求，中国旗帜鲜明地提出包含这些人类文明普遍性要素在内的“全人类共同价值”，具有典型的话语生产的一般性特征，而且这种一般性因其建立在各个国家作为平等、自主的主体前提下而更具话语生产的一般性意义。与之相反的是西方所谓的“普世价值”话语，不仅将生发于自己本土经验上的“价值”利用其话语优势强行“建构”出所谓的“一般性意义”，更以其军事、经济和科技优势居高临下地对非西方文化进行颐指气使的说教和干涉，充满意识形态偏见，其话语本质和话语意义离真正的一般性相距甚远。

On the other hand, “Chinese characteristics” means that this discourse system possesses features and “individuality” different from other discourse systems. Discourse theory, discourse generation, and the transformation of discursive power have all been deeply imprinted with “Chinese hallmarks” in various aspects such as political systems, economic society, customs, and local conditions. In particular, they manifest the integration of the discourse system of fine traditional Chinese culture and the Marxist discourse system at the levels of ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology. They possess discursive traits of the signified that other or general discourse systems cannot achieve, and exhibit greater discursive tension. This constitutes the particularity and individuality of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, highlighting cultural subjectivity. Taking “Chinese-path modernization” as an example again, “Chinese-path modernization” is markedly different from Western modernization. It is not a simple imitation or development of Western modernization, but a modernization based on Chinese theoretical guidance, rooted in Chinese culture, and grounded in China’s national conditions. It is a path of modernization independently forged by the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people, possessing complete autonomy and subjectivity. This iconic concept and iconic expression not only presents the general laws of world modernization and the common features of modernization in various countries—where the discursive signifier exhibits universal common characteristics such as civility, scientificity, and technological advancement—but also possesses vivid traits based on China’s own national conditions and distinctive features that explore the future direction of human societal modernization. This discourse highlighting Chinese characteristics, because it “provides a new choice for humanity to achieve modernization” and “creates a new form of human civilization,” acquires more general significance. Centering on the proposition of modernization and based on the vivid practice of Chinese-path modernization, we have continuously developed and evolved numerous expressive paradigms and discourse clusters representing the positions, viewpoints, actions, expressions, and dissemination of Chinese-path modernization, such as “industrialization,” “the Four Modernizations,” [9]9 The Four Modernizations: A goal set by Zhou Enlai in 1964 and reiterated in 1975, referring to the modernization of agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology. “the Two-Step Strategy,” [10]10 The Two-Step Strategy: A development strategy proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1987, where the first step (from 1981 to 1990) was to double the GNP and ensure basic food and clothing, and the second step (from 1991 to the end of the 20th century) was to quadruple the GNP and achieve moderate prosperity. “the Three-Step Strategy,” [11]11 The Three-Step Strategy: An expanded development strategy also proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1987, adding a third step (from the 21st century to the middle of the century) to reach the level of moderately developed countries and achieve basic modernization. “the New Three-Step Strategy,” [12]12 The New Three-Step Strategy: A refinement of the development strategy proposed at the 15th National Congress of the CPC in 1997, dividing the first half of the 21st century into three stages: 2000-2010 (doubling the GNP), 2010-2020 (further development), and 2020-2050 (achieving basic modernization). “moderate prosperity,” “moderate prosperity in all respects,” and “common prosperity.” Through the Chinese miracles created in the practical innovation of Chinese-path modernization, we generate and even prove to the world a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics that possesses Chinese features and individuality, and which continues to emerge and be produced. Therefore, the generation and construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is both the existence of “general knowledge” of the discourse system and the development of “local knowledge” of the discourse system. Because of this indigenousness, it acquires more general significance. It is the unity of generality and particularity, and the organic combination of commonality and individuality.

另一方面，“中国特色”是指这一话语体系具有不同于其他话语体系的特点与“个性”，话语理论、话语生成和话语权转化都在政治制度、经济社会、风土人情等各个方面打下了深深的“中国烙印”，特别是呈现出中华优秀传统文化话语体系与马克思主义话语体系在本体论、认识论、方法论和价值论上的融通，具有其他或一般话语体系所不能达到的所指的话语特质，更具话语张力，这是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的特殊性、个性，彰显的是文化主体性。还以“中国式现代化”为例，“中国式现代化”迥异于西方现代化，不是对西方现代化的简单因袭与发展，而是基于中国理论指导、植根中国文化、基于中国国情的现代化，是中国共产党带领中国人民独立自主走出的、具有完全自主性和主体性的现代化道路。这一标识性概念和标识性表达，既有世界现代化一般规律的呈现、各国现代化的共同特征，话语能指既表现出文明性、科学性、科技性等普遍的共性特征，又有着基于自己国情的生动特质和探索人类社会现代化未来发展方向的鲜明特征，这一凸显中国特质的话语，因其“为人类实现现代化提供了新的选择”和“创造了人类文明新形态”而更具一般性意义。我们围绕现代化这一命题，基于中国式现代化这一生动实践，不断演绎发展出“工业化”“四个现代化”“两步走”“三步走”“新三步走”“小康”“全面小康”“共同富裕”等诸多代表中国式现代化的立场、观点、行动、表达、传播等内容的表达范式和话语集群，以在中国式现代化实践创新中创造出的中国奇迹，向世界生成乃至证成了具有中国特点与个性、且仍在持续生发和生产的中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系。因此，中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的生成与建构，既是话语体系“一般性知识”的存在，又是话语体系“地方性知识”的发展，因这种本土性而更具一般性意义，是一般性与特殊性的统一、共性和个性的有机结合。

IV. The Ought and the Is: The Practical Problem of Constructing the Discourse System for Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics

四、应然与实然：中国特色哲学社会科学话语

The “ought” and the “is” essentially discuss the dialectical relationship between “the ideal” and “reality” in the philosophical category. This is a practical problem that the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must face, namely, the practical problem of integrating “what to say” and “how to say it.” The “ought” and the “is” are both interconnected and distinct from each other. The relationship between them manifests as the relationship between ideal existence and actual state. The “is” is the existing being, the actual being that appears in the present; the “ought” is latent within the “is,” the ideal being that should appear in the future. Whether in the natural world or human society, the “ought” and the “is” are mutually dependent existences. Reality contains elements of the “ought,” and ideality also contains elements of the “is.” In other words, the “ought” in the philosophical sense is an ideal state, the ideal presentation of “how things should be,” while the “is” is an objective state, the actual expression of “how things actually are.” The law of development of things is precisely presented alternately and interwoven in this theoretical rationality and practical rationality; the development of human civilization is precisely achieved through the unremitting pursuit of the “ought,” continuously elevating the state of the “is,” and ultimately reaching the result of the “necessary.”

体系构建的实践性问题应然与实然实质上讨论的是哲学范畴中“理想”与“现实”的辩证关系，是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系构建要面对的实践性问题，即“讲什么”和“怎么讲”相融通的实践问题。应然和实然既相互联系又相互区别，两者之间的关系，表现为理想存在与现实状态的关系。实然是现有的存在，是当下出现的现实存在；应然潜在于实然中，是未来应该出现的理想存在。无论是自然界还是人类社会，应然与实然都是相互依赖的存在，现实性包含“应然”的因素，理想性也包含“实然”的因素。换言之，哲学意义上的“应然”是一种理想状态，是事物“应该怎么样”的理想呈现，而“实然”则是一种客观状态，是事物“实际怎么样”的现实表达。事物的发展规律，正是在这种理论理性与实践理性中交替呈现、复线交织；人类文明的发展，也正是在对“应然”的不懈追求中实现“实然”状态的不断提升、最终达致“必然”的结果。

“Theory can convince the masses once it grasps them; and theory can grasp them once it is thorough.” [13]13 This is a quotation from Karl Marx’s *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. The “ought” in the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics emphasizes the “ought” of discourse generation, that is, what the mode and content of discourse generation are. It addresses the problem of “what to say,” aiming to make discourse well-founded and substantive. As an ideal existence, the “ought” of the discourse system focuses on what its content, structure, elements, and functions should actually express, and what new concepts, new categories, and new expressions should actually be proposed, in order to create a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner. The “is” in the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics emphasizes the “is” of discourse expression, that is, how the mode of discourse expression and practical verification are. It addresses the problem of “how to say it,” making discourse reasonable and effective. As an actual existence, the “is” of the discourse system is not merely the so-called visible and tangible existing “phenomena” or “appearances,” but rather, through the ideal height of the “ought,” the rational thinking behind how to reach this ideal height. Subsequently, within the unity of necessity and contingency, essence and phenomenon, sensibility and rationality, it grasps “reality,” explores what logical framework, basic dimensions, and construction principles should be adopted to create a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner, and ultimately finds a bright path leading to the “necessary.” In short, the content production and formal expression of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must address both the problem of “what to say” and the problem of “how to say it.” Through the unity of content production and formal expression, starting from the pursuit of the “ought,” it continuously grasps and elevates the state of the “is,” ultimately achieving the “necessary” for the realization of discursive functions.

“理论只要说服人，就能掌握群众；而理论只要彻底，就能说服人。”中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系建构的应然，强调的是话语生成的“应然”，即话语的生成方式和生成内容是什么，解决的是“讲什么”的问题，意在使话语要言之有据、言之有物。作为理想的存在，话语体系的“应然”聚焦在其内容、结构、要素、功能等到底应该表达的是什么，到底应该提出什么样的新概念、新范畴、新表述，才能打造具有中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系建构的实然，强调的则是话语表达的“实然”，即话语的表达方式和实践证成怎么样，解决的是“怎么讲”的问题，使话语言之有理、言之有效。作为现实的存在，话语体系的“实然”不仅仅是所谓看得见、摸得着的现存的“现象”或“表象”，而是借由应然的理想高度对如何达到这一理想高度的背后的理性思考，进而在必然性与偶然性、本质与现象、感性与理性的统一中把握“现实”，探寻到底应该通过什么样的逻辑架构、基本维度、建构原则才能打造具有中国特色、中国风格、中国气派的中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系，并最终找到一条通向“必然”的光明大道。简言之，就是中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的内容生产与形式表达既要解决“讲什么”的问题，也要解决“怎么讲”的问题，通过内容生产与形式表达的统一，从而实现从“应然”追求出发，不断把握和提升“实然”状态，最终达到话语功能实现的“必然”。

The organic unity of content production and formal expression of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, the organic combination of the discursive signifier and the discursive signified, and the organic transformation of discursive narrative into discursive power constitute a complex systematic project. It must maximally transcend the “incommensurability” in philosophical semantics and minimize the “diminishing returns” in semantic expression. To enhance discursive expressiveness, influence, and penetrative power, the most crucial task is to achieve the integration and fusion of political discourse, academic discourse, and popular discourse based on a solid theoretical foundation and substantial practical content, thereby generating and forming a discourse system and discursive expression that is well-grounded, rhetorically effective, and down-to-earth.

中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的内容生产与形式表达的有机统一，话语能指和话语所指的有机结合，话语叙事向话语权的有机转化，是一个复杂的系统工程，必须最大程度跨越哲学语义上的“不可通约性”，最大限度减少语义表达中的“效应递减性”。提升话语表达力、影响力和穿透力，最紧要的是基于坚实的理论基础和扎实的实践内容，实现政治话语、学术话语和大众话语的融通融合，生发和形成有理据、有修辞、接地气的话语体系和话语表达。

The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is an organic unity of political discourse, academic discourse, and popular discourse. Political discourse, as a political expression of cultural and value standards within a political context, manifests political nature, authority, and inspirational appeal; academic discourse, as a theoretical expression that primarily explains and defines the generation, dissemination, and transformation of discourse from a scholarly perspective, manifests theoretical nature, academic nature, and systematicity; popular discourse, as a popular expression based on the interests of the masses and oriented toward the needs of the masses, manifests popular accessibility, ease of acceptance, and broad reach. By correctly handling the relationship among political discourse, academic discourse, and popular discourse, using plain and simple language to express and respond to issues, transforming political and academic discourse into popular discourse, and making discourse popularized, life-oriented, and plain through discursive creation, thereby bringing it close to the lives of the masses and into their hearts, can the "ought-to-be" [1]1 The 20th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2022. pointed to by the content of discourse and the "is" [2]2 Quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech at the symposium on philosophy and social sciences in May 2016. of discursive expression truly become the "must-be" [3]3 Quotation from the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC. that flies into the homes of ordinary people.

中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系是政治话语、学术话语和大众话语的有机统一。政治话语作为对政治语境下的文化及价值标准的政治表达，表现出政治性、权威性、感召性；学术话语作为主要从学理上阐释和界定话语生成、传播、转化等内容的理论表达，表现出理论性、学术性、系统性；大众话语作为立足群众利益、面向群众需要的大众表达，表现出通俗性、易接受性、广泛性。通过正确处理政治话语、学术话语与大众话语的关系，用通俗、朴实的话语表达问题、回应问题，把政治话语和学术话语转化为大众话语，通过话语创造让话语大众化、生活化、通俗化，贴近群众生活、走进群众心间，才能使话语内容指向的“应然”与话语表达的“实然”成为真正飞入寻常百姓家的“必然”。

The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must possess both political height, theoretical depth, and the warmth of popular life. In the interactive integration of height, depth, and warmth, thorough theory is the fundamental foundation, the key to dismantling the "traps" of Western discourse and breaking free from the "molds" of Western discourse. Rich practice provides content security; the foothold for constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics lies in the vivid practice of Chinese-path modernization. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out, "the rich practice of reform and opening up and socialist modernization in the New Era is a 'rich mine' for theoretical and policy research." [4]4 Quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech at the commemoration of the 2,565th anniversary of Confucius’ birth in September 2014. The rich, profound, and wisdom-filled practice of Chinese-path modernization is the empirical fact on which Chinese discourse is based, and the key to supporting relevant discursive theories and breaking free from the "traps" of Western discourse, especially shattering the discursive shackles of "Western-centrism." The construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics should be situated within the process of Chinese-path modernization, continuously producing a discourse system that matches its development process, is systematic and vivid, and possesses both scholarly implications and vivid practical expression. Concise expression is an inevitable requirement, an important aspect of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times and promoting the Party's innovative theories deep into the hearts of the people. Only when discursive content and discursive expression simultaneously possess political, academic, and popular characteristics can they effectively "understand the world," "interpret the world," and "change the world," truly achieving a seamless connection between discourse and life, integrating discursive practice with discursive effects, and effectively forming a logical transformation from discursive production to discursive power.

中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系既要有政治的高度，也要有理论的厚度，还要有大众生活的温度。在高度、厚度和温度的互动融合中，彻底的理论是根本基础，是拆解西方话语“陷阱”、跳出西方话语“窠臼”的根本。丰富的实践是内容保障，构建中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的立足点是中国式现代化的生动实践，正如习近平总书记所指出的，“新时代改革开放和社会主义现代化建设的丰富实践是理论和政策研究的‘富矿’”，丰富、深刻而又充满智慧的中国式现代化实践是中国话语立足的经验事实，是支撑相关话语理论、跳出西方话语“陷阱”特别是打破“西方中心主义”话语桎梏的关键。中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的构建应置身于中国式现代化进程之中，持续生产与其发展过程相匹配的、系统生动、既具学理意蕴又具鲜活实践表达的话语体系。精炼的表达是必然要求，是推进马克思主义中国化时代化、推动党的创新理论深入人心的重要方面。话语内容和话语表达兼具政治性、学术性和大众性，才能有效“认识世界”“解释世界”“改造世界”，真正让话语与生活无缝对接、话语实践与话语效果融为一体，有效形成从话语生产到话语权力的逻辑转化。

The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC emphasized: "accelerate the construction of Chinese discourse and Chinese narrative systems, and comprehensively enhance the effectiveness of international communication." [5]5 A Chinese idiom meaning that clues or hints are scattered throughout, forming a coherent pattern when traced back. Facing the objective reality of "the West being strong and the East being weak" in international communication and Western developed countries still holding the dominant position in international discursive power, constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, telling China's stories well, spreading China's voice, and enhancing international discursive power commensurate with China's comprehensive national strength and international status are particularly urgent. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, "telling China's stories well, spreading China's voice well, and presenting a true, multi-dimensional, and comprehensive China are important tasks for strengthening our country's international communication capacity building," [6]6 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2012, marking the beginning of the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics under Xi Jinping’s leadership. and pointed out, "we must accelerate the construction of Chinese discourse and Chinese narrative systems, use Chinese theory to explain Chinese practice, use Chinese practice to elevate Chinese theory, create new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that connect China and the rest of the world, and more fully and more clearly present China's stories and the ideological and spiritual power behind them." [7]7 This is a quotation from Hegel, as cited by Lenin in his *Philosophical Notebooks*, referring to the teleological activity of negating the external world to realize a purpose. Starting from the logical connections of the philosophical categories of unity and diversity, critique and construction, the general and the particular, and the "ought-to-be" and the "is," inquiring into what exactly the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, which possesses its own subjectivity, is, what it speaks about, and how it speaks, and further transforming the institutional advantages and governance effectiveness of socialism with Chinese characteristics into discursive advantages, is an inevitable requirement for constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics that unites purposiveness and regularity.

党的二十届三中全会强调：“加快构建中国话语和中国叙事体系，全面提升国际传播效能。”面对国际传播“西强东弱”和西方发达国家依然把控国际话语权主导地位的客观现实，建构中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系，讲好中国故事，传播中国声音，提升同我国综合国力和国际地位相匹配的国际话语权，尤为亟需。习近平总书记强调，“讲好中国故事，传播好中国声音，展示真实、立体、全面的中国，是加强我国国际传播能力建设的重要任务”，并指出，“要加快构建中国话语和中国叙事体系，用中国理论阐释中国实践，用中国实践升华中国理论，打造融通中外的新概念、新范畴、新表述，更加充分、更加鲜明地展现中国故事及其背后的思想力量和精神力量”。从哲学范畴中的一元与多样、批判与建构、一般与特殊、应然与实然的逻辑关联出发，追问具有自身主体性的中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系到底是什么、讲什么、怎么讲，把中国特色社会主义的制度优势和治理效能进一步转化为话语优势，是合目的性与合规律性相统一、建构中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系的必然要求。

Source: *Philosophical Research*, Issue 2, 2025

文章来源：《哲学研究》2025年第2期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆