On the Relative Distinction between Culture and Civilization and Its Major Significance

Since cultural studies originated in Britain in the 1950s, they have occupied a powerful discursive high ground in international academia. In the era of economic globalization, the study of civilization has become a commanding height that academic circles around the world eagerly compete for. “In today’s world, the term ‘civilization’ is heard incessantly. It appears frequently on various occasions.” Especially since Xi

自20世纪50年代文化研究在英国发端以来，就在国际学术界占据强有力的话语高地。在经济全球化时代，文明研究已成为世界各国学术界竞相争逐的一个制高点。“在当今世界，‘文明’一词不绝于耳。它频频出现在各种场合中。”尤其是自从习近平提出“创造人类文明新形态”“中华文明的突出特性”等重大命题之后，我国学术界力求自觉地从学术上理清文化和文明的相对区别，但由于难度较大，迄今为止，文化和文明的相对区别依然是复杂的“难解之谜”，国内外学术界还没有真正把二者的相对区别搞清楚。因此，尝试性地从哲学与学术思路上深入探究文化和文明的相对区别，是我国学术界面临的一个重大课题，它对理解和把握文化和文明各自的本质内涵，对深化文化和文明的研究乃至实现理论突破，对理解和把握中西文化和文明问题，对拨开文化和文明问题上的种种迷雾，对理解和把握人类文明新形态，具有十分重要的方向性意义。

I. The Relative Distinction between Culture and Civilization Must Be Clarified Philosophically

一、必须从哲学上理清文化和文明的相对区别

French was the first language in which the word “civilisation” appeared, and it then spread rapidly from France throughout Europe, with the word “culture” following in its wake. The concept of civilization arose during the Enlightenment; “the noun ‘civilization’ was a neologism of the Enlightenment era.” [1]1 The Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 18th century, emphasizing reason, individualism, and skepticism of traditional authority. In 1756, the word civilization appeared in Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau’s *The Friend of Mankind*. Both culture and civilization are complex concepts that are difficult to grasp. The British scholar Terry Eagleton begins his *The Idea of Culture* by stating that “culture” is said to be one of the two or three most complex words in the English language. In fact, in Chinese, German, French, and many other languages, in UN reports and documents written in multiple national languages, and in relevant works published in China, culture and civilization are both common concepts with highly inconsistent meanings, often used interchangeably. Bruce Mazlish points out: “The word ‘civilization’ with a specific meaning, and its widespread dissemination as a concept, did not exist before the Enlightenment.” [2]2 Bruce Mazlish (1923–2016) was an American historian and professor at MIT, known for his work on the history of the concept of civilization and the idea of progress. It is undeniable that the use of the concepts of culture and civilization is currently quite confused both domestically and internationally.

法语是最早出现“文明”（civilisation)一词的语言，后从法国迅即传播于欧洲，文化（culture)一词也随之风行而来。文明概念兴起于启蒙运动时期，“名词‘文明’是启蒙时代的新词”。1756年，在维克托·里克蒂·米拉波的《人类之友》一书中就出现了文明一词。文化和文明，都是较难把握的复杂概念。英国学者特里·伊格尔顿在《论文化》中开篇就言，“文化”据说成了英语中最为复杂的两三个词之一。其实，在汉语、德语、法语等多种语言中，在用多国语言文字书写的联合国系列报告和文件中，在我国出版发表的相关论著中，文化和文明都是较为普遍但含义极不统一的概念，常常混淆使用。布鲁斯·马兹利什就指出：“有具体含义的‘文明’一词，并且其作为一个概念而广泛传播的现象在启蒙运动之前并不存在。”无可否认，文化和文明概念在当今国内外的使用较为混乱。

In his book *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order*, Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, although he analyzes the concept of civilization, ultimately does not make a relative distinction between culture and civilization, instead using them as essentially synonymous concepts. In his book *The Empire of Civilization*, Brett Bowden provides a relatively detailed linguistic, hermeneutic, and historical investigation of the concept of civilization, its origins, connotations, and significance, but he does not give a clear definition or precise explanation of the concept of civilization. Regarding the issue of the concept of civilization, he points out one situation is the explicit avoidance of the concept of civilization. As Schaefer notes, “Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have learned to avoid the word ‘civilization’ and to analyze everything with reference to ‘culture’.” [3]3 The reference is likely to the German sociologist and philosopher Uwe Schaefer, though the specific work is not identified here. Another situation is to treat the concept of civilization as a catch-all basket, loading the concept of “civilization” with too much meaning, believing that the concept of civilization encompasses everything, so that numerous social analyses are subsumed under the category of civilization, to the point where it lacks any specific meaning. From a world-historical rather than etymological perspective, the avoidance of “civilization” is, in a sense, because civilization is defined in opposition to barbarism, and the West has committed some barbaric acts; after establishing the “barbarism-civilization” binary explanatory framework and putting forward “Western-centrism,” the second situation emerged, where some Western scholars strive to use civilization to cover up their barbarism, calling everything civilization. Huntington, for instance, believes that the concept of civilization was proposed by French thinkers of the late 18th century in relation to a “state of barbarism.” [4]4 Samuel P. Huntington (1927–2008) was an American political scientist, best known for his “clash of civilizations” thesis. Viewed longitudinally, ancient Greek civilization gave birth to ancient Roman civilization, ancient Roman civilization gave birth to Christian civilization, Christian civilization gave birth to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment gave birth to industrial civilization and European civilization. Some European scholars believe that civilization belongs only to Europe, and that nations and peoples outside Europe are either barbaric or uncivilized. Looking through other related works, although some scholars strive to clarify the relative distinction between culture and civilization, which is also enlightening, their arguments are still not entirely convincing for the time being. After reviewing a large number of works on the topics of culture and civilization, I found that although everyone talks about culture and civilization, no one has clearly and distinctly articulated the complete relative distinction between culture and civilization. Bruce Mazlish’s book *Civilization and Its Contents* is specifically a study of the connotation of civilization, yet it does not provide a clear and complete explanation of the connotation of civilization.

美国哈佛大学亨廷顿教授在其著作《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》中，虽然对文明概念进行了辨析，但最后他仍然没有把文化和文明相对区分开来，而是把文化和文明当作基本相同的概念来使用。鲍登在《文明的帝国》一书中，对文明概念及其起源、内涵和意义等作了较为详细的语言学、解释学、历史学考察，但对文明概念并未给出一个明确界定和确切解释。在关于文明概念问题上，他指出，一种情况是明确回避文明概念。如舍费尔所指出的，“社会学家、人类学家和历史学家都学会了规避‘文明’一词，并以‘文化’为参照来分析一切问题”。另一种情况是把文明概念当作一个筐，让“文明”概念承载太多的意义，认为文明概念无所不包，为数众多的社会分析都被归入文明范畴，以至于它缺失任何具体的含义。不从词源学而从世界历史角度来讲，规避“文明”，一定意义上是因为文明针对野蛮，而西方做了一些野蛮之事；在确立“野蛮-文明”二分解释框架且提出“西方中心论”之后，就出现了第二种情况，即一些西方学者力求用文明遮蔽其野蛮，把什么都说成文明。亨廷顿就认为，文明概念是由18世纪晚期法国思想家相对于“野蛮状态”提出的。从纵向来看，古希腊文明孕育了古罗马文明，古罗马文明孕育了基督教文明，基督教文明孕育了文艺复兴、启蒙运动，文艺复兴、启蒙运动孕育了工业文明以及欧洲文明。一些欧洲学者认为，文明只属于欧洲，欧洲以外的国家和民族要么野蛮，要么不开化。翻阅其他一些相关论著，虽然有的学者力求澄清文化和文明的相对区别，也具有启发意义，但一时还难以令人信服。在翻阅大量相关文化和文明论题的著作后发现，尽管大家都在谈文化和文明，但都没有明确且鲜明地把文化和文明的相对区别完整地说清楚。布鲁斯·马兹利什的著作《文明及其内涵》是专门研究文明内涵的，但也没有看到他对文明的内涵给以明确而完整的阐释。

Relevant research shows that there are over 200 definitions of culture. According to the statement by American anthropologists Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn in *Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions*, in the first two decades of the 20th century, there were only six new definitions of “culture” in the field of anthropology; between 1920 and 1951, cultural studies entered a peak period, and suddenly as many as 164 definitions of culture emerged in American anthropology. Kroeber and Kluckhohn believe that these definitions of culture can be roughly divided into six types: descriptive definitions, historical definitions, normative definitions, psychological definitions, structural definitions, and genetic definitions.

相关研究表明，关于文化的定义就有200多种。据美国人类学家克鲁伯和克拉克洪在《文化概念和定义批判分析》中的陈述，20世纪前20年，人类学界仅有6种关于“文化”的新定义，1920—1951年间，文化研究进入高峰，美国人类学界突然冒出多达164种关于文化的定义。克鲁伯和克拉克洪认为，这些文化定义大致可分为描述性定义、历史性定义、规范性定义、心理性定义、结构性定义和遗传性定义6种。

Bruce Mazlish points out that because “the meanings of these two words [culture and civilization] are constantly changing,” distinguishing between the connotations of culture and civilization “becomes particularly difficult, making one dare not rashly proceed.” [5]5 Bruce Mazlish, *Civilization and Its Contents* (Stanford University Press, 2004). Precisely because the distinction between culture and civilization is difficult to clarify, some people do not advocate distinguishing between them. Edward Burnett Tylor was the first in the field of anthropology to define the concept of “culture” in a modern sense. In his book *Primitive Culture*, he considered culture and civilization to be almost synonymous, and thus he “consciously used the two as the same concept.” [6]6 Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) was an English anthropologist, often regarded as a founder of modern anthropology; his *Primitive Culture* (1871) is a foundational text. In 1830, at the University of Berlin, Hegel used the concepts of culture and civilization interchangeably. Freud generally opposed distinguishing between culture and civilization: “I disdain to distinguish between culture and civilization.” [7]7 Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis. “Indeed, for a long time, these two words [culture and civilization—author’s note] were synonyms.” [8]8 The author’s note indicates that “these two words” refer to culture and civilization.

布鲁斯·马兹利什指出：由于文化和文明“这两个词的含义不断变化”，使得区分文化和文明的内涵“变得尤为困难，令人不敢贸然下手”。正因文化和文明的区别较难理清，有些人不主张把文化和文明加以区分。爱德华·伯内特·泰勒是人类学界第一个从现代意义上对“文化”概念作出界定的人。他在《原始文化》一书中就认为，文化和文明几乎是同义词，于是他“有意识地将两者作为同一概念加以运用”。1830年，在柏林大学，黑格尔一直交替使用文化和文明概念。弗洛伊德从总体上反对把文化和文明区别开来：“我不屑于对文化和文明加以区分。”“的确，在很长的时间里，这两个词（文化和文明——作者注）是同义词。”

Some scholars emphasize the need to distinguish between culture and civilization. This was first proposed by scholars including Thomas Mann. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, some German sociologists attempted to subsume “civilization” and “culture” as two aspects of “culture” in a general sense. Most German scholars, or the “German School,” believed that the concepts of culture and civilization should be distinguished. All scholars studying culture, when focusing on distinguishing between the concepts of culture and civilization, frequently mention the “German School.” Fernand Braudel also emphasizes: “Eventually, people began to feel the need to distinguish between them.” [9]9 Fernand Braudel (1902–1985) was a French historian and a leading member of the Annales School, known for his work on the Mediterranean world and the history of capitalism. But exactly how to distinguish them, people still have not fully figured out.

有些学者强调要对文化和文明加以区分。这最早是由包括托马斯·曼等在内的学者提出的。19世纪末20世纪初，一些德国社会学家试图将“文明”和“文化”归纳为一般意义上的“文化”之两个方面。德国大多数学者或“德国学派”认为，应对文化和文明概念作出区分。所有研究文化的学者在注重区分文化和文明概念时，都经常提到“德国学派”。费尔南·布罗代尔也强调：“最终，人们开始感到有必要对它们加以区分。”但究竟如何区分，人们还是没有完全搞清楚。

After Xi Jinping put forward major propositions such as “creating a new form of human civilization” and “the outstanding characteristics of Chinese civilization,” it is first necessary to clarify the relative distinction between “civilization” and “culture.” Otherwise, it will be impossible to define the precise direction for constructing a new form of human civilization. When Xi Jinping discusses culture and civilization, he makes a relative distinction in his phrasing. He clearly states: “The Chinese nation has a history of one million years of humanity, ten thousand years of culture, and more than five thousand years of civilization.” [10]10 Xi Jinping’s statement on the history of the Chinese nation, often cited in official discourse to emphasize the deep historical roots of Chinese civilization. He has repeatedly emphasized that different ethnic groups and different civilizations are diverse and each has its own merits; there is no distinction of superiority or inferiority, only differences in characteristics. He also points out that Chinese-path modernization is the result of civilizational renewal, not a product of civilizational rupture; Chinese-path modernization is a modernization endogenous to Chinese civilization, with deep cultural accumulation and a consistent cultural core. These relevant important expositions have guiding significance for our understanding of the relationship between culture and civilization. Based on Xi Jinping’s relevant important expositions, the urgent task is to clarify the relative distinction between the concepts of civilization and culture.

在习近平提出“创造人类文明新形态”“中华文明的突出特性”等重大命题之后，就必须首先把“文明”和“文化”的相对区别搞清楚。不然，就找不到定义构建人类文明新形态的精准方向。习近平在谈到文化、文明时，在表述上是作相对区分的。他明确指出：“中华民族具有百万年的人类史、一万年的文化史、五千多年的文明史。”他多次强调，不同民族、不同文明多姿多彩、各有千秋，没有优劣之分，只有特色之别。他又指出，中国式现代化是文明更新的结果，不是文明断裂的产物，中国式现代化是源于中华文明的内生性的现代化，有着深厚的文化积淀和一以贯之的文化内核。这些相关重要论述对我们理解文化和文明的关系具有指导意义。依据习近平的相关重要论述，当务之急就是需要理清文明和文化概念的相对区别。

Both culture and civilization are relational concepts; their essential connotations need to be understood through the mutual distinction between culture and civilization. The relative distinction between culture and civilization can be explored from the perspectives of archaeology, ethnology, anthropology, and linguistics, as well as from the perspectives of history and cultural anthropology.

文化和文明都是关系概念，需要在文化和文明的相互区别中理解二者的本质内涵。既可以从考古学、民族学、人类学、语言学等视角探究文化和文明的相对区别，也可以从历史学、文化人类学视角探究文化和文明的相对不同。

This article seeks to tentatively explore the relative distinction between culture and civilization from an academic perspective. To explore the relative distinction between culture and civilization, the first priority is to determine its direction and approach, so as to avoid directional and methodological problems. Philosophy is the living soul of civilization and the guardian of civilization; it is committed to elevating all factors with historical progressive value from the bewildering reality, allowing them to emerge from a state of obscurity, thereby leading civilizational progress. Therefore, it is first necessary to understand and grasp the essential connotation of civilization from a philosophical direction and approach, and to establish a scientific view of civilization. This is the prerequisite for understanding and grasping the relative distinction between culture and civilization. Only in this way can the relative distinction between culture and civilization be truly and thoroughly clarified. Hence, this article focuses on tentatively exploring the essential connotation of civilization and its relative distinction from culture from a philosophical and academic sense, striving to open up a new path for understanding and grasping the relative distinction between culture and civilization.

本文力求尝试性地从学术上探究文化和文明的相对区别。探究文化和文明的相对区别，首要应确定其方向和思路，避免出现方向性、思路性问题。哲学是文明的活的灵魂，是文明的守护者，它致力于把一切具有历史进步价值的因素从扑朔迷离的现实中提升出来，让它们从被遮蔽的状态中呈现出来，从而引领文明进步。因而，首先需要从哲学方向、思路上理解和把握文明的本质内涵，确定科学的文明观，这是理解和把握文化和文明相对区别的前提。只有这样，才能真正彻底理清文明和文化的相对区别。由此，本文就着重从哲学与学术意义上，尝试性地探究文明的本质内涵及其与文化的相对区别，力求开辟出一条理解和把握文明和文化相对区别的新路。

To understand and grasp civilization from the direction and approach of philosophy, in general and fundamentally, it is necessary to start from the theme of the development and progress of human beings themselves and the development and progress of society. Because interpretations of the “development and progress” of human beings themselves and society differ, two different views of civilization exist.

从哲学方向、思路意义上理解和把握文明，从总体上和根本上，就是要从围绕人本身发展进步和社会发展进步这一主题入手。由于对人本身和社会的“发展进步”解释不同，便存在两种不同的文明观。

One is a descriptive concept that relatively emphasizes interpreting civilization as a “factual judgment,” holding that civilization is fact; it describes the fact of the development and progress of human beings themselves and human society; development and progress is a process of self-transcendence, self-improvement, self-development, and self-progress in which all of humanity, nations, states, and individuals move forward to change their current situation; it possesses diversity, inclusiveness, mutual learning, equality, and universal benefit, and is a “plural” and diverse civilization; “value judgments” of civilization should be based on “civilizational facts”; its philosophical foundation is the philosophical view of “diversity in unity,” “subject-subject equality,” and “inclusive universal benefit.”

一种是相对侧重于把文明解释为“事实判断”的描述性概念，认为文明即事实，它描述的是人本身和人类社会发展进步的事实本身；发展进步是整个人类、国家、民族、个人为改变其现状而向前迈进的自我超越、自我完善、自我发展、自我进步过程；它具有多样性、包容性、互鉴性、平等性和普惠性，是一种“复数”多元文明；对文明的“价值判断”应建立在“文明事实”的基础上；其哲学基础是“多样统一”“主主平等”“包容普惠”的哲学观。

The other is a so-called normative concept that relatively emphasizes interpreting civilization solely as a “value judgment,” holding that civilization is value; it insists that all of humanity, nations, and states should advance along a determined “same path” toward a determined “ideal goal of supreme goodness and beauty with identity”; a “noble nation” with a sense of civilizational superiority stands at the commanding heights of human civilizational development, possessing both the discourse power to explain how the world operates and how human history progresses, and also the duty to civilize and enlighten “barbaric, ignorant non-civilized nations” with civilization; this is the process of “civilizing” the so-called “non-civilized states and nations” as judged and changed by the “superior” nation and state. Such a civilization is unitary, judgmental, negating, transformative, and dominating; it is a so-called universal civilization with a standard of identity, a “singular” and unitary civilization. This interpretation of civilization has an ideological nature and contains “Western-centrism,” or rather, its underlying logic is “Western-centrism.” Its philosophical foundation is the philosophical paradigm of “subject-object binary opposition” or “subject dominating object” and a linear view of history. According to this view of civilization, civilization belongs only to Europe, and all other states and nations outside Europe are in a state of “ignorance and barbarism.”

另一种是相对侧重于把文明仅仅解释为“价值判断”的所谓规范性概念，认为文明即价值，强调整个人类与国家、民族都应沿着确定的所谓“同一道路”，朝着确定的所谓具有“同一性的至善至美的理想目标”迈进；具有文明优越感的“高尚民族”站在人类文明发展的制高点上，既具有掌握解释世界如何运转、人类历史如何进步的话语权，也应当以文明开化“野蛮、愚昧的非文明民族”，这是所谓“优越”民族、国家裁定、改变所谓“非文明国家、民族”的“教化”过程。这样的文明具有一元性、评判性、否定性、改变性和统治性，是具有同一性标准的所谓普遍文明，是“单数”一元文明。这种对文明的解释具有意识形态性质，蕴含着“西方中心论”，或者说，它的底层逻辑是“西方中心论”。其哲学基础，就是“主客二元对立”或“主统治客”的哲学范式和线性史观。依据这种文明观，就会认为文明只属于欧洲，欧洲以外的其他国家、民族都处于“蒙昧、野蛮状态”。

These two views of civilization have many essential differences: the first view of civilization is a plural view of civilization, emphasizing civilizational diversity and mutual learning; the second view of civilization is a singular view of civilization, emphasizing civilizational unity and civilizational conflict; the former focuses on “self-progress,” the latter on “civilizing others”; the former belongs to “altruism,” the latter to “egoism”; the former has “inclusiveness,” the latter has “exclusiveness”; the former emphasizes “equality,” the latter emphasizes “domination”; the former focuses on “universal benefit,” the latter focuses on “zero-sum gain”; the former can promote the development and progress of entire states, nations, and human beings themselves, while the latter does so at the expense of others; the former bases “value judgments” on “objective facts,” being a civilization based on objective facts, while the latter alienates “value judgments” from “objective facts,” talking about civilization divorced from facts; the philosophical foundation of the former is a “plural view of history,” while the philosophical foundation of the latter is a “linear view of history.”

这两种文明观具有诸多本质区别：第一种文明观是复数文明观，强调文明多样、互学互鉴，第二种文明观是单数文明观，强调文明一元和文明冲突；前者注重“自我进步”，后者注重“他者开化”；前者属于“利他”，后者属于“利己”；前者具有“包容性”，后者具有“排他性”；前者强调“平等性”，后者强调“统治性”；前者注重“普惠性”，后者注重“单赢性”；前者能推动整个国家、民族与人本身的发展进步，后者却以牺牲他者为代价；前者把“价值判断”建立在“客观事实”基础之上，是基于客观事实的文明，后者却使“价值判断”疏离“客观事实”，是远离事实讲文明；前者的哲学基础是“多样史观”，后者的哲学根基是“线性史观”。

Clearly, to understand and grasp the essential connotation of civilization and its relative distinction from culture, it is necessary to center on the theme of the development and progress of human beings themselves and the development and progress of society, to embody and manifest “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and appreciating beauty,” to base oneself on a plural view of civilization, and to break with the singular view of civilization. Thus, the essential connotation of civilization, in brief, is: the “altruistic” positive achievements that precipitate out in the process of cultural development and evolution, embodying “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and appreciating beauty” and conducive to human progress, social progress, and the progress of human beings themselves (human nature); it is the “goodness of culture.”

显然，理解和把握文明的本质内涵及其与文化的相对区别，必须围绕人本身发展进步和社会发展进步这一主题，体现并彰显“求真向善尚美”，立足于复数文明观，破除单数文明观。由此，文明的本质内涵简要说就是：文化发展演进过程中沉淀下来的体现“求真向善尚美”且有助于人类进步、社会进步、人本身（人性）进步的“利他性”积极成果，是“文化之善”。

II. The Relative Distinction between Culture and Civilization from a Philosophical Perspective

二、哲学视域中文化和文明的相对区别

Based on the view of civilization understood above from a philosophical, general, and fundamental perspective, we need to center on the development and progress of human beings themselves and the development and progress of society, base ourselves on a plural view of civilization, embody and manifest “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and appreciating beauty,” in order to clarify the relative distinction between culture and civilization.

依据上述从哲学上、总体上、根本上所理解的文明观，我们需要围绕人本身发展进步和社会发展进步，立足于复数文明观，体现并彰显“求真向善尚美”，来理清文化和文明的相对区别。

1. Relative Differences in Orientation

1.指向相对不同

Culture is oriented toward “humanization,” relatively emphasizing “externalization”; civilization is oriented toward “cultivating humanity,” relatively emphasizing “internalization.”

文化指向“人化”，相对注重“外化”；文明则指向“化人”，相对注重“内化”。

Culture and civilization share common ground; both emphasize “wen” (culture/civilization). However, from an etymological perspective, the primary distinction between them lies in the difference between “hua” (transformation) and “ming” (illumination). Culture is relative to the “primitive nature” that has not been externalized by human activity; it refers to the “humanization” of “humanized nature,” the humanizing process, the objectification activity, objectification process, and its achievements of humanity’s inner essential forces; that is, it refers to transforming the world through culture and education. It is oriented toward “transforming nature,” distinguishing itself from “primitiveness.” In this regard, it defines the direction of the meaning of culture. Herskovits, in *Cultural Anthropology*, proposes: “Culture is all man-made environments; that is, besides the original state of nature, everything added by humans can be called culture.” [11]11 Melville J. Herskovits, *Cultural Anthropology* (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955). Kroeber and Kluckhohn believe that culture is the achievement embodied in artificial products. Barth views culture as the process of human action on natural substances. Qu Qiubai holds that culture is “all of humanity’s ‘doings’.” [12]12 Qu Qiubai (1899–1935), an early leader of the Chinese Communist Party and a Marxist theorist. Huang Shengzhang also believes: “Culture is the various manifestations, material or spiritual, created by humans through processing and transforming nature, i.e., through labor.” [13]13 Huang Shengzhang (1925–2018), a Chinese historian and archaeologist. The culture understood by Herskovits, Kroeber, Kluckhohn, Barth, Qu Qiubai, and Huang Shengzhang all has the meaning of “humanization.” That is to say, all achievements of the objectification activity of humanity’s inner essential forces can, in fact, be collectively called culture.

文化和文明具有共同点，都注重“文”，但从词源学意义来看，二者之间的区别，首要在于“化”和“明”的区别。文化是相对于未经人的活动外化的“原始自然”而言的，讲的是“人化自然”的“人化”、人文过程，是人的内在本质力量的对象化活动、对象化过程及其成果，亦即指以人文化成天下。它指向于“化自然”，区别于“原始性”。就此而言，它定义了文化含义的走向。赫斯科维茨在《文化人类学》中提出：“文化是一切人工创造的环境，也就是说，除了自然原生态之外，所有由人添加上去的东西都可称之为文化。”克鲁伯和克拉克洪认为，文化就是体现于人工制品中的成就。巴特把文化看成人类对自然物质作用的过程。瞿秋白认为，文化是“人类之一切‘所作’”。黄盛璋也认为：“文化是人类对自然加工、改造即用劳动创造出来的在物质或精神方面的各种表现。”赫斯科维茨、克鲁伯、克拉克洪、巴特、瞿秋白、黄盛璋所理解的文化，都具有“人化”的意义。就是说，一切人类的内在本质力量对象化活动的成果，在事实上统统可称之为文化。

“Humanization” and “externalization” are essentially the same, but culture emphasizes “externalization.” Externalization refers to the process and results of human activity, the externalization and objectification of humanity’s inner essential forces; it acts primarily on the external world outside humanity and shapes that external world. “Culture” is relatively manifested as the process and results of the objectifying activity of humanity’s inner essential forces moving from the inward to the outward, embodied as “humanity’s domination over external objects and things,” and relatively emphasizes “externalization into things.” Culture, first, uses “culture” to transform people, making them “knowledgeable persons” who master cultural knowledge, science, and technology, preparing them fundamentally and preliminarily for their socialization; then, it uses “culture” to transform things, applying the cultural knowledge, science, and technology that people have mastered to reshape nature, society, and humanity, making people “practical persons” engaged in objectifying activity.

“人化”与“外化”本质相同，文化注重“外化”。外化，指的是人类活动的过程和成果，是人的内在本质力量的外化、对象化，它主要作用于人之外的外部世界，并塑造外部世界；“文化”相对表现为人由内向外的内在本质力量的对象化活动过程及其成果，体现为“人对外部对象和事物的支配”，相对注重“外化为物”。文化，首先是以“文”化人，使人成为掌握文化知识、科学技术的“知识人”，为其社会化做好基础性和前提性准备；然后，再以“文”化物，把人所掌握的文化知识、科学技术用以改造自然、社会和人类，使人成为从事对象化活动的“实践人”。

Civilization, in contrast, is spoken of relative to the unenlightened “animal state,” “barbarism,” and “ugliness and evil.” It refers to the process of humanity’s own “development and progress” in transcending its “animal state,” “barbarism,” and “ugliness and evil” to “seek truth, goodness, and beauty” (moving toward “enlightenment”). It emphasizes the process of humanity’s own development and progress that both conforms to the laws of historical development and focuses on “transforming things for the good” and “transforming people for the good,” distinguishing it from “barbarity.” The concept of civilization, in its etymological and original sense, is not directly aimed at all of humanity’s “humanizing” activities and their results, but rather at the “enlightenment” proposed in opposition to barbarism and ugliness and evil; it points toward the cultivation and training of “human nature” or “humanity itself,” i.e., “transforming people.” Fernand Braudel points out, “In its new meaning, civilization generally refers to a state opposed to the barbaric state,” and its modern meaning is “the process of entering a state of enlightenment.” In modern times, the West sought to emerge from the barbarism of medieval feudal oppression of human nature toward civilization, and thus the concept of civilization was proposed, while the objects described by the concept of culture appeared much earlier than those described by the concept of civilization. The same is true of China. Xi Jinping points out that Chinese culture spans ten thousand years, and Chinese civilization spans five thousand years. When Chinese people use the concept of civilization, it is mostly used in the sense of the progress of humanity itself in transforming things for the good and transforming people for the good, referring to the positive or affirmative aspects of culture that transform things for the good and transform people for the good. Barth regarded civilization as the process and factor of humanity’s own progress. Huang Shengzhang also holds: “Civilization is a social stage where culture has developed to a certain height, thereby breaking away from the barbaric state.”

文明则是相对于未经开化的“动物状态”“野蛮”“丑恶”而言的，讲的是人类自身超越其“动物状态”“野蛮”“丑恶”进而“求真向善尚美”的“发展进步”过程（向“明”），注重的是既符合历史发展规律又注重“化物为善”和“化人为善”的人本身的发展进步过程，它区别于“野蛮性”。文明这一概念，在词源学、本源意义上不是直接针对人的一切“人化”活动及其成果而言的，而是针对野蛮、丑恶所提出的“明”，它指向于对“人性”或“人本身”的教化和训育，即“化人”。费尔南·布罗代尔指出，“就其新义而言，文明一般指与野蛮状态相对立的状态”，其现代含义是“进入开化状态的过程”。近代西方力求走出中世纪封建专制对人性压抑的野蛮而走向文明，文明概念由此提出，而文化概念所描述的对象之出现要比文明概念所描述的对象早得多。中国也是如此。习近平指出，中华文化一万年、中华文明五千年。中国人使用文明概念，较多是在化物为善、化人为善的人本身进步意义上使用的，指的是文化中具有化物为善、化人为善的积极或肯定意义方面。巴特就把文明看成人类自身进步的过程和因素。黄盛璋也认为：“文明则是文化发展到一定高度，从而脱离野蛮状态的一个社会阶段。”

“Transforming people” and “internalization” are essentially the same; civilization relatively emphasizes “internalization.” Internalization refers to the process of humanity’s cognition, evaluation, and acceptance of externalized or objectified results; this process primarily acts on the internal spiritual world of humanity itself, emphasizing the shaping of humanity’s own internal spiritual world. In other words, civilization draws positive and beneficial results from culture to shape humanity itself and humanity’s inner spiritual world, making people civilized persons who play a positive role in social development and progress. Civilized persons focus on using the positive and beneficial results of culture to cultivate the mind and nurture nature, shaping humanity itself and humanity’s inner spiritual world, and doing things beneficial to human progress, national progress, social progress, and the progress of humanity itself. Therefore, civilization emphasizes the process of activity moving from the outward to the inward and its positive results, manifested as “humanity’s domination over itself,” and emphasizes “internalization into persons.” A cultured person is not necessarily a civilized person, nor necessarily a person beneficial to social progress and the progress of humanity itself; some people with cultural knowledge and mastery of science and technology may, for personal gain, do things harmful to the nation, society, and the people—this is the evil of culture. Thus, it is necessary to further transform cultured persons into civilized persons.

“化人”与“内化”本质相同，文明相对注重“内化”。内化，指的是人对外化或对象化成果的认识、评价和接受过程，这一过程主要是作用于人本身的内部精神世界的过程，它注重对人本身的内部精神世界的塑造。换言之，文明，是从文化中汲取积极有益的成果用以塑造人本身与人的内在精神世界，使人成其为对社会发展进步发挥积极作用的文明人。文明人注重用文化中的积极有益成果修心养性，塑造人本身与人的内在精神世界，做出有利于人类进步、国家进步、社会进步、人本身进步的事情。因此，文明侧重的是由外向内的活动过程及其积极成果，表现为“人对其自身的支配”，注重的是“内化成人”。文化人未必都是文明人，未必都是对社会进步和人本身进步有益的人，有些具有文化知识和掌握科学技术的人会为一己私利而做出对国家、社会、人民有害的事，这是文化之恶。由此，需要进一步把文化人塑造成文明人。

In short, culture is humanity’s externalization and objectification of its own inner essential forces into results; these results include the “material” (such as food culture, wine culture, clothing culture, architectural culture, etc.) and the “spiritual” (such as ideological culture, etc.), and are both “good” and “bad.” Civilization uses the positive and beneficial results of culture to shape humanity and humanity’s inner spiritual world, emphasizing cultivating the mind and nurturing nature, cultivating human nature and disposition, and shaping humanity itself. Civilization and culture are not merely, as Mr. Qian Mu put it, “civilization is biased toward the external, belonging to the material aspect; culture is biased toward the internal, belonging to the spiritual aspect.” Both culture and civilization have the connotation and function of “transforming people”; the difference is that culture directly transforms people into “knowledgeable persons” and “persons with inner essential forces,” while civilization transforms people into “civilized persons” and “persons with the power of goodness” (i.e., good human nature and disposition) who “practice virtue throughout the world.” “Culture” is embodied as “humanity’s domination over external nature,” while “civilization” is embodied as “humanity’s domination over its own internal spiritual world.” American scholars Lester Ward, Albion Small, Barth, and others hold that “culture” is manifested as “humanity’s domination over nature,” while civilization is manifested as “humanity’s domination over itself.”

简言之，文化是人把自身的内在本质力量外化、对象化为成果，其成果有“物质”（如饮食文化、酒文化、服装文化、建筑文化等）有“精神”（如思想文化等），有“好”有“坏”；文明则是用文化中的积极有益成果塑造人与人的内在精神世界，注重修心养性，修好人的人性和心性，塑造人本身。文明和文化不只是钱穆先生所谓的“文明偏在外，属物质方面。文化偏在内，属精神方面”。文化和文明都有“化人”的内涵与作用，区别在于文化直接是把人化为“知识人”和具有“内在本质力量的人”，文明则是把人化为“文明人”和具有“善力”（即善之人性、心性）且“德行天下的人”。“文化”体现为“人对外部自然的支配”，“文明”则体现为“人对自身内部精神世界的支配”。美国学者莱斯特·沃德、阿尔比昂·斯莫摩尔和巴特等就认为，“文化”表现为“人对自然的支配”，文明则表现为“人对其自身的支配”。

2. Relatively Different Forms

2.形态相对不同

Culture presents a “mode of actual existence,” relatively emphasizing “being” and “factual cognition”; civilization presents a “state of progress,” relatively emphasizing “virtue” and “value judgment.” In other words, culture points to a mode of existence in the sense of fact, while civilization mostly points to a state of progress in the sense of value. Once a value judgment is made about whether a “culture” as a mode of existence in the sense of fact is conducive to “progress,” it enters the category of “civilization” and becomes an object of inquiry for the category of civilization.

文化呈现的是“实存样态”，相对注重“在”性和“事实认知”；文明呈现的则是“进步状态”，相对注重“德”性和“价值评价”。换言之，文化指向一种事实意义的存在样态，文明多指向一种价值意义的进步状态。一旦对作为事实的存在样态的“文化”进行是否有利于“进步”的价值评价，就涉及“文明”范畴，就成为文明范畴所探究的对象。

Culture expresses a “mode of actual existence” presented by all results arising from human activity; it is an “actual existence” in the sense of fact, and this actual existence can present different “modes.” For example, dining styles differ between China and the West: Westerners mostly use knives and forks for eating, while Chinese mostly use chopsticks—this is a difference in Chinese and Western food culture, and one cannot say which is civilized and which is uncivilized. The West relatively emphasizes using chemical drugs for rapid “targeted therapy” on patients, while traditional Chinese medicine relatively emphasizes using natural drugs for chronic “holistic treatment” of patients—this is a difference in medical culture. Westerners relatively emphasize the separation of powers, while Chinese relatively emphasize systematic wholeness and great unity—this is a difference in political culture. The West relatively advocates subject-object dualism, while China relatively emphasizes harmony in diversity—this is a difference in philosophical culture.

文化，表达的是一切由人的活动而来的成果所呈现出的一种“实存样态”，它是一种事实意义上的“实存”，这种实存会呈现不同“样态”。如中西方的就餐方式就不一样，西方人吃饭多用刀叉，中国人吃饭多用筷子，这是中西饮食文化的不同，不能说哪个文明哪个不文明；西方相对注重用化学药物对病人进行快速“靶向治疗”，中医则相对注重用自然中的药物对病人进行慢性“整体疗理”，这是医疗文化不同；西方人相对注重分权，中国人相对注重系统整体和大一统，这是政治文化不同；西方相对倡导主客二元对立，中国相对注重和而不同，这是哲学文化的不同。

Civilization, on the other hand, is the “image” presentation of the mode of existence or “mode of actual existence” of a country, nation, or people; it is the “state of progress” in the development and progress of a country, nation, or people. Contemporary Western civilization esteems opposition, conflict, and even violence and war, leading to a life-and-death struggle, winner-takes-all, fields strewn with corpses, and people’s suffering, presenting a “barbaric” image. Chinese civilization esteems harmony among all nations, benefiting the whole world, universal harmony, a shared future, and beauty in diversity, presenting a “civilized” image of the world being for the common good, each appreciating its own beauty, peaceful development, win-win cooperation, inclusiveness and universal benefit, happiness, and well-being.

文明则是一个国家、民族、人民存在样态或“实存样态”的“形象”呈现，是一个国家、民族、人民发展进步的“进步状态”。当今的西方文明崇尚对立、冲突乃至暴力、战争，导致你死我活、赢者通吃、尸横遍野、人民痛苦，呈现的是“野蛮”形象，中华文明推崇的是协和万邦、兼济天下、世界大同、命运共同、美美与共，呈现的是天下为公、各美其美、和平发展、合作共赢、包容普惠、幸福祥和的“文明”形象。

3. Relatively Different Emphases

3.所重相对不同

Different cultures share certain commonalities, but relatively speaking, they emphasize difference more; civilizations differ in region and characteristics, but relatively speaking, they emphasize unity more.

不同的文化之间具有某种共同性，但相对而言更注重差异；文明具有地域和特色不同，但相对而言更注重统一。

Culture is primarily a concept based on nationality and region, relatively emphasizing national selfhood, national traits, national differences, and national identity, embodying “national self-consciousness,” emphasizing regional differences and differences in modes of existence, ways of life, and ways of thinking; it relatively values tradition and its modern significance, and relatively emphasizes difference and boundaries. What people often call European culture, Western culture, Chinese culture, and Indian culture are examples of this. Thomas Sowell points out: “There are many differences among different cultures, one of which is the difference in scope. Of course, they also differ in certain characteristics.”

文化主要是一种基于民族性、地域性的概念，相对强调民族自我、民族特质、民族差异和民族认同，体现的是“民族自我意识”，强调地域性差异与存在方式、生活方式、思维方式差异，它相对看重传统及其现代意义，相对注重差异和边界。人们常说的欧洲文化、西方文化、中华文化、印度文化，便是如此。托马斯·索威尔指出：“不同的文化之间存在着多种差异，其中一种差异便是范围的不同。当然，它们在某些特征上也有所不同。”

Civilization also presents regional and national characteristics and their uniqueness, but from the perspective of the overall development and progress of humanity, it emphasizes more the unity, integration, and mutual learning among nations, emphasizing the world significance of national or regional civilizations; it transcends national selfhood and boundaries, and values the progress of human nature and integration and unity. In a certain sense, what we call agricultural civilization, industrial civilization, and ecological civilization are examples of this. Huntington points out, “Civilization is the biggest ‘we’,” and “Civilizations have no clear-cut boundaries.”

文明也呈现地域、民族特色及其独特性，但从整个人类发展进步来讲，它更加注重民族间的统一性、交融性、互鉴性，注重民族或地域文明所具有的世界意义，它超越民族自我和边界，看重人性进步和交融统一。在一定意义上，我们所讲的农业文明、工业文明、生态文明就是如此。亨廷顿指出，“文明是最大的‘我们’”，“文明没有明确的边界”。

In summary, the concept of culture emphasizes ethnic differences and their distinctive group identity and national self-identity, while the concept of civilization, to a certain extent, focuses on transcending these differences. Norbert Elias pointed out that culture emphasizes ethnic differences and their distinctive group identity, whereas the concept of civilization ignores these differences to varying degrees. Bruce Mazlish also noted that “culture tends toward particular local factors,” while civilization possesses “a universal sentiment.”

要言之，文化概念侧重于民族差异及其特有的群体认同、民族自我认同，文明概念则在一定程度上注重超越这些差异。诺贝特·埃利亚斯指出，文化侧重于民族差异及其特有的群体认同，而文明概念则不同程度地忽略了这些差异。布鲁斯·马兹利什也指出，“文化倾向于特殊的地方因素”，文明则“有普世情怀”。

4. Relatively Different in Nature and Function

4.性质和作用相对不同

Culture can be advanced or backward, while civilization is more often distinguished by regional characteristics.

文化有先进落后之分，文明多有地域特色之别。

Xi Jinping has pointed out that various civilizations each have their shortcomings; there is no perfect civilization in the world, nor any civilization that is entirely without merit, but “civilizations have no hierarchy of high or low, superior or inferior; they only have differences in characteristics and regions.” [21]21 Xi Jinping, speech at the UNESCO Headquarters, March 27, 2014. Nietzsche, in *The Antichrist*, stated that civilization “is nothing other than spiritual discipline, self-restraint”; “on the contrary, culture can be closely linked with social decadence.” Huang Shengzhang also believed that culture can contain dross, while civilization can only be essence. Archaeology has proven that various forms of culture existed in barbaric times, but not all can be called “civilization”; civilization is higher than culture and is the embodiment of synthesized essence. No matter how important the culture of a certain period or region may be, it cannot all represent or be called civilization. The long-standing, deeply rooted spiritual foundation of a society is civilization, not culture. This indicates that there is advanced culture and also backward culture; advanced culture promotes the progress of humanity, the nation, the state, society, and people themselves, while backward culture hinders the progress of humanity, the nation, the state, society, and people themselves.

习近平指出：各种文明也各有不足，世界上不存在十全十美的文明，也不存在一无是处的文明，但“文明没有高下、优劣之分，只有特色、地域之别”。尼采在《敌基督者》中指出，文明“无非是精神纪律、自我克制”；“相反，文化则可以同社会颓废现象密切联系在一起”。黄盛璋也认为，文化可以有糟粕，文明只能为精华。考古证明，野蛮时代已有各类文化，但不能都称为“文明”，文明高于文化，且为综合于精华的体现。某一时期、某一地区文化即使再重要，也不能都代表或称为文明。一个社会源远流长、根深蒂固的精神基础是文明，而不是文化。这表明有先进的文化，也有落后的文化，先进的文化促进人类进步、国家进步、民族进步、社会进步和人本身进步，落后的文化阻碍人类进步、国家进步、民族进步、社会进步和人本身进步。

Civilization, on the other hand, is the positive achievement of “altruism” that embodies “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and appreciating beauty” and contributes to the progress of humanity, the nation, the state, society, and people themselves, precipitated during the evolution and development of culture. It is the advanced aspect of culture or advanced culture (such as fine traditional Chinese culture), suitable for shared use by all humanity; it only has differences in characteristics and regions, not in superiority or inferiority. In other words, civilization, in its root and original sense, describes the objective fact of the “altruistic” development and progress of all humanity in “transforming things for good,” “transforming people for good,” and “practicing virtue under heaven.” Anthropologists often regard civilization as the positive outcome brought to humanity by social progress. Fukuzawa Yukichi also believed that civilization is “raising humanity to a noble realm,” is “the gradual improvement of human interaction,” is “human comfort and spiritual progress,” and is the “progress of the people’s virtue and wisdom.”

文明，则是文化发展演进过程中沉淀下来的体现“求真向善尚美”且有助于人类进步、国家进步、民族进步、社会进步、人本身进步的“利他性”积极成果，是文化中的先进方面或先进的文化（如中华优秀传统文化），适合整个人类共用，它只有特色、地域不同，没有优劣之分。换言之，文明从根和元的意义上，描述的是整个人类“化物为善”“化人为善”“德行天下”的“利他性”发展进步的客观事实。人类学家往往把文明看成社会进步所带给人类的积极成果。福泽谕吉也认为，文明就是“把人类提高到高尚的境界”，是“人类交际活动的逐渐改进”，是“人的安乐和精神的进步”，是人民“德智的进步”。

Certain elements of opposition, conflict, violence, and war contained in contemporary Western culture have brought human society into dangerous territory, plunging the world into turbulence and instability. The origins of World War I and World War II were mainly in the West; the roots of regional conflicts in West Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine military conflict, and the Palestine-Israel conflict lie mainly in the United States, and the roots of the ongoing provocation of the Taiwan Strait conflict also lie mainly in the United States. This Western culture contains “evil.” Fukuzawa Yukichi once said: “In a thousand or ten thousand years, people will surely lament the barbarism of European civilization.” Chinese culture advocates harmony among all nations, benefiting the whole world, universal harmony, and the beauty of coexistence, which is conducive to promoting world peace, development, win-win cooperation, inclusiveness, and mutual benefit. This is an excellent culture. Voltaire pointed out: The history of human civilization began in China. Civilization is a restraint, curbing, and regulation of human evil; the methods of this restraint, curbing, and regulation differ, so civilizations have differences in characteristics and regions, but civilizations have no hierarchy of high or low, superior or inferior. As long as it belongs to civilization, whether ancient or modern, Chinese or foreign, it is always a positive “altruistic” achievement that contributes to the progress of humanity, the nation, the state, society, and people themselves, and is the “altruistic” aspect that embodies humanity’s seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and appreciating beauty in social progress and other forms of progress.

当今西方文化蕴含的某种对立、冲突、暴力、战争，把人类社会带入危险境地，使世界处在动荡不安之中，第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战的发源地主要在西方，西亚、北非、中东的地区冲突，俄乌军事冲突，巴以冲突，其根源主要在美国，正在挑起的台海冲突的根源也主要在美国。这种西方文化蕴含着“恶”。福泽谕吉就说：“千百年后，人们必将为欧洲文明之野蛮而哀叹。”中华文化主张协和万邦、兼济天下、世界大同、美美与共，有利于促进世界和平发展、合作共赢、包容普惠，这是一种优秀的文化。伏尔泰就指出：人类文明史是从中国开始的。文明是一种对人性恶的约束、克制和规范，这种约束、克制和规范的方式有所不同，所以文明有特色、地域之别，但文明没有高下、优劣之分。只要属于文明，古今中外，就都是有助于人类进步、国家进步、民族进步、社会进步和人本身进步的“利他性”积极成果，是体现人类求真向善尚美的社会进步等各种进步的“利他性”方面。

Wen Yang pointed out: “Do civilizations clash because of hierarchy? Or do they learn from each other based on equality? This can be called the question of the times and the question of the world today.” [22]22 Wen Yang (文扬), a contemporary Chinese scholar and commentator on civilization studies. If one insists that civilizations have a “hierarchy” of high and low, conflict will arise; if one insists that civilizations are “equal,” mutual learning will inevitably occur. It is in this sense that, on the question of whether civilization or culture is higher, most scholars believe that civilization is the result of culture developing to a certain stage, and that civilization is higher than culture.

文扬指出：“文明因高低而冲突？还是持平等而互鉴？这堪称当今的时代之问、世界之问。”若坚持文明有“高低”之争就会产生冲突，若坚持文明“平等”而必会互鉴。正是在上述意义上，在文明和文化孰高孰低问题上，大多数学者认为，文明是文化发展到一定阶段的结果，文明高于文化。

5. Relatively Different in Interrelation

5.关联性相对不同

Culture is often associated with categories such as “edification,” cultural knowledge, science and technology, ability, and doing things, while civilization is often linked with categories such as “cultivation,” behavioral literacy, morality, and being a person. The category of culture contains elements of “civilization,” and this element is the “goodness of culture.”

文化常与“教化”、文化知识、科学技术、能力、做事等范畴相关，文明常与“教养”、行为素养、道德、做人等范畴相联。文化范畴中蕴含着“文明”因素，这种因素就是“文化之善”。

When we speak of culture, what first appears is the cultural knowledge and science and technology that people acquire through “edification.” For example, when we speak of a person’s cultural level, it mostly refers to the level of cultural knowledge and science and technology they have mastered. However, cultural level and civilizational level cannot be equated; a person with a high cultural level does not entirely mean they have a high civilizational level, and there are even situations where they use knowledge and technology to do evil. Here lies the issue of how to transform and elevate cultural knowledge and science and technology into civilizational literacy. “Edification,” “cultural knowledge,” “science and technology,” “ability,” and “doing things” are common identifying categories used when discussing culture.

当我们说到文化，首先呈现的是人们通过“教化”所掌握的文化知识、科学技术，如说一个人的文化水平，就多指他所掌握的文化知识和科学技术水平。然而，文化水平和文明水平并不能等同，一个人文化水平高，并不完全等于他文明水平高，甚至存在着他用知识和技术去作恶之情境。这里有一个如何把文化知识、科学技术转化和提升为文明素养的问题。“教化”“文化知识”“科学技术”“能力”“做事”等，是谈论文化常用的标识性范畴。

Civilization concerns the moral ethics, cultivation, and behavioral literacy of people in a society. Civilization is a form of social cultivation presented through moral governance, laws and regulations, behavioral norms, and inner conscience. When Engels pointed out that “civilization is a practical matter, a social quality” (which can also be understood as “cultivation”—author’s note), this is the meaning. If, in a society, everyone’s words and deeds make people feel elegant, their conduct in society makes people feel noble, social interactions make people feel comfortable, participation in social affairs makes people feel benefited, and everyone engages in altruistic personal and social activities based on benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, faithfulness, gentleness, kindness, respectfulness, frugality, and comity, then that is a civilized society. If a person with cultural knowledge and science and technology litters, throws garbage, or spits in a public place, they are not a civilized person. The Chinese term “civilization” (文明) appeared early in the *Book of Changes*; the *Book of Changes·Great Possession* says: “Its virtue is firm and strong yet civilized.” The *Book of Documents·Canon of Shun* also says: “Profoundly wise and civilized, gentle and respectful, filling up the path.” “Ethics and morality,” “cultivation,” “cultivating the mind and nurturing nature,” “mind-nature,” “virtue,” “practicing virtue under heaven,” “good governance,” “democracy and rule of law,” “fairness and justice,” etc., belong to the common identifying categories used when discussing civilization. Here, civilization is essentially related to ethics and morality; after being purified and elevated by “ethics and morality” and “virtue,” culture becomes civilization. If there is any difference between the two, it is that civilization is primarily directed against barbaric behavior, while ethics and morality are primarily directed at the ethical and moral relationships between people, and it is a form of civilization.

文明关乎一个社会中的人之道德伦理、教养和行为素养。文明是通过道德法治、规章制度、行为规范、内心良知而呈现的一种社会教养。恩格斯所指出的“文明是实践的事情，是社会的素质”（亦可理解为“教养”——作者注），就是此意。若一个社会，人人言谈举止使人们感到优雅，为人处世使人们感到高尚，社会交往使人们感到舒坦，参与社会事业使人们感到受益，人人能基于仁义礼智信、温良恭俭让从事利他性的个人活动和社会活动，那就是一个文明社会。如果一个具有文化知识、拥有科学技术的人在公共场所乱扔纸屑、垃圾及吐痰，他就不是一个文明人。汉语中的“文明”一词较早出现在《易经》中，《易经·大有》说：“其德刚健而文明。”《尚书·舜典》也说：“浚哲文明，温恭用塞。”“伦理道德”“教养”“修心养性”“心性”“德性”“德行天下”“善治”“民主法治”“公平正义”等，就属于谈论文明常用的标识性范畴。这里，文明与伦理道德本质相关，文化经过“伦理道德”“德性”的净化、提升，就成为文明。如果说二者有什么区别的话，那么，文明主要针对野蛮行为而言，而伦理道德主要针对人和人之间的伦理道德关系而言，它是文明的一种形态。

6. Relatively Different in Philosophical Foundation

6.哲学根基相对不同

The philosophical foundation of culture is mainly epistemology, while the philosophical foundation of civilization is mainly virtue philosophy. Discussing the respective philosophical foundations of culture and civilization is a rather complex and difficult issue, and it is currently difficult to give a very precise answer that is widely accepted. Here, it can only be a tentative preliminary exploration and analysis.

文化的哲学根基主要是知识论，文明的哲学根基则主要是德性哲学。谈论文化和文明各自的哲学根基，是一个相当复杂且难度较大的问题，现在很难给出一个十分精准且得到人们普遍认可的答案。这里，只能是尝试性地进行初步探索和分析。

Culture, relatively speaking, focuses on “humanized things” or “humanization into things” within the framework of the relationship between humans and objects. It relatively emphasizes the knowledge and abilities acquired by humanity to control the forces of nature to meet human needs, focuses on “for-me” doing things, emphasizes externalization into things, adheres to the measure of things, and its line of thought mainly proceeds from subject to object, from inside to outside. As mentioned earlier, culture is mainly embodied in “humanity’s domination of nature,” and this domination is mostly carried out through knowledge systems, science and technology, etc. “Reason,” “knowledge,” “skill,” “science and technology,” and “social wealth” are its common identifying categories. Although it also has the meaning of “transforming people,” its “transforming people” mainly refers to “transforming people into knowledgeable people.” This kind of “transformation” has both positive and negative aspects; the positive aspect is transforming people for good by turning culture into civilization, and in this sense, it becomes a category of civilization. Furthermore, culture mainly answers the epistemological question of “what it is.”

文化，相对侧重于人和物关系框架中的“人化事物”或“人化为物”，相对注重人类为了控制自然的力量以满足人类需要而获得的知识和能力，注重“为我”做事，注重外化于事物，坚持事物尺度，其思路主要是由主体走向客体、由内向外。如前所述，文化主要体现为“人对自然的支配”，这种支配多以知识体系、科学技术等方式进行，“理性”“知识”“技艺”“科学技术”“社会财富”等，是其常用的标识性范畴。它虽然也有“化人”之义，但其“化人”主要指“化人为知识人”。这种“化”有积极和消极两个方面，积极方面是通过把文化转化为文明而化人为善，在这个意义上，它就成了文明范畴。此外，文化主要回答“是什么”的知识性问题。

The philosophical foundation of civilization is primarily virtue philosophy. [23]23 The author uses “virtue philosophy” (德性哲学) to denote a philosophical orientation centered on moral character and ethical cultivation, distinct from epistemology or ontology. (1) Civilization relatively emphasizes, within the framework of human relations, “transforming things into good” and “transforming people into good,” that is, the positive achievements that make humans human (from natural person to social person to civilized person with a sound personality). (2) Civilization is a kind of human “enlightenment” through self-confirmation, self-restraint, self-improvement, and self-progress. (3) Civilization focuses on the rules, regulations, ethical norms, and inner conscience needed by humans to mediate interpersonal relations; it relatively emphasizes “altruism” and is a mutually beneficial relational model among people. (4) Culture emphasizes the “transformation” of the primitive through knowledge, while civilization emphasizes the “illumination” of “culture” and “transformation,” that is, “illuminating great virtue,” restraining and limiting the “evil” in human nature and culture. Aristotle said that the good life is the end or purpose of civilization, and virtue is the key to a good and happy life. Huntington believed that civilization transforms into good, while non-civilization transforms into evil. Fukuzawa Yukichi also pointed out that civilization is the progress of virtue and wisdom, elevating humanity to a noble realm. Civilization, in the final analysis, is the victory of the goodness of human nature over the barbarism of human nature; its essence is humanity’s spiritual pursuit and achievements of “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and admiring beauty” that transcend survival needs. (5) Civilization relatively emphasizes internalizing into humans, transforming humans into being human, focusing on what is born within humans, transforming humans into goodness, and practicing virtue throughout the world; it adheres to the human scale, and its logic mainly moves from object to subject, from external to internal. Because humans are the measure of all things, and all things exist for humans to have meaning, “humanity” is the coordinate for understanding all matters and objects related to humans. Civilization exists for the development and progress of all humanity and for the development and progress of humans themselves; it needs to take “humanity” as the coordinate or return to the “human” origin to understand civilization in its original sense. Philosophically, the highest and most core “meta” pursuit of humans as humans is “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and admiring beauty”; “humanity’s pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty” has original significance for understanding civilization. Thus, civilization is the unremitting pursuit of the entire humanity, society, nation, and ethnic group of the realm of ultimate truth, ultimate goodness, and ultimate beauty, and the positive achievements accumulated from this; this is the progress of human nature, virtue, and mind-heart, that is, the enlightenment of human ignorance (truth), the regulation of human barbarism (goodness), and the cultivation of human ugliness (beauty). (6) “Virtue,” “practicing virtue throughout the world,” “good governance,” “ethics and morality,” “democracy and rule of law,” “fairness and justice,” etc., are its commonly used identifying categories. It also contains “humanization” factors, but it is the positive achievements of “altruistic” development and progress in humanization due to the progress of human nature. (7) Civilization embodies “humanity’s domination over itself”; it mainly answers the question of whether something is “good or not” for humans and humanity, and the essence of the “good or not” question is the issue of “virtue.”

文明的哲学基础主要是德性哲学。（1）文明相对侧重于在人和人的关系框架中的“化物为善”“化人为善”，即使人成其为人的积极成果（由自然人到社会人再到具有健全人格的文明人）。（2）文明是一种人类“开化”性的自我确证、自我约束、自我完善、自我进步。（3）文明注重人类为了调解人和人的关系所需要的规章制度、伦理规范和内心良知等，相对注重“利他”，是人和人之间互利有益的关系模式。（4）文化侧重于用知识对原始性的“化”，文明则侧重于对“文”和“化”的“明”，即“明大德”，对人性和文化中的“恶”进行约束和限制。亚里士多德说，美好的生活是文明的终点或目的，德性是通往美好幸福生活的关键。亨廷顿认为，文明化为善，非文明化为恶。福泽谕吉也指出，文明是德智的进步，它把人类提高到高尚的境界。文明，归根到底是人性之善对人性之野蛮的胜利，其精华是人类超越生存需求的“求真向善尚美”的精神追求及其成果。（5）文明相对注重内化成人、化人做人，注重内生于人、化人为善、德行天下，坚持人的尺度，其思路主要是由客体走向主体、由外向内。因为人是万物的尺度，万物为人而存在才有意义，“人”是理解一切与人有关的事物和对象的坐标，文明是为整个人类发展进步和人本身发展进步而存在的，需要以“人”为坐标或还原到“人”这个原点来理解本源意义上的文明。从哲学上，人作为人的最高最核心的“元”追求，就是“求真向善尚美”，“人类对真善美的追求”对理解文明具有本源意义。这样，文明就是整个人类、社会与国家、民族对至真至善至美境界的不懈追求及其积累起来的积极成果，这就是人性、德行、心性的进步，即对人之愚昧的开化（真），对人之野蛮的规制（善），对人性之丑恶的教化（美）。（6）“德性”“德行天下”“善治”“伦理道德”“民主法治”“公平正义”等，是其常用的标识性范畴。它也有“人化”因素，但它是人化中因人性进步而具有的“利他性”发展进步的积极成果。（7）文明体现为“人对其自身的支配”，它主要回答对人和人类而言“好不好”的问题，“好不好”的问题实质就是“德性”问题。

In summary, culture is not entirely equal to civilization, nor is civilization entirely equal to culture. Culture contains civilization but is not entirely civilization; civilization contains culture but is not equivalent to all culture. Civilization is the “goodness of culture,” the progressive aspect of cultural achievements that benefits the progress of human nature, the development and progress of humans themselves, and transforms humans into “goodness” with “altruism”; culture is the prerequisite of civilization, civilization is the sublimation of culture, civilization originates from culture yet transcends it, and the transcendence of culture and its sublimation into “altruistic progress” of “seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and admiring beauty” is civilization.

总之，文化不完全等于文明，文明也不完全等于文化。文化中蕴含文明但不都是文明，文明中有文化但并不等于所有的文化。文明是“文化之善”，是文化成果中有益于人性进步、人本身发展进步且化人为“善”的“利他性”的进步方面；文化是文明的前提，文明是文化的升华，文明源于文化又高于文化，对文化的超越且升华为“利他进步”的“求真向善尚美”，就是文明。

III. Clarifying the “Deceptive Scheme” of the Contemporary Mainstream West in Equating Culture with Civilization and Its Major Significance

三、理清当今西方主流把文化等同于文明的“吊诡之计”及其重要意义

One of the purposes of truly clarifying the relative distinction between culture and civilization from a philosophical perspective is to unravel a certain “deceptive scheme” of the contemporary mainstream West in equating culture with civilization, to dismantle the “Western-centric theory,” and to further clarify the contemporary value and world significance of Chinese civilization and the new form of human civilization.

之所以要从哲学上真正理清文化和文明的相对区别，其旨向之一，就是要解开当今西方主流把文化等同于文明的某种“吊诡之计”，破解“西方中心论”，进一步理清中华文明、人类文明新形态的时代价值和世界意义。

First, contemporary Western modernization cannot, from its foundations, create a new form of human civilization. Contemporary Western modernization, with the “Western-centric theory” as its core pillar and underlying logic, cannot create a new form of human civilization. We must not deny the historical contributions of Western modernization to the progress of human civilization. However, since the proposal and establishment of the “Western-centric theory,” and since Western culture has alienated into “imperial culture,” contemporary Western modernization has been unable to create a new form of human civilization.

第一，当今西方现代化从根基上创造不出人类文明新形态。当今西方现代化以“西方中心论”为核心支柱和底层逻辑，创造不出人类文明新形态。我们决不能否认西方现代化对人类文明进步的历史性贡献。然而，自从提出并确立“西方中心论”之后，自从西方文化异化为“帝国文化”之后，当今西方现代化就创造不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of goals, contemporary Western modernization pursues the proliferation of capital and the maintenance of a hegemonic position in the world. Western modernization with such goals can only internally generate so-called “capital civilization” and cannot internally generate a new form of human civilization.

从目标看，当今西方现代化追求的是资本增殖，是稳居世界霸主的地位。以此为目标的西方现代化只能内生出所谓的“资本文明”，内生不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of paths, routes, and methods, the mainstream West believes that only the Western modernization path is the sole path to achieve modernization. Its essence is to advocate for the Western modernization path or so-called Western civilization, which is not the path for all countries in the world to achieve modernization, nor is it human civilization, and it cannot create a new form of human civilization.

从道路、路径和方式看，西方主流认为只有西方现代化道路才是实现现代化的唯一道路，其实质是倡导西方现代化道路或所谓西方文明，不是世界各国实现现代化的道路，也不是人类文明，创造不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of subjects and driving forces, contemporary Western modernization does not truly regard the masses of the people as the subject, driving force, and purpose of historical development; it places more emphasis on the power of capital and the role of a minority elite. Such modernization cannot create a new form of human civilization.

从主体和动力看，当今西方现代化没有真正把人民群众看作历史发展的主体、动力和目的，更注重的是资本的力量与少数精英的作用，这样的现代化创造不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of nature and standpoint, contemporary Western modernization stands on the standpoint of capital and capitalists, primarily realizing the wishes of capitalists and minority capital interest groups, rather than firmly standing on the people’s standpoint, grasping the people’s aspirations, respecting the people’s creativity, and concentrating the people’s wisdom. Such modernization cannot create a new form of human civilization.

从性质和立场看，当今西方现代化是站在资本和资本家立场上，主要是实现资本家、少数资本利益集团的愿望，而不是站稳人民立场、把握人民愿望、尊重人民创造、集中人民智慧，这样的现代化创造不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of the view of civilization, the West is based on civil society where individual interests are paramount. Its so-called civilization is only a singular civilization, “my” civilization, a civilization “for me,” and it cannot create a new form of human civilization.

从文明观看，西方立足于个人利益至上的市民社会，它所谓的文明只是单数文明，是“我的”文明，是“为我”的文明，创造不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of ethnology and anthropology, the West regards the white race as the most civilized, most advanced, and most excellent ethnic group in the world; they are the “masters,” while the ethnic groups of the non-Western world are the “guests,” belonging to ignorant, barbaric, and uncivilized peoples. The masters must rule the guests. Such racial superiority can only derive so-called “imperial” civilization and cannot internally generate a new form of human civilization.

从民族学、人类学看，西方把白人种族看作世界上最文明、最先进、最优秀的民族，他们是“主”，非西方世界的民族是“客”，属于蒙昧、野蛮、未开化的民族，主必须统治客，这样的种族优越论只能衍生出所谓的“帝国”文明，内生不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of the view of social operation, the West’s overall view of social operation is social evolutionism, believing that the laws of “competitive evolution” and “survival of the fittest” are universally applicable governance principles for human society. This principle can be fully implemented in all areas of society and in the actual secularization process. Such social evolutionism cannot derive a new form of human civilization; it can only internally generate a so-called civilization of the minority, where the development of one part comes at the expense of the development of another part, not human civilization.

从社会运行观看，西方对社会运行的总体看法就是社会进化论，认为“竞争进化”“优胜劣汰”法则是人类社会普遍适用的治理法则，可以把这一法则全面贯彻到社会一切领域和现实的世俗化进程中，这样的社会进化论衍生不出人类文明新形态，内生出的只是一部分的发展以牺牲另一部分的发展为代价的所谓少数人文明，不是人类文明。

From the perspective of evaluation criteria, the “Western-centric theory” emphasizes that reason has essentiality, logicality, identity, uniqueness, universality, supremacy, eternity, absoluteness, subjectivity, and negativity. Reason is the highest criterion; everything must be judged before the tribunal of reason. It holds that Western countries can formulate “world standards” with the supreme power to control the world based on reason, and these world standards should be used to judge other countries and ethnic groups. The West is the embodiment of this “omnipotent reason.” This can only internally generate a so-called Western civilization with a dominating and ruling character, and cannot internally generate a new form of human civilization.

从评价尺度看，“西方中心论”强调理性具有本质性、逻辑性、同一性、唯一性、普遍性、至上性、永恒性、绝对性、主体性、否定性，理性是最高尺度，一切都要到理性的审判台上加以评判，认为西方国家可依据理性制定具有控制世界最高权力的“世界标准”，应当用这些世界标准裁量其他国家和民族，西方是这种“万能理性”的化身，这只能内生出具有主宰性、统治性的所谓西方文明，内生不出人类文明新形态。

From the perspective of colonial expansion, the mainstream West believes that Western civilization is the most advanced civilization in the world, and non-Western countries and ethnic groups are either ignorant, barbaric, or uncivilized. The Western world needs to carry out a “civilizing mission” under God’s will, and one of its means and methods is to implement colonial expansion. Since modern times, the West has habitually used the dichotomous coercive discourse of “civilization and barbarism” to defend its “civilizing mission,” which contains barbaric genes and runs counter to civilization, human civilization, and the new form of human civilization.

从殖民扩张看，西方主流认为西方文明就是世界最先进的文明，非西方国家、民族要么蒙昧，要么野蛮，要么不开化，西方世界需要行使上帝旨意的“文明开化使命”，其手段和方式之一就是实行殖民扩张。近代以来，西方惯用“文明和野蛮”二分法的强制性话语方式，为其“文明开化”辩护，其中蕴含野蛮的基因，与文明、人类文明、人类文明新形态背道而驰。

From a philosophical foundation, the philosophical foundation of modern Western modernization is the “philosophy of the One” or the “subject-object binary opposition” philosophy inherent in Western metaphysics. From ancient Greek philosophy to classical German philosophy, it has consistently sought for the actual material world a so-called “noumenon” as the ultimate origin and supreme authority of metaphysics, regarding this noumenon as the supreme “One,” as the “subject,” holding that it possesses supremacy and subjectivity, is the most authoritative “ruler” that dominates the “many” or the “object,” and is the absolute “ultimate being” that governs the real world. The relationship between the one and the many, the subject and the object, is one of binary opposition in which the former dominates and rules the latter. This philosophy provides justification for “Western-centrism,” and what it engenders is opposition, conflict, violence, and war, not a new form of human civilization.

从哲学根基看，当今西方现代化的哲学根基就是西方形而上学所蕴含的“唯一哲学”或“主客二元对立”哲学。从古希腊哲学到德国古典哲学，一直要为现实物质世界寻求作为最后本源、最高权威的形而上学的所谓“本体”，把这一本体看作最高的“一”，看作“主”，认为它具有至高无上性和主体性，是主宰“多”或“客”的最权威的“主宰者”，是统治现实世界的绝对的“终极存在”，一和多、主和客是前者主宰、统治后者的二元对立关系。这种哲学是为“西方中心论”作论证的，内生出的是对立、冲突、暴力、战争，而不是人类文明新形态。

Second, the history dominated by the United States and the West, in a certain sense, is a history of colonial expansion, a history that has plunged the entire world into opposition, conflict, violence, and war, not a history that promotes building a community with a shared future for mankind. The origins of World War I and World War II were mainly in the West; the roots of regional conflicts and local wars in West Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East lie mainly with the United States and the West; the ultimate roots of the Russia-Ukraine military conflict and the Israel-Palestine conflict lie mainly with the United States and the West. The United States and the West cause continuous world conflicts and wars, resulting in fields strewn with corpses and countless people displaced and homeless. This is the “barbarism” of contemporary Western culture, the “evil” of contemporary Western culture, which in essence has already departed from human civilization.

第二，美西方主导的历史，在一定意义上就是殖民扩张的历史，是导致整个世界陷入对立、冲突、暴力、战争的历史，不是推动构建人类命运共同体的历史。第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战的发源地主要在西方，西亚、北非、中东的地区冲突、局部战争的根源主要在美西方，俄乌军事冲突、巴以冲突的最终根源主要在美西方。美西方导致世界冲突、战争不断，致使尸横遍野，无数人流离失所、无家可归。这是当今西方文化之“野蛮”，是当今西方文化之“恶”，在本质上已经远离人类文明。

Third, civilization in essence is related to the restraint, control, and regulation of the evil of human nature; it is directed against barbarism. Some Western scholars, in order to conceal the barbarism inherent in contemporary Western modernization and “Western-centrism,” often let culture don the cloak of civilization. In reality, whatever corresponds to barbarism should be described by the concept of civilization; whatever is related to things and objects of “humanization” and “externalization” and deviates from civilization can generally be described by backward culture and cannot be attributed to civilization. We do not deny that Western culture contains civilizational aspects beneficial to human progress, social progress, and the progress of people themselves, and we should even learn from and draw on these civilizational aspects. For example, those Western artistic buildings that have weathered storms, endured for centuries, and remain majestic, magnificent, colorful, and moving; those Western libraries that are grand and dazzling; those Western universities that are elegant and eye-catching—these can all be described and explained using the term civilization. However, buildings built on the basis of blood-soaked people and at the cost of countless lives are excluded. We need to expose the West’s “deceptive trick” of calling what belongs to “culture” “civilization,” that is, equating culture with civilization.

第三，文明在本质上与对人性之恶的约束、克制和规范有关，它针对的是野蛮。一些西方学者为遮蔽当今西方现代化、“西方中心论”所蕴含的野蛮，往往让文化披上文明的外衣。实际上，凡是与野蛮相对应的，应是文明概念所描述的；凡是与“人化”“外化”有关的事物和对象并且背离文明的，总体上可以用落后文化来描述，不能归属于文明。我们不否认西方文化中具有利于人类进步、社会进步和人本身进步的文明方面，甚至还要向这些文明方面学习借鉴。如西方那些历经沧桑、经久不衰而依然巍巍壮观、绚丽多彩、美丽动人的几百年乃至几千年的艺术性建筑，西方那种气势恢宏、光彩夺目的图书馆，西方那种典雅且引人注目的大学等，都可以用文明来加以描述和阐释，但建立在沾满人们鲜血基础上且以牺牲无数人的生命为代价的建筑除外。我们需要揭示西方那种把本属于“文化的”说成“文明的”，即把文化等同于文明的“吊诡之计”。

In fact, in many respects, the West often commits many barbaric acts in the name of civilization and provides legitimacy defenses for its various behaviors. In this regard, we must clarify and demystify “in the name of civilization.” The West’s destruction of the natural environment and colonial expansion for the sake of developing large-scale industry is not industrial civilization, but merely industrial culture; the West’s creation of opposition and conflict between countries, regions, and ethnic groups in the name of freedom, democracy, and human rights is not human civilization, but a deviation of Western culture from human civilization; the West’s dumping of large quantities of industrial waste into other countries is not ecological civilization, but a Western culture of harming others for self-benefit; the West’s use of high-tech, high-precision military weapons to cause violence and war between nations and ethnic groups is not technological civilization, but a culture of war; the West’s respect for the individual rights of its own citizens belongs to civilization, but the deaths of people in other countries it causes belong to barbarism. Will Durant compared civilization to a winding stream, pointing out that it occasionally turns blood-red due to killing, theft, noise, and other attention-grabbing acts; while on the banks, people are quietly building houses, raising children, singing poems, and even engaging in sculpture. In Durant’s interpretation of the narrative of civilization, those things that happen “on the riverbanks” are more in line with the direction of inter-civilizational relations, while continuous oppression and killing only make the stream more turbid. The West’s equating culture with civilization is a certain “deceptive trick” in the history of human culture and civilization. Some Chinese people, however, equate civilization with culture, which is a confusion in the history of human culture and civilization. We must clarify the confusion in both scenarios—equating culture with civilization and equating civilization with culture—and analyze and clear up this worldwide myth deliberately created by some Western scholars who confuse culture and civilization.

实际上，在不少方面，西方往往以文明的名义作出许多野蛮的事，且为其各种行为进行合法性辩护。对此，我们要对“以文明的名义”予以澄清和祛蔽。西方为发展大工业而破坏自然环境，搞殖民扩张，这不是工业文明，只是工业文化；西方以自由、民主、人权的名义制造国家之间、地区之间、民族之间的对立、冲突，这不是人类文明，只是西方文化对人类文明的背离；西方把大量工业废品倾泻到别的国家去，这不是生态文明，而是西方损人利己的文化；西方利用掌握的高科技、高精尖军事武器导致国家、民族之间的暴力、战争，这不是科技文明，而是战争文化；西方对本国公民之个人权利的尊重属于文明，但它所导致的其他国家的人民的死亡，却属于野蛮。威尔·杜兰特就将文明比作一条蜿蜒流淌的溪流，指出它不时因杀戮、盗窃、喧嚣及其他夺人眼球的行为而变得血红；而在岸边，人们正在悄无声息地搭建房舍、繁衍后代、抚养儿童、颂歌赋诗，甚至从事雕刻艺术。在杜兰特对文明叙事的诠释中，那些发生在“河畔岸边”上的事情更加符合文明间关系的走向，而持续的压迫与杀戮只会使溪流变得更加污浊。西方把文化等同于文明，是人类文化和文明史上的某种“吊诡之计”。我们一些中国人却把文明等同于文化，是人类文化和文明史上的一种迷误。我们要澄清把文化等同于文明与把文明等同于文化两种情景之迷误，解析和清理一些西方学者蓄意把文化和文明加以混淆的这种世界性迷思。

Fourth, some Western scholars advocate “Western-centrism,” and the West often commits barbaric acts in the name of civilization; one of its tactics is to equate culture with civilization. The internal logic of this “deceptive stratagem” is as follows: Initially, people did not consciously distinguish between culture and civilization; the two were often used interchangeably, lacking cognitive and theoretical awareness. Later, people began to make a preliminary distinction between culture and civilization in their understanding, holding that culture mainly refers to “humanization,” as opposed to primitive nature, while civilization mainly concerns “civilizing people,” as opposed to “barbarism,” but this still did not reach a high degree of theoretical clarity or theoretical consciousness. After the 17th century, with the opening of global maritime routes and the rise of industry and commerce, some European scholars emphasized “national self-consciousness” and deliberately used the “civilization-barbarism” dichotomy to distinguish European societies and races from other peoples, regarding European societies and races as civilized and other peoples as barbaric peoples awaiting enlightenment, thereby forming “Eurocentrism,” which later expanded into “Western-centrism,” attaining a highly clear cognitive, theoretical, and practical consciousness (some scholars point out that “in the context of the rise of the concept of civilization, the expansion of Europe in this period was one of its factors,” “after the concept of civilization emerged in the 18th century, racial theory found a host and a place to settle,” “Europeans viewed their relationship with others through the lens of racial superiority; if there is a concept that occupies a special position in this imagery, that concept is civilization,” “civilization originated from Europe’s sense of superiority,” expressing Western self-consciousness, even national consciousness; this sense of superiority could take either a benevolent form or a malicious colonial form). To establish and maintain “Western-centrism,” the Western mainstream, relying on civilization as opposed to barbarism, emphasized a singular, unitary civilization, holding that civilization belongs only to the West, calling everything it does (including its barbaric aspects) “civilization,” while all other nations and peoples outside the West are either barbaric or uncivilized, thus the West can exercise a “civilizing mission” as if by divine decree. Since the proposal of “Western-centrism” and the alienation of Western culture into “imperial culture,” it has contained the genes of barbarism, and in the historical process of carrying out the “civilizing mission,” it has also committed many barbaric acts, because its philosophical foundation is the “binary opposition of subject and object.” Since civilization is directed against barbarism, to conceal this barbarism and thereby maintain “Western-centrism,” the Western mainstream has more actively employed this “deceptive stratagem,” namely “equating culture with civilization,” using civilization to cover up barbarism. Some Western scholars have deliberately confused culture with civilization, calling culture civilization; its essence is to maintain “Western-centrism” and conceal its barbaric acts. The essential connotation of civilization moved from initial “indeterminacy” to later “determinacy” due to the emergence of “Western-centrism”; vigorously maintaining “Western-centrism” is the underlying logic of the Western mainstream’s “deceptive stratagem” of calling culture civilization or equating culture with civilization. In *A Study of History*, Toynbee replaced the concept of “culture” repeatedly used by Spengler in *The Decline of the West* with the concept of “civilization.” Huntington did the same. In the mainstream Western tendency, the distinction between culture and civilization is very unclear, and they are even arbitrarily substituted for each other at any time; the phenomenon of misuse is very serious. Some experts and scholars, even when they clearly know that culture and civilization are distinct, deliberately confuse the two. Truly clarifying the internal logic of this “deceptive stratagem” of calling culture civilization or equating culture with civilization helps us dispel the various mists surrounding the issues of culture and civilization.

第四，一些西方学者推崇“西方中心论”，且西方往往以文明名义做出野蛮之事，其手法之一，就是把文化说成文明。这种“吊诡之计”的内在逻辑是：起初，人们并没有自觉地把文化和文明区分开来，二者常常混在一起使用，缺乏认识自觉和理论自觉；后来，人们在认识上把文化和文明作些初步区分，认为文化主要指的是“人化”，相对于原始自然，文明主要讲的是“化人”，相对于“野蛮”，但还没有达到高度的理论清醒、理论自觉；17世纪之后，由于海上环球航线的开辟和工商业兴起，有些欧洲学者便强调“民族自我意识”，自觉主动地用“文明-野蛮”二分法来区分欧洲社会、欧洲种族与其他民族，将欧洲社会、欧洲种族视为文明，把其他民族看成有待教化的野蛮民族，由此形成了“欧洲中心主义”，后进一步拓展为“西方中心论”，具有了高度清醒的认识自觉、理论自觉和实践自觉（一些学者指出，“在文明概念兴起的背景中，这一阶段欧洲的扩张是其因素之一”，“18世纪文明概念产生后，种族理论找到了一个宿主，有了安身立命之地”，“欧洲人透过种族优越的意象来看待自己与他者的关系，如果说存在一个概念，此概念又在这种意象中占据特殊地位，那么此概念就是文明”，“文明起源于欧洲的优越意识”，表达了西方的自我意识，甚至可以说是国家意识，这种优越感，既可以是善意的形式，也可以是恶意的殖民的形式）；西方主流为了确立并维护“西方中心论”，就凭借针对野蛮的文明而强调单数一元文明，认为文明只属于西方，把自己所做的一切（包括其野蛮方面）都称为“文明”，西方以外的其他国家和民族要么野蛮，要么不开化，因而西方可以行使上帝旨意的“文明开化使命”；自提出“西方中心论”且把西方文化异化为“帝国文化”之后，就蕴含着野蛮的基因，且在行使“文明开化使命”的历史进程中，也做出许多野蛮之事，因为其哲学根基是“主客二元对立”，而文明针对的是野蛮，为遮蔽这种野蛮，进而维护“西方中心论”，西方主流就更加主动地行使这种“吊诡之计”，即“把文化等同于文明”，用文明掩盖野蛮；一些西方学者曾蓄意地把文化同文明相混淆，把文化说成文明，其实质就是维护“西方中心论”，遮蔽其野蛮行径；文明的本质内涵从一开始的“不确定”走向后来的“确定”，是由于“西方中心论”的出现，极力维护“西方中心论”，是西方主流把文化说成文明或把文化等同于文明这种“吊诡之计”的底层逻辑。汤因比在《历史研究》中，就以“文明”概念代替斯宾格勒在《西方的衰落》中反复使用的“文化”概念。亨廷顿也是如此。在西方主流倾向中，文化和文明的区别是很不明确的，甚至随时随地将二者任意替换，其滥用现象十分严重，有些专家学者就是在确切知道文化和文明具有区别的情境下，故意将二者混淆。真正理清把文化说成文明或把文化等同于文明这种“吊诡之计”的内在逻辑，有助于我们拨开文化和文明问题上的种种迷雾。

Fifth, Chinese civilization is civilization in the true sense. Voltaire believed that the history of human civilization began with China, and that China was Europe’s intellectual mentor. He also emphasized that the Confucian doctrine of “innate goodness of human nature” is fundamentally different from Christianity’s doctrine of “original sin”; it is the “innate goodness” of humans that enables them, beyond “loving God,” to “love their motherland and their parents and children with deep affection,” and no maxim or doctrine of any Western nation can compare with “pure morality.” Confucius often spoke of benevolence and righteousness; if people practiced such morality, they would not attack each other. He also quoted the missionary Le Comte, saying: “When China followed the purest moral teachings, Europe was mired in error and corruption.” Thus, he loudly called for France to “completely Sinicize,” advocating that every French person should take “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” as their motto. In addition, Diderot, Helvétius, and others also believed that China is the only country in the world that combines politics and morality; Chinese rulers understood that to make the country prosperous, they must rely on morality; China’s doctrines are worthy of being taken as models by all countries. Holbach also declared that for France to prosper, it must replace Christian morality with Confucian morality. However, what needs reflection is that some of our own people often label what is originally “civilized” as “cultural.”

第五，中华文明是真正意义上的文明。伏尔泰认为，人类文明史是从中国开始的，中国是欧洲的思想导师。他还强调，中国儒学的“性善”说与基督教的“性恶”说有本质区别，人类的“性善”才使他们在“爱神”之外，能够“以深厚的感情，去爱其祖国及其父母妻子”，而西方民族的任何格言和教理都无法与“纯粹道德”相比拟，孔子常说仁义，若使人们实行此种道德，人们就不会互相攻伐了。他还援引传教士李明的话说：“中国遵循最纯洁的道德教训时，欧洲正陷于谬误和腐化堕落之中。”由此，他大声疾呼法国要“全盘华化”，主张每个法国人都应该把“己所不欲，勿施于人”作为自己的座右铭。此外，狄德罗、爱尔维修等也认为，中国是世界上唯一的将政治和道德结合的国家，中国的统治者明白要使国家繁荣，必须仰赖道德，中国的学说值得所有国家奉为楷模。霍尔巴赫也宣称，法国要想繁荣，必须以儒家的道德代替基督教的道德。然而，需要反思的是，我们一些人却往往把本来是“文明的”说成“文化的”。

Sixth, clarifying the relative distinction between culture and civilization has extremely important directional significance for deepening the study of culture and civilization and even achieving theoretical breakthroughs, for dismantling “Western-centrism,” and for understanding and grasping the new form of human civilization. First, it is necessary to return to the essence of culture and civilization. Equating culture with civilization essentially exaggerates Western culture, while equating civilization with culture easily misreads Chinese civilization. The urgent task is to return to the respective essences of culture and civilization, to reveal the “evil” in Western culture, to highlight the “goodness” of Chinese civilization, and to enable people to recognize the true features of Western culture and Chinese civilization. For example, writing, cities, and states mainly belong to the category of “culture,” not the category of “civilization,” because some states have already manifested a certain “evil of the state.” Here, one should consciously and clearly identify the essence of “Western-centrism’s” abuse of the concept of civilization: it treats civilization merely as an ideology, using a national self-consciousness of “racial superiority” to suppress other nations and peoples while concealing its barbaric acts, ultimately moving to the opposite of civilization. Bruce Mazlish points out: “Some concepts expressing binary opposition are indispensable. Excluding and denigrating the ‘other’ is a basic psychological mechanism to achieve the goal of highlighting oneself. Civilization is one way (means) to achieve this goal.” To subvert such a view of civilization and to return to and reconstruct the first view of civilization we discussed above, we must speak of civilization in the sense of humanity’s progress in “seeking truth, doing good, and appreciating beauty,” in the construction of human nature, mind, and virtue, and in the “altruistic” sense of “virtue prevailing under heaven.”

第六，理清文化和文明的相对区别，对深化文化和文明的研究乃至实现理论突破，对破解“西方中心论”，对理解和把握人类文明新形态，具有十分重要的方向性意义。首先，需要回归文化和文明的本质。把文化等同于文明，实质上是夸大西方文化，而把文明等同于文化，容易误读中华文明。当务之急，就是要回归文化和文明各自的本质，把西方文化中的某种“恶”呈现出来，把中华文明之“善”彰显出来，使人们认识西方文化和中华文明的本来面目。如文字、城市、国家等，就主要属于“文化”范畴，而不属于“文明”范畴，因为有些国家已呈现出某种“国家之恶”。这里，应自觉清醒地识别“西方中心论”滥用文明概念的实质，即它把文明仅仅作为一种意识形态，以具有民族自我意识的“种族优越”自居而打压其他国家和民族，且掩盖其野蛮行径，最终走向文明的反面。布鲁斯·马兹利什指出：“一些表述二元对立的概念必不可少。排斥和诋毁‘他者’是一种基本的心理机制，借此来达到凸显自身的目的。文明是实现这一目的的一种方式（手段）。”要颠覆这样的文明观，回归和重建上述我们所讲的第一种文明观，就要在人类“求真向善尚美”的进步意义上，在人本身的人性、心性、德性建设上，在“利他性”的“德行天下”意义上来讲文明。

Secondly, it is necessary to attend to the respective orientations of culture and civilization. The orientation of culture lies in humanization, externalization, and their results, placing relative emphasis on the “external” and the “material,” on humanity’s domination of the external world, and on the construction of “results” in the external world beyond humanity. The orientation of civilization, by contrast, lies in the cultivation of the human, internalization, and their results, placing relative emphasis on the “inner heart” and “becoming human,” on the construction of “virtue” or “innate moral sensibility” in humanity’s own inner emotional world, psychological world, spiritual world, and mental world. When we speak of the construction of humanity’s own inner emotional world, psychological world, spiritual world, and mental world, we should consciously recognize that this is the main task of civilization-building. This is evident from the historical evolution of the connotation of civilization. Initially, civilization was defined by “cities, organization, institutions, norms, spirit, and so on.” Later, civilization was interpreted within the framework of the “barbarism–civilization” dichotomy, holding that civilization is directed against barbarism and embodies a national self-consciousness with a sense of “superiority.” Thereafter, civilization was defined on the basis of the underlying logic of “Western-centrism,” emphasizing that civilization belongs only to the West, while countries and nations outside the West are either barbaric or uncivilized. Today, more and more experts and scholars, especially Chinese experts and scholars, consciously bid farewell to “Western-centrism,” take human society or socialized humanity as their standpoint, and understand and grasp civilization from a broader and more beautiful future vision. They hold that civilization manifests the process and positive results of humanity’s inner “seeking truth, tending toward goodness, and esteeming beauty”; displays the process and positive results of humanity’s common progress in “altruism” within various relationships; exhibits the process and positive results of humanity’s own development and progress and of social development and progress; and emphasizes the construction and positive results of “virtue” and “innate moral sensibility” in humanity’s own inner emotional world, psychological world, spiritual world, and mental world. In short, civilization essentially means “virtue prevails under heaven.” This is the evolution of the connotation of civilization viewed from historical development. Bruce Mazlish points out: “We must define civilization first as a historical phenomenon, rather than taking this concept as an abstract form and then forcibly imposing substance upon it.” [36]36 Bruce Mazlish, *Civilization and Its Contents* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 7.

其次，需要关切文化和文明各自的旨向。文化的旨向在于人化、外化及其成果，相对注重“外”和“物”，注重人对外部世界的支配，注重人之外的外部世界的“成果”建设；而文明的旨向在于化人、内化及其成果，相对注重“内心”和“成人”，注重人本身的内在情感世界、心理世界、心灵世界和精神世界的“德性”或“心性”建设。当我们讲到人本身的内在情感世界、心理世界、心灵世界和精神世界建设时，应自觉意识到这是文明建设的主业。从文明的内涵之历史演变来看，便是如此。起初，文明是由“城市、组织、制度、规范和精神等”来定义的；之后，文明便在“野蛮-文明”二分法框架内加以解释，认为文明针对的是野蛮，体现的是一种具有“优越感”的民族自我意识；其后，便是基于“西方中心论”这一底层逻辑来定义文明，强调文明只属于西方，西方以外的国家、民族要么野蛮，要么不开化；当今，越来越多的专家学者尤其是中国的专家学者自觉告别“西方中心论”，立足人类社会或社会化人类，从更为广阔和更为美好的未来愿景来理解和把握文明，认为文明彰显的是人性内在“求真向善尚美”的过程及其积极成果，显示的是人在各种关系中的“利他性”的共同进步过程及其积极成果，展示的是人本身发展进步和社会发展进步过程及其积极成果，注重的是人本身的内在情感世界、心理世界、心灵世界和精神世界的“德性”“心性”建设及其积极成果。要言之，文明实质上讲的就是“德行天下”。这是从历史发展看文明内涵的演变。布鲁斯·马兹利什指出：“我们界定文明，必须首先将它作为一种历史现象，而不是把这一概念当作抽象形态，然后再强行赋予其实质。”

Thirdly, the issues of culture and civilization should be discussed relatively; they cannot be treated “broadly,” “generally,” or “confusedly,” so as to avoid mistaking cultural issues for civilizational issues and also mistaking civilizational issues for cultural issues. In terms of civilization, China is relatively earlier than the West, because civilization mainly concerns ethics and morality, transforming things into goodness, transforming people into goodness, and virtue prevailing under heaven. As mentioned earlier, Voltaire clearly stated that the history of human civilization began with China, whereas ancient Greek philosophy, the so-called source of Western civilization, speaks more of the substance and knowledge of things. In terms of culture, Western achievements are relatively abundant, because culture mainly concerns cultural knowledge, science and technology, and the capacity for innovation. The exploration of the origins of civilization can proceed from archaeology and other fields, or from philosophy, or from clarifying the relative distinction between culture and civilization. It should attend not only to the “historical length” of civilization but also to its “historical height,” “historical breadth,” and “historical warmth.” This may well be a new path for the project of exploring the origins of civilization.

再次，文化和文明问题应相对而论，不能“大”而化之、“笼”而化之、“混”而化之，避免把文化问题说成文明问题，也避免把文明问题说成文化问题。论文明，中国相对早于西方，因为文明主要涉及的是伦理道德、化物为善、化人为善、德行天下，如前所述，伏尔泰就明确指出，人类文明史是从中国开始的，而作为所谓西方文明源头的古希腊哲学，则更多讲的是事物的本体与知识；论文化，西方成果相对丰硕，因为文化主要涉及的是文化知识、科学技术、创新能力。文明探源，既可以从考古等入手，也可以从哲学入手，从理清文化和文明的相对区别入手；既要注重文明的“历史长度”，也要注重文明的“历史高度”“历史宽度”“历史温度”，这不失为文明探源工程的一条新路。

Finally, through the analysis and study of the relative distinction between culture and civilization, a “law of construction” can be revealed, namely, the “law of construction from the external to the internal.” Generally speaking, the various constructions that people emphasize mostly proceed along the logic of “external first, internal later.” Historically, China’s response to Western modernization has followed the historical logic of implements–institutions–culture, external imitation–internal subject. Implements belong to the category of “construction of the external world” beyond humanity, with strong external imitation; the “goodness” within culture belongs to civilization, and this begins to enter the “subjectivity” construction of humanity’s inner spiritual world. Xi Jinping’s statement that “the essence of modernization is the modernization of people” essentially means that while Chinese-path modernization emphasizes the modernization of material things, institutions, and national governance, in the New Era it must, in essence, place greater emphasis on the modernization of the inner spiritual world of “people.” From a practical perspective, at the beginning of reform and opening up in 1978, China placed relatively greater emphasis on the accumulation of material wealth and on the construction of the material world beyond humanity. As socialism with Chinese characteristics entered the New Era, China placed relatively greater emphasis on institutional construction and the modernization of national governance. Subsequently, it further emphasized the construction of a strong cultural country, beginning to move into the depths of humanity’s own inner emotional world, psychological world, spiritual world, and mental world, and focusing on establishing, consolidating, and elevating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. From a future perspective, the construction of the entire material world of humanity has already yielded abundant results. The greatest difficulty today is that serious problems have emerged in humanity’s own inner emotional world, psychological world, spiritual world, and mental world, which are difficult to heal in a short time. The greatest revelation this law gives us is that, as a matter of urgent necessity, the construction of the entire world should and must focus on the construction of the “inner” and the “heart.” This is the correct path for humanity to move toward a bright future. One of the goal orientations of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture is to devote itself to the construction and subjectivity of humanity’s own inner emotional world, psychological world, spiritual world, and mental world. This is essentially an understanding of a law and will inevitably promote innovation in law.

最后，通过对文化和文明相对区别的分析研究，可以揭示出一条“建设规律”，即“由外向内建设规律”。一般而言，人们所注重的各种建设，大都是沿着“先外后内”的逻辑进行的。从历史来看，中国对西方现代化的回应，是沿着器物—制度—文化、外在模仿—内在主体的历史逻辑进行的，器物属于人之外的“外部世界建设”范畴，外在模仿性强，文化之中的“善”属于文明，这就开始走入人的内心精神世界的“主体性”建设。习近平所讲的“现代化的本质是人的现代化”，实质上就是讲中国式现代化在注重物的现代化、制度现代化、国家治理现代化的同时，新时代要从本质上更加注重“人”的内心精神世界的现代化。从现实来看，1978年改革开放之初，我国相对注重物质财富的积累，相对注重人之外的物质世界的建设，中国特色社会主义进入新时代，我国就相对注重制度建设和国家治理现代化建设，之后又进一步注重文化强国建设，开始走向人本身的内在情感世界、心理世界、心灵世界、精神世界的深处，注重确立、巩固、高扬中华民族的文化主体性。从未来来看，整个人类的物质世界建设已经取得丰硕成果，如今最大的难题，就是人本身内在的情感世界、心理世界、心灵世界、精神世界出现了一时难以疗治的严重问题。这一规律给我们最大的启示就是，当务之急，整个世界的建设应当且必须注重“内”“心”的建设，这是人类走向光明前景的正途。习近平文化思想的目标旨向之一，就是致力于人本身内在的情感世界、心理世界、心灵世界和精神世界及其主体性建设。这实质上是一种规律性认识，也必然推进规律性创新。

(Author’s brief introduction: Han Qingxiang, First-Class Professor and Leading Expert of the Expert Studio at the Central Party School (National Academy of Governance) of the CPC)

（作者简介：韩庆祥，中共中央党校（国家行政学院）一级教授、专家工作室领衔专家）

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆