Chinese-Path Modernization: How to Shift from a Local Narrative to a Global Discourse

After the 20th National Congress of the CPC, “Chinese-path modernization” has become a keyword for understanding contemporary China and even China in the future. In a certain sense, “Chinese-path modernization” is an important category with the significance of a civilizational paradigm, proposed by the Chinese Communists in the New Era through long-term practice and theoretical exploration. The systematic elaboration of the basic connotations and essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization in the report of the 20th National Congress not only deepens our understanding of the laws of modernization but also provides an increment of knowledge for the theory of human modernization. However, to further enhance the explanatory power of this category, prevent other countries, especially Western academia, from misreading Chinese-path modernization, and avoid it becoming new testimony for the West to distort China’s development, we need to clarify from a scholarly perspective the universal significance contained in Chinese-path modernization, transforming it from a local discourse of the times into a universal global discourse.

党的二十大之后，“中国式现代化”已成为理解当代中国乃至未来中国的一个关键词。在某种意义上，“中国式现代化”是新时代中国共产党人经过长期实践和理论探索提出的具有文明范型意义的重要范畴。党的二十大报告关于中国式现代化基本内涵和本质要求的系统阐述，不仅深化了我们对于现代化规律的认识，也为人类现代化理论提供了知识增量。但如何进一步提高这一范畴的解释力，防止其他国家特别是西方学界对于中国式现代化的误读，避免其成为西方歪曲中国发展的新证词，需要我们从学理上阐明中国式现代化所蕴含的普遍性意义，使其从本土性的时代话语转换为普遍性的世界话语。

I. The Historical Narrative of Modernization Discourse

一、现代化话语的历史叙事

If we conduct an archaeological inquiry into the word “modernization,” we will find that the so-called “modern” is not a purely temporal concept; behind it lies an extremely rich historical-philosophical connotation, an important category representing the concept of historical progress. In Western Enlightenment discourse, the so-called modern (the present age) refers to the present age corresponding to the dark age of the Middle Ages. Hegel once said: “Our age is a birth-time and a period of transition. The spirit of man has broken with the old order of things and with the old ways of thinking, and is in the process of letting them all sink into the past and of undertaking its own self-transformation.” [1]1 G.W.F. Hegel, *The Phenomenology of Spirit*, Preface, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 6. The translation here follows the author’s Chinese rendering. Thus, modernization is also logically interpreted as a process of evolution from tradition to modernity. This process, following the Industrial Revolution, accompanied by the process of industrialization and the global expansion of capitalism, was further endowed with concrete and realistic scene imaginings. The ideological revolution of the Enlightenment, the British Industrial Revolution, and the French Revolution together completed the sketch of the connotation of modernization. Hence, to this day, although there are different schools of modernization theory, the understanding of classical modernization has not gone beyond the recognition of industrialization, urbanization, marketization, democratization, and the modernization of people themselves. Modernization originated in the West, and the construction of the discourse of modernization was also first completed by Westerners. In this discourse system, Westerners took the Enlightenment as a watershed, dividing world history into a dark age and a present age, and then also divided the historical processes of other parts of human society into tradition and modernity. As Koselleck said: “The historical consciousness expressed by the concept of ‘modern’ or ‘new age’ has constituted a perspective of the philosophy of history: one must reflectively understand one’s own position from the entire horizon of history.” [2]2 Reinhart Koselleck, *Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time*, trans. Keith Tribe (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 9–10. The translation here follows the author’s Chinese rendering. Looking at the evolution of the Western discourse system of modernization, we can clearly present the logic of the historical narrative behind it.

如果我们对“现代化”这个词进行知识考古学的探寻就会发现，所谓“现代”，并不是一个纯粹时间线上的概念，在其背后包含了极其丰富的历史哲学内涵，是一个表征历史进步观念的重要范畴。在西方启蒙话语中，所谓现代（现时代）指的是与中世纪黑暗时代相对应的现时代。黑格尔曾经这样说：“我们这个时代是一个新时期的降生和过渡的时代，人的精神已经跟他旧日的生活与观念世界决裂，正使旧日的一切葬入于过去而着手进行他的自我改造。”因而，现代化也被合乎逻辑地解释为从传统向现代演化的过程，这一过程在工业革命之后伴随着工业化的进程和资本主义在全球的扩张，又被赋予具有具体现实内容的场景想象，启蒙运动的思想革命、英国的工业革命、法国的大革命共同完成了对现代化内涵的素描，因而直到今天，虽然存在关于现代化理论的不同流派，但在对于经典现代化的理解上，却没有超出工业化、城市化、市场化、民主化以及对人本身现代化的认识。现代化起源于西方，现代化的话语构建也是由西方人最早完成的。在这一话语体系中，西方人将启蒙作为分水岭，将世界历史划分为黑暗时代与现时代，进而把人类社会其他地方的历史进程也划分为传统和现代。正如科瑟勒克所说：“‘现代’或‘新的时代’概念所表达的历史意识，已构成了一种历史哲学的视角：一个人必须从整个历史视界出发对自己的位置作反思性认识。”纵观西方现代化的话语体系演变，我们可以清晰呈现其背后的历史叙事逻辑。

First, modernization as an Enlightenment discourse. Discourse, as an expression of thought, can find its basis in the process of the development of thought itself, while changes in thought themselves come from practical activities in reality. Therefore, the generation of the discourse system of modernization should ultimately seek its basis in the history of modernization itself, which enlightens us to think about how human modernization itself came into being. On this issue, historians of different eras have provided us with different explanatory schemes. Vico’s divine civil theology, Kant’s project for modernity, Hegel’s hypothesis on the philosophy of history, Marx’s critique of capitalism, Weber’s reflections on modernity and the emergence of the capitalist spirit, etc., provide us with a panoramic route for understanding the origins of modernization. However, regardless of how thinkers interpret this historical process, a universally recognized historical fact is that the Renaissance movement originating in the 14th and 15th centuries opened a window in the dark age of the Middle Ages, liberating people from the shackles of God, and thus the historical narrative of humanity shifted from a theological narrative to a human narrative. On this basis, Enlightenment thinkers fully demonstrated the fundamental basis for why humans can become creators of history. Whether it is Descartes’ foundation for human reason or Hume’s skepticism about human reason, whether it is Kant’s assertion of the significance of the Enlightenment or Hegel’s planning of the philosophy of history, as well as Weber’s reasonable defense of the capitalist spirit, the logic behind these thinkers is the liberation of human history from the Christian view of salvation history, thereby opening a channel for humans to create history and for historical evolutionism. In this sense, the emergence of the concept of modernization has the significance of a Copernican revolution in the view of history.

其一，作为启蒙话语的现代化。话语作为一种思想的表达，可以在思想本身发展的历程当中找到依据，而思想本身的变化又是来自现实的实践活动。因此，对于现代化的话语体系的生成最终应该从现代化历史中去寻找依据，这就启示我们去思考人类现代化本身是如何产生的。在这个问题上，不同年代的历史学家给我们提供了不同的解释方案。维柯关于民政神学、康德对于现代性的谋划、黑格尔关于历史哲学的假设、马克思对于资本主义的批判、韦伯对于现代性和资本主义精神产生的思考等，为我们理解现代化的源头提供了全景式的路线，但是不管思想家们如何去解读这一历史进程，一个普遍公认的历史事实就是，发源于14、15世纪的文艺复兴运动打开了中世纪黑暗时代的窗口，让人从神的束缚下解放出来，人类的历史叙事才由此从神学叙事转向人间叙事。启蒙思想家则是在此基础上充分地论证了人之所以能够成为历史创造者的根本依据，不管是笛卡尔对于人的理性的奠基还是休谟对于人类理性的怀疑，不管是康德对于启蒙意义的断言还是黑格尔对于历史哲学的规划，以及韦伯对于资本主义精神的合理辩护，思想家们背后的逻辑就是人类历史从基督教救赎史观中解放出来，从而为人创造历史、为历史进化论打开了通道，在此意义上说，现代化概念的出场具有哥白尼式变革的历史观意义。

Second, modernization as a capital discourse. The process of modernization originated in the West, and modernization itself was accompanied by capitalism from the very beginning. From the perspective of the history of social formation, the replacement of feudalism by capitalism is undoubtedly a great historical progress, and modernization can be seen as another expression of this process. Precisely because of this, Marx and Engels, in the *Communist Manifesto*, evaluated the contribution of capitalism to the development of human society as follows: “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?” [3]3 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx/Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 488–489. Does not this vivid description by Marx and Engels present the scene of the early development of human modernization? Moreover, while using the power of capital to shape a new world, the bourgeoisie also created a set of discourse systems to explain the world. In this discourse system, Western thinkers elevated the value propositions put forward by the bourgeoisie in their struggle against feudalism, such as freedom, equality, and human rights, to a universal level. The Scottish school, represented by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, laid the legitimacy of liberal capitalism through the interpretation of a series of categories such as labor, market, and division of labor. After that, sociologists represented by Weber explored the origin of capitalism from the perspective of religious ethics. This series of discursive planning has in fact become the intellectual genealogy for understanding the modernization of other countries. In this way, modernization originating in the West not only gained inevitability at the level of historical facts but also obtained legitimacy at the level of historical values. It is no exaggeration to say that the entire set of knowledge systems that dominate our understanding of modernization today is the result of the construction of Western thinkers since the Enlightenment.

其二，作为资本话语的现代化。现代化进程起源于西方，且现代化本身从一开始就是与资本主义相伴而生的。从社会形态发展史来看，资本主义代替封建主义无疑是历史的巨大进步，而现代化可以看成这一进程的另外一种表达。正因如此，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中曾经这样评价资本主义对于人类社会发展的贡献：“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大。自然力的征服，机器的采用，化学在工业和农业中的应用，轮船的行驶，铁路的通行，电报的使用，整个整个大陆的开垦，河川的通航，仿佛用法术从地下呼唤出来的大量人口——过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢？”马克思恩格斯这段生动的描述向我们呈现的不正是人类现代化发展初期的场景吗？不仅如此，资产阶级在运用资本的力量塑造一个新世界的同时，也创造了一套解释世界的话语体系。在这个话语体系中，西方思想家把资产阶级在反对封建主义的斗争中所提出的价值主张，如自由、平等、人权等上升到普遍层面，以亚当·斯密、大卫·李嘉图为代表的苏格兰学派则通过对劳动、市场、分工等一系列范畴的解释奠定了自由资本主义的合法性，在此之后，则是以韦伯等为代表的社会学家从宗教伦理的角度探讨了资本主义的起源。这一系列的话语谋划事实上成为理解其他国家现代化的知识谱系。这样，发源于西方的现代化便不仅在历史事实层面上具有了必然性，而且在历史价值层面上也获得了合法性。毫不夸张地说，今天主导我们理解现代化的一整套知识系统就是自启蒙运动以来西方思想家建构的结果。

Third, modernization as a discourse of development. Western modernization also became a world-historical phenomenon along with the global expansion of capitalism. In the 14th and 15th centuries, Columbus’s discovery of the New World and Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe changed Westerners’ spatial understanding of the world. From then on, regions and countries outside Europe became objects for Europeans to occupy, plunder, and colonize. The achievements of Europeans who first embarked on the path of modernization gradually constructed a world order centered on Europe. Although there were shifts in the center of power during this process—for example, Portugal and Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Netherlands in the 17th, Britain in the 18th and 19th, and the United States in the 20th, each successively becoming the dominant country shaping the world order of its era—driven by the power of capital, other regions and countries of the world gradually evolved into appendages of Western states. On the one hand, the global expansion of Western states accelerated the iterative transformation of social forms in backward regions and countries. Under Western dominance, modernization gradually became a global process of Westernization. On the other hand, nations and peoples that were “Westernized” thus fell into an anxiety over cultural identity. How to achieve modernization while preserving the independence of one’s own nation and civilization became a major issue that many nation-states had to confront. In this process, scholars from some developing countries and regions proposed theories of modernization for late-developing countries, the most representative of which include Amin’s “dependency theory” and Said’s “Orientalism.” “Dependency theory” recognized the reality that developing countries are in a passive position in the modernization process and attempted to find a way out for modernization within the center-periphery world political and economic order. “Orientalism,” represented by Said, reflected a cultural consciousness striving to break free from being defined by the West. But whether “dependency theory” or “Orientalism,” their underlying logic still unfolded within the framework of Western modernization theory; objectively, they still did not escape the theoretical framework of the Western modernization knowledge genealogy. Therefore, these theoretical discourses on modernization in late-developing countries remain anti-Western-centric discourses based on Western centrism; they have not been able to generate a theoretical genealogy that truly transcends Western modernization from local modernization issues. Precisely because of this, although typical samples of modernization in late-developing countries, such as the Latin American model and the East Asian model, have emerged in the process of world modernization, the theories guiding modernization practice have inherent limitations, so these models, like the Western modernization model, have encountered numerous problems of modernity. For the modernization of late-developing countries, it is necessary to break free from the knowledge framework set by Western modernization theory to truly avoid the risk of being Westernized. This theoretical conception cannot be completed in the practice of modernization in late-developing countries under Western dominance.

其三，作为发展话语的现代化。西方现代化也是伴随着资本主义在全球的扩张而成为一个世界历史现象的。14、15世纪哥伦布发现新大陆、麦哲伦完成全球航行，改变了西方人对世界的空间认识。自此，欧洲之外的其他国家和地区便成为欧洲人占领掠夺殖民的对象，欧洲人率先走上现代化道路的成果逐步构建起以欧洲为中心的世界秩序，虽然在这个过程中曾经有过权力中心的位移，比如15、16世纪的葡萄牙、西班牙，17世纪的荷兰，18、19世纪的英国，直到20世纪的美国，都曾经先后成为主导不同时代世界秩序的主要国家。在资本力量的推动下，世界上其他国家和地区都逐步演变为西方国家的附庸。一方面，西方国家的全球扩张推动了落后国家和地区社会形态的加速迭代，在西方主导下，现代化逐渐地成为一个全球性的西方化过程；另一方面，“被西方化”的国家和民族也因此陷入了文化认同的焦虑当中，如何在保持本民族和文明独立性前提下走向现代化，成为许多民族国家必须面对的重大课题。在这一过程中，一些发展中国家和地区的学者提出了关于后发国家现代化的理论，其中最具代表性的有阿明等人的“依附理论”、萨义德的“东方学”等。“依附理论”看到了发展中国家在现代化进程中处于被动局面的现实，并试图在中心-边缘的世界政治经济秩序中寻找现代化的出路，而以萨义德为代表的“东方学”则体现出试图摆脱被西方定义的文化自觉。但不管是“依附理论”还是“东方学”，在底层逻辑上依旧是在西方现代化理论的逻辑框架内展开的，客观上依旧没有脱离西方现代化知识谱系的理论框架。因而这些关于后发国家现代化的理论话语依旧是基于西方中心论的反西方中心主义话语，并没有能够从本土性的现代化问题中生发出真正超越西方现代化的理论谱系。也正是因为如此，虽然在世界现代化的进程当中形成了诸如拉美模式、东亚模式等后发国家现代化的典型样本，但是由于指导现代化实践的理论本身具有先天局限性，因此这些模式也与西方现代化模式一样遭遇了诸多现代性问题。就后发国家现代化来说，必须摆脱西方现代化理论所设定的知识框架，才能真正避免被西方化的风险，而这一理论构想是不可能在西方主导下的后发国家现代化实践中完成的。

Like other developing countries in the world, China’s modernization process was also passively initiated during the West’s global expansion. What distinguishes China from other countries is that before encountering the West, China was already an ancient civilization with a history of over 5,000 years. China had its own independent cultural tradition and civilizational paradigm. Moreover, historically, China had never encountered an opponent that surpassed it technologically, like the West. The so-called “changes unseen in three thousand years” [4]4 “Changes unseen in three thousand years” (三千年未有之大变局): A phrase attributed to the late Qing official and scholar Li Hongzhang, expressing the unprecedented scale of the challenge posed by Western powers to China’s traditional order. was precisely the exclamation of Chinese intellectuals at that time in response to this enormous historical contrast. Modern Chinese history began under such a prelude, and China’s exploration of the path of modernization also emerged in this historical context. In this magnificent historical process, the Chinese people not only had to confront the problems brought by historical development itself but also continuously revised their understanding of modernization while solving these historical problems, gradually forming a system of modernization discourse under different historical contexts.

与世界上其他发展中国家一样，中国的现代化进程也是在西方向全球扩张的过程中被动开启的。与其他国家不同的是，在遭遇西方之前，中国就已经是一个有着5000多年历史的文明古国，中国有着自己独立的文化传统和文明范式，而且在历史上中国没有遭遇过像西方这样在技术层面上领先于自己的对手，所谓“三千年未有之大变局”，正是当时的中国知识分子对这一巨大历史反差发出的感慨。近代中国历史是在这样的序幕中拉开的，中国对于现代化道路的探索也是在这样一种历史语境中出场的。在这样一个波澜壮阔的历史进程中，中国人不仅需要面对历史发展本身所带来的问题，也在解决这些历史问题的过程中不断修正着自己对于现代化的理解，逐步形成了不同历史语境下的现代化话语体系。

II. The Local Narrative of Modernization in Modern China

二、近代以来中国现代化的本土叙事

The discursive changes in modernization in modern China can be reduced to multiple alternative plans centered on the main theme of “saving the nation from subjugation and seeking strength.” After the Opium War of 1840, as China was being semi-colonized, advanced intellectuals at the time, driven by a moral sense of responsibility for “the rise and fall of the world,” began to “translate and digest” Western modernization, gradually forming multiple modernization plans aimed at “saving the nation from subjugation and seeking strength.” The modernization of “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use,” the modernization of “wholesale Westernization,” and the socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China constitute different versions of Chinese-path modernization under different historical contexts. Chinese-path modernization also emerged in this historical narrative since modern times.

近代以来中国现代化的话语变迁，可以化约为以“救亡图强”为主线的多种选择方案。1840年鸦片战争后，伴随着中国被半殖民地化，当时的先进知识分子在“天下兴亡”道德责任感激励下，开启对西方现代化的“转译”与“消化”，逐步形成多种以“救亡图强”为目标的现代化方案。“中体西用”的现代化、“全盘西化”的现代化，以及由中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化，构成不同历史语境下中国式现代化的不同版本，中国式现代化也是在近代以来的这一历史叙事中出场的。

First, the ancient-modern narrative of “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use.” The *Cambridge History of China* holds that after modern times, “China entered the world society,” using the concepts of “imperialism” and “modernization” to connect Chinese experience with that of other nations. For the Chinese people, imperialist aggression directly led to an unprecedented national crisis and also became the direct cause for China to seek a path of “seeking strength,” while modernization was the inevitable choice to change China’s oppressed fate and achieve the goal of “seeking strength.” Under the impact of Western gunboats, the first batch of “Chinese who opened their eyes to see the world,” represented by Wei Yuan and Lin Zexu, proposed the slogan “learn the superior techniques of the barbarians to control the barbarians.” However, this slogan did not awaken the diehards of feudal rule at the time. In the traditional thinking of “distinguishing between the Chinese and the barbarians,” they feared that “learning from the barbarians” might “turn Chinese into barbarians,” and those who advocated learning from the West were regarded as “sinners against Confucian teachings.” Therefore, although Lin Zexu had the merit of the Humen Opium Destruction, he was forced to drift to the borderlands. This shows how difficult it was for Western learning to enter China at that time. Feng Guifen, in his *Protest from the Jiaobin Studio*, first proposed the idea of “taking China’s ethical code and Confucian teachings as the foundation, supplemented by the techniques of various countries for wealth and power.” This can be seen as the ideological origin of “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use.” In the 1850s and 1860s, this proposition was undoubtedly progressive; it opened a window for Western learning to enter the knowledge system of Chinese learning and also prepared the ideological ground for the rise of the Westernization Movement. In the subsequent Westernization Movement, its representative figure, Zhang Zhidong, comprehensively expounded the thought of “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use” in his *Exhortation to Learn*. However, for Zhang Zhidong, the emphasis was more on Western learning serving Chinese learning. He believed that China’s ethical code and Confucian teachings were the foundation of the nation’s and society’s destiny, and the purpose of seeking Western learning was to maintain the feudal autocratic system.

其一，“中体西用”的古今叙事。《剑桥中国史》认为，近代后“中国进入了世界社会”，是用“帝国主义”和“现代化”这两个概念把中国经验与其他民族的经验联系起来的，对于中国人来说，帝国主义的侵略直接导致了空前的民族危机，也成为中国寻找“图强”道路的直接原因，而现代化则是改变中国被压迫命运、实现“图强”目标的必然选择。在西方坚船利炮冲击下，以魏源、林则徐等为代表的第一批“睁眼看世界的中国人”提出了“师夷长技以制夷”的口号。然而，这一口号并没有惊醒当时封建统治的顽固派，在传统的“夷夏之辨”思维中他们担心“师夷”可能“变夏”，主张学习西方的人被视为“名教罪人”，因此林则徐虽有虎门销烟之功却不得不流落边陲。由此可见，当时西学进入中国之难。冯桂芬在《校邠庐抗议》中率先提出了“以中国之伦常名教为原本，辅以诸国富强之术”的主张，这可以看作“中学为体，西学为用”的思想起源。在19世纪五六十年代，这一主张无疑是进步的，它为西学进入中学的知识系统打开了窗口，也为洋务派的兴起作了思想准备。在之后的洋务运动中，洋务派的代表人物张之洞在《劝学篇》中全面阐述了“中学为体，西学为用”的思想，但在张之洞这里，更多强调的是西学服务中学。他认为中国的纲常名教是国家社会命运的根本，求西学的目的是维护封建专制制度。

The failure of the Westernization Movement led Chinese people at the time to recognize that China’s backwardness was not due to “inferior technology.” The reformist faction represented by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao attempted to complete the social transformation of modern China through a constitutional monarchy. Liang Qichao, in his *On the New Citizen: On Progress*, cried out, “Construction without destruction has never been able to achieve construction.” [1]1 G.W.F. Hegel, *The Phenomenology of Spirit*, Preface, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 6. The translation here follows the author’s Chinese rendering. In a letter to Kang Youwei, he wrote with painful urgency, “The corruption of China over thousands of years has reached its extreme

洋务运动的失败，使当时的中国人认识到，中国的落后并非“技不如人”，以康有为、梁启超为代表的维新派试图通过君主立宪制的变革完成近代中国的社会转型。梁启超在《新民说·论进步》中疾呼，“不破坏之建设，未有能建设者也”。他在给康有为的信中痛切陈词，“中国数千年之腐败，其祸极于今日，推其大原，皆必自奴隶性来。不除此性，中国万不能立于世界万国之间”。在他看来，只有废除封建专制政体，才能为改造国民的劣根性开辟道路。“新民为今日中国第一急务”，而他理想中的“新民”，就是具有资本主义人格特征的、现代意义上的国家公民。在梁启超这里，现代化与他的“新民说”是联系在一起的。由“新民”而“新国”，实际上是以人的现代化推动国家现代化，这一思路对于今天依然具有启示意义。值得注意的是，在梁启超后期的思想中，则对中国文化被西方文化消解表现出担忧。他说，“今日非西学不兴之为患，而中学将亡之为患”，他的立论似乎又回到了“中体西用”这一影响近代中国历史走向的重要思想范式。由此可见，对西方现代化理论转换过程呈现多元面向，在“中体西用”之名的背后，包含着诸多相互联系又冲突的思想观念，从而建构起近代中国现代化话语体系的多重向度。但如果透过这些相互联系甚至相互冲突的不同话语，我们就会发现，关于“中西”的“体用”问题，实质上表达的是一种“古今”逻辑，其所表达的是古老中国从传统社会向现代转型的不同方案。

Second, the national narrative of "wholesale Westernization." The modern Chinese modernization process driven by the "substance-function" thinking ultimately came to an end with China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895. The Chinese intellectual community painfully reflected that China's backwardness lay not at the level of "function" but at the level of "substance," thus requiring a fundamental and overall transformation of China's traditional society and its cultural foundation. What the failure of the "Hundred Days' Reform" revealed was that the reformist program of the bourgeois constitutional monarchists was unworkable. Against this historical backdrop, modernization aimed at "wholesale Westernization" stepped onto the historical stage and, for a long period thereafter, directly influenced the direction of China's modernization path. Especially after the baptism of the New Culture Movement and the May Fourth Movement, the traditional dispute between China and the West transformed into a change between the old and the new, the ancient and the modern. Here, "China" represented the "old," the traditional aspects hindering China's progress, while "the West" represented the "new," the aspects indicating China's developmental direction.

其二，“全盘西化”的民族叙事。以“体-用”思维推动的近代中国现代化进程，最终由于1895年中日甲午战争的失败落下帷幕，中国的知识界痛彻地反思到，中国之落后并非在“用”的层面，而在“体”的层面，因而需要从根本上、总体上对中国的传统社会及其文化根基来一次彻底的变革，而“戊戌变法”失败所昭示的是，资产阶级维新派的改良主义方案是行不通的。在此历史背景下，以“全盘西化”为目标的现代化走上了历史舞台，并在此后很长一段时间内直接影响着中国现代化道路的选择路向。特别是经过新文化运动和五四运动的洗礼之后，传统的中西之争转化为古今新旧之变，在这里“中”代表“旧”，是传统的阻碍中国进步的方面，“西”代表“新”，是昭示中国发展方向的方面。

In the New Culture Movement, Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, and others all displayed a tendency to transform Chinese culture with Western culture. In their view, what China most needed to learn from Western civilization was democracy and science, and these two words also became the slogans of the New Culture Movement. In the "Reply to the Charges Against This Magazine" in Volume 6, Issue 1 of *New Youth*, Chen Duxiu said: "The only crime of our magazine's colleagues is that they have championed two gentlemen — Democracy and Science. What brought the West from darkness to light were precisely these two gentlemen. They believed that the only ones capable of curing all the darkness

在新文化运动中，陈独秀、胡适等都表现出以西洋文化改造中国文化的倾向。在他们看来，中国最需要向西洋文明学习的是民主和科学，而这两个词也成为新文化运动的口号。陈独秀在《新青年》六卷一号《本志罪案之答辩书》中说：“他们杂志同人所有的罪案不过是拥护德赛两位先生——Democracy，Science——罢了。西洋能从黑暗到光明世界的，就是这两位先生，他们认定可以救治中国政治、道德、学术、思想，一切黑暗的也只有这两位先生。”1929年，新文化运动的另外一位代表人物胡适在其《中国今日的文化冲突》一文中，正式提出“全盘西化”一词，他试图表达的其实是“中国必须充分接受现代文明，特别是科学、技术与民主”。1935年，另外一个提出全盘西化的代表人物陈序经发表了《全盘西化论》，他认为西洋现代文化的确比我们进步得多，具体而言，诸如衣、食、住、农、工商、文学、道德，西洋都比我们进步得多，甚至中医，也不能与严格科学的西医相比。西洋现代文化，无论我们喜欢不喜欢，它毕竟是现代世界的趋势。西洋文化在今日，就是世界文化。如果我们始终像义和团那样顽固地拒外，那就只有束手待毙。由此可见，20世纪二三十年代，许多中国知识分子是按照西方话语体系来对中国现代化进行界定的。但在这种今天看上去有些激进的话语背后，依然能深刻地体会到当时的知识界对于中国落后于世界的焦虑和探求救亡图存道路的苦恼。1935年，胡适发表《充分世界化与全盘西化》，指出“全盘西化”一词招致诸多无谓的争议，不妨改作“充分世界化”。很显然，时过境迁之后，中年时期的胡适已经对其“全盘西化”的认识进行了修正，不再像青年时代一样把西方现代化模式作为圭臬。实际上，这些知识分子对于现代化的这些认识，与他们在政治上的软弱性、两面性是联系在一起的，这种历史局限性也深刻地影响着中国的现代化进程，最终的结果就是，以资本主义为“模板”的中国现代化道路被历史证明是行不通的。

Third, the national narrative of socialist modernization. The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 provided a reliable institutional foundation and a stable domestic environment for China's path to modernization. Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese people embarked on the historical process of socialist modernization. It is worth noting that from the very beginning, Chinese Communists linked the three tasks of establishing a socialist system, building a modern socialist country, and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, emphasizing that leading a great social revolution through a great self-revolution, and ultimately achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, became the continuous goal of Chinese Communists. Compared with previous modernization schemes, Chinese Communists inherited the proposition of "national salvation and strengthening" [5]5 "National salvation and strengthening" (救亡图强, jiùwáng túqiáng) is a phrase summarizing the dual imperative of rescuing the nation from foreign domination and building its strength, which animated Chinese reformers and revolutionaries from the late 19th century onward. pursued by people of lofty ideals since modern times, and moreover, through the firm choice of taking the socialist road, they surpassed previous modernization schemes, endowing Chinese-path modernization with entirely new historical connotations.

其三，社会主义现代化的国家叙事。1949年新中国的成立，为中国现代化道路提供了可靠制度基础和稳定国内环境。在中国共产党领导下，中国人民开启了社会主义现代化的历史进程。值得注意的是，中国共产党人从一开始就把建立社会主义制度、建设社会主义现代化国家和实现中华民族伟大复兴这三个方面的任务联系起来，强调以伟大自我革命引领伟大社会革命，最终实现中华民族伟大复兴，成为中国共产党人接续奋斗的目标。与以往的现代化方案相比，中国共产党人继承了近代以来的仁人志士所追寻的“救亡图强”命题，更以走社会主义道路的坚定选择超越了以往的现代化方案，赋予了中国式现代化以全新的历史内涵。

As early as 1945, at the Seventh National Congress of the CPC, Mao Zedong clearly stated: "The task of the Chinese working class is not only to struggle for the establishment of a new-democratic state, but also to struggle for China's industrialization and agricultural modernization." [6]6 Mao Zedong, "On Coalition Government," political report to the Seventh National Congress of the CPC, April 24, 1945. "From the Seventh National Congress of the CPC to the 20th National Congress, with the exception of a few Party congresses such as the Ninth and Tenth, the reports of the Party congresses have consistently emphasized the issue of socialist modernization." [7]7 This is a quotation from the source text's author summarizing the continuity of Party congress reports. The First National People's Congress, convened in 1954, for the first time explicitly proposed the task of achieving the "four modernizations" in industry, agriculture, transportation, and national defense. The First Session of the Third National People's Congress, convened in 1964, proposed building China into a powerful socialist country with modern agriculture, modern industry, modern national defense, and modern science and technology. Thereafter, achieving the "four modernizations" became a slogan inspiring several generations of Chinese youth. At the same time, Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, engaged in deep reflection on how to take the path of Chinese socialist modernization. In important works such as *On the People's Democratic Dictatorship* and *On the Ten Major Relationships*, Mao Zedong, on the basis of critically drawing on Soviet experience, expounded on several law-governed issues of China's socialist modernization. However, influenced by various complex factors, the practical exploration of the path of Chinese-path modernization was not smooth sailing, and in terms of discourse system, it also exhibited a strong hue of revolutionary romanticism. For example, in the late 1950s, we proposed the goal of "surpassing Britain and catching up with the United States," [8]8 "Surpassing Britain and catching up with the United States" (赶英超美, gǎn Yīng chāo Měi) was a slogan of the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), a mass mobilization campaign for rapid industrialization and agricultural collectivization that led to severe economic disruption and famine. and launched the "Great Leap Forward" movement nationwide, all of which expressed the Chinese people's urgent complex for modernization.

早在1945年党的七大上，毛泽东就明确提出：“中国工人阶级的任务，不但是为着建立新民主主义的国家而斗争，而且是为着中国的工业化和农业近代化而斗争。”“从党的七大到二十大，除了党的九大、十大等少数党的代表大会之外，党的代表大会的报告都一以贯之地强调社会主义现代化问题。”1954年召开的第一届全国人民代表大会，第一次明确地提出要实现工业、农业、交通运输业和国防的“四个现代化”任务。1964年召开的第三届全国人民代表大会第一次会议，提出要把我国建设成为一个具有现代农业、现代工业、现代国防和现代科学技术的社会主义强国。在此之后，实现“四个现代化”成为激励几代中国青年的口号。与此同时，以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人对如何走中国社会主义现代化道路进行了深入思考，在《论人民民主专政》《论十大关系》等重要文献中，毛泽东在批判借鉴苏联经验基础上，阐述了中国社会主义现代化的若干规律性问题。但受各种复杂因素影响，中国式现代化道路的实践探索并不是一帆风顺的，在话语体系方面也呈现出浓厚的革命浪漫主义色彩。比如，在20世纪50年代末期，我们提出了“赶英超美”的目标，在全国掀起了“大跃进”运动等，这些都表现出中国人迫切实现现代化的情结。

After the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC in 1978, accompanied by the ideological emancipation movement and a rethinking of the essence of socialism, China entered a new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and the exploration of China’s modernization path also entered a new stage. Historically, the 40-plus years of reform and opening up constitute a history of China exploring a modernization path suited to its own conditions, as well as a history of China actively integrating into the process of economic globalization and drawing on and utilizing the achievements of human civilization’s modernization. In terms of historical narrative, reform and opening up also represent China’s breakthrough from the ideological narrative of modernization and its transcendence of traditional socialist modernization. In such an arduous exploration, Chinese Communists have demonstrated a high degree of historical wisdom and a sense of mission. With consistent strategic planning, consistent theoretical innovation, and consistent strong leadership, Chinese Communists have always ensured the correct direction of Chinese-path modernization. On the one hand, we have eliminated the inertial thinking of the traditional socialist model; on the other hand, we have also avoided the path dependency of wholesale Westernization that has existed since modern times. We have neither taken the old path of traditional socialism nor the evil path of Western capitalism. In an exploration of independence, self-reliance, self-confidence, and self-strengthening, we have found a path of Chinese-path modernization and have also opened up bright prospects for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

1978年党的十一届三中全会之后，伴随着思想解放运动和对社会主义本质的反思，中国进入了改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，中国的现代化道路探索也进入新阶段。从历史事实来看，改革开放40多年的历史，是中国探索适合本国现代化道路的历史，也是中国积极融入经济全球化进程、借鉴和利用人类文明现代化成果的历史。从历史叙事来看，改革开放也是中国突破现代化的意识形态叙事，超越传统社会主义现代化的探索。在这样一种艰辛探索中，中国共产党人表现出了高度的历史智慧和使命担当。中国共产党人以一以贯之的战略谋划、一以贯之的理论创新、一以贯之的坚强领导，始终确保中国式现代化的正确方向。我们一方面排除了传统社会主义模式的惯性思维，另一方面也避免了自近代以来全盘西化的路径依赖。我们既没有走传统社会主义的老路，也没有走西方资本主义的邪路，在独立自主自信自强的探索中找到了一条中国式现代化道路，也开辟了中华民族伟大复兴的光明前景。

III. How Is a Global Discourse of Chinese-Path Modernization Possible?

三、中国式现代化的世界性话语何以可能

Although the proposition of Chinese-path modernization essentially contains universal implications, in form (discourse) it presents particularistic features, which may lead to misinterpretations in discourse comprehension. In the eyes of Westerners, Chinese-path modernization may be understood as a concept opposed to Western modernization, easily interpreted as a confrontational discourse against the Western modernization model. Especially under the dominance of the binary thinking of China versus the West and tradition versus modernity, Chinese-path modernization could deepen Western confrontational understandings of China, and some Western scholars may even use ideological colored glasses to interpret Chinese-path modernization, thereby turning it into an expression of the “China threat theory.” Such a one-sided interpretation would undoubtedly further worsen the discursive environment for Chinese-path modernization, thereby subjecting the practice of Chinese-path modernization to more pressure and challenges. For this reason, we must theoretically deconstruct such a “discursive trap” so that Chinese-path modernization can become a discursive expression linked to the progress of human civilization.

虽然中国式现代化这一命题本质上包含了普遍性含义，但在形式（话语）上却呈现出特殊性的表征，这样就可能造成在话语理解方面的误读。在西方人那里，中国式现代化可能被理解为与西方现代化相对立的一个概念，极易被解读为对于西方现代化模式的对抗性话语。特别是在中国和西方、传统和现代二分法思维定式主导下，中国式现代化有可能加深西方对于中国的对立性理解，甚至一些西方学者会用意识形态的有色眼镜来解读中国式现代化，从而使其演变为“中国威胁论”的一种表达。而这样一种片面的解读无疑会进一步恶化中国式现代化的话语环境，进而使中国式现代化的实践面临更多的压力和挑战。为此，我们必须在理论上解构这样的“话语陷阱”，以使中国式现代化能够成为一种与人类文明进步相联系的话语表达。

First, view the relationship between China’s modernization and human modernization from a grand historical perspective. No matter how strongly we emphasize the particularity of Chinese-path modernization, we should establish a basic historical attitude: China’s modernization process is also part of the human modernization process. To sever the relationship between China’s modernization and Western modernization would risk falling into historical nihilism. The particularity of China’s modernization is not only a particularity compared with the West in spatial and cultural terms, but also a particularity manifested in the process of human modernization. This particularity presupposes the recognition of the common features of modernization. It is precisely for this reason that General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC: “Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization pursued under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. It contains elements that are common to the modernization processes of all countries, but it is more characterized by features that are unique to the Chinese context.” This “common element” is what embodies the universal laws of human modernization, the “historical commonality” manifested in the modernization processes of different countries. Without this “historical commonality,” Chinese-path modernization could become “water without a source” or “a tree without roots.” Acknowledging the contribution of the West to human modernization and acknowledging the value of the modernization path for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation means adhering to historical materialism on the issue of modernization.

其一，以大历史观看待中国现代化与人类现代化的关系。无论如何强调中国式现代化的特殊性，都应该树立一种基本的历史态度，那就是中国的现代化进程也是人类现代化进程的一部分。割裂中国现代化与西方现代化的关系，就可能陷入历史虚无主义。中国现代化的特殊性，不仅是与西方在空间意义上和文化意义上相比较的特殊性，也包括人类现代化进程中表现出来的特殊性，这种特殊性是以承认现代化的共同特征为前提的。正因为如此，习近平总书记在党的二十大报告中指出：“中国式现代化，是中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化，既有各国现代化的共同特征，更有基于自己国情的中国特色。”而这个“共同特征”就是体现人类现代化共同规律的东西，是不同国家实现现代化进程中表现出来的“历史共性”。离开了这个“历史共性”，中国式现代化就有可能变成“无源之水”“无本之木”。承认西方对于人类现代化的贡献，承认现代化道路对于中华民族伟大复兴之路的价值，就是在现代化问题上坚持唯物史观。

Second, elucidate the Chinese character of the “problem of modernity” from a universal perspective. One important reason why the path of human modernization must transcend the path dependency of Western modernization is that modernization itself contains an endogenous contradiction, specifically manifested in the so-called “problem of modernity,” which the logic of traditional modernization cannot overcome. The tensions between humans and nature, between humans and humans, and between humans and themselves that arise in the process of modernization have created difficulties for modernization itself. Westerners, who were the first to achieve modernization, have a deeper understanding of these problems; the so-called postmodernist trend expresses a critique and reflection on the problem of modernity. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out that Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of a huge population, the modernization of the coordinated development of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, the modernization of achieving common prosperity for all people, the modernization of harmony between humans and nature, and the modernization of taking the path of peaceful development. These five features not only succinctly summarize the particularity of China’s problems in the modernization process, but also fully represent the epochal problems in the modernization process of human society. So-called Chinese-path modernization possesses both the characteristics of China’s local nature and contains the historical and epochal problems of the human modernization process; it is proposed in response to the universal problems in the modernization process. Therefore, this category is not merely a special form and local expression of human modernization in China, but a Chinese solution based on the universal problems of modernity. In this sense, the very proposition of Chinese-path modernization itself has universal significance.

其二，从普遍性角度阐明“现代性问题”的中国性。人类现代化道路之所以必须超越西方现代化的路径依赖，其中一个很重要的方面就是：现代化本身包含着一种内生性的矛盾，具体表现出来的就是所谓“现代性问题”，而这些问题是传统现代化逻辑无法克服的。在现代化进程中出现的人与自然、人与人、人与自身关系的紧张，造成了现代化本身的困境。对于这些问题，率先实现现代化的西方人有着更加深切的感悟，所谓的后现代主义思潮，所表达的就是对于现代性问题的批判和反思。党的二十大报告指出，中国式现代化是人口规模巨大的现代化，是物质文明和精神文明相协调发展的现代化，是实现全体人民共同富裕的现代化，是人与自然和谐共生的现代化，是走和平发展道路的现代化。这五个方面特征，既精辟概括了现代化进程中中国问题的特殊性，也充分表征了人类社会现代化进程中的时代性问题。所谓中国式现代化，既具有中国本土性的特征，也包含了人类现代化进程中历史性、时代性的问题，是针对现代化进程中的普遍性问题而提出的。因此，这一范畴不仅仅是人类现代化在中国的特殊形态和本土表达，而是基于现代性普遍问题而给出的中国方案。在此意义上说，中国式现代化命题的提出本身就具有普遍意义。

Third, elucidate the advanced nature of “Chinese-path modernization” from the perspective of the future development of human civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “There is no single model of modernization that is set in stone, nor is there a one-size-fits-all standard for modernization.” In advancing the historical process of human modernization, we need to break the myth that “modernization equals Westernization.” If we acknowledge that modernization is a constantly progressing historical process, then we should acknowledge that the modernization completed by humanity today is only a milestone in this grand historical process, and humanity will certainly create new models of modernization through its own creativity. On the one hand, many revolutionary changes in the field of science and technology already herald the arrival of such an era. The ongoing Fourth Industrial Revolution has already provided enormous imaginative space for humanity to transcend the modernization of traditional industrialization. It is gratifying that, on this new historical track, the Chinese nation stands for the first time at the same starting line as Western countries. On the other hand, Western modernization driven by the “logic of capital” also faces historical ethical challenges; only by breaking free from the “curse of capital” can modernization truly become a blessing for all humanity. Therefore, socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China, built on the foundation of 5,000 years of civilization, is opening a new path for a new form of human civilization. Consequently, we should understand Chinese-path modernization not only from the perspective of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, but also from the perspective of its significance as a civilizational paradigm and the creation of a new form of human civilization. We must find common ground in the relationship between Chineseness and worldliness, elevating this locally based discursive expression to a globally oriented discursive expression. Only in this way can a political discourse with distinct epochal characteristics be transformed into a knowledge discourse with universal significance.

其三，从人类文明未来发展阐明“中国式现代化”的先进性。习近平总书记指出，“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”。在推进人类现代化的历史进程中，我们需要破除“现代化=西方化”的迷思。如果我们承认现代化是一个不断进步的历史进程，那就应该承认，今天人类已经完成的现代化只是这个宏大历史进程中的一个界碑，人类一定会在自己的创造中形成新的现代化模式。一方面，科学技术领域的许多革命性变革已经预示着这样一个时代的到来。正在发生的第四次工业革命已经为人类超越传统工业化的现代化提供了巨大想象空间。值得欣慰的是，在这个新的历史赛道上，中华民族第一次与西方国家站在同一起跑线上。另一方面，由“资本逻辑”推动的西方现代化也面临着历史的伦理诘难，只有摆脱“资本魔咒”才能真正让现代化成为全人类的福祉。因而，奠基在5000年文明地基上，由中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化，正在为人类文明新形态开辟新道路。因此，对于中国式现代化，我们不仅要从中华民族伟大复兴的角度，更要从作为文明范型意义、创造人类文明新形态的角度去理解，要在中国性和世界性的关系当中找到共同点，让这个基于本土性的话语表述上升到世界性的话语表达，只有这样，才能让具有鲜明时代特色的政治话语转化为具有普遍意义的知识话语。

(Author’s bio: Li Jiali, Associate Professor, School of Journalism, Shanxi University)

（作者简介：李嘉莉，山西大学新闻学院副教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心