The Interpretive Framework and Basic Thread of the History of Chinese-Path Modernization

Conducting research on the history of Chinese-path modernization is an entirely new mission and direction for the study of Chinese history, and even world history. The history of Chinese-path modernization is undoubtedly a history of modernization centered on the “Chinese path.” The history of Chinese-path modernization is not a general history of modernization, but rather, like its carrier, Chinese-path modernization itself, a new form of modernization history. Although existing domestic and international studies on the history of Chinese modernization have not lacked attention to the characteristics of China’s modernization, and have even occasionally used terms such as “Chinese road,” “Chinese model,” or “Chinese path,” their purpose and connotation have primarily indicated a national-regional character—that is, the spatial feature of “China’s”—referring to the path and conditions under which Western modernization spread and was implemented in China. This is not the same as the overall, distinctive, and newly emergent “form” characteristic denoted by “Chinese-path modernization.” Therefore, the history of Chinese-path modernization must necessarily have its own unique interpretive framework, one that reveals the basic thread of the formation process of this new form of modernization, as well as the gestation and formation path of the particular form it embodies. This interpretive framework and formation process have already been outlined program

开展中国式现代化史研究，是中国历史乃至世界历史研究的一个全新的使命和方向。中国式现代化史无疑是以“中国式”为研究中心的现代化史。中国式现代化史不是一般的现代化史，而是与其载体中国式现代化一样的一种新形态的现代化史。在国内外已有中国现代化史研究中，虽然不乏留意中国现代化的特点，乃至偶有“中国道路”“中国模式”“中国式”之类词语的使用，但从其目的和内涵上来说，主要是表示国别地域性的，即“中国的”这一空间性特征，也就是西方现代化在中国扩散和推行的路径与状况，而并非“中国式现代化”所表示的整体上的特别的新生的“形态”性特征。因此，中国式现代化史必然有其特有的阐释体系，也就是揭示这一现代化新形态形成过程的基本脉络，及其所包含的特别形态的孕育和形成路径。这个解释体系和形成过程，在习近平中国式现代化论说中已有纲领性的阐释，至少可以领会到以下一些基本理念。

I. The Interpretive Framework of the History of Chinese-Path Modernization

一、中国式现代化史的阐释体系

The study of any kind of history requires adopting an interpretive framework suited to the characteristics of the object of study, so as to facilitate a more accurate exposition, explanation, and evaluation. The same applies to the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization. Based on the theoretical givens of the existing concept of Chinese-path modernization, the interpretive framework for studying the history of Chinese-path modernization should undergo three shifts compared with the interpretive framework used in previous studies of ordinary modernization history.

对任何一种历史的研究都需要根据研究对象的特性采取相应的阐释体系，以利于作出更为切实的阐述、解释和评判。中国式现代化史研究亦须如此。根据已有的中国式现代化概念的相关理论给定，中国式现代化史研究的阐释体系较之以往普通现代化史研究的解释体系应有三个转变。

First, the previous interpretive main line, which treated the emergence and development of China’s modernization as exogenous, late-developing, and Westernizing, should be shifted to a main line that treats it as endogenous, original, and Sinicizing. Previous ordinary studies of China’s modernization history were basically conducted from a transmission and benchmarking perspective that took the Western advanced modernization countries as the reference. This interpretive framework explained China’s modernization—especially the early modernization before 1949—either from the angle of modernization spurred by the impact of external factors, i.e., exogenous modernization; or from the angle of modernization occurring after the Western advanced modernization countries, i.e., late-developing modernization; or from the angle of modernization imitating Western countries, i.e., Westernizing modernization. These several interpretive frameworks are certainly useful for the study of world ordinary modernization history, but they are completely unsuitable for the particular study of the history of Chinese-path modernization. This is because “Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that continues the ancient civilization” and “is a modernization that grew out of the land of China” [1]1 Xi; that is, it is a modernization that is self-generated and spontaneous from within China, i.e., endogenous and original. If it is explained purely in terms of exogeneity and late development, this is clearly illogical and inconsistent with historical facts. In modern China, the exploration of the path of modernization had two main orientations: one was Westernization, the other was Sinicization. The latter explored the Chinese-path modernization road and gradually became the mainstream. Although in the modern exploration of the Chinese-path modernization road, there was a gradually increasing borrowing and absorption of advanced foreign civilizations, including from the West, these were all strategies for utilizing external resources, including the use of Western elements such as ideas, institutions, technology, and capital. Some elements, especially ideas and institutions, were often transformed and adapted according to China’s traditional culture and actual conditions when actually adopted, i.e., Sinicization (abbreviated as “Sinicization”), such as the practices of “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use,” “making foreign things serve China,” and “combining indigenous and foreign methods.” [2]2 “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use” (中体西用) was a slogan of the Self-Strengthening Movement (c. 1861–1895). “Making foreign things serve China” (洋为中用) was a principle articulated by Mao Zedong. “Combining indigenous and foreign methods” (土洋结合) was a common phrase during the Mao era. Through this fusion of Chinese and foreign elements, these practices turned what was foreign into something newly born in China, and turned what was traditional in China into something modern in China, thereby producing varying degrees of effect. Therefore, the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization should focus on explaining it in terms of its endogeneity, originality, Sinicization, and their effects. Even if its actual effects were not necessarily all positive or significant, it is still necessary to conduct an investigation and analysis that seeks truth from facts and summarizes historical experiences and lessons. It should not, as in the past, simply dismiss the use of Western elements as colonial, fawning on foreigners, or betraying national sovereignty and humiliating the nation, nor should it dismiss the transformation and adaptation of Western elements and the results produced as distortion, deformation, grafting, neither Chinese nor Western, nondescript, and thereby smear, belittle, or negate them.

第一，应将以往的以中国现代化产生发展的外生性、后发性、西化性为阐释主线，转变为以内生性、原发性、中化性为阐释主线。以往的普通中国现代化史研究，基本上是以西方先发现代化国家为参照系的传导性和对标性阐释。这种阐释体系对中国的现代化，特别是对1949年之前的早期现代化，或从受外来因素冲击而促生的现代化，即外生性现代化的角度进行阐释；或从西方先发现代化国家之后发生的现代化，即后发性现代化的角度进行阐释；或从摹仿西方国家的现代化，即西化性现代化的角度进行阐释。这几种阐释体系，对于世界普通现代化史研究来说当然有其用处，但对于特别的中国式现代化史研究来说则是完全不适合的。因为“中国式现代化，是赓续古老文明的现代化”，“是从中华大地长出来的现代化”，也就是中国自生自发的，即内生的和原发的现代化，如果单纯用外生性和后发性来进行阐释，显然是不合逻辑、不合史实的。在近代中国，现代化道路探索主要有两个取向，一个是西化，一个是中化，后者探索的是中国式现代化道路，并逐渐成为主流。虽然在近代的中国式现代化道路探索中，对西方等国外先进文明有逐渐增多的借鉴和吸收，但这些都是利用外部资源的方略，包括对思想、制度、技术、资本等西方元素的利用。对有些元素，特别是思想和制度元素，在实际采用中往往根据中国的传统文化和实际情况加以转化和改造，即中国化（简称“中化”），如中体西用、洋为中用、土洋结合等做法。这些做法通过中外融合，既将外国的变成中国新生的，又将中国传统的变成中国现代的，从而产生了多少不等的效果。因此，中国式现代化史研究要着重从其内生性、原发性、中化性及其成效进行阐释。即使其实际效果不一定全都是正向的或重大的，亦应做实事求是的考察分析，总结历史经验教训，而不能像以往那样，把对西方元素的利用简单地论之为殖民地性、崇洋媚外、丧权辱国，把对西方元素的转化、改造及其产生的成果，一概论之为扭曲、变样、嫁接、不中不西、不伦不类，进而加以抹黑、贬低或否定。

Second, the previous interpretive theme, which focused on the realization status of modernization indicators, should be shifted to an interpretive theme centered on the attributes and characteristics of Chinese-path modernization. Previous ordinary studies of modernization history mainly proceeded from the universal commonalities of modernization, examining changes in modernization indicators across political, economic, cultural, and social aspects—such as democratization, industrialization, urbanization, scientization, education rates, and natural population quality—to explain the process of progress and the degree of attainment of modernization. Although some Chinese scholars have previously proposed three new questions that touched upon the “Chinese-style” in the study of China’s modernization history—arguing that, in addition to studying modernization indicators, it is also necessary to study how the modernization path shifted from capitalism to Soviet-style socialism and then to socialism with Chinese characteristics, as well as the role of institutional changes such as revolution and reform in promoting this shift in the modernization path; that, in addition to studying “Westernization,” it is also necessary to study the issue of national independence in striving for autonomous development and international mutual benefit, as well as the decisive role of opposing aggression and oppression by foreign powers in achieving national independence; and that, in addition to studying the opposition between tradition and modernity, it is also necessary to study the self-transformation of traditional factors and their potential adaptability to modernization—the focus of these three new questions was mainly on the objective manifestations of China’s modernization process, the social environment, and certain influences on the realization of modernization indicators, rather than on the intrinsic significance of the “Chinese-style,” let alone the “new form.” [3]3 The “new form” refers to the “new form of human civilization” (人类文明新形态), a concept associated with Chinese-path modernization. The issues of indicator realization, path transformation, nationalization, and potential adaptability in previous studies are, of course, still needed in the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization, but they are not limited to these. This is because, in addition to the universal connotations of modernization shared by the world—such as industrialization, democratization, urbanization, scientization, and nationalization—Chinese-path modernization also has more important attributes and characteristics that mark it as “Chinese-style.” Its attributes mainly consist of five items: first, in terms of political nature, it is a modernization created and led by the Communist Party of China; second, in terms of social nature, it is a modernization of socialism with Chinese characteristics; third, in terms of functional nature, it is a modernization that advances the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; fourth, in terms of purpose nature, it is a modernization that is “people-centered”; fifth, in terms of civilizational nature, it is a modernization that constitutes a new form of human civilization. Its characteristics mainly consist of five items: a modernization with a huge population scale, a modernization of common prosperity for all the people, a modernization where material civilization and cultural-ethical progress are in harmony, a modernization where humanity and nature coexist in harmony, and a modernization that takes the path of peaceful development. These five attributes and five characteristics are the essence and core of Chinese-path modernization, and also constitute its defining norms. Therefore, the history of Chinese-path modernization must take as its central thread the explanation of the meaning, origins, functions, and the unity, necessity, inevitability, particularity, and rationality of these intrinsic qualities. Among these five attributes and five characteristics, except for the first three attributes, which are exclusive to China, the remaining seven items are both the core content of Chinese-path modernization and constituent elements of the new form of human civilization, and should possess the common significance of human modernization. Therefore, the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization also needs to explain the intrinsic relationship between Chinese-path modernization and world modernization, in order to reveal that the two have both “commonalities” and “particularities,” and that Chinese-path modernization is both China’s path and of use to the world.

第二，应将以往的以现代化指标实现状况为阐释主题，转变为以中国式现代化的属性和特征为阐释主题。以往的普通现代化史研究，主要是从现代化的世界共性出发，考察其民主化、工业化、城市化、科技化、教育率、人口自然素质等政治、经济、文化、社会各方面现代化指标的变化状况，以此阐释其现代化的进步过程和达到程度。虽然也有一些中国学者曾提出过中国现代化史研究的三个初涉“中国式”的新问题——主张在研究现代化指标之外，还需要研究现代化道路如何从资本主义转变到苏式社会主义，再转变到中国特色社会主义的问题，以及革命、改良等制度变革对现代化道路转变的推进作用；在研究“西化”之外，还需要研究争取自主发展和国际互利的民族独立化问题，以及反对外国列强侵略压迫对民族独立化的决定作用；在研究传统与现代的对立性之外，还需要研究传统因素的自身变化及其对现代化的潜在适应性——但是，这三个新问题的着意之处主要在于中国现代化过程中的客观表现、社会环境及其对现代化指标实现的某些影响作用，而不在于“中国式”的、更不在于“新形态”的内在意义。以往研究中的这些指标实现问题、道路转换问题、民族化问题、潜在适应性问题，当然仍是中国式现代化史研究所需要的，但不是仅限于此的。因为中国式现代化除了工业化、民主化、城市化、科学化、民族化等现代化的世界共有内涵之外，还有更为重要的标志其“中国式”的属性和特征。其属性所在，主要有五项：一是在政治性质上，是中国共产党造就和领导的现代化；二是在社会性质上，是中国特色社会主义的现代化；三是在作用性质上，是推进中华民族伟大复兴的现代化；四是在宗旨性质上，是“以人为本”的现代化；五是在文明性质上，是人类文明新形态的现代化。其特征所在，主要有五项：人口规模巨大的现代化、全体人民共同富裕的现代化、物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化、人与自然和谐共生的现代化、走和平发展道路的现代化。这五大属性和五大特征是中国式现代化的本质和核心所在，也是其规定性所在。所以，中国式现代化史必须以阐释这些内涵特质的意义、由来、作用，及其一体性、必要性、必然性、特殊性和合理性为中心线索。这五大属性和五大特征，除了属性中的前三项为中国专属之外，其余七项既是中国式现代化的核心内容，也是人类文明新形态的构成要素，应具有人类现代化的共同意义。因此，中国式现代化史研究，还需要阐释中国式现代化与世界现代化的内在关系，以揭示两者既有“共性”又有“特性”，中国式现代化既是中国之路，也有世界之用。

Third, it shifts from a one-way and one-sided comparative interpretation that takes the Western modernization model as the standard to a two-way and holistic comparative interpretation that takes actual social benefits as the standard. Previous studies of ordinary Chinese modernization history, whether comprehensive or thematic, have to varying degrees adopted a method of comparison between China and foreign countries for interpretation and evaluation. Their practice often takes the modernization model of the West or a particular Western country as the standard of comparison, with Britain, the United States, and Japan being the most frequently used standards. This kind of comparative research often proceeds from the mindset of “Western-centrism,” making a one-way and one-sided comparison between China and the West. Although it raises some differences between Chinese and Western modernization, its main or even sole purpose is more often to identify and prove China’s anti-modernity and backwardness. It holds that whatever conforms to Western standards is genuine, correct, and successful, while anything else is false, incorrect, incomplete, useless, inefficient, or a failure. Some even argue that the most important reason for the various failures of modern China’s exploration of modernization is its inability to completely imitate Western systems and models. There are also studies that make partial, isolated comparisons of things in a certain period, a certain aspect, or a certain region between China and foreign countries, thereby drawing one-sided or abnormal conclusions. The study of the history of Chinese-path modernization certainly requires conducting comparative research between China and foreign countries, but the purpose of comparison is different from before. Instead, it aims to reveal the uniqueness and advanced nature of the “Chinese path” and “new form” of Chinese-path modernization. First, it can no longer take the Western model as the absolute standard for one-way comparison; instead, it should take actual benefits as the standard for two-way comparison. That is, it should not only compare China with the West but also compare the West with China, revealing the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, and underlying reasons of each through two-way mutual comparison. Second, it must avoid partial and isolated comparisons and focus on holistic and comprehensive comparisons. That is, the partial things being compared should be examined and evaluated from a holistic perspective. Third, this comparison of benefits is not merely a comparison of economic benefits or GDP; more importantly, it is a comparison of social benefits, livelihood benefits, and political benefits, thereby revealing that on the path of humanity toward modernization, Chinese-path modernization not only has a new aspect but also a better aspect. This comparison is not only a change in method but also a confirmation of fact, because Chinese-path modernization has been proven by China, which has the world’s largest population, through theoretical and practical exploration since modern times, especially since reform and opening up and the 18th National Congress of the CPC [4]4 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in 2012, marked the beginning of the Xi Jinping era and the formal introduction of the concept of the “New Era” of socialism with Chinese characteristics.. It is the most effective, most capable of strengthening the country, and most beneficial to the people among all modernization paths China has tried so far, and it is also a modernization path that can benefit the world.

第三，从以西方现代化模式为标准的单向和片面的比较阐释，转变为以社会实际效益为标准的双向和整体的比较阐释。以往的普通中国现代化史研究，无论是综合性的还是专题性的研究，都不同程度地采用了中外比较的方法进行阐释和评判，其做法往往以西方或西方某一国家的现代化模式为对比标准，尤以英国、美国、日本作标准者为多。这种比较研究往往从“西方中心主义”的思维定势出发，将中国与西方作单向和片面的比较，虽然提出了一些中外现代化的不同之处，但更多的是以寻找和证明中国的悖现代性和落后性为主要甚或唯一目的，认为符合西方标准的便是真实的、正确的、成功的，否则就是虚假的、不正确的、不彻底的、无用的、低效的、失败的，甚至认为近代中国探索现代化的各种失败，一个最主要的原因就是不能完全仿效西方的制度和模式。还有研究对中外某一时段、某一方面、某一地域的事物进行局部的、孤立的比较，从而得出片面的或反常的结论。中国式现代化史研究当然需要展开中外比较研究，但是比较的用意不同于前，而是由此显示中国式现代化的“中国式”和“新形态”的独特性和先进性。一是不能再以西方模式为绝对标准进行单向比较，而是应以实际效益为标准进行双向比较，即不仅将中国与西方比较，也将西方与中国比较，通过双向互比揭示彼此的特点、优劣所在及其内在原因。二是要避免局部而孤立的比较，要着眼整体而全面的比较，也就是要把所比较的局部事物从整体的视野进行考察和评判。三是这种效益的比较不仅仅是经济效益的比较、GDP的比较，更重要的是社会效益、民生效益、政治效益的比较，从而揭示在人类走向现代化的道路上，中国式现代化不仅有新型的一面，而且有更好的一面。这一比较不仅是方法上的转变，而且是事实上的确认，因为中国式现代化已经被世界上拥有人口最多的中国，经过自近代以来尤其是改革开放及中共十八大以来的理论和实践探索所证实，是中国迄今为止最为有效、最能强国、最可福民的现代化道路，也是能够惠及世界的现代化道路。

II. The Basic Thread of the History of Chinese-Path Modernization

二、中国式现代化史的基本脉络

The so-called basic thread of the history of Chinese-path modernization is the process of formation of this new form of human civilization [5]5 “New form of human civilization” (人类文明新形态) is a term used in official Chinese discourse to describe Chinese-path modernization as a qualitatively different and superior model of civilization compared to previous capitalist or socialist forms.. The thought and practice of Chinese-path modernization were formally proposed and established by General Secretary Xi Jinping at the 20th National Congress of the CPC in 2022. This marks the formal formation and beginning of comprehensive implementation of the theoretical concept of Chinese-path modernization, and also a turning point in China’s modernization process after “building a moderately prosperous society in all respects” [6]6 “Moderately prosperous society in all respects” (全面建成小康社会) is a goal set by the CPC, originally targeted for completion by 2020, encompassing economic, social, and political improvements., using Chinese-path modernization to “embark on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country.” In the previous course of China’s modernization, although there were explorations that involved the inheritance of fine traditional cultural genes within the connotation of Chinese-path modernization, which gradually became self-conscious and increasingly complete, these had not yet entered the era of Chinese-path modernization; they were only a process of gestation. Therefore, the history of Chinese-path modernization differs from the general history of development and experience of things growing from birth to maturity and from small to large; it is primarily a history of formation and creation, of coming into being from nothing. The study of the history of Chinese-path modernization is to explain this process of formation and creation, which can be unfolded in the following five main stages.

所谓中国式现代化史的基本脉络，就是中国式现代化这一人类文明新形态的形成过程。中国式现代化的思想和实践，是习近平总书记在2022年中共二十大会议上正式提出而确立的，这是中国式现代化理论概念正式形成和开始全面推行的标志，也是中国现代化进程在“全面建成小康社会”之后，用中国式现代化“开启全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程”的转折点。此前的中国现代化历程中，虽然已有涉及中国式现代化内涵中优秀传统文化基因的传承和逐渐自觉、渐趋完全的探索，但都尚未进入中国式现代化时代，而只是孕育过程。因此，中国式现代化史与一般事物从生到长、从小到大的发展史和经历史有所不同，主要是从无到有的形成史、创造史。中国式现代化史研究就是阐释这一形成、创造过程，可以分为以下五个主要阶段展开。

The first is the stage of root inheritance. This stage covers the entire ancient period and also extends into the modern period. It mainly studies the root relationship and inheritance process between fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that continues the ancient civilization” and “Chinese-path modernization endows Chinese civilization with modern power, while Chinese civilization endows Chinese-path modernization with profound depth.” He also said: “Without the five thousand years of Chinese civilization… how could we have such a successful path of socialism with Chinese characteristics today?” [7]7 These quotations are from Xi Jinping’s speech at a symposium on cultural heritage in 2023, emphasizing the continuity of Chinese civilization. These statements indicate that the root of Chinese-path modernization lies in the five-thousand-year continuous Chinese civilization and in fine traditional Chinese culture. The relationship between the two is one of mutual integration, mutual dependence, and mutual promotion. This determines that explaining the internal relationship between fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization should be the root-seeking topic and the starting topic in the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization.

一是根源传承阶段。这个阶段覆盖整个古代时期，也会延及近代时期，主要是研究中华优秀传统文化与中国式现代化的根源关系和传承过程。习近平总书记指出：“中国式现代化，是赓续古老文明的现代化”，“中国式现代化赋予中华文明以现代力量，中华文明赋予中国式现代化以深厚底蕴”，“如果没有中华五千年文明……哪有我们今天这么成功的中国特色社会主义道路？”这些论断指明，中国式现代化的根源在于延续五千年的中华文明，在于中华优秀传统文化，这两者的关系是互相融通、互相依存、互相促成的。这也就决定了阐释中华优秀传统文化与中国式现代化的内在关系，应该是中国式现代化史研究的寻根之题、开端之题。

It should be noted that saying the root of Chinese-path modernization lies in fine traditional Chinese culture cannot be equated with saying that all fine traditional culture is the root of Chinese-path modernization, nor can it be equated with saying that traditional culture itself is the beginning of Chinese-path modernization. What constitutes fine traditional Chinese culture can be defined differently from different eras and perspectives. The fine traditional Chinese culture that serves as the root of Chinese-path modernization should be defined and explored from the concepts and era of Chinese-path modernization. Just as General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized when discussing the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture: “The prerequisite for ‘integration’ is mutual compatibility. ‘Integration’ is not a forced patchwork.” [8]8 This refers to Xi Jinping’s elaboration on the “Second Integration” (第二个结合), the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, first formally proposed at the 20th National Congress in 2022. The same should apply when seeking the root of Chinese-path modernization from fine traditional Chinese culture: it must be “compatible,” not “patched together.” This requires interpreting fine traditional Chinese culture primarily from the characteristics of Chinese-path modernization and discovering the “compatibility” it contains. Although fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization were generated in different eras and belong to different societies, they are highly compatible in many concepts and aspirations. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out that fine traditional Chinese culture contains concepts such as “the world is for all, the people are the foundation of the state, governing with virtue, reforming the old and establishing the new, appointing people on their merits, harmony between man and nature, unremitting self-improvement, embracing virtue with great capacity, keeping good faith and cultivating harmony, and being kind to neighbors.” These are important manifestations of the worldview, outlook on the world, social outlook, and moral outlook accumulated by the Chinese people in long-term production and life, and they are “highly compatible with the value propositions of scientific socialism” [9]9 This passage is from the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, October 2022.. This also includes many compatibilities with the connotation of Chinese-path modernization. Correspondingly, there will also be some fine traditional Chinese culture compatible with the connotation of Chinese-path modernization, such as the longing for a great harmony society and an era of great peace, and the adherence to cultivating oneself, regulating the family, governing the state, and pacifying the world, and the sense of responsibility for the rise and fall of the nation. This compatibility is the internal integrated relationship between fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization, but it is not equivalent to modernity. It mainly refers to the fact that the people’s aspirations for a better life and the envisioned paths to achieve them, contained in fine traditional Chinese culture, have points of integration with the people-centered fundamental purpose and implementation path of Chinese-path modernization. Moreover, these aspirations and paths have been passed down through generations and deeply rooted in people’s hearts. This shows that Chinese-path modernization embodies the people’s long-standing aspirations for a better life, and therefore enjoys popular support and is deeply rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture.

需要注意的是，说中国式现代化的根本在于中华优秀传统文化，不能等同于一切优秀传统文化都是中国式现代化的根，更不能等同于传统文化就是中国式现代化的开端。什么是中华优秀传统文化，从不同时代和不同角度可以有不同的界定，作为中国式现代化之根的中华优秀传统文化，应该从中国式现代化的理念和时代出发去界定和发掘。就像习近平总书记在论述马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合时所强调的，“‘结合’的前提是彼此契合。‘结合’不是硬凑合在一起的”。从中华优秀传统文化中寻找中国式现代化的根亦应如此，必须是要“契合”的而不是“凑合”的。这就需要着重从中国式现代化特征出发去解读中华优秀传统文化，发现其中所蕴含的“契合”性。中华优秀传统文化与中国式现代化虽然生成于不同时代、分处于不同社会，但是在许多观念和愿望上高度契合。中共二十大报告中指出，中华优秀传统文化中所“蕴含的天下为公、民为邦本、为政以德、革故鼎新、任人唯贤、天人合一、自强不息、厚德载物、讲信修睦、亲仁善邻等，是中国人民在长期生产生活中积累的宇宙观、天下观、社会观、道德观的重要体现，同科学社会主义价值观主张具有高度契合性”，其中也包含着与中国式现代化内涵的诸多契合性。与此相应，还会有一些与中国式现代化内涵相契合的中华优秀传统文化，如对大同社会、太平盛世的向往，对修齐治平、兴亡有责的守持等。这种契合性是中华优秀传统文化与中国式现代化的内在融通关系，但不等同于现代性，主要是指其所蕴含的人们对美好生活的愿望和实现路径设想与中国式现代化以民为本的根本目的和实施路径有融通之处，而且是世代相传、深入人心的，从而说明中国式现代化体现了人民自古以来对美好生活的向往，因而是深得民心的，也是扎根于中华优秀传统文化之中的。

Of course, the sources of Chinese-path modernization are not limited to fine traditional Chinese culture alone; they also include Marxism and other human civilizations. In this regard, General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out: “Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, embodies the advanced nature of scientific socialism, and draws on and absorbs all outstanding achievements of human civilization.” [10]10 This quotation is from Xi Jinping Besides pointing out the three main sources of Chinese-path modernization, this also indicates their different meanings and constitutive relationships: fine traditional Chinese culture is the root, primarily defining the “Chinese path”; the other two are functions and supplements, primarily defining the attribute of “modernization,” and they are also the results of integration with fine traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, how to explain the relationship among these three is a key issue in the study of the roots of Chinese-path modernization and an important link in the doctrinal system of Chinese-path modernization. It concerns the Chinese character, rationality, and scientific nature of Chinese-path modernization.

当然，中国式现代化的来源，不仅仅只有中华优秀传统文化，还有马克思主义和其他人类文明。对此，习近平总书记明确指出：“中国式现代化，深深植根于中华优秀传统文化，体现科学社会主义的先进本质，借鉴吸收一切人类优秀文明成果。”这里除了指出中国式现代化有三个主要来源之外，还指出了三者的不同意义和构成关系：中华优秀传统文化是根本，主要是“中国式”的规定性所在；其他二者是作用和补充，主要是“现代化”的属性所在，而且还是与中华优秀传统文化相结合的成果。因此，如何阐释这三者的关系，是中国式现代化根源研究的一个关键问题，也是中国式现代化学说体系中的重要一环，关系到中国式现代化的中国性、合理性和科学性。

The second is the stage of spontaneous exploration. This stage is mainly centered on the modern period before the founding of the Communist Party of China, with some extension thereafter. Its primary focus is on studying the thoughts and actions of certain people of lofty ideals [renren zhishi] that contained a certain significance for Chinese-path modernization after the beginning of China’s early modernization, or what may be called Chinese-path modernization thoughts and actions without an awareness of Chinese-path modernization. On this, General Secretary Xi Jinping has also made relevant remarks. He pointed out: “Realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is the common dream of the Chinese people in modern times. Countless people of lofty ideals painstakingly sought this goal and made various attempts, but all ended in failure. The heavy task of exploring the path of Chinese modernization historically fell upon the Communist Party of China.” [1]1 Xi This means that the “realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” sought by modern people of lofty ideals and the “path of Chinese modernization” continuously explored by the Communist Party of China are of the same lineage, and also constitute the purpose of Chinese-path modernization. From this perspective, modern people of lofty ideals were the earliest explorers of the path of Chinese-path modernization; they made “various attempts” and embodied the significance of representing the “common dream” of the Chinese people. Revealing their characteristics of being initiatory, commonly envisioned, experimental, and inevitably doomed to failure, along with their significance and function, should logically be the main task of research at this stage.

二是自在探索阶段。这一阶段以中国共产党成立之前的近代时期为主，此后仍有所涉及，主要是研究中国早期现代化开始以后，一些仁人志士含有一定中国式现代化意义的思想和行动，或称之为无中国式现代化意识的中国式现代化思想和行动。对此，习近平总书记亦有相关论述，他指出：“实现中华民族伟大复兴是近代以来中国人民的共同梦想，无数仁人志士为此苦苦求索、进行各种尝试，但都以失败告终。探索中国现代化道路的重任，历史地落在了中国共产党身上。”这就是说，近代仁人志士所求索的“实现中华民族伟大复兴”与中国共产党接续探索的“中国现代化道路”是一脉相承的，也是中国式现代化的宗旨所在。由此而言，近代仁人志士是中国式现代化道路的最初探索者，他们作出了“各种尝试”，具有代表中国人民“共同梦想”的意义。揭示其创始性、共想性、尝试性和必败性特征及其意义和作用，理应是这一阶段研究的主要任务。

The explorations of these people of lofty ideals consisted of two paths: one was a path of basic Westernization, and the other was a path of combining China and the West. Yet they shared a common goal of making the country strong and the people prosperous, containing the motive of striving for national rejuvenation. Particularly those who chose the path of combining China and the West integrated traditional culture’s aspirations for and methods of realizing a good society with modern Western civilization. They not only endowed traditional culture with modern concepts but also put them into practice, making them the first generation of pathfinders for Chinese-path modernization. Their attempts also created some unprecedented, uniquely Chinese new political, economic, and social ideas and models. Although the actual effects of these attempts were not all consistent, their exploratory path of combining ancient and modern, China and the West is worthy of affirmation, and the experiences and lessons of their successes and failures are worth summarizing and drawing upon.

这些仁人志士的探索由两条道路构成，一条是基本西化的道路，另一条是中西结合的道路，但也有一个强国富民的共同目的，含有争取民族复兴的动机。特别是选择走中西结合之路的那些人，他们将传统文化中对美好社会的愿望追求和实行之道与西方现代文明相结合，不仅赋予传统文化以现代性理念，而且付诸实践，可谓中国式现代化道路的第一代探路人。他们的尝试也创造了一些前所未有的、中国特有的政治、经济和社会新思想、新模式。虽然这些尝试的实际效果不尽一致，但是其古今结合、中西结合的尝试路径是值得肯定的，其成败得失的经验教训是值得总结和借鉴的。

The third is the stage of advancing from spontaneous exploration to conscious exploration. This stage spans from the founding of the Communist Party of China to 1979, when Deng Xiaoping proposed “Chinese-style modernization.” Its main focus is on studying how, given the successive failures of the explorations by people of lofty ideals, “the heavy task of exploring the path of Chinese modernization historically fell upon the Communist Party of China.” That is, it studies the process of progress after the Communist Party of China took up the baton of exploring the path of Chinese modernization. In this stage, with 1949 as the boundary, the status of the Communist Party of China underwent a fundamental change: from a revolutionary party and one of the explorers of the modernization path to the ruling party and the sole leader of the modernization path. However, the change in cognition of the path of Chinese-path modernization was not yet significant; apart from the implementation of common prosperity, other characteristics of Chinese-path modernization were rarely addressed. Although before and after the founding of New China, the transformation of an agricultural country into an industrial country and the construction of the “Four Modernizations” [2]2 “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use” (中体西用) was a slogan of the Self-Strengthening Movement (c. 1861–1895). “Making foreign things serve China” (洋为中用) was a principle articulated by Mao Zedong. “Combining indigenous and foreign methods” (土洋结合) was a common phrase during the Mao era. were proposed, they lacked “Chinese-style” characteristics and were essentially a stage-specific implementation plan in China of the common features of world modernization.

三是由自在探索向自为探索进取阶段。这一阶段贯穿中国共产党成立到1979年邓小平提出“中国式的现代化”之时，主要是研究在仁人志士探索相继归于失败的情况下，如何使“探索中国现代化道路的重任，历史地落在了中国共产党身上”，也就是研究中国共产党在接棒中国现代化道路探索后的进展过程。在这一阶段中，以1949年为界，中国共产党的地位发生了根本性的变化，从革命党和现代化道路的探索者之一变成了执政党和现代化道路的唯一引领者，但是对中国式现代化道路认知的改变尚不显著，对于中国式现代化的特征除了实行共同富裕之外，其他的涉及较少。虽然在新中国成立前后提出了变农业国为工业国、进行“四个现代化”建设，但是缺少“中国式”的特征，基本上是世界现代化共性在中国的阶段性实施方案。

The status and function of this stage in the exploration of Chinese-path modernization mainly lie in the gradual development from the spontaneous exploration of the previous stage to conscious exploration—that is, from scattered, pluralistic, and arbitrary exploration to a gradual development toward exploration that was party-led (primarily by the Communist Party of China), unitary, and intentional. The most important achievements of the exploration were: confirming the two attributes of Chinese-path modernization—leadership by the Communist Party of China and the socialist path; assisting Sun Yat-sen in formulating and persistently implementing the two policies of “regulating capital” and “land to the tiller,” [3]3 The “new form” refers to the “new form of human civilization” (人类文明新形态), a concept associated with Chinese-path modernization. which had a certain intent to promote common prosperity; and the economic system, originating in the revolutionary base areas, with public ownership as the mainstay and multiple forms of ownership coexisting. All these laid the foundation for the eventual formation of the path of Chinese-path modernization.

这一阶段在中国式现代化探索中的地位和作用，主要是由上一阶段的自在探索逐渐发展为自为探索，也就是从分散的、多元的、随意的探索，逐渐发展到以中国共产党为主的政党的、一元的、有意的探索。探索的成果，最主要的是：确认了中国共产党领导、社会主义道路这两项中国式现代化属性；帮助孙中山制定并坚持推行的具有一定推进共同富裕用意的“节制资本”、“耕者有其田”两项政策，以及起始于革命根据地的以公有制为主体、多种所有制并存的经济体制。这些都为中国式现代化道路的最终形成打下了基础。

The fourth is the stage of strengthening conscious exploration. This stage spans from Deng Xiaoping’s proposal of “Chinese-style modernization” in 1979 to the 18th National Congress of the CPC. Its main focus is on studying the intrinsic meaning and practical path of the “Chinese-style modernization” proposed by Deng Xiaoping. Deng Xiaoping mentioned “Chinese-style modernization” many times starting in 1979. On March 21, 1979, during a meeting with a delegation from the Sino-British Cultural Association Executive Committee, he pointed out for the first time that our concept of modernization “differs from that of the West” and is called “Chinese-style Four Modernizations.” Two days later, in a speech at a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, he again mentioned: “When talking with foreigners, I used a new term: Chinese-style modernization.” On March 30, at a Party theoretical work conference, he proposed: “In the past, when we carried out the democratic revolution, we had to suit the situation in China… Now, when we engage in construction, we must also suit the situation in China and blaze a path of Chinese-style modernization.” He added: “To realize the Four Modernizations in China, at least two important characteristics must be noted: one is the weak foundation… The second is the large population and limited arable land.” “Chinese-style modernization must proceed from China’s characteristics.” In December 1979, when meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira, Deng Xiaoping proposed: “The Four Modernizations we want to realize are Chinese-style Four Modernizations. Our concept of the Four Modernizations is not like your concept of modernization, but rather a ‘moderately prosperous society’ [xiaokang zhi jia].” He particularly emphasized: “By the end of this century, China’s Four Modernizations… will reach the level of a relatively well-off country in the Third World… and even then, considerable effort will still be required. Even if that level is reached, compared with the West, it will still be backward. So I can only say that China will still be in a state of moderate prosperity at that time.”

四是自为探索强化阶段。这一阶段从1979年邓小平提出“中国式的现代化”到中共十八大，主要是研究邓小平所提出的“中国式的现代化”的内在涵义和实践路径。邓小平从1979年起多次提到“中国式的现代化”。1979年3月21日，他在会见英中文化协会执行委员会代表团时首次指出，我们的现代化概念“与西方不同”，“叫作中国式的四个现代化”。两天后，他在中央政治局会议上讲话时再次提到：“我同外国人谈话，用了一个新名词：中国式的现代化。”3月30日，他在党的理论工作务虚会上提出，“过去搞民主革命，要适合中国情况……现在搞建设，也要适合中国情况，走出一条中国式的现代化道路”，“要使中国实现四个现代化，至少有两个重要特点是必须看到的：一个是底子薄。……第二条是人口多、耕地少”，“中国式的现代化，必须从中国的特点出发”。1979年12月，邓小平在会见日本首相大平正芳时提出：“我们要实现的四个现代化，是中国式的四个现代化。我们的四个现代化的概念，不是像你们那样的现代化的概念，而是‘小康之家’。”他还特别强调：“到本世纪末，中国的四个现代化……要达到第三世界中比较富裕一点的国家的水平……也还得付出很大的努力。就算达到那样的水平，同西方来比，也还是落后的。所以，我只能说，中国到那时也还是一个小康的状态。”

From the above series of speeches by Deng Xiaoping, the meaning of the “Chinese-style modernization” he proposed is as follows: first, it was a continuation of the “Four Modernizations”; second, it emphasized that the construction of the “Four Modernizations” must be based on China’s national conditions of a weak foundation, a large population, and limited arable land; third, it indicated that the phased achievements of modernization construction that China hoped to attain from reform and opening up to the end of the 20th century constituted a form of modernization that was “still backward” compared with the West, hence he called it “moderate prosperity.” On the basis of this “Chinese-style” cognition, he proposed a development strategy of allowing some regions and some people to get rich first, then using the rich to help the poor, gradually achieving common prosperity. At the same time, he also emphasized the two existing attributes of Chinese-path modernization: “we must adhere to the socialist path” and “we must adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party of China.” At the 12th National Congress of the CPC in 1982, Deng Xiaoping also proposed the new concept of “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” making these two attributes of Chinese-path modernization even clearer. The “Chinese-style modernization” proposed by Deng Xiaoping has a relationship of continuity with the “Chinese-path modernization” proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping, but also differences.

从邓小平的上述系列讲话来看，他所提出的“中国式的现代化”的含义，一是对“四个现代化”的延续；二是强调“四个现代化”建设，要建立在中国的底子薄、人口多、耕地少的国情之上；三是指出中国在改革开放后到20世纪末希望达到的现代化建设阶段性成就，是一种与西方相比“还是落后的”现代化，所以他称之为“小康”。他在这个“中国式”认知的基础上，提出了让一部分地区和一部分人先富起来，然后再以先富带后富，逐渐实现共同富裕的发展战略。同时他也对中国式现代化的已有两项属性作了强调：“必须坚持社会主义道路”，“必须坚持中国共产党的领导”。1982年中共十二大上邓小平还提出了“有中国特色的社会主义”的新概念，使中国式现代化的这两项属性更加明确。邓小平提出的“中国式的现代化”与习近平总书记提出的“中国式现代化”有承续关系，也有区别。

Fifth is the stage of formation and comprehensive implementation. This stage begins after the 18th National Congress of the CPC and continues to the present and into the future. It primarily studies the process of theoretical formation and practical implementation of the complete form of “Chinese-path modernization” and the great achievements attained. Regarding the progress of this stage, General Secretary Xi Jinping has provided systematic exposition. In his report to the 19

五是形成和全面推行阶段。这一阶段起自中共十八大之后直至现在及今后，主要是研究完整形态的“中国式现代化”的理论形成和实践推行过程及其所取得的伟大成就。对于这一阶段的进展过程，习近平总书记有系统的表述。他在2017年中共十九大报告中说，“我们既要全面建成小康社会，实现第一个百年奋斗目标，又要乘势而上开启全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程，向第二个百年奋斗目标进军”。习近平总书记在2021年党的十九届六中全会第二次全体会议上指出：“我们党领导人民不仅创造了世所罕见的经济快速发展和社会长期稳定两大奇迹，而且成功走出了中国式现代化道路，创造了人类文明新形态。”在2022年迎接党的二十大专题研讨班上指出：“在新中国成立特别是改革开放以来的长期探索和实践基础上，经过党的十八大以来在理论和实践上的创新突破，我们成功推进和拓展了中国式现代化。”在同年中共二十大报告中指出：“从现在起，中国共产党的中心任务就是团结带领全国各族人民全面建成社会主义现代化强国、实现第二个百年奋斗目标，以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴。”从中可以看出，自中共十八大提出要“全面建成小康社会”以来，现代化建设的范围扩大到社会各个方面，大大突破了四个现代化的领域，使“中国式现代化”的探索在更为广大的范围中展开。由此可见，完整概念的中国式现代化从党的十八大以后的全面建成小康社会实践中开始逐步形成，到建党100周年时正式提出，到中共二十大时不仅作出全面界定而且开始全力推进，开启了中国式现代化的崭新时代。

In this stage, the theoretical concept of Chinese-path modernization was fully formed, its practical implementation unfolded comprehensively, and the achievements in construction were enormous and brilliant, creating a series of new strategies and new models, such as targeted poverty alleviation, common prosperity, the Belt and Road Initiative, regional coordination, and high-quality development, as well as the Two Mountains Theory, the New Agriculture Theory, the new type of industrialization, and new quality productive forces. All of this fully demonstrates that Chinese-path modernization, rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, is not only advanced, rational, and scientific, but also workable, stable, and achievable in China.

在这一阶段中，中国式现代化的理论概念完整形成，实践推行全面展开，建设成就巨大辉煌，创造了一系列新方略、新模式，如精准扶贫、共同富裕、“一带一路”、区域联动、高质量发展以及两山理论、新农理论、新型工业化、新质生产力等。这一切充分显示了扎根中华优秀传统文化的中国式现代化不仅具有先进性、合理性、科学性，而且在中国行得通、走得稳、做得成。

Conclusion

结语

The formation of Chinese-path modernization has many profound historical origins. When General Secretary Xi Jinping visited the Chinese Academy of History on June 2, 2023, he said: “I hope you will carry forward fine traditions, unite and rally historical researchers across the country, continuously raise the level of research, and contribute more wisdom and strength from Chinese historiography to the construction of Chinese-path modernization.” This issued a call to the Chinese Academy of History and the national historical studies community to study Chinese-path modernization from the perspective of history, and also set forth new tasks and new directions for Chinese historical research — the history of Chinese-path modernization — in order to reveal the experiences and lessons of its practical exploratory process and to excavate the wisdom contained within that can be transformed and used for reference.

中国式现代化形成过程中具有诸多深远的历史渊源，习近平总书记2023年6月2日到中国历史研究院考察时说：“希望你们继承优良传统，团结凝聚全国广大历史研究工作者，不断提高研究水平，为中国式现代化建设贡献更多中国史学的智慧和力量。”向中国历史研究院和全国史学界发出了从历史研究中国式现代化的号召，也提出了中国历史研究的新任务和新方向——中国式现代化史，以揭示其实践探索过程的经验教训，发掘其中所蕴藏的可资转化和借鉴的智慧。

Understanding the relationship between Chinese-path modernization and fine traditional Chinese culture is the most crucial and most innovative topic in the history of Chinese-path modernization, and it is also the most underdeveloped aspect of previous research on the history of Chinese modernization. Therefore, greater efforts are needed. At the same time, in addition to analysis from a theoretical-logical perspective, research on the history of Chinese-path modernization also requires concrete investigation from the perspectives of intellectual inheritance and practical process. The focus should be on explaining the modernizing potential of the inner principles of fine traditional Chinese culture, finding the points of convergence between tradition and modernity, so as to better facilitate creative transformation and innovative development, thereby revealing the profound significance contained in the formation process of Chinese-path modernization: turning abstract concepts from fine traditional Chinese culture into science, wishes into reality, and ancient ideas into contemporary use.

理解中国式现代化与中华优秀传统文化的渊源关系，是中国式现代化史最为关键和最富创新之题，也是以往中国现代化史研究中最为薄弱的一个方面，因此需要做出更多的努力。同时，中国式现代化史研究除了从理论逻辑上进行分析外，还需要从思想传承和实践历程上进行具体考察，重点是阐释中华优秀传统文化内在原理的现代性潜质，找到传统与现代的契合点，以利于更好地进行创造性转化和创新性发展，从而揭示中国式现代化形成过程所蕴含的将中华优秀传统文化中的玄念变成科学、愿望变成现实、古思变成今用的深远意义。

If the history of Chinese-path modernization is taken as a main thread of Chinese historical research, it will inevitably help to further bring into play the practical service function of historiography, further strengthen cultural confidence, further recognize the inevitability and certainty of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, further understand the necessity and correctness of the Two Integrations and the brilliance and greatness of the Communist Party of China, and further reveal the inherent theoretical rationality and scientificity of the thought of Chinese-path modernization.

如果把中国式现代化史作为中国历史研究的一条主线，必将有助于进一步发挥史学的现实服务功能，进一步坚定文化自信，进一步认识中华民族伟大复兴的必然性和必成性，进一步理解“两个结合”、中国共产党英明伟大的必要性和正确性，进一步揭示中国式现代化思想内在的学理性和科学性。

(Author’s bio: Yu Heping, currently Distinguished Professor at Central China Normal University, Distinguished Professor at the College of Science and Technology, Ningbo University, Distinguished Doctoral Supervisor at Macau University of Science and Technology, member of the Discipline Appraisal Group of the National Social Science Fund, evaluation expert for the “Three Ministries and Commissions” National Youth Top-Notch Talent Selection, evaluation expert for the Ministry of Education’s Social Science Research Project Approval and Achievement Awards, President of the Regional Culture Research Professional Committee of the Chinese Modern Culture Society, and President of the Corporate Culture Professional Committee.)

（作者简介：虞和平，现任华中师范大学特聘教授、宁波大学科学技术学院特聘教授、澳门科技大学特聘博士生导师，国家社科基金学科评议组专家、“三部委”国家青年拔尖人才选拔评审专家、教育部社会科学研究立项和成果评奖评审专家，中国现代文化学会区域文化研究专业委员会会长、企业文化专业委员会会长）

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆