Chinese-Path Modernization Promotes the Upgrading of Human Civilization

In his important speech at the opening ceremony of the seminar on studying and implementing the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly elaborated on a series of major theoretical and practical issues concerning Chinese-path modernization, greatly enriching and developing the theory of Chinese-path modernization. The concept of “Chinese-path modernization” is rich in implication and will exert a revolutionary and far-reaching influence on humanity’s reflection on existing forms of civilization and exploration of new forms of civilization. Its significance is both Chinese and global. The proposal of Chinese-path modernization, its successful advancement and expansion, and the preliminary construction of the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization mark an upgrading of the Chinese civilization’s self-understanding, an upgrading of the global concept of modernization, and an upgrading of human thought, which will ultimately promote the upgrading of the form of human civilization in practice.

在学习贯彻党的二十大精神研讨班开班式上的重要讲话中，习近平总书记对中国式现代化的一系列重大理论和实践问题作出深刻阐述，极大丰富和发展了中国式现代化理论。“中国式现代化”概念意蕴丰厚，将对人类反思现有文明形态、探索文明新形态产生革命性的深远影响。它的意义，既是中国的，同时又是世界的。中国式现代化的提出，中国式现代化的成功推进和拓展，中国式现代化理论体系的初步构建，标志着中华文明自我理解的一次升维提级，标志着世界现代化概念的一次升维提级，标志着人类思维的一次升维提级，最终必将在实践中促成人类文明形态的升维提级。

“Though Zhou was an ancient state, it had a mandate to reform.” [1]1 A line from the Book of Songs (Shijing), often cited to express the idea that a state or tradition can renew itself while maintaining its continuity. Chinese civilization has lasted for thousands of years, constantly discarding the old and embracing the new, and living on without end. Since the mid-19th century, against the backdrop of the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western” debate, [2]2 A long-standing intellectual framework in modern China that debates the relative merits and relationships between Chinese tradition and Western modernity, and between ancient and contemporary values. Chinese civilization began a difficult transformation unprecedented since its inception. Learning from Western modern civilization to achieve late-stage modernization once became the prevailing paradigm for understanding the modern renewal of Chinese civilization. According to this paradigm, China learned from the West, first learning material things (such as the Westernization Movement’s admiration for “strong ships and advanced weapons”), then learning institutions (such as the Republic of China’s abolition of the monarchy), and then learning ideas (such as the New Culture Movement’s promotion of “Mr. Democracy” and “Mr. Science”). [3]3 The Westernization Movement (c. 1861–1895) was a self-strengthening effort to adopt Western military and industrial technology. The New Culture Movement (c. 1915–1920s) promoted Western ideas like democracy and science as a replacement for Confucian tradition. According to this paradigm, China and the West were at different stages of the same civilizational development process, with the West being higher and China lower, China backward and the West advanced. According to this paradigm, modernization = Westernization: after the mid-19th century, European modern civilization, represented by industrialization and democratic politics, became the model for a new world civilization, beginning to exert an overwhelming influence on other world civilizations, while the old forms of other world civilizations faced disintegration. Whether accepting or resisting Western civilization, they had to achieve modernization through Westernization. The West seemed to represent the only correct direction of world historical evolution. For other countries and regions, including China, if they wanted to survive and not be expelled from the global community, the only way out was to learn from the West and gain living space by assimilating into the Western modernization model. According to this paradigm, the modern renewal of Chinese civilization was a process of relying on the West to transform oneself but always failing to learn properly in some aspect, and at the same time, a process in which the more one learned, the more one lost oneself.

“周虽旧邦，其命维新。”中华文明绵延数千年，不断吐故纳新，生生不息。自19世纪中叶以来，在“古今中西”之争大背景下，中华文明开始了自发端以来前所未有的艰难蜕变。学习西方现代文明，实现后发现代化，一时成为我们理解中华文明现代更新的通行范式。依此范式，中国向西方学习，先是学习器物（如洋务运动歆慕“船坚炮利”），然后学习制度（如中华民国废除帝制），进而学习观念（如新文化运动表彰“德先生”“赛先生”）。依此范式，中西方处于同一文明发展历程中的不同阶段，西高而中低，中国落后而西方先进。依此范式，现代化=西方化：19世纪中叶之后，以工业化和民主政治为代表的欧洲现代文明成为世界新文明的典范，开始对世界其他文明产生压倒性影响，而世界其他文明旧形态面临解体，无论是接受还是反抗西方文明都必须通过西方化来实现现代化。西方似乎代表着世界历史演进的唯一正确方向，包括中国在内的其他国家和地区，若要救亡图存，若不想被开除球籍，唯一的出路就是师法西方，以同化于西方现代化模式的方式获得生存空间。依此范式，中华文明的现代更新是一个依傍西方改造自我却总是在某个地方学得不像的过程，同时又是一个学得越像，越是丧失自我的过程。

As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, Chinese-path modernization has broken the myth of “modernization = Westernization” and revealed another picture of modernization: world history is not a single-line diachronic evolution but a multi-point synchronic progression. Correspondingly, another picture of Chinese history will also be revealed: the modern renewal of Chinese civilization against the backdrop of the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western” debate is not a one-way process of Chinese civilization learning from Western civilization, but a process in which Western civilization and Chinese civilization (as well as Indian civilizational elements digested within Chinese civilization) interact and integrate on Chinese soil, thereby giving rise to a new world civilization. The Chinese civilization that has undergone modern renewal—naturally, such a renewal process is still ongoing—is not only Chinese but also belongs to all humanity. From this, we can better understand why it is said that Chinese-path modernization “has opened up a path of modernization that belongs to China but has global significance, creating an entirely new form of human civilization,” and why it is said that the path of Chinese-path modernization, while “deeply rooted in the excellent traditional Chinese culture,” also “draws on and absorbs all excellent achievements of human civilization.” Chinese-path modernization, on the one hand, is committed to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and on the other hand, is committed to creating a new form of human civilization. These are two aspects of the same process, one and the same. There is a subtle dialectical relationship between China and the world. It is not difficult to see that the proposal of Chinese-path modernization marks an upgrading of Chinese civilization’s self-understanding.

正如习近平总书记指出的，中国式现代化打破了“现代化=西方化”的迷思，展现了现代化的另一幅图景：世界历史并非单线历时演进，而是多点共时并进。与之相应，中国历史的另一幅图景也将展现：“古今中西”之争背景下的中华文明现代更新，不是中华文明单向学习西方文明的过程，而是西方文明与中华文明（以及消化在中华文明内部的印度文明因子）在中国大地上交融互动，由此生发出世界性新文明的过程。经过现代更新的中华文明——自然，这样的更新过程还在持续之中——不仅是中国的，同时是全人类的。由此，我们可以更好地理解，为什么说中国式现代化“开辟了一条属于中国但又具有世界意义的现代化道路，创造了全新的人类文明形态”，以及为什么说中国式现代化道路在“深深植根于中华优秀传统文化”的同时，“又借鉴吸收一切人类优秀文明成果”。中国式现代化，一方面致力于实现中华民族伟大复兴，另一方面致力于创造人类文明新形态，二者是一而二、二而一的同一过程。中国与世界之间存在微妙的辩证关系。不难看出，中国式现代化的提出，标志着中华文明自我理解的一次升维提级。

Through this upgrading, Chinese civilization has gained a new self-understanding, and people within this civilization will also understand the ancient traditions of Chinese civilization, its modern renewal, and its contemporary mission in new ways. The significance of the modern renewal of Chinese civilization lies not only in the self-renewal of Chinese civilization from ancient to modern times but also in the unfolding of a large-scale practice of human civilizational innovation on Chinese soil. Through the difficult process of both confrontation and integration between Chinese and Western civilizations, and both antagonism and interpenetration between ancient and modern civilizations, various signs of a new form of human civilization have actually been gestating. “Chinese-path modernization” is a clear identification of these signs. The contemporary mission of Chinese civilization is to more consciously realize the historical mission it must undertake to reveal a new human civilization, to break through the various limitations imposed by the Western modernization paradigm on human thought, and to strive vigorously and advance courageously. Chinese-path modernization is an unprecedented pioneering undertaking in human history. The Analects of Confucius, “Zihan” chapter, records that when Confucius traveled through various states, he was detained in the place of Kuang. [4]4 Confucius (551–479 BCE) was a Chinese philosopher whose teachings form the basis of Confucianism. The incident at Kuang occurred during his travels; locals mistook him for a criminal and surrounded him. Although in danger, Confucius was still filled with the cultural confidence that “this culture is here with me”: “After King Wen died, is this culture not here with me? If Heaven were to destroy this culture, I, a later-born, would not have been able to participate in this culture. If Heaven does not intend to destroy this culture, what can the people of Kuang do to me?” [5]5 A quotation from the Analects, where Confucius expresses confidence that the cultural tradition (wen) he embodies is protected by Heaven. After 2,500 years, the righteous spirit of the Master’s courageous responsibility still rushes forth. Living in the present age, is this culture not here with us? Chinese civilization should also have such confidence. Of course, what needs to surpass Confucius is that our way of bearing this culture is not only to inherit the excellent civilizational traditions created by previous sages but also to take root in living social practice, to carry out creative transformation and innovative development of excellent civilizational traditions, as well as transformative creation and developmental innovation. Without this, it is not enough to maintain this culture (i.e., human civilization) from being lost, let alone to develop and expand it.

经此升维提级，中华文明获得了新的自我理解，而身处此文明中的人也将以新的方式理解中华文明的古代传统、中华文明的现代更新以及中华文明的当代使命。中华文明的现代更新，其意义不止于中华文明由古向今的自我更新，更在于中国大地上展开一场规模宏大的人类文明创新实践。经由中西文明既交锋又交融、古今文明既对抗又互渗的艰难历程，实际上已经孕育出人类文明新形态的种种端倪，“中国式现代化”正是对这种端倪的一次明确标识。中华文明的当代使命，便是更加自觉地意识到自身所要担负的开显人类新文明的历史使命，突破西方现代化范式加诸人类思维的种种限制，踔厉奋发，勇毅前行。中国式现代化，是人类历史上一项前无古人的开创性事业。《论语·子罕》记载，孔子周游列国时在匡地遭人拘禁。虽身处险境，孔子身上依然洋溢着“斯文在兹”的文化自信：“‘文王既没，文不在兹乎？’天之将丧斯文也，后死者不得与于斯文也；天之未丧斯文也，匡人其如予何？”经2500年，先师勇毅担当的浩然之气依然扑面而来。居今之世，文不在兹乎？中华文明亦当有如此自信。当然，需要超越孔子的是，我们担当斯文的方式，不只是继承前辈先哲创造的优秀文明传统，更要扎根活生生的社会实践，对优秀的文明传统进行创造性转化与创新性发展，以及转化性创造与发展性创新。非如此，不足以维持斯文（即人类文明）于未丧，更不必说发皇之、张大之。

“Modernization = Westernization” is a view of modernization underpinned by Western-centrism and a unilinear, single-track view of development. Interestingly, since the mid-20th century, Western thinkers have already profoundly reflected on and criticized such a view of modernization, with various concepts and trends such as anti-modernity, postmodernity, multiple modernities, and unfinished modernity emerging one after another. However, constrained by Western positions and Western experience, Western thinkers have seen the diverse forms of modernization within the West—for example, American modernization differs from European modernization, and Scandinavian modernization also differs from Western European modernization—but they are less likely to emphasize that outside Western modernization there is also a distinct Chinese-path modernization, especially one that is not inferior to Western modernization, has its own independent value, and in some aspects represents the future direction of world modernization. Since the mid-19th century, and especially since the 1980s, the magnificent practice unfolding on Chinese soil has contributed modernization experiences different from those of the West to humanity. These experiences, after summarization and refinement, comparison and synthesis, will undoubtedly add novel and unique connotations to the global concept of modernization. In this regard, the proposal of “Chinese-path modernization” and the preliminary construction of the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization mark a revolutionary upgrading of the global concept of modernization. For example, Chinese-path modernization emphasizes the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, which is neglected by the existing Western modernization model. Since its inception, Western modernization has believed that “knowledge is power,” trusting that humanity can and should boldly use its unique calculative rationality to conquer nature, exploit nature, and control nature for its own use, thereby leading to various ecological problems, including global warming. The concept of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, based on the transformation and development of the traditional Chinese “debate on Heaven and humanity,” moves from the Western modernization’s proclaimed “humanity is the master of all things” to a more reasonable “humanity is the most intelligent of all things”: humans are born between Heaven and Earth, “obtaining the finest essence and being the most intelligent” (as Zhou Dunyi put it). [6]6 Zhou Dunyi (1017–1073) was a Song dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher. The phrase “得其秀而最灵” comes from his work Taijitu Shuo (Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate). However, this special status does not grant humanity unlimited power to conquer nature and exploit all things, but rather endows humanity with the sacred responsibility to participate in and assist in the nurturing and protection of all things.

“现代化=西方化”是一种以西方中心论、一元单线发展观为底色的现代化观。有意思的是，自20世纪中叶以来，西方思想家已经对这样一种现代化观作了深刻的反思和批判，反现代性、后现代性、多元现代性、未完成的现代性，诸种观念和思潮层出不穷。不过，囿于西方立场与西方经验，西方思想家有见于现代化在西方内部的多元样态，如美国的现代化不同于欧洲的现代化，斯堪的纳维亚半岛的现代化也有别于西欧的现代化，但不太会强调在西方式现代化之外还别有一种中国式现代化，尤其是这样一种现代化不仅没有劣于西方现代化，而且有其独立价值，并在某些方面代表着世界现代化未来的方向。自19世纪中叶以来，尤其是自20世纪80年代以来，在中国大地上展开的气势恢宏的实践为人类贡献了有别于西方的现代化经验。这些经验经过总结与提炼、比较与综合，无疑将为世界现代化概念增加新颖独到的内涵。就此而言，“中国式现代化”的提出、中国式现代化理论体系的初步构建，标志着世界现代化概念正在进行一次革命性的升维提级。比如，中国式现代化强调人与自然和谐共生，这是既有的西方现代化模式所忽视的。西方现代化自发轫以来，便信仰“知识就是力量”，相信人类完全可以也完全应该大胆运用人类独有的计算理性，征服自然，利用自然，制自然而用之，由此导致包括全球气候变暖在内的种种生态问题。人与自然和谐共生理念，基于中国传统“天人之辩”的转化与发展，从西方现代化所标举的“人是万物之主”走向更加合理的“人是万物之灵”：人生天地间，“得其秀而最灵”（周敦颐语）。但是，这一特殊地位不是给予人类征服自然、利用万物的无限权力，而是赋予人类参赞化育、呵护万物的神圣责任。

Chinese-path modernization holds that there is no a priori standard of modernization, nor is there a universal standard of modernization provided by any single country or single civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “The diversity of historical conditions determines the diversity of development paths chosen by countries. There is neither a single modernization model that is set in stone, nor a one-size-fits-all modernization standard.” This clearly embodies the unique mode of thinking of Chinese civilization, namely, the inseparability of substance and function. The concept or standard of modernization is the substance, while the concrete and diverse modernization models in the world are the function. The substance is not an antecedent, unchanging abstraction independent of the function, but rather the “one” that runs through the function as a consistent thread. Introducing the mode of thinking of the inseparability of substance and function helps us overcome the thinking dilemma concerning the relationship between the universal and the particular, and between the one and the many. In this sense, Chinese-path modernization marks an upgrading and elevation of human thinking.

中国式现代化主张，不存在一种先验的现代化标准，也不存在一种由某个国家或某单一文明所提供的普遍的现代化标准。习近平总书记指出：“历史条件的多样性，决定了各国选择发展道路的多样性。世界上既不存在定于一尊的现代化模式，也不存在放之四海而皆准的现代化标准。”这鲜明体现了中华文明独特的思维方式，即体用不二。现代化概念或标准是体，世界上具体多元的现代化模式是用，体不是独立于用之外的先在的、不变的抽象物，而是在用之中“一以贯之”的“一”。引入体用不二的思维方式，有助于我们克服在“共殊”“一多”问题上的思维困境。就此而言，中国式现代化，标志着人类思维的一次升维提级。

“Only a few stones were ground, the age of childhood.” [7]7 A line from Mao Zedong’s poem “Niannujiao: Reply to Comrade Guo Moruo” (1964), referring to the primitive stage of human society. From the perspective of cosmic evolution, or even the evolution of the Earth, the several thousand years of human civilization to date are but a flash in the pan, and may not yet have left the “age of childhood,” or perhaps are still in the cradle. Human history has not been fulfilled in Prussia as Hegel imagined, nor has it ended in the West (or, more precisely, ended in the United States) as Fukuyama claimed. [8]8 A reference to G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy of history, which saw history culminating in the Prussian state, and Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis (1992), which argued that liberal democracy, as exemplified by the United States, represents the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. History is made by humans; human history is made by Earthlings. Today, when human history has entered the stage of world history, Earthlings from all over the world, East and West, will participate in the creative process of human history. And the Chinese people, having undergone an upgrading and elevation, will undoubtedly make greater contributions to creating a new form of human civilization and to the upgrading and elevation of human civilization.

“只几个石头磨过，小儿时节。”从宇宙演化、哪怕地球演化的尺度来看，人类文明迄今为止数千年的历史不过是电光火石一瞬间，可能尚未走出“小儿时节”，或者尚处于襁褓之中也未可知。人类历史没有像黑格尔所想象的那样圆满于普鲁士，也没有像福山所讲的那样终结于西方（或者更确切地说，终结于美国）。历史，人所造；人类历史，地球人所造。在人类历史已进入世界历史阶段的今天，无论东西，世界各地的地球人都将参与人类历史的创造过程，而经过升维提级的中国人，无疑将为创造人类文明新形态作出更大贡献，为人类文明的升维提级作出更大贡献。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗