Strengthening China’s Theoretical and Empirical Research on Culture and Civilization

In the study of the humanities and social sciences, “culture” is perhaps the most widely researched yet most diversely understood field. Scholars from different disciplines around the world have produced hundreds of definitions of the concept of “culture.” In China today, the importance of research on culture and civilization stems not only from the fact that China is a country with a long historical and cultural tradition and a history of several thousand years of civilization, but also because they are extremely closely linked to the practice of Chinese-path modernization. In the overall layout of Chinese-path modernization, cultural-ethical progress is one of the five major constructions—economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological. This close connection between cultural construction and the practice of modernization is rare in the modernization processes of countries around the world.

在人文社会科学的研究中，“文化”可能是一个研究最为广泛但理解也最为多样的领域。世界上不同学科的学者，关于“文化”这个概念的定义，就有上百种之多。在我国当前，文化、文明研究的重要性不仅因为中国是一个有悠久历史文化传统、有数千年文明史的国家，而且因为它们与中国式现代化实践具有极为紧密的联系。在中国式现代化的总体布局中，文化建设是经济、政治、文化、社会、生态五大建设之一，文化建设与现代化建设实践的这种紧密联系在世界各国的现代化进程中是罕见的。

Since modern times, Chinese intellectuals have traversed a complex psychological journey in their attitudes toward traditional Chinese culture. After the Opium War of 1840, China’s national gates were forced open by the strong ships and powerful cannons of the Western powers. In their exploration of national salvation and survival, enlightenment and strengthening, Chinese intellectuals formed a main line of thought that involved learning from the West and criticizing traditional culture, viewing the process from the Westernization Movement, the Xinhai Revolution, to the May Fourth Movement [1]1 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was a Chinese anti-imperialist, cultural, and political protest movement that emerged from student demonstrations against the Treaty of Versailles; it is often seen as a watershed in modern Chinese intellectual history, associated with the critique of traditional Confucian culture and the embrace of Western ideas like science and democracy. as a process of accepting modern Western civilization in terms of material goods, institutions, and ideas. This differs from the “Renaissance” and “Enlightenment,” which were the precursors of Western modernization; the latter used cultural genes such as freedom and democracy discovered from ancient Greek and Roman civilization to oppose the “dark” currents of the Middle Ages, whereas China, in its early exploration of modernization, formed a certain tendency toward rupture with traditional culture. I dare not say this was entirely influenced by Western thinkers, but it is indeed the case that many classic Western thinkers held a negative view of the possibility of traditional Chinese culture moving toward modernization. For example, Hegel expressed in both *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* and *Lectures on the Philosophy of World History* the idea that China is essentially a country without a history of temporal evolution, thus having no development or progress, only the cyclical replacement of dynasties. Weber, in *The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism* and *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*, also believed that the Chinese cultural and social system dominated by Confucianism and Taoism could not develop a modern rational capitalist civilization; although the Chinese lack neither intelligence nor technology, the rationalized system of sorcery hindered China’s modernizing transformation, and only from the Protestant ethic could modern capitalist civilization grow. There are many other classic Western thinkers who made similar judgments.

近代以来，对于中国传统文化的态度，中国知识分子走过了复杂的心路历程。1840年鸦片战争之后，中国的国门被西方列强的坚船利炮打开，中国知识分子在救亡图存、启蒙图强的探索中，形成了向西方学习、批判传统文化的思想主线，把从洋务运动、辛亥革命到“五四运动”视为从器物上、制度上和观念上接受西方现代文明的过程。这与西方作为现代化先声的“文艺复兴”和“启蒙运动”不同，后者是用从西方古希腊罗马文明发现的自由、民主等文化基因来反对中世纪的“黑暗”逆流，而中国在探索走向现代化的初期便形成了某种与传统文化的断裂取向。我不敢说这完全是受西方思想家的影响，但的确有众多西方的经典思想大家对中华传统文化走向现代化的可能性持否定态度。比如黑格尔在《法哲学原理》和《世界史讲演录》中都表达过这样的意思，即中国在本质上是一个没有时间演变历史的国家，所以没有发展和进步，只有王朝的更替循环。韦伯在《中国的宗教：儒教和道教》和《新教伦理和资本主义精神》中也认为，以儒教和道教为主导的中国文化和社会体系发展不出来近代理性的资本主义文明，虽然中国人不缺乏智慧和技术，但巫术的理性化体系阻碍了中国的现代化变革，只有从新教伦理才能生长出现代资本主义文明。作出类似判断的西方经典思想大家还有很多。

Since modern times, the tendency of China’s mainstream intellectual circles toward rupture with traditional culture in their pursuit of change and strengthening has been a clear thread. Whether it is the reformist tradition or the revolutionary tradition, both are closely linked to the narrative of this thread, and many works have analyzed this line of thought. However, we easily overlook two other threads that coexist with it: one is the thread of daily life—Chinese culture is inscribed in the cultural genes of the Chinese people, melted into the blood passed down through generations, and embodied in their attitudes toward life, daily customs and rituals, and their worldview and values; it is something that cannot be erased or broken; the other is the deep cultural influence of traditional Chinese culture on the theories and thoughts of change and strengthening, as well as the cultural self-awareness since reform and opening up. Sociology was initially called “qunxue” (the study of groups) in China and was interpreted as a collectivist thought emphasizing the overall strength of the state and society. This deep cultural influence of adapting ancient things for present use, along with the takeoff of China’s economy, has gradually developed into a Chinese cultural self-awareness.

近代以来，中国主流知识界在变革图强中与传统文化的断裂取向，这是一条明线。无论是改良传统还是革命传统，都与这条线索的叙事紧密相连，已经有诸多著作在分析这条思想线索。但其实我们容易忽略与之并存的另外两条线索：一条是日常生活的线索，中华文化是刻写在中国人文化基因里，融化在中国人世代相传的血脉中，体现在中国人的生活态度、日常生活习俗和礼仪以及天下观和价值观里的，是抹不去也断裂不了的；另一条是中国传统文化对变革图强思想理论的深层文化熏染以及改革开放以来的中国文化自觉。社会学最初在中国被称为“群学”，并被阐释为强调国家和社会整体力量的群体主义思想。这种古为今用的深层文化熏陶，随着中国经济的起飞，也逐步发展成一种中国文化自觉。

In the new stage of development of China’s economy and society, the importance of research on cultural construction is further highlighted because of the modern civilization of the Chinese nation we aim to shape and realize. “Culture” and “civilization” are often used interchangeably in Chinese due to their lexical similarity, but in Western languages their roots are completely different, and etymologically their meanings also differ greatly. “Culture” is essentially “humanization”; wherever there is human activity, there is culture. Civilization, on the other hand, is associated with the emergence of writing, cities, and social rituals, and is often contrasted with “savagery” and “barbarism.” Every nation has its own cultural history, but not every nation’s cultural history can form its own civilization.

在我国经济社会的新发展阶段，文化建设研究的重要性更因为我们要塑造和实现的中华民族现代文明而愈加凸显。“文化”和“文明”在中文中因为词汇相近而常被等同使用，但在西文中二者的词根完全不同，从词源学上说二者的含义也有很大区别。“文化”实际上就是“人化”，有了人类的活动就有了文化；而文明是与文字、城郭和社会礼仪等的出现相关联，并往往与“蒙昧”和“野蛮”相对。每一个民族都有自身的文化史，但并不是每一个民族的文化史都能形成自己的文明。

Although there is much research on culture and civilization, and cultural construction holds such an important position in China’s modernization practice, there is no discipline such as “culturology” in the humanities and social sciences. Cultural research is often understood as an interdisciplinary field, mainly involving the humanities such as literature, history, and philosophy. This research situation not only affects the standardization and academic consensus of cultural research but also makes it difficult to meet the growing cultural needs of the people and the strategic demands of building a culturally strong nation in the process of China’s modernization. Cultural research needs to strengthen its disciplinary construction and particularly requires greater participation from empirical disciplines.

虽然关于文化、文明的研究很多，文化建设在我国现代化实践中又具有如此重要的地位，但在人文社会科学中，并没有“文化学”这样一种学科，文化研究往往被理解为一种跨学科研究，而且主要涉及文、史、哲等人文科学。这种研究状况不仅影响了文化研究的规范性和学术共识，也难以满足中国现代化过程中人民群众日益增长的文化需求和建设文化强国的战略需求。文化研究需要加强学科化建设，也特别需要经验学科的更多参与。

Building a culturally strong nation and shaping the modern civilization of the Chinese nation are important missions and tasks for China’s philosophical and social science circles at present. To this end, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has specially established a research group to study and interpret the modern civilization of the Chinese nation. The sub-research group of the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences organized a large-scale national sample survey—the “2023 Survey on Residents’ Satisfaction with Cultural Development”—aiming to comprehensively and systematically understand and analyze the current state of China’s cultural development and residents’ satisfaction with it. The several young scholars whose articles are published here are all members of this sub-research group. They explore theoretical and empirical issues in China’s cultural construction from different perspectives. Associate Researcher Gao Wenjun’s article, “A Study on the Relationship between the Satisfaction of Cultural Needs and the Enhancement of Cultural Confidence from the Perspective of Social Psychology,” based on data from the “2023 Survey on Residents’ Satisfaction with Cultural Development,” focuses on the relationship between the satisfaction of cultural needs and the enhancement of cultural confidence. Dr. Huang Yanhua’s article, “The Theoretical Connotation of Cultural Subjectivity and the Practical Logic of Cultural Inheritance and Development: An Analysis from the Perspective of Cultural Sociology,” starts from an interpretation of the cultural soil, theoretical connotation, and local practice of the new form of human civilization, conducting an in-depth discussion on the theoretical construction and application of the modern cultural system of the Chinese nation. Professor Zhang Sen and Associate Senior Editor Gu Hai’e’s article, “The Theoretical Origins, Reflections, and Practical Paths of Cultural Governance,” begins with a conceptual clarification of cultural governance and attempts to explore practical paths for China’s cultural governance using the “unity of dao and qi” [2]2 “Dao and qi” (道器) is a classical Chinese philosophical pair: dao refers to the underlying principle or way, while qi refers to concrete implements or methods; “unity of dao and qi” means integrating theory and practice. in concepts and methods.

建设文化强国和塑造中华民族现代文明是当前中国哲学社会科学界的重要使命和任务。为此，中国社会科学院专门成立了课题组研究阐释中华民族现代文明。中国社会科学院社会学研究所的子课题组组织了全国大规模抽样调查——“2023年居民文化发展满意度调查”，旨在全面系统地了解和分析我国文化发展现状以及居民对文化发展的满意程度。这里发表文章的几位青年学者都是这个子课题组的成员，他们从不同的视角，探索了我国文化建设的理论和经验问题。高文珺副研究员撰写的《社会心理学视域下文化需要满足与文化自信提升研究》一文，基于“2023年居民文化发展满意度调查”数据，聚焦文化需要满足与文化自信提升之间的关系问题。黄燕华博士撰写的《文化主体性的理论内涵与文化传承发展的实践逻辑——基于文化社会学视角的分析》一文，从阐释人类文明新形态的文化土壤、理论内涵和本土实践入手，对中华民族现代文化体系的理论构建及其应用进行深入探讨。张森教授和顾海娥副编审的《文化治理的理论源流、反思与现实路径》一文，从文化治理的概念梳理入手，尝试以理念和方法的“道器一体”来探索我国文化治理的现实路径。

It is hoped that more scholars will strengthen theoretical and empirical research on culture and civilization, thereby making this field of research more standardized and mature.

期待有更多的学者加强对文化、文明的理论和经验研究，从而使这个领域的研究更加规范和成熟。

(Author’s bio: Li Peilin, Member of the Academic Division of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Director of the Academic Division of Social and Political Sciences, Distinguished Professor at the School of Sociology and Ethnology, University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, concurrently convener of the Sociology Review Group of the National Social Science Fund, and Director of the Academic Committee of the Chinese Sociological Association.)

（作者简介：李培林，中国社会科学院学部委员、社会政法学部主任、中国社会科学院大学社会与民族学院特聘教授，兼任国家社会科学基金社会学评议组召集人、中国社会学会学术委员会主任）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心