The Basic Logic of the Theory of Culture for Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era

The establishment of Xi Jinping’s thought on culture has further perfected the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics for the New Era. Deeply studying Xi Jinping’s thought on culture and elucidating its profound connotations is an important task for contemporary research in cultural philosophy. Xi Jinping’s thought on culture touches on all aspects of cultural theory and practice, comprehensively revealing the basic logic of the theory of culture for socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and constitutes a complete system of thought. The overarching question of this system of thought is the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture; surrounding this overarching question, there is also a series of interconnected derivative questions. Among these, the resolution of the overarching question also foreshadows the answers to the derivative questions.

习近平文化思想的创立，使新时代中国特色社会主义理论更加完善。深入研究习近平文化思想，阐发这一思想的深刻内涵，是当代文化哲学研究的重要课题。习近平文化思想涉及文化理论与实践的各个方面，全面展现了新时代中国特色社会主义文化理论的基本逻辑，是一个完整的思想体系。这个思想体系的总问题是中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展；围绕这个总问题，还有一系列相互联系的派生问题。其中，总问题的解决，也预示了派生问题的答案。

I. Culture and Cultural Tradition: A “Future”-Oriented View of Cultural Tradition

一、文化与文化传统：“未来”本位的文化传统观

Faced with the question of the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, we must first answer what culture is, and what cultural tradition is.

面对中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展问题，首先要回答什么是文化，以及什么是文化传统。

Culture is a phenomenon unique to human society, with both broad and narrow definitions. In the broad sense, culture includes all creations reached by human sensation, perception, concepts, thought, and labor practice. Xi Jinping pointed out at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development on June 2, 2023: “The Chinese nation has always created its own material civilization, political civilization, and cultural-ethical progress with the spirit of ‘If you can one day renovate yourself, do so from day to day. Yes, let there be daily renovation.’[1]1 A classical allusion from the *Book of Rites* (*Liji*), “The Great Learning” (*Daxue*), attributed to King Tang of the Shang dynasty, inscribed on his bathing basin as a self-exhortation to moral and political renewal. For a very long historical period, it stood in the world as the most prosperous and powerful civilization.” The sum of “material civilization, political civilization, and cultural-ethical progress” mentioned here refers to culture in the broad sense. Culture in the broad sense is actually the totality of human creations, and the totality of human creations constitutes what Marx and Engels called the human world. Culture in the narrow sense refers to spiritual culture, manifested in forms such as literature, art, and ideological concepts. According to the understanding of the British cultural anthropologist Edward Tylor, culture is a complex whole including knowledge, belief, art, law, morality, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. It can be roughly divided into three levels: the psychological, the conceptual, and the ideological; its core is various kinds of knowledge as spiritual products. This clearly refers to culture in the narrow sense. When Xi Jinping’s thought on culture uses the concept of “culture,” except in certain contexts, such as the aforementioned meaning of the sum of “material civilization, political civilization, and cultural-ethical progress,” where it refers to culture in the broad sense, in most cases it refers to culture in the narrow sense, that is, specifically spiritual culture.

文化是人类社会特有的现象，有广义与狭义之分。广义的文化包括人类的感觉、知觉、观念、思想和劳动实践所及的一切创造物。习近平在2023年6月2日的文化传承发展座谈会上指出：“中华民族始终以‘苟日新，日日新，又日新’的精神不断创造自己的物质文明、精神文明和政治文明，在很长的历史时期内作为最繁荣最强大的文明体屹立于世。”这里所说的“物质文明、精神文明和政治文明”的总和即所谓广义的文化。广义的文化实际上就是人的创造物的总和，而人的创造物的总和就构成了马克思恩格斯所说的人类世界。狭义的文化指的是精神文化，以文学艺术、思想观念等为表现形式。根据英国文化人类学家爱德华·泰勒的理解，文化是包括知识、信仰、艺术、法律、道德、风俗以及作为一个社会成员所获得的能力与习惯的复杂整体。它大致可分为心理、观念和思想三个层面，其核心是作为精神产品的各种知识，这显然是指狭义的文化。而习近平文化思想在使用“文化”这一概念时，除在个别语境，如前述“物质文明、精神文明和政治文明”的总和的意义上，意指广义的文化，更多的情况下指的是狭义的文化，也就是专指精神文化。

Traditional culture and cultural tradition are a pair of related concepts: traditional culture constitutes the basic content of cultural tradition. In common understanding, traditional culture tends to express cultural tradition from a static perspective; while cultural tradition is the “flowing” state or historical form of traditional culture, tending to express traditional culture from a dynamic perspective. In some situations, the two can also be used in the same sense. Regarding the nature of cultural tradition, there are generally two different views. One view of cultural tradition regards cultural tradition as given and ossified; that is, cultural tradition is the solidified, stable thing that a specific culture has inherited through a long historical sedimentation, a cultural relic of a bygone history or a cultural “mummy.” The other view of cultural tradition regards cultural tradition as a living organism of endless growth, a constantly growing living existence. The former view of cultural tradition adheres to a physical concept of time, which is “past”-oriented. Among the three dimensions of historical time, it defines cultural tradition within the “past”: so-called cultural tradition is the given existence of history that has already “passed,” while the “present” and the “future” should both be infused into the mold of the “past,” becoming a copy of “past” history, and copied indefinitely. This turns the “present” and the “future” into empty time without new content, whose value of existence lies in bearing the stale “past.” On this basis, this understanding solidifies tradition and focuses its main energy on determining the so-called spiritual characteristics of tradition. This is a kind of cultural fundamentalism, which inevitably leads to cultural isolationism. Its crux lies in the fact that this view of cultural tradition completely denies, from an ontological perspective, the possibility of the creative transformation and innovative development of cultural tradition. The latter view of cultural tradition, in contrast, adheres to a humanistic concept of time, which differs from the physical concept of time and is “future”-oriented. This view holds that cultural tradition is not, as people commonly perceive it, a rigid, ossified historical archive or cultural “mummy” existing in the “past.” Quite the opposite: in its view, cultural tradition is the unity of “completed culture” and “uncompleted culture,” taking the “future” as its orientation, the “present” as the source of problems, and the “past” as its foundation within the three dimensions of historical time. Within such a framework of understanding, the “present (reality)” significance and the “future (ideal)” significance of cultural tradition can be fully explored, and the “past,” “present,” and “future” will no longer become empty physical time forms, but rather become the process of generation and enrichment of a living organism. As Xi Jinping pointed out at the Symposium on Work in Philosophy and Social Sciences on May 17, 2016, we must “both look forward, accurately judging the development trend of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and look backward, being good at inheriting and carrying forward the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture.” So-called “looking forward” means looking toward the “future,” taking the “future” as the orientation; so-called “looking backward” means taking the “past” as the foundation. Only a cultural tradition understood in this way can be a process enabling the fine traditional Chinese culture to realize the creative transformation and innovative development of “If you can one day renovate yourself, do so from day to day. Yes, let there be daily renovation.”

传统文化和文化传统是一对相关联的概念：传统文化构成了文化传统的基本内容。在一般理解中，传统文化偏于从静态意义上表述文化传统；而文化传统则是传统文化的“流动”状态或历史形态，偏于从动态意义上表述传统文化。在某种情境下，二者也可以在相同的意义上使用。关于文化传统的性质，总体上存在着两种不同的观点。一种文化传统观把文化传统看作既定的、僵死的，即文化传统就是特定文化经过漫长的历史积淀而传承下来的固化的、稳定的东西，是一种逝去历史的文化遗存或者文化“木乃伊”。另一种文化传统观则把文化传统看作一个生生不息的有机生命体，是不断生长的生命存在。前一种文化传统观所秉持的是一种物理的时间观，是“过去”本位的。在历史时间的三个维度中，它把文化传统界定在“过去”之中：所谓文化传统就是历史已经“过去”的给定存在，而“现在”和“未来”都应当灌注到“过去”的范型里，成为“过去”历史的复制，而且无限复制下去。这就把“现在”和“未来”变成了毫无新内容的空洞的时间，其存在的价值就在于承载陈旧的“过去”。在此基础上，这种理解就把传统固型化，并把主要精力放在确定所谓传统的精神特质上。这是一种文化原教旨主义，必然导致文化封闭主义。其要害在于，这种文化传统观从存在论意义上彻底否定了文化传统的创造性转化和创新性发展的可能性。后一种文化传统观则秉持一种人文的时间观，它不同于物理的时间观，是“未来”本位的。这种观点认为，文化传统并不像人们通常认知的那样，是存在于“过去”的僵死固化的历史文存或者文化“木乃伊”。与此截然相反，在它看来，文化传统是“既成文化”和“未成文化”的统一，在历史时间的三个维度中以“未来”为本位、以“现在”为问题源头、以“过去”为基础。在这样一种理解框架下，文化传统的“现在（现实）”意义和“未来（理想）”意义才能被充分发掘，“过去”“现在”和“未来”才不会变成空洞的物理时间形式，而是成为一个有机生命体的生成和丰富的过程。正如习近平在2016年5月17日的哲学社会科学工作座谈会上指出的，我们要“既向前看、准确判断中国特色社会主义发展趋势，又向后看、善于继承和弘扬中华优秀传统文化精华”。所谓“向前看”，即是展望“未来”，以“未来”为本位；所谓“向后看”，即是以“过去”为基础。这样理解的文化传统才是一个能够使中华优秀传统文化实现“苟日新，日日新，又日新”的创造性转化和创新性发展的过程。

Undoubtedly, the latter view of cultural tradition is the correct understanding of cultural tradition. Under this view of cultural tradition, cultural tradition presents a relationship of successive transformation between the cultural noumenon and cultural variants. According to Gadamer’s hermeneutics, the process of interpreting cultural tradition is a process of “fusion of horizons” between the interpreting subject and the historical legacy, and from this emerge cultural variants relative to the cultural noumenon. In every era of the growth and transmission of cultural tradition, there exists one or more interpretive texts of cultural tradition, i.e., cultural variants. This unbroken chain of cultural variants is essentially the continued development of the noumenon of cultural tradition—that is, cultural tradition itself—in the current era. It is precisely this successive transformation between the noumenon and variants of cultural tradition that dissolves the given, ossified structure of cultural tradition: the variants of cultural tradition constantly change the appearance and connotation of the noumenon, keeping cultural tradition in a process of constant dissolution and constant reconstruction, thereby achieving its activation. Understanding fine traditional Chinese culture as an active living organism, an unbroken process of growth, constitutes the ontological foundation for the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture.

毋庸置疑，后一种文化传统观才是对文化传统的正确理解。在这种文化传统观下，文化传统呈现出文化本体与文化变体之间的递次转化关系。按照伽达默尔解释学的理解，对文化传统的阐释过程就是阐释主体与历史传承物的“视界融合”的过程，并由此出现了与文化本体相对的文化变体。在文化传统生长和流传的每一个时代，都存在一种或多种对文化传统的阐释文本，即文化变体。这种绵延不绝的文化变体，本质上是文化传统的本体即文化传统本身在当前时代的继续发展。正是文化传统的本体与变体的递次转化，消解了文化传统给定的固化结构：文化传统的变体不断地改变着本体的面貌和内涵，使文化传统处于不断消解、不断重建的过程中而实现活化。把中华优秀传统文化理解为一个活跃的生命体、一个绵延不绝的生长过程，就构成中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展的存在论基础。

II. The Creative Transformation and Innovative Development of Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

二、中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展

On the basis of correctly understanding culture and cultural tradition, we can more deeply understand and grasp the question of the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture.

在正确理解文化和文化传统的基础上，我们可以更加深刻地理解和把握中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展问题。

The revival of fine traditional Chinese culture takes “reality” as its coordinate and the “future” as its orientation. That is to say, this revival is not a “fondness for antiquity” that “transmits but does not create, believing in and loving antiquity” (The Analects, Shu Er),[2]2 A quotation from the *Analects of Confucius*, describing Confucius’s own attitude of transmitting ancient wisdom rather than innovating, which the author contrasts with the need for creative transformation. but rather takes the future as its ultimate goal, dedicating itself to solving the practical problems we face. A significant “cultural lag” has already formed between the original form of fine traditional Chinese culture and the present era. This makes it appear flustered when facing the challenges of foreign cultures, unable either to successfully resist the impact of foreign cultures or to be directly adopted as the ideological and cultural foundation of socialism with Chinese characteristics. To eliminate this “cultural lag” and make fine traditional Chinese culture truly modern, it must be ensured that its revival is not a fundamentalist revival, but rather achieves creative transformation and innovative development.

中华优秀传统文化的复兴，是以“现实”为坐标、以“未来”为本位的。也就是说，这种复兴不是一种“述而不作，信而好古”（《论语·述而》）的“好古癖”，而是要以未来为旨归，致力于解决我们面临的现实问题。中华优秀传统文化的原有形态与现时代之间已经形成了很大的“文化堕距”。这使它在面对外来文化的挑战时显得左支右绌，既不能成功地抵抗外来文化的冲击，也不能被直接拿来作为中国特色社会主义的思想文化基础。而要消除这种“文化堕距”并使中华优秀传统文化真正成为现代的，就必须保证它的复兴不是原教旨式的复兴，而是要实现创造性转化和创新性发展。

On the one hand, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture means eliminating the feudal elements within its concepts, propositions, and theories, thereby achieving a paradigm shift in traditional culture. The “cultural paradigm” here is a concept adapted by Alasdair MacIntyre from Thomas Kuhn’s “scientific paradigm” for application in the cultural domain, also referred to as “tradition” or “community.” A cultural paradigm undergoes three stages in its development: the establishment of tradition, the crisis of tradition, and the reconstruction of tradition. However, unlike Kuhn’s emphasis on the discontinuity of the historical logic of paradigm shifts, MacIntyre stresses the continuity of the historical logic of tradition or community. That is, in a crisis of a cultural tradition, that tradition may, by drawing on another vibrant cultural tradition, reconstruct a new cognitive framework and theoretical system to resolve the crisis, thereby continuing its existence. MacIntyre’s view of cultural tradition offers some reference for understanding the renewal and modern transformation of fine traditional Chinese culture. The paradigm shift of fine traditional Chinese culture does not entail a complete severance from cultural tradition or a wholesale negation of traditional culture; rather, it injects new vitality into traditional culture and promotes its rebirth and reconstruction.

一方面，推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展，就是要消解其概念、命题、理论中的封建因素，实现传统文化范式的转换。这里的“文化范式”是阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔对托马斯·库恩的“科学范式”概念加以改造后形成的能够应用于文化领域的概念，也被称作“传统”或“共同体”。文化范式在发展过程中要经历三个阶段：传统的确立、传统的危机和传统的重构。但是，与库恩强调范式转换的历史逻辑的非连续性不同，麦金太尔强调传统或共同体的历史逻辑的连续性。也就是说，在一个文化传统的危机中，该传统有可能借助另外一个富有生命力的文化传统，重建新的认知构架和理论体系来解决危机，从而继续延续下来。麦金太尔的这种文化传统观对于理解中华优秀传统文化的生命更新和现代转型具有一定的借鉴意义。中华优秀传统文化的范式转换，并不是彻底割裂文化传统、全面否定传统文化，而是为传统文化注入新的生命力，促进传统文化的新生再造。

On the other hand, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture means, against the backdrop of global modernization, taking Marxism as the guide and advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization as the goal, to carry out an overall modern reconstruction of fine traditional Chinese culture. “Innovative development” indicates the direction of “creative transformation”: this transformation is neither a fundamentalist revival by cultural conservatives nor a quasi-fundamentalist revival by New Confucians who take Confucian philosophy as the “ancestral doctrine” and integrate foreign ideas; rather, it is the activation of the genes of fine traditional Chinese culture by the light of Marxist truth, enabling it to leap from tradition to modernity and develop into a modern form, namely, socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. This process is one of mutual interpretation and integration between the basic principles of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture, one in which the advanced thought and theory of Marxism stimulate the vigorous vitality of fine traditional Chinese culture, enabling it to successfully address and resolve the contemporary issues we face, while simultaneously enriching the cultural life of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, propelling Marxism to continuously achieve new leaps in adapting to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and one of creating a new form of human civilization.

另一方面，推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展，就是要在世界现代化的背景下，以马克思主义为指导，以推进和拓展中国式现代化为旨归，对中华优秀传统文化进行一种总体上的现代性重建。“创新性发展”表明了“创造性转化”的方向，即这种转化既不是文化保守主义者的原教旨式的复兴，也不是新儒家以儒家哲学为“宗”、融合外来思想的准原教旨式的复兴，而是以马克思主义的真理之光激活中华优秀传统文化的基因，使其实现从传统到现代的跨越，发展出现代形态即中国特色社会主义文化。这一过程是马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相互诠释、相互融合的过程，是以马克思主义的先进思想理论激发中华优秀传统文化的旺盛生机和活力，使之能够成功应对和解决我们当前面临的时代问题，同时以中华优秀传统文化充实马克思主义的文化生命，推动马克思主义不断实现中国化时代化的新飞跃的过程，是创造人类文明新形态的过程。

In the study of this issue, two ideological tendencies merit attention. The first tendency is to mechanically compare and simplistically equate certain propositions and theories of Marxism with certain concepts and ideas of fine traditional Chinese culture. For example, it mechanically compares the great harmony society aspired to by fine traditional Chinese culture with the communist ideal of Marxism, and simplistically equates the people-oriented thought in fine traditional Chinese culture with the Communist Party of China’s value concept of putting the people first, claiming they are compatible and interconnected. This so-called “compatibility and interconnection” essentially treats Marxism as a cultural ideology of feudal society, which is entirely unfounded and absolutely unacceptable. In reality, they share only formal similarities but are fundamentally different. The integration of the basic principles of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture “is not a ‘patchwork’ or a simple ‘physical reaction,’ but a profound ‘chemical reaction,’ giving rise to an organic and unified new cultural life form,” “making Marxism Chinese and fine traditional Chinese culture modern, so that the new culture formed through ‘integration’ becomes the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization.” For fine traditional Chinese culture, the advanced thought and theory of Marxism are the most important activating factor; only under its guidance can fine traditional Chinese culture radiate new vitality in the new historical period. The second tendency is to neglect the excellent components of Western culture. Xi Jinping emphasizes, “We must be adept at integrating various resources from ancient and modern times, both at home and abroad, especially by grasping three types of resources,” namely, the resources of Marxism, the resources of fine traditional Chinese culture, and the resources of foreign philosophy and social sciences. Western culture is an important component of foreign philosophy and social sciences and also constitutes a significant background element we must confront in advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization. Western modernization was the first relatively mature model in the global modernization process and once became the goal for developing countries pursuing modernization. In fact, Chinese-path modernization has from the outset aimed to overcome the various drawbacks of Western modernization and to reconstruct the basic standards and ideal form of modernization. Therefore, as the cultural ideology of Western modernization, Western culture is also an important resource that needs to be critically drawn upon when promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture and developing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization.

在关于这一问题的研究中，有两种思想倾向值得注意。第一种倾向是把马克思主义的某些命题、理论与中华优秀传统文化的某些概念、思想进行机械对比、简单等同。比如，把中华优秀传统文化所向往的大同社会与马克思主义的共产主义理想作机械的比较，把中华优秀传统文化中的民本思想与中国共产党坚持人民至上的价值理念作简单的等同，认为它们是相融相通的。这种所谓的“相融相通”，本质上是把马克思主义当成了封建社会的文化意识形态，这是完全没有根据和断然不能接受的。实际上，它们只具有形式上的相似性，实质上却是根本不同的。马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合“不是‘拼盘’，不是简单的‘物理反应’，而是深刻的‘化学反应’，造就了一个有机统一的新的文化生命体”，“让马克思主义成为中国的，中华优秀传统文化成为现代的，让经由‘结合’而形成的新文化成为中国式现代化的文化形态”。对中华优秀传统文化来说，马克思主义的先进思想理论是最重要的激发因素，只有在它的引领下，中华优秀传统文化才能在新的历史时期焕发新的生命活力。第二种倾向是忽视西方文化的优秀成分。习近平强调，“我们要善于融通古今中外各种资源，特别是要把握好三方面资源”，即马克思主义的资源、中华优秀传统文化的资源和国外哲学社会科学的资源。西方文化是国外哲学社会科学的重要组成部分，也构成我们推进和拓展中国式现代化需要面对的重要背景元素。西方现代化是世界现代化进程中第一个比较成型的范本，并一度成为发展中国家追求现代化的目标。实际上，中国式现代化从一开始就旨在克服西方现代化的种种弊端，重建现代化的基本标准和理想形态。因此，作为西方现代化的文化意识形态，西方文化也是推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展、发展中国式现代化的文化形态时需要批判借鉴的重要资源。

III. Cultural Subjectivity: Cultural Innovation and Cultural Practice

三、文化主体性：文化创新与文化实践

The creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture embody the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation and, on this basis, a great cultural practice. “For any culture to stand firm and go far, to have guiding power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiating power, it must have its own subjectivity. The Communist Party of China has always attached importance to culture. In the New Era, we have added cultural confidence on the basis of confidence in the path, confidence in the theory, and confidence in the system. Cultural confidence comes from our cultural subjectivity.” [3]3 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development,” *Qiushi*, 2023, no. 17. [This is a reference to a specific speech by Xi Jinping on cultural heritage and development, published in the Party journal *Qiushi*; the quote emphasizes the necessity of cultural subjectivity for cultural strength and links cultural confidence to this subjectivity.]

中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展，体现了中华民族的文化主体性以及在此基础上的一场伟大的文化实践。“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。中国共产党历来重视文化，新时代我们在道路自信、理论自信、制度自信的基础上增加了文化自信。文化自信就来自我们的文化主体性。”

Cultural subjectivity in fact originates from human subjectivity. From a philosophical perspective, human subjectivity is the elevation of human self-consciousness from a state of being-in-itself to a state of being-for-itself, thereby attaining a kind of self-awareness. It manifests as consciousness of freedom, consciousness of autonomy, consciousness of initiative, and the creative practical activities governed by these forms of consciousness. Culture is the mode of human existence; human subjectivity naturally manifests itself within culture, forming cultural subjectivity. So-called cultural subjectivity refers to the conscious understanding and reflection on the culture to which an individual belongs, as well as creative cultural practical activities, manifested as the conscious innovation and continuous growth of cultural tradition. It can be said that cultural subjectivity inherently contains the meaning of cultural practice.

文化主体性实则来源于人的主体性。从哲学上看，人的主体性就是人的自我意识由自在状态上升到自为状态，从而达至一种自觉性。它表现为自由意识、自主意识、主动意识以及在这些意识支配下的创造性实践活动。文化是人的存在方式，人的主体性自然会表现在文化之中，形成文化主体性。所谓文化主体性，就是对个人所属文化的自觉认识和反思，以及创造性的文化实践活动，表现为文化传统的自觉创新和不断生长。可以说，文化主体性内蕴着文化实践的意涵。

The concept of “cultural practice” was derived by the British Marxist Raymond Williams from Marx’s concept of “social practice.” He equates society with culture, views culture as a concept with social totality, and refers to cultural practice as “the whole, indissoluble practice.” Cultural practice mainly includes three forms.

“文化实践”概念是英国马克思主义者雷蒙·威廉斯从马克思的“社会实践”概念衍生而来的。他把社会等同于文化，把文化看作一种具有社会总体性的概念，把文化实践称作“不朽的整体实践”。文化实践主要包括三种形式。

First, in the sense of social continuity, cultural practice is the activity of social production and reproduction. Williams calls it “productive social forces,” “because what it really does is to go beyond limiting formulas and restore the whole social material process, especially the cultural production as a social material process.” [4]4 Raymond Williams, *Marxism and Literature*, trans. Wang Erbo and Zhou Li (Henan University Press, 2008), p. 100. [This note identifies the source of Williams’s concept of cultural practice as “productive social forces,” as cited in the text.]

其一，在社会延续意义上，文化实践是社会生产和再生产活动。威廉斯称之为“生产型的社会力量”，“因为它真正要做的是，超越局限性的公式，恢复完整的社会物质过程，尤其是恢复作为社会物质过程的文化生产”。

Second, in the relationship between culture and the basic contradictions of society, cultural practice is the process by which cultural ideology overcomes the basic contradictions of society. Williams points out that in all vast transformations of the superstructure, people can become aware of the basic contradictions of society, namely, the conflict between productive forces and relations of production, and consciously use law, politics, religion, art, philosophy, and so on to overcome them; this process is political practice and cultural practice. [5]5 Raymond Williams, *Marxism and Literature*, trans. Wang Erbo and Zhou Li (Henan University Press, 2008), p. 100. [This note identifies the source of Williams’s argument about cultural practice overcoming social contradictions, as cited in the text.]

其二，在文化与社会基本矛盾的关系上，文化实践是文化意识形态对社会基本矛盾的克服过程。威廉斯指出，在所有庞大的上层建筑变革中，人们可以意识到社会基本矛盾即生产力和生产关系的冲突，并有意识地利用法律、政治、宗教、艺术、哲学等加以克服，这一过程就是政治实践和文化实践。

Third, from the standpoint of cultural politics, the specific mechanism of cultural practice is the struggle for cultural hegemony. Williams believes that “intention” is the manifestation of the subjectivity of the ruling class’s cultural practice. Seeking cultural hegemony is actually a cultural practice that contains “intention.” It emphasizes the class distinction of cultural leadership, that is, a dynamic cultural structure composed of dominant culture, residual culture, and emergent culture, and maintains a balance of mutual “resistance” and “incorporation” among the three cultures, transcending a static state of culture. At the same time, it is more subtly embedded within the political and economic systems, surpassing class ideology that is relatively formal, clear, and explicit in expression. The introduction of the concept of “cultural practice” is of great significance. It responds to the major change in the contemporary era where the role of culture is increasingly prominent, and summarizes an important form of current human practice. For the issues discussed in this article, the concept of “cultural practice” can be extracted and used to interpret the connotation of the subjectivity of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. A cultural subjectivity without cultural practice is merely an empty cultural subjectivity, just like the empty self-consciousness of idealism. So-called cultural practice is the production and reproduction of a totality of cultural tradition; it is the reconstruction of culture under the dominance of cultural and ideological leadership; it certainly also includes the reaction of the cultural superstructure on the economic base. In this sense, the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture is a great cultural practice activity. This understanding is consistent with Marxism.

其三，从文化政治学立场上看，文化实践的具体机制是争夺文化霸权。威廉斯认为，“意图”是统治阶级文化实践主体性的显现。谋求文化霸权实际上是一种包含“意图”的文化实践。它强调文化主导权的阶级区别，即由主导文化、残余文化和新兴文化构成的动态文化结构，并维持着三种文化之间互相“抵抗”和“收编”的平衡，超越了静止状态的文化。同时，它更加隐蔽地潜藏在政治和经济体系之中，超越了相对来说形式规范、表述清晰的阶级意识形态。“文化实践”概念的提出具有非常重要的意义。它呼应了当今时代文化的作用日益凸显的重大变化，概括了当前人类实践的重要形式。对于本文所论问题来说，可以把“文化实践”概念析取出来，用以解读中国特色社会主义文化的主体性内涵。没有文化实践的文化主体性，只是空洞的文化主体性，就如同唯心主义空洞的自我意识一样。所谓文化实践，就是具有总体性的文化传统的生产与再生产，就是在文化意识形态领导权支配下对文化的重构活动，它当然也包括文化上层建筑对经济基础的反作用。在这种意义上，中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展就是一场伟大的文化实践活动。这种理解是符合马克思主义的。

Establishing cultural subjectivity is of great significance. “With cultural subjectivity, there is a firm self in the cultural sense; cultural confidence has a fundamental foundation; the Communist Party of China has a powerful cultural force to lead the times; the Chinese nation and the Chinese people have a solid cultural foundation for national identity; and Chinese civilization has distinctive cultural characteristics for exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations in the world.” [6]6 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development,” *Qiushi*, 2023, no. 17. [This is a standard citation format for a speech published in the CPC theoretical journal *Qiushi* (Seeking Truth).]

确立文化主体性具有重要的意义。“有了文化主体性，就有了文化意义上坚定的自我，文化自信就有了根本依托，中国共产党就有了引领时代的强大文化力量，中华民族和中国人民就有了国家认同的坚实文化基础，中华文明就有了和世界其他文明交流互鉴的鲜明文化特性。”

With cultural subjectivity, cultural confidence has a fundamental foundation. Cultural confidence is neither cultural arrogance nor cultural blind faith; neither can lead to cultural innovation, but only to the stagnation of cultural development. Cultural arrogance and cultural blind faith are causally linked: cultural blind faith is the cause, and cultural arrogance is the effect; both are based on irrational emotions toward fine traditional Chinese culture. So-called cultural confidence means that the subject of a specific culture, on the basis of rational cognition of its own culture, affirms that this culture possesses vigorous vitality, that is, it has the profound strength to successfully respond to and solve the problems of the times it faces. With cultural subjectivity, the cultural subject can always maintain a positive posture and constructive practice when encountering foreign cultures, new environments, and new problems, and by promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional culture under new historical conditions, it can radiate new vitality and dynamism.

有了文化主体性，文化自信就有了根本依托。文化自信既不是文化自大，也不是文化盲信，二者都不能导致一种文化创新，而只能导致文化发展的停滞。文化自大与文化盲信是有因果联系的，文化盲信是因，文化自大是果，它们都建立在对中华优秀传统文化的非理性情绪的基础上。而所谓文化自信，是一种特定文化的主体在对自身所处文化的理性认知的基础上，确认这种文化具有旺盛的生命力，即具有成功应对和解决自身所面临时代问题的深沉的力量。有了文化主体性，就使文化主体在与外来文化的接触中，在与新环境、新问题的遭遇中，能够始终保持一种积极的姿态和正向的实践，并通过推动传统文化在新的历史条件下的创造性转化和创新性发展，使之焕发新的生机和活力。

With cultural subjectivity, the cultural identity of the Chinese nation can be formed. Cultural identity is of great significance; it is the foundation of national identity and state identity. Classified by the object of identification, cultural identity can be divided into identification with one’s own culture and identification with the cultures of other countries and nations. What is discussed here is identification with one’s own culture. Cultural identity is formed by people living long-term within a cultural community, centered on the affirmative recognition of the community’s basic values, and then extending to full acceptance of the community’s mode of production, spiritual life, customs, beliefs, and so on. It should be emphasized that cultural tradition is not merely a past, pre-existing entity; due to the innovative activities of the cultural subject, it is actually in a state of constant change and growth. Therefore, forming cultural identity does not require the cultural subject to maintain absolute unity with cultural tradition, but rather to maintain a dialectical unity. In this dialectical unity, the cultural subject is the promoter of the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional culture; driven by the cultural subject, the relationship between the cultural subject and cultural tradition will undergo a cyclical process from unity to difference, and then from difference back to unity. Equating identity with immutability negates the space for the cultural subject to reflect on and critique cultural tradition, negates the possibility of cultural tradition’s growth, and thus negates cultural subjectivity. Only by preserving a certain rational space for the development of traditional culture, making its creative transformation and innovative development possible, can cultural subjectivity be truly embodied, and can genuine cultural identity be formed.

有了文化主体性，中华民族的文化认同才可能形成。文化认同具有重要意义，它是民族认同和国家认同的基础。以认同对象来划分，文化认同可分为对自身所处文化的认同和对其他国家和民族文化的认同。这里所谈的是对自身所处文化的认同。文化认同是人们在一个文化共同体中长期生活形成的，以对共同体基本价值的肯定性体认为核心，进而对共同体的生产方式、精神生活、习惯信仰等产生全面认可。应当强调，文化传统并不只是过去既成的存在；由于文化主体的创新活动，它实际上一直处于一种变化生长的状态。因此，形成文化认同并不是要求文化主体始终与文化传统保持绝对的统一，而是要保持辩证的统一。在这种辩证的统一中，文化主体是传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展的推动者；在文化主体的推动下，文化主体与文化传统之间会经历由统一到差异、再由差异到统一的循环往复的过程。把认同与一成不变划等号，就否定了文化主体对文化传统的反思和批判空间，否定了文化传统生长的可能性，也就否定了文化主体性。只有为传统文化的发展保留一定的理性空间，使其创造性转化和创新性发展成为可能，才能真正体现文化主体性，也才能形成真正的文化认同。

With cultural subjectivity, genuine exchange and mutual learning among civilizations can occur. Exchange and mutual learning among civilizations is an important driving force for the continuous development of civilization, which is particularly evident in the era of globalization. Cultural exchange is essentially an exchange between cultural subjects, involving issues of “intersubjectivity” and “interculturality.” Western philosophers have studied “intersubjectivity” extensively, emphasizing that “intersubjectivity” should be a kind of reciprocal subjectivity, that is, forming an equal relationship of mutual subjectivity in human interaction, while simultaneously forming a “co-existence relationship” of a common subject through interaction. When this “intersubjectivity” relationship is reflected in cultural issues, it forms the “interculturality” problem. On the issue of “interculturality,” there is similarly no “subject-object” relationship, but rather an “intersubjectivity” relationship. Cultural exchange is a process of mutual learning between two or more cultural subjects; it will overcome cultural hegemonism and cultural colonialism, and create an equal dialogue relationship based on the principle of communicative rationality. As Xi Jinping pointed out in his keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations on May 15, 2019: “Exchange and mutual learning among civilizations should be reciprocal and equal, should be pluralistic and multi-directional, and should not be coercive or forced, nor should they be singular or one-way. We should break down barriers to cultural exchange with a broad mind that embraces all rivers, and absorb the nutrients of other civilizations with an attitude of inclusiveness.” [7]7 Xi Jinping, “Deepening Exchanges and Mutual Learning among Civilizations to Jointly Build an Asian Community with a Shared Future,” keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, May 15, 2019.

有了文化主体性，才会产生真正的文明交流互鉴。文明交流互鉴是文明不断发展的重要动力，这在全球化时代表现得尤为明显。文化交流本质上是文化主体间的交流，其中存在着“主体间”和“文化间”的问题。西方哲学家对“主体间”的研究较多，强调“主体间”应当是一种交互主体性，即在人的交往中形成一种互为主体的平等关系，同时通过交往形成一种共同主体的“共在关系”。这种“主体间”关系反映到文化问题上，就形成了“文化间”问题。在“文化间”问题上，同样不存在“主客间”关系，而是一种“主体间”关系。文化交流是两个或多个文化主体间的互学互鉴过程，它将克服文化霸权主义和文化殖民主义，营造一种以商谈理性为原则的平等对话关系。正如习近平在2019年5月15日亚洲文明对话大会开幕式上的主旨演讲中指出的：“文明交流互鉴应该是对等的、平等的，应该是多元的、多向的，而不应该是强制的、强迫的，不应该是单一的、单向的。我们应该以海纳百川的宽广胸怀打破文化交往的壁垒，以兼收并蓄的态度汲取其他文明的养分。”

With cultural subjectivity, it is possible to create a new form of civilization. A new form of civilization is relative to the old capitalist civilization. If we count from the 16th century, capitalist civilization has lasted for more than 400 years. Over these 400-plus years, both the progressive aspects and the drawbacks of capitalist civilization have been fully revealed, thus subjecting it to profound reflection and criticism from within developed capitalist countries and from the vast number of developing countries. People have become increasingly clear that the expansion of the logic of capital, centered on instrumental rationality and utilitarian principles, which capitalist civilization upholds, has caused serious harm to human society. There is now an urgent need to create a new form of civilization to replace it. In this process, the cultural subjectivity of the vast number of developing countries has begun to awaken, and modernization has shifted from a unitary model of catching up with the West to a pluralistic model. Since modern times, Chinese intellectuals have been reflecting on traditional Chinese culture and pondering the question of China’s path amidst the conflict between “ancient and modern, Chinese and Western.” It was not until the exploration and practice of Chinese-path modernization after the founding of New China that we found a correct path, that is, the path of transcending old capitalist civilization and creating a new form of human civilization. In this regard, Xi Jinping pointed out: “We should strengthen the excavation and elucidation of fine traditional Chinese culture, so that the most basic cultural genes of the Chinese nation adapt to contemporary culture and coordinate with modern society, and promote the cultural spirit that transcends time and space, transcends national boundaries, is full of eternal charm, and has contemporary value. We should promote the creative transformation and innovative development of Chinese civilization, activate its vitality, and let Chinese civilization, together with the colorful civilizations created by the people of all countries, provide correct spiritual guidance for humanity.” [8]8 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the International Symposium on the 2565th Anniversary of the Birth of Confucius,” September 24, 2014.

有了文化主体性，才能创造新的文明形态。新的文明形态是相对于旧的资本主义文明而言的。如果从16世纪算起，资本主义文明迄今已历400余年。在这400余年中，资本主义文明的进步性与弊端都已经充分展现出来，因而受到发达资本主义国家内部和广大发展中国家的深刻反思和批判。人们越来越清楚地认识到，资本主义文明所秉持的以工具理性和功利主义原则为核心的资本逻辑的扩张，对人类社会造成了严重的危害，现在迫切需要创造一种新的文明形态取而代之。在这一过程中，广大发展中国家的文化主体性开始觉醒，现代化也由追赶西方的一元模式开始走向多元模式。自近代以来，中国知识分子一直在“古今中西”的矛盾冲突中反思中华传统文化，思考中国道路问题。直到新中国成立后中国式现代化的探索和实践，才使我们找到了一条正确的道路，即超越旧的资本主义文明、创造人类文明新形态的道路。对此，习近平指出：“要加强对中华优秀传统文化的挖掘和阐发，使中华民族最基本的文化基因与当代文化相适应、与现代社会相协调，把跨越时空、超越国界、富有永恒魅力、具有当代价值的文化精神弘扬起来。要推动中华文明创造性转化、创新性发展，激活其生命力，让中华文明同各国人民创造的多彩文明一道，为人类提供正确精神指引。”

IV. Culture and Civilization: Reconstructing Modernity and a New Form of Civilization

四、文化与文明：重建现代性与新的文明形态

The Latin original of the word “culture” means the cultivation of land and the tending of plants, emphasizing the separation of humans from nature brought about by human transformation of nature. Culture in a broad sense refers to all human activities and their achievements, including material, institutional, spiritual and other levels of content. Culture is the foundation of civilization. The root of the word “civilization” carries the meaning of “of the city” or “of the citizen,” originating from urban life that emerges when culture develops to a certain degree. Civilization denotes the progressive state of humans, society and the nation. If culture is opposed to nature, then civilization is opposed to barbarism. Civilization is the advanced state and positive achievement of culture. In modern social life, the cultural subject has developed from a state of being-in-itself to a state of being-for-itself, thus making possible a conscious, total cultural practical activity. Reflection on and critique of forms of civilization, as well as the creation of new forms of civilization, all belong to this conscious, total cultural practical activity. This naturally includes the various currents of critique of modernity currently popular in the West, such as the Frankfurt School, contemporary cultural studies currents and numerous postmodernist currents. However, it is the expansion of Chinese-path modernization and the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind that combine this kind of ideological critique with a positive, practical activity. Among these, Chinese-path modernization, based on the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, provides a reference model for the creation of new forms of civilization; the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, proceeding from the relationship between the national and the global character of civilization, builds a world-historical stage for constructing new civilizational relations.

“文化”一词在拉丁语中的原意为对土地的耕耘和对植物的栽培，强调的是人类对自然的改造而导致的人与自然的分离。广义的文化意指人类的所有活动及其成果，包括物质、制度、精神等多个层面的内容。文化是文明的基础。“文明”一词的词根有“城市的”“市民的”的意思，源于文化发展到一定程度出现的城市生活。文明表示人、社会和国家的进步状态。如果说文化与自然相对，那么文明则与野蛮相对。文明是文化的高级状态和积极成果。在现代社会生活中，文化主体已经由自在状态发展到自为状态，因而有条件进行一种自觉的、总体性的文化实践活动。对文明形态的反思和批判，以及对新的文明形态的创造，都属于这种自觉的、总体性的文化实践活动。这其中当然也包括当前西方流行的种种现代性批判思潮，如法兰克福学派、当代文化研究思潮和诸多后现代主义思潮。但是，将这种思想批判同一种积极的、现实的实践活动结合起来的，当属中国式现代化的拓展和人类命运共同体的构建。其中，中国式现代化立足中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展，为新的文明形态的创造提供了可供参考的范本；人类命运共同体理念从文明的民族性和世界性的关系角度出发，为构建新型文明关系搭建了世界历史舞台。

The world modernization movement has undergone a process from singularity to plurality. Western modernization is the initial form of modernization and possesses a certain “exemplary character.” The popularization and extension of this form of modernization gave rise to the catch-up model of modernization in developing countries. However, because the inherent defects of Western modernization triggered universal social crises, and also caused conflicts between tradition and modernity, the result was often the interruption of the modernization process in developing countries. This promoted the disintegration of the Western unitary concept of modernization and the exploration of pluralistic modernization paths in developing countries. Yet the latter, due to overemphasizing the particularity of their own national modernization, may potentially harbor an undercurrent of cultural relativism. Chinese-path modernization will reconstruct the ideal form of modernization, transcend the absolutism of Western modernization and the relativism of certain developing countries’ modernization, and provide Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach for world modernization.

世界现代化运动经历了从一元到多元的过程。西方现代化是现代化的最初形态，具有一定的“典范性”。对这种现代化的普及和推广，就形成了发展中国家追赶式的现代化模式。但是，由于西方现代化固有的缺陷引发了普遍的社会危机，同时也引起了传统与现代的冲突，其结果往往是发展中国家现代化进程的中断。这推动了西方一元现代化观念的解体和发展中国家多元现代化道路的探索，但是后者又可能由于过分强调本国现代化的特殊性而潜含一种文化相对主义暗流。中国式现代化将重构现代化的理想形态，超越西方现代化的绝对主义和某些发展中国家现代化的相对主义，为世界现代化提供中国智慧和中国方案。

Chinese-path modernization regards modernization as a great social revolution. Unlike Western modernization, which treats modernization and social development merely as an economic process governed by the logic of capital, as a process of continuously increasing labor productivity and the infinite expansion of capital, it manifests itself as the comprehensive development of material civilization, cultural-ethical progress, political civilization, social civilization and ecological civilization. Its essence is the modernization of people, that is, the free and comprehensive development of people, which is permeated by a complete rationality encompassing both instrumental rationality and value rationality, fundamentally different from Western modernization centered on instrumental rationality, utilitarianism and calculative rationality. It follows a new type of industrialization path that transcends the traditional industrialization path, namely a green and sustainable industrialization path. In terms of management philosophy and management model, it emphasizes the unity of fairness and efficiency based on modern fine division of labor. This actually reflects a new development concept different from Western development theory; it overcomes the various crises of extreme opposition between humans and nature, between humans and humans, and between humans and society triggered by the Western modernization path and capitalist form of civilization, and represents a thorough rewriting, recasting and transcendence of centuries of Western modern civilization.

中国式现代化把现代化看作一场伟大的社会革命。它不像西方现代化那样，把现代化和社会发展仅仅看作由资本逻辑支配的经济过程，看作劳动生产率的不断提高和资本无限增殖的过程，而是表现为物质文明、精神文明、政治文明、社会文明、生态文明的全面发展。它的本质是人的现代化，即人的自由全面发展，其中贯穿的是一种包含工具理性和价值理性在内的完整理性，与以工具理性、功利主义、计算主义为核心的西方现代化具有根本区别。它走的是一条超越传统工业化道路的新型工业化道路，即绿色可持续的工业化道路。在管理理念和管理模式上，它强调建立在现代精细分工基础上的公平和效率的统一。这实际上反映了一种不同于西方发展理论的新的发展理念，它克服了西方现代化道路和资本主义文明形态引发的人与自然、人与人、人与社会极端对立的各种危机，是对数百年来西方现代文明的彻底改写、重撰和超越。

Western modernization is linked to capitalist globalization. More precisely, capitalist globalization is one of the fundamental attributes of Western modernization. Therefore, transcending Western modernization on a world scale necessarily requires replacing capitalist globalization centered on Western “universal values” with a community with a shared future for mankind that embodies the common values of all humanity, thereby building a world-historical stage for creating a new form of human civilization.

西方现代化是与资本主义全球化联系在一起的。更确切地说，资本主义全球化是西方现代化的根本属性之一。因此，在世界范围内超越西方现代化，必然要求以凝聚全人类共同价值的人类命运共同体取代以西方“普世价值”为核心的资本主义全球化，从而为创造人类文明新形态搭建世界历史舞台。

The core issue in promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind is correctly grasping the relationship between the particular civilizations of various countries and nations and the common civilization of the world, and reconstructing the common values of all humanity. Before modern times, there was no so-called world problem of civilization, and thus no problem of the relationship between the national and global character of civilization. The Age of Discovery beginning in the 15th century opened the prelude to capitalist globalization and also deepened people’s understanding of the differences among the civilizations of various countries and nations. With the deepening of globalization, intense conflicts formed between the traditional cultures of developing countries and the modern cultures of Western developed capitalist countries. Western developed capitalist countries, taking modernization as an opportunity, forcibly promoted so-called “universal values” to assimilate the national cultures of developing countries; while the vast number of developing countries emphasized the particularity of their own cultural traditions and used this to resist Western cultural colonialism. In this process, people gradually came to realize that it is necessary to break the negative logic of opposition between cultural homogenization and heterogenization, and to establish a positive, constructive logic, the core of which is to establish a new type of interactive norm based on the common values of all humanity, used to solve various global problems. That is to say, it is necessary to dissolve the false universality represented by the so-called Western “universal values” established in the previous globalization process, and to reconstruct a genuine universality. This universality encompasses the interests and needs of all countries and nations in the world and is a new value bond sustaining globalization. The concept of a community with a shared future for mankind emerged in response to the needs of this era.

推动构建人类命运共同体的核心问题，是正确把握各个国家和民族的特殊文明与世界共同文明之间的关系，重建全人类共同价值。在近代之前，不存在所谓文明的世界性问题，也就不存在文明的民族性与世界性的关系问题。15世纪开始的大航海时代拉开了资本主义全球化的序幕，也使人们加深了对世界各个国家和民族文明差异性的认知。随着全球化的深入，发展中国家的传统文化与西方发达资本主义国家的现代文化之间形成了剧烈的冲突。西方发达资本主义国家以现代化为契机，强行推广所谓“普世价值”，以此同化各发展中国家的民族文化；而广大发展中国家则强调自身文化传统的特殊性，并以之对抗西方的文化殖民主义。在这一过程中，人们逐渐认识到，必须打破文化的同质化与异质化之间的消极的对立逻辑，并建立一种积极的建设性逻辑，其核心是建立一种新的以全人类共同价值为基本遵循的互动规范，用以解决各种全球问题。也就是说，要消解以往全球化过程中建立的那种以所谓西方“普世价值”为代表的虚假的普遍性，重建一种真正的普遍性。这种普遍性涵括世界各个国家和民族的利益需求，是维系全球化的新的价值纽带。人类命运共同体理念就是在这样的时代背景下应运而生的。

The common values of all humanity advocated and upheld by the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind differ from Western “universal values.” It breaks through the narrowness and abstractness of “universal values,” is the unity of universality and particularity, and represents the “common good” of the cultures of all countries and nations in the world. Promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind centered on these common values provides a completely new choice for establishing new equal international relations bonded by consultative rationality and for dissolving the old “center–semi-periphery–periphery” or “center–dependency” international relations. Promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind will also form a new cultural experience. Since Marshall McLuhan proposed the concept of the “global village,” people have become accustomed to understanding this concept in the sense of the contraction of global geographical space. In fact, within the explanatory framework of the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, the concept of the “global village” not only has a spatial meaning but also contains an inner experiential quality, providing people with a different value support and psychological anchor. This value support and psychological anchor will no longer merely take the national community as its destination, but can transcend the national community and take the community with a shared future for mankind as its destination; correspondingly, it will no longer make people feel strangeness and a law of the jungle toward the world, but will produce a warm “sense of home.”

人类命运共同体理念倡导维护的全人类共同价值不同于西方“普世价值”，它突破了“普世价值”的狭隘性和抽象性，是普遍性与特殊性的统一，是世界各个国家和民族文化的“共善”。围绕着这些共同价值推动构建人类命运共同体，为建立以协商理性为纽带的新的平等的国际关系，消解旧的“中心—半边缘—边缘”或者“中心—依附”的国际关系提供了全新选择。推动构建人类命运共同体，也将形成一种新的文化经验。自马歇尔·麦克卢汉提出“地球村”概念后，人们已经习惯从全球地理空间收缩的意义上理解这一概念。实际上，在人类命运共同体理念的解释框架内，“地球村”概念不仅具有一种空间意义，而且包含一种内在体验性，为人们提供了一种不同的价值支撑和心理依托。这种价值支撑和心理依托不再仅仅以民族共同体为归宿，而是能够超越民族共同体，以人类命运共同体为归宿；与此相适应，它将不再使人们对世界产生陌生感和丛林感，而是产生温馨的“家园感”。

It can be seen that advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization and promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind together have made a beneficial reflection on and critique of capitalist modernity, reconstructed the basic principles of modernity, and have not remained at the purely theoretical level, but have combined theory with practice, dedicating themselves to creating a new form of civilization that the world expects within the great historical undertaking of building a strong country and rejuvenating the nation.

可见，推进和拓展中国式现代化，推动构建人类命运共同体，共同对资本主义现代性作出了有益的反思和批判，重建了现代性的基本原则，而且没有停留在单纯的理论层面，而是把理论与实践结合起来，致力于在强国建设、民族复兴的历史伟业中创造一种令世人期待的全新的文明形态。

Source: *Marxism & Reality*, Issue 1, 2025

文章来源：《马克思主义与现实》2025年第1期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆