The Deep Logic and Modalities of Cultural Imperialism in Western Left-Wing Discourse

Cultural imperialism is the manifestation and extension of imperialism in the cultural sphere. It developed alongside imperialist colonial rule and gradually emerged within the asymmetrical, unequal structure of cultural sovereignty and status between imperialist powers and other countries. Some domestic scholars argue that this unbalanced structural relationship in cultural status is essentially a form of imperialism or colonialism, fundamentally no different from the old imperial colonial system of the 19th century; the only difference is that its vehicle is no longer politics or the military, but culture. Within the theoretical paradigm of cultural hegemony, cultural imperialism mainly refers to the capitalist expansion of hegemonic states into the Global South, as well as the export of mass culture, mass media products, and communications technology.

文化帝国主义是帝国主义在文化领域的表现与延伸，是伴随着帝国主义殖民主义统治发展起来的，逐步在帝国主义与其他国家的文化主权与地位的不对称、不平等的结构中凸显出来。国内有学者认为，文化地位的不平衡结构关系本质上就是一种帝国主义或殖民主义，与19世纪旧帝国殖民体系没有本质区别，只是它们的载体不再是政治或军事，而是文化。在文化霸权的理论范式中，文化帝国主义主要是指霸权国家对南半球的资本主义扩张以及大众文化、大众传媒的产品和通信技术等方面的输出。

I. The Deep Logic of Cultural Imperialism

一、文化帝国主义的深层逻辑

Because imperialism itself shapes the antagonistic structure of the world system, creates inequality in cultural status differences, and thereby achieves the exploitation of wealth and the domination of spirit between opposing sides, the essence of imperialism in the cultural sphere is cultural hegemony and exploitation. The core factor enabling the formation and maintenance of cultural hegemony is the power logic of the cultural imperialist state's domination over other countries, which contains two dimensions: the "commodity profit–capital" logic and the "spiritual interest–control" logic. Among these, the "spiritual interest–control" logic constitutes the deep logic of cultural imperialism, and for this reason it is often downplayed or denied by imperialist powers.

由于帝国主义本身塑造着世界体系的对立结构，在文化地位差异间制造不平等，并以此来实现对立面之间的财富剥削与精神驾驭，所以文化领域中的帝国主义本质是文化霸权与剥削。文化霸权得以形成和获得支持的核心因素是文化帝国主义国家对他国的支配即权力逻辑，包含着“商品利润-资本”逻辑和“精神利益-控制”逻辑双重维度。其中“精神利益-控制”逻辑属文化帝国主义的深层逻辑，因此该逻辑往往会被帝国主义所淡化或否认。

Whether or not it is consciously recognized, the ideological influence of cultural imperialism always exists in the process of exchange and consumption of cultural products, even when the share of cultural product exports from developing countries has increased. In recent years, in the cross-border consumption of cultural products, a phenomenon has emerged of "backflow" [n1] — the import by the West of diverse, resource-rich, original ecological cultural products from less developed countries, reversing the earlier flow of Western-dominated industrial culture. This has inevitably prompted scholarly reflection: does this result in the imperialist cultural product losing its advantage in material profit? How will the cultural hegemony of imperialism choose to respond? The author believes that cultural imperialism constructs a deep structural system based on industrial production capacity, with Western values as its content, and using ideological penetration to achieve strategic interests. This is confirmed in the critique of cultural imperialism by Western left-wing scholars: the "spiritual interest–control" logic is the core essence of the structural system of cultural imperialism. For example, the prominent American Marxist scholar James Petras, in his critique of capitalism and imperialism, divides cultural imperialism into "stages" and "forms," highlighting its ideological character and spiritual control value. Petras distinguishes between the "traditional form" and the "modern form" of cultural imperialism from a temporal perspective, while clearly pointing out the spiritual control value of cultural imperialism in colonial rule. Petras states: "In past centuries, the church, the educational system, and public institutions played an important role in inculcating submission and loyalty among indigenous peoples in the name of sacred or autocratic monarchs."

不管有没有被意识到，在文化产品交换与消费的过程中，文化帝国主义的意识形态影响因素总是存在的，即使是在发展中国家的文化产品输出占比提升的情况下也是如此。近年来，文化产品跨国界消费中，出现了西方主导工业文化被非发达国家的多元化且资源丰厚的原生态文化产品“倒灌”现象。这不免引起了学界的思考：其结果是否造成帝国主义文化产品物质利益占有失去优势？帝国主义的文化霸权会如何选择？笔者认为，文化帝国主义建构的是以工业生产能力为基础，以西方价值观念为内容，以思想渗透来实现战略利益的深层结构体系，这一点在西方左翼学者文化帝国主义批判中得到了验证，即“精神利益-控制”逻辑才是文化帝国主义结构体系的核心要义。如美国著名马克思主义学者詹姆斯·佩特拉斯在批判资本主义、帝国主义过程中，对文化帝国主义进行“阶段”与“形式”划分，突出了文化帝国主义的意识形态色彩和精神控制价值。佩特拉斯从时代性视角区分了文化帝国主义的“传统形式”和“现代形式”，同时他明确指出了文化帝国主义在殖民统治中的精神控制价值。佩特拉斯说：“在过去的几个世纪里，教会、教育系统和公共机构在以神圣或专制君主的名义向土著人灌输臣服和忠诚的思想方面发挥了重要作用。”

The "spiritual interest–control" logic reveals the essence of the ideological function and cultural hegemony in imperialist cultural dissemination. It transcends simple quantitative indicators of cultural product trade, bases itself on the ideological and educational function of culture, and advances the strategic interests and goals of imperialism in "other countries." The "spiritual interest–control" logic of cultural imperialism manifests theoretically in two forms: "knowledge imperialism," characterized by technological hegemony and control in the sphere of productive forces, and "spiritual imperialism," characterized by ideological penetration and influence.

“精神利益-控制”逻辑反映出帝国主义文化传播中意识形态功能和文化霸权的实质，它跃出文化产品贸易量化的简单评价指标，立足文化的思想教化功能，推进帝国主义在“他国”的战略利益和目标。文化帝国主义的“精神利益-控制”逻辑在理论上表现为生产力领域中的技术霸权与掌控的“知识帝国主义”和思想渗透与影响的“精神帝国主义”两种形态。

II. "Technological Hegemony and Control": The Form of Knowledge Imperialism

二、“技术霸权与控制”：知识帝国主义形态

The first-mover advantage of capitalist countries in the Industrial Revolution enabled imperialism to create a superior level of scientific knowledge and technological progress, forming a hierarchy and imbalance in knowledge and technology between imperialism and other countries. To consolidate and monopolize this advantageous position in the knowledge and technology hierarchy, imperialism shapes itself as a high ground in the global industrial chain through "technological hegemony and control," thereby giving rise to the form of knowledge imperialism.

资本主义国家在工业革命中的先发优势，让帝国主义能够创造出更为卓越的科学知识水平和技术进步，形成了帝国主义与他国之间的知识技术层次性和不平衡。为巩固和垄断知识技术层次的优势地位，帝国主义通过在“技术霸权与控制”世界产业链中塑造自身的高地，从而塑造了知识帝国主义形态。

Harold Innis, a professor at the University of Toronto and an economic historian, published *Empire and Communications* in 1950. From the perspective of media time and space, he combined knowledge with imperialism to study how communication media influence the rise and fall of empires. He argued that knowledge possesses the attribute of "technological hegemony," i.e., monopoly, but that the monopoly of knowledge would be broken in the new media age. Harold Innis's historical narrative of imperialism is highly instructive for the theoretical development of cultural imperialism, but it neglects the dual-structure characteristic of the imperialist system and fails to summarize the constraining effect of the cognitive framework of imperialist colonial rule on the possession of knowledge. Syed Hussein Alatas, in contrast, places the concept of knowledge imperialism within the framework of ethnic relations, arguing that knowledge imperialism results from one nation dominating the intellectual world of another. Additionally, Syed Farid Alatas, a sociology professor at the National University of Singapore, from the perspective of the knowledge power of imperialist states, understands knowledge imperialism as the dependence of contemporary developing countries on the knowledge power of imperialist countries such as the United States and Britain.

多伦多大学教授、经济史学家哈罗德·英尼斯于1950年出版《帝国与通讯》一书，从媒介时空视角把知识与帝国主义相结合来研究传播媒体如何影响帝国的兴衰。他认为，知识具有“技术霸权”即垄断的属性，不过新媒体时代知识的垄断将被打破。哈罗德·英尼斯的帝国主义历史叙事对文化帝国主义的理论发展极具启发性，但他忽略了帝国主义体系二元结构特征，也没能概括出帝国主义殖民统治的认知框架对知识占有的制约作用。赛义德·侯赛因·阿拉塔斯则是把知识帝国主义概念置于民族关系架构中，认为知识帝国主义是一个民族支配另一个民族思想世界的结果。另外，新加坡国立大学的社会学教授赛义德·法里德·阿拉塔斯从帝国主义国家的知识权力视角，把知识帝国主义理解为当代发展中国家对美国、英国等帝国主义国家的知识权力的依赖。

Knowledge imperialism involves the dual dimensions of knowledge hegemony and knowledge dependency. From the perspective of imperialist knowledge hegemony and the dependent nature of knowledge production in subordinate countries, knowledge imperialism expresses the monopoly of discourse power by contemporary imperialist states in the fields of knowledge innovation, knowledge production, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge consumption, as well as the power imbalance in these fields faced by developing countries that have lost the capacity and mindset for independent knowledge production. This forms a situation of imperialist domination over other countries based on industrial production capacity and knowledge resource advantages.

知识帝国主义涉及知识霸权与知识依附双重维度。知识帝国主义是从帝国主义知识霸权与附属国家知识生产的依附性视角，表达了当代帝国主义国家在知识创新、知识生产、知识传播、知识消费领域的话语权垄断以及失去知识生产独立性能力、思维的发展中国家在该领域中的权力失衡状态，形成了工业生产能力与知识资源优势基础上的帝国主义对其他国家的支配形势。

1. Manifestations of "Technological Hegemony and Control" in Knowledge Imperialism

1. 知识帝国主义“技术霸权与控制”的表现

The theoretical framework of knowledge imperialism is the dual structure of the world system: imperialism and colony. After the Second World War, colonial countries launched nationalist waves opposing imperialist political rule and moved toward national independence. However, imperialism in the postcolonial era only "formally ended"; in substance, it "continues to exert considerable cultural influence in some way" [n2] — that is, the colonial mindset of postcolonial imperialism, as well as its advantages in industrial production, cultural innovation, and knowledge creation, have not been affected.

知识帝国主义的理论框架是世界体系的帝国主义与殖民地二元结构。第二次世界大战之后，各殖民地国家掀起了反对帝国主义政治统治的民族主义浪潮，并走向了民族独立。不过，后殖民时代的帝国主义仅仅是“形式上结束了”，实质上却“以某种方式继续发生相当大的文化影响”，即后殖民时代帝国主义的殖民思维以及工业生产、文化创新、知识创造等方面的优势并没有受到影响。

First, the sense of superiority of the imperialist “mother country” in the sphere of knowledge and culture. The ancient European civilization that developed on the basis of ancient Greek culture was submerged in the splendor of Asian and African civilizations. During the Roman Empire, “the Middle East, India and China held the leading position in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, optics, and the manufacturing industries of silk, cotton, paper and dyes.” After the Renaissance, the development of science and technology drove the progress of European industrial productive forces. In the 1760s, Britain took the lead in launching the first Industrial Revolution, thereby pushing European civilization into the industrial age. It was precisely this leading edge in industrial development and technological progress that allowed imperialism to regard itself as “civilized,” to despise subordinate countries, to discriminate against them as “ignorant” and “backward,” and even to view them as “barbaric.” When evaluating the ruling relationship between colonial rulers and colonized countries, the classical Marxist writers criticized the sense of superiority in the colonial rule of capitalist countries. When discussing the British colonialists’ war of aggression against China, Engels criticized the atrocities committed by the colonialists and their despicable practice of regarding subordinate countries as “barbarians.” In his article “Persia and China,” Engels pointed out: “These civilizers who shoot red-hot cannonballs into undefended cities, rape women, and murder can certainly call the Chinese method of resistance despicable, barbaric, and cruel; but as long as this method is effective, what does it matter to the Chinese?” Similarly, in “The Opium Trade,” Marx also evaluated the moral contrast between British imperialism and old China during the Opium War period, satirizing the moral principles upheld by the “semi-barbarians” of old China against the selfishness of the “civilized.” The British scholar John Atkinson Hobson mocked imperialism for calling itself a “civilized” nation while calling the subordinate countries of the colonies “inferior” nations.

第一，帝国主义“母国”在知识文化领域的优越感。由古希腊文化基础上发展起来的欧洲古代文明，淹没于亚洲文明、非洲文明的辉煌之中。罗马帝国时期，“中东、印度和中国承担着数学、天文学、化学、光学以及丝绸、棉花、纸张和染料制造业的领导地位”。文艺复兴后，科学技术发展带动了欧洲工业生产力的进步。18世纪60年代英国率先开启了第一次工业革命，从而促进了欧洲文明进入工业时代。正是工业发展和科技进步的领先优势，让帝国主义以“文明”自居，蔑视附属国家，歧视其“愚昧”“落后”，甚至将之视为“野蛮”。马克思主义经典作家在评价殖民统治者与殖民地国家的统治关系时，批判了资本主义国家殖民统治中的优越感。恩格斯在谈到英国殖民者对中国的侵略战争时，批判了殖民者实施的暴行以及将附属国家视为“野蛮人”的卑劣行径。恩格斯在《波斯和中国》一文中曾指出：“这些把炽热的炮弹射向毫无防御的城市、杀人又强奸妇女的文明贩子们，尽可以把中国人的这种抵抗方法叫做卑劣的、野蛮的、凶残的方法；但是只要这种方法有效，那么对中国人来说这又有什么关系呢？”同样，马克思在《鸦片贸易史》中也评价过鸦片战争时期的英帝国主义与旧中国的道德反差，对旧中国“半野蛮人”坚持道德原则与“文明人”的自私自利进行了讽刺。英国学者约翰·阿特金森·霍布森嘲讽帝国主义将自己称为“文明”的民族，将殖民地的附属国家称为“劣等”民族的说辞。

The colonial rule of European imperialist countries over Africa also manifested the imperialist Eurocentric sense of superiority and an arrogant posture toward “low and backward races of countries.” When evaluating the binary structure of Western civilization and African primitiveness in Joseph Conrad’s *Heart of Darkness*, Asim Aydın bluntly pointed out that “Eurocentric propaganda is meant to elevate the achievements of European civilization,” and correspondingly Africa is depicted as “still a place of cannibals, savages, inferior, uncivilized, backward primitives, lacking knowledge and culture, possessing evil traits and desires.” However, Said criticized Conrad for directly concretizing the imperialist sense of intellectual superiority into a Eurocentric complex and sense of superiority. He denounced the fallacy that “independence belongs to whites and Europeans; lower peoples or subjects are to be ruled; science, knowledge, and history originate from Europe.”

欧洲帝国主义国家对非洲的殖民统治，也表现出了帝国主义的欧洲中心主义的优越感与对“低等落后种族的国家”的不可一世的姿态。阿西姆·艾登在评价约瑟夫·康拉德的《黑暗之心》中西方文明与非洲蒙昧的二元结构时，直言不讳地指出，“欧洲中心主义的宣传是为了提升欧洲文明所取得的成就”，相应地非洲则被描绘成“仍然是食人族、野蛮人、低等、未开化、落后的原始人，缺乏知识和文化，拥有邪恶的特征和欲望”的地方。不过，萨义德批评了康拉德直接将帝国主义知识优越感具体化为欧洲中心主义情结和优越感。他斥责“独立是属于白人和欧洲的；低等人或臣民是要加以统治的；科学、知识和历史是从欧洲发源的”的谬论。

Second, the advantage of the imperialist “mother country” in the sphere of knowledge production. The knowledge hegemony of knowledge imperialism also manifests in the possession of strong innovative capacity and advantages in the sphere of knowledge production, including science and technology. In the era of the knowledge economy, after imperialism retreated from the geographical space of colonial rule, it was replaced by a spatiotemporal extension of the system of ownership of knowledge and resource advantages. Knowledge production is originally a conscious and free activity of the human subject, a cultural consciousness that continuously grasps the information accumulation formed by the objective world and enhances its own capacity for transformation. The capacity for knowledge production is related to the individual human’s ability to perceive information from the external world—that is, individual wisdom and sensitivity in understanding and cognizing objects affect the efficiency of knowledge production. For humans as social beings, knowledge production is a collective activity, and the distribution of knowledge resources is also the result of collective activity. In class society, especially in commodity society, the motive of coveting enormous interests and pursuing higher profits endows the act of creating and possessing knowledge with attributes of class identity or national identity. The positive cumulative relationship between knowledge reserves and the increment of knowledge production promotes the intellectual propertyization of the knowledge economy era, which then develops into monopoly.

第二，帝国主义“母国”在知识生产领域中的优势。知识帝国主义的知识霸权还表现在包括科技在内的知识生产领域拥有强大的创新能力和优势。知识经济时代，帝国主义在殖民统治地理空间退却后，取而代之的是知识的所有权体系和资源优势上的时空延展。知识生产本是人类主体自觉和自由活动，不断把握对象世界形成的信息积淀与提升自身改造能力的文化自觉。知识生产的能力与人类的个体对外部世界信息的感受能力相关，即个体的智慧及其理解认知对象敏感性会影响到知识生产的效率。作为社会性存在物的人来说，知识生产是群体性活动，知识资源分配也是群体性活动的结果。在阶级社会中，尤其是在商品社会，觊觎巨大利益、追求更高利润的动机，使创造和占有知识的行为被赋予了阶级身份或是民族身份属性。知识储备与知识生产增量的正向的累进关系，促使知识经济时代的知识产权化，进而向垄断发展。

The knowledge monopoly dominated by Western capitalist countries is often realized in two ways. First, legalizing the possession of knowledge resources; second, in the sphere of economic production, using the monopolistic advantage of knowledge resources, including technology, to control the source of the industrial chain constructed by economic production departments and obtain high “excess surplus value.” That is to say, knowledge imperialism relies on the barriers set up by the intellectual property system to form an asymmetrical situation in the possession of knowledge resources and thereby realize monopoly profits. Pagano proposed that the comprehensive privatization of knowledge under imperialism, i.e., global monopoly, restricts the free flow of knowledge and the right of other subjects to freely use knowledge, arguing that “the holders of intellectual property rights ultimately possess rights equivalent to those of past imperialist powers. They can decide whether a certain production process can be carried out in a particular country, thereby controlling the future opportunities of other countries’ companies.”

由西方资本主义国家主导的知识垄断往往通过两种方式来实现。其一，将知识资源占有合法化；其二，在经济生产领域中，以包括技术在内的知识资源垄断优势，掌控经济生产部门建构的产业链源头，获得高额的“超额剩余价值”。也就是说，知识帝国主义依托知识产权制度设置的壁垒，形成知识资源占有的不对称形势来实现垄断利益。帕咖诺提出帝国主义的知识的全面私有制即全球垄断，限制了知识的流动自由以及其他主体对知识的自由使用权力，认为“知识产权的持有者最终拥有的权利相当于过去的帝国主义势力。他们可以决定某一生产过程是否可以在某一特定国家进行，从而拥有其他国家公司未来的机会”。

The intellectual property system can be traced back to the medieval Republic of Venice, where the guild system developed from flourishing maritime trade monopolized the application and promotion of technology. Frank D. Prager believed that, with the support of the Venetian government, if anyone possessed a useful new technology, they needed to obtain a special “power” or “license” to manufacture, sell, or use the new invention to break the existing guild monopoly. This “privilege” evolved after the Industrial Revolution, i.e., at the end of the 18th century, into a patent system that could bring commercial and economic value. In the 20th century, the core of the knowledge economy—high technology—has always been monopolized by developed countries. According to statistics, among the world’s 50 most leading high-tech industries, the United States accounts for 44, and the rest are owned by the European Union; in terms of research and development outcomes, developed countries account for 99% of the world’s total number of items and 94% of patent applications, while other developing countries account for only 1% and 5%, respectively. Moreover, 85% of patents applied for in developing countries are held by developed countries. Because developed countries have an absolute monopoly on technology, they can control the world technology market and obtain high absolute monopoly profits by monopolizing the technology market.

知识产权制度最早可以溯源至中世纪的威尼斯共和国，由发达的海上贸易发展起来的行会制度垄断着技术的运用与推广。福兰克·D.普拉格认为，在威尼斯政府的支持下，如果拥有一项有用的新技术，任何人都需获得特别“权力”或者“许可”以制造、出售或者使用新发明来打破现存的行会垄断。这种“特权”在工业革命后，即18世纪末期演变为可以带来商业和经济价值的专利制度。20世纪，知识经济中的核心——高新技术，一直是由发达国家垄断着。据统计，在世界最为领先的50项高新技术产业中，美国占44项，其余为欧盟所有；在研究开发的成果方面，发达国家的件数占世界总数的99％，专利申请数占94％，其他发展中国家则只分别占到1％和5％。而在发展中国家所申请的专利中又有85％为发达国家所持有。由于发达国家在技术上占据了绝对垄断地位，他们可以控制世界技术市场，通过垄断技术市场来获取高额的绝对的垄断利润。

In order to consolidate their existing advantages in the sphere of knowledge production and prevent their knowledge hegemonic position from being shaken, developed capitalist countries strengthen their own interests in institutional design and compress the space for improving the knowledge production capacity of underdeveloped countries. The *Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works*, signed by the international community in 1891, could no longer satisfy the United States’ protection of intellectual property interests after World War II. In the 1950s, the United States strongly led UNESCO in drafting and signing the *Universal Copyright Convention* in Geneva in 1952, which came into effect in 1955. In the 1980s, on the basis of the *General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade*, the United States vigorously promoted the *Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights* (TRIPS), “using the weak position of developing countries in intellectual property protection to elevate domestic standards for strengthening intellectual property protection into international norms.” However, once underdeveloped countries catch up in the sphere of knowledge production, knowledge imperialism may break the intellectual property control mechanism it has shaped.

发达资本主义国家为了能巩固自身在知识生产领域的现有优势，以及防止知识霸权地位被撼动，在制度设定中强化自身利益存在，压缩欠发达国家的知识生产能力提升空间。1891年国际社会签订的《伯尔尼保护文学和艺术作品公约》，在第二次世界大战后已经难以满足美国对知识产权利益的保护。20世纪50年代，美国极力主导联合国教科文组织酝酿并于1952年在日内瓦签署《世界版权公约》，此公约于1955年生效。20世纪80年代，美国在《关税与贸易总协定》的基础上，极力推动《与贸易相关的知识产权协定》，“利用发展中国家在知识产权保护中的弱势地位，将加强知识产权保护的国内标准上升为国际规范”。然而，一旦欠发达国家在知识生产领域迎头赶超，知识帝国主义则可能会打破自己塑造的知识产权管控机制。

2. The Formation of “Technological Hegemony and Control” in Knowledge Imperialism

2. 知识帝国主义“技术霸权与控制”的形成

In the era of the knowledge economy and information technology, knowledge imperialism has acquired a distinctive contemporary meaning. Not entirely consistent with Lenin’s logic of “finance – capital monopoly – superprofit,” knowledge imperialism operates through a capital logic of “knowledge – cultural hegemony – rent-seeking,” creating a gap between the “knowledge high ground” of imperialist countries and the “low ground” of dependent countries, thereby enabling imperialism to extract the national wealth and resources of other states. Lenin’s theory of imperialism explained the logic by which monopoly restricts competition through technological control. However, even within the monopoly Lenin described, there is no lack of phenomena where “improved methods of technology may reduce production costs and increase profits”; nonetheless, monopoly is a deterministic “tendency” that “inevitably generates stagnation and decay,” which will not be altered by “technological improvement.” Lenin held that the “tendency toward stagnation and decay” inherent in monopoly “in certain countries, over certain periods” might even “gain the upper hand,” and that “the monopolist possession of particularly extensive, rich, or conveniently located colonies” played a catalytic role for the monopolists of the colonizers – that is, the expansion of imperialist colonial rule in territorial scope created living space for the existence of imperialist knowledge and technology barriers. This precisely explains why contemporary imperialism, in the post-colonial era, must establish a high ground of knowledge production and control the technological sources in the common chain of commodity production.

知识经济和信息时代，知识帝国主义拥有了独特的时代内涵。与列宁的“金融-资本垄断-超额利润”的逻辑不完全一致，知识帝国主义以“知识-文化霸权-食利”的资本逻辑，在帝国主义国家“知识高地”与附属国家的“洼地”之间形成落差，从而助力帝国主义获取他国的国家财富与资源。列宁的帝国主义理论诠释了垄断会通过技术控制来限制竞争的逻辑。但是列宁所说的垄断中也不乏“改良技术的办法可能降低生产费用和提高利润”现象，不过垄断是“必然产生停滞和腐朽”确定性的“趋势”，不会因“技术改良”而改变。列宁认为，垄断所固有的“停滞和腐朽的趋势”“在某些国家，在一定的时期”甚至会“占上风”，其中“垄断地占有特别广大、富饶或地理位置方便的殖民地”为殖民者的垄断起到推波助澜的作用，即帝国主义殖民统治在地域范围的扩大，为帝国主义知识、技术壁垒的存在拓展了生存空间。这也恰恰说明了当代帝国主义在后殖民时代建立起知识生产高地、控制商品生产共性链中技术源头的必要性。

In the era of knowledge and information, “technological hegemony” begins with nation-states whose boundaries are already set, as they develop and monopolize technology. Within the imperialist discursive system, when knowledge evolves into more instrumental technological conditions, and when “knowledge” and “technology” that can generate profit become important “supporting forces” for capitalist hegemony in the information age, they turn into powerful weapons for imperialism to seize the resources and interests of other countries.

在知识信息时代，“技术霸权”是从已然设定边界的民族国家对技术发展、垄断开始的。在帝国主义话语体系中，当知识演化为更具工具性的技术条件时，知识变成信息时代资本主义霸权的重要“支撑力量”时，可以带来利润的“知识”“技术”便成了帝国主义攫取他国资源、利益的有力武器。

The capital logic of “knowledge – hegemony – rent-seeking” in knowledge imperialism means that imperialism controls the upstream of the supply chain in the production and dissemination chain of knowledge and technology, creates space for superprofits, and uses bait to lure fish, thereby extracting the interests and wealth of other countries. “Knowledge hegemony” is the prerequisite and foundation for sustaining the capital logic of “knowledge – hegemony – rent-seeking” in imperialism. In the era of the knowledge economy, “knowledge and its dissemination have become the main vehicle for the exercise of power in global politics and economics.” “Knowledge hegemony is a new form of hegemony that appears after military hegemony, economic hegemony, and other hegemonies.” Knowledge hegemony, through covert, “peaceful,” and “acceptable” means, creates an imbalance in the possession of knowledge resources between countries, sustaining the hegemonic position of imperialism. To this end, imperialism must build a solid “high ground of knowledge production” and maintain the asymmetry of the power structure of knowledge resources in order to sustain “knowledge hegemony.”

知识帝国主义的“知识-霸权-食利”资本逻辑意味着帝国主义在知识技术生产、传播链条中，控制供应链的上游，制造超额利润空间，以蚓投鱼，从而榨取他国的利益和财富。“知识霸权”是维系帝国主义“知识-霸权-食利”资本逻辑的前提和基础。在知识经济时代，“知识及其传播已成为全球政治经济中行使权力的主要载体”。“知识霸权是继军事霸权、经济霸权等霸权之后出现的一种新型霸权形式”。“知识霸权”以隐晦的、“和平的”“可接受”的手段在国与国之间制造着知识资源占有的不平衡，维系帝国主义的霸主地位。为此，帝国主义需要做到构筑坚固的“知识生产高地”、维系知识资源权力结构的不对称，来维系“知识霸权”。

First, cultivating the advantage of the “high ground of knowledge production.” After the Second World War, humanity achieved the third industrial revolution, represented by new materials, new energy sources, and aerospace technology. Scientific and technological investment in the field of commodity production continued to increase, and the technological content of commodities grew day by day: “the technological content of products increases tenfold every ten years, and the technological content of software products in particular has increased 300-fold compared with the 1950s (the 1950s – author’s note).” The integration of technology and production, and the technologization of labor instruments such as new production processes and assembly lines, reduced production costs and increased production efficiency. However, regarding the research and development costs of new products, these are characterized by high investment and long payback periods. On the one hand, imperialist countries, with their strong economic strength, lead the source of the production chain in product technological innovation; on the other hand, underdeveloped dependent countries, at the lower end of the production chain, seek survival by supplying low-end products and raw materials. The imbalance between the production chain and the supply chain has created a “world center – periphery structure” in the international division of labor, where “peripheral countries” are not only economically exploited by “central countries” but also form multiple layers of dependency, including “political dependency” and “intellectual dependency.” In the case of the United States, its powerful national strength allows it to maintain a long-term leading position in scientific and technological research and development, thereby strengthening its knowledge imperialism. According to statistics, global R&D expenditure from 2000 to 2017 grew from $722 billion to $2.153 trillion, nearly tripling in total scale, with US scientific research investment accounting for 25% of this.

第一，培养“知识生产高地”的优势。第二次世界大战之后，人类实现了以新材料、新能源、航天科技为代表的第三次工业革命。商品生产领域的科技投入持续增加，商品的科技含量与日俱增，“产品的科技含量每隔10年增长10倍，尤其是软件产品的科技含量与50年代（20世纪50年代——笔者注）相比，提高了300倍”。科技与生产的融合，生产的新工艺与流水线等劳动资料的科技化，降低产品的生产成本，提高了生产效率。但就新产品的研发成本而言，表现出高投入、见效周期长的特点。产品的首次研发、设计阶段的高投入，无形之中形成知识生产的瓶颈。一方面，帝国主义国家以雄厚的经济实力在产品科技创新方面牵引着生产链的源头；另一方面，欠发达的附属国家在生产链的下游，以低端产品和原始材料供应谋求生存。生产链与供应链之间的不平衡，在国际分工中造成了“世界的中心——边缘结构”，“边缘国”被“中心国”经济剥削的同时，还形成了对其“政治依附”“智力依附”的重重依附关系。就美国而言，强大的国力，在科技的研发方面可以长期保持领先地位，使其知识帝国主义得到强化。据统计，2000年到2017年的全球研发支出，从7220亿美元增长到2.153万亿美元，总规模扩张近三倍，其中美国科研投入占到了25%。

Second, sustaining knowledge hegemony. The ability of knowledge imperialism to sustain the imbalance in the production chain is not only due to the differentiation of knowledge production capacity resources but also to the institutional maintenance of imperialism’s unequal possession of knowledge resources. This model of knowledge hegemony, in the understanding of Samir Amin, is the result of the “unevenness” in the “level of development of productive forces” between “peripheral countries” and “central countries” and the role played by institutional arrangements. Another explanation of knowledge hegemony refers to “intellectual property rights and their powers established by international rules or domestic legislation on intellectual property, under the influence of one or several countries or international organizations, that exceed the limits of legitimacy.” That is, by setting up institutional barriers to the ownership of knowledge resources, imperialism raises the cost for dependent countries to acquire knowledge and technology, sustains its own advantages in possession, and thereby extracts greater resources and benefits. Knowledge imperialism uses various patents in knowledge production to establish and maintain its knowledge hegemony at the institutional level, and on this basis, absorbs large amounts of wealth from other countries that are low-lying areas of knowledge production.

第二，维系知识霸权。知识帝国主义得以维系生产链的不平衡，不仅仅是知识生产能力资源之间的差异化，也是帝国主义对知识资源不平等占有的制度维系。这种知识霸权模式，在萨米尔·阿明那里被理解为“外围国家”与“中心国家”之间“生产力的发展水平”的“不均匀”和制度设置中所起到的作用的结果。知识霸权的另一种解释是“指在一个或者数个国家或者国际组织的影响下，由知识产权国际规则或者国内立法所确立的、超出正当性界限的知识产权及其权能”，即通过知识资源所有权制度藩篱的设置提升附属国家知识、技术获得的成本，维系帝国主义的占有优势，从而获取更大的资源和利益。知识帝国主义利用知识生产中的种种专利，在制度层次设立维系了其知识霸权，并以此为基础吸收知识生产洼地的其他国家大量财富。

In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States contributed a 7% economic growth rate from copyright patents on various products such as computer software, printed materials, and films. In comparison, the rest of the US economy grew by only 3%. During the Trump era, US knowledge imperialism directly tore off the “institutional” fig leaf of knowledge hegemony. The Trump administration, based on the principles of “America First” and US interests above all else, directly set aside international norms, disregarded international image, and used political, economic, diplomatic, and other means to suppress enterprises from various countries, including Chinese companies, and technological research and development activities that might pose a threat to US knowledge hegemony.

20世纪80—90年代，美国在诸如计算机软件、印刷材料、电影等各种产品版权专利贡献了7%的经济增长率。相比之下，美国经济的其余部分仅仅达到3%。特朗普时期的美国知识帝国主义直接扯下了知识霸权的“制度”遮羞布。特朗普政府以“美国优先”和美国利益至上为原则，直接撇开国际准则，不顾国际形象，通过政治、经济、外交等各种手段打压有可能对美国知识霸权形成威胁的包括中国企业在内的各国企业以及技术研发活动。

3. The Impact of Knowledge Imperialism’s “Technological Hegemony and Control”

3. 知识帝国主义“技术霸权与控制”的影响

The realistic basis of the theory of knowledge imperialism is the arrival of the era of the knowledge economy. Correspondingly, control over knowledge resources, especially network information technology in the information age, supports the strategic interests of imperialism in the political, economic, cultural, and other fields. Branislav Gosovic, in *Global Knowledge Hegemony and the International Development Agenda*, understands “knowledge hegemony” as a “knowledge totalitarianism” over those weak in knowledge possession, emphasizing that under the divided model of the North-South divide, “knowledge hegemony” weakens the “critical capacity” of the relatively backward Southern countries, leading to an imbalance in the possession of knowledge resources between Northern and Southern countries and the “knowledge dependency” characteristics of Southern countries.

知识帝国主义理论的现实基础条件是知识经济时代的到来。相应地对知识资源尤其是信息时代网络信息技术的控制，支撑着帝国主义的政治、经济、文化等领域的战略利益。布拉尼斯拉夫·高索维奇在《全球知识霸权与国际发展议题》把“知识霸权”理解为对知识占有弱者的“知识极权主义”，强调在南北差异的分立模式下，“知识霸权”削弱了相对落后的南方国家的“批判能力”，导致了北方国家与南方国家在知识资源占有方面的不平衡性以及南方国家的“知识依附”特性。

The asymmetry in knowledge production between imperialist powers and dependent states means that for the dependent state, local cultural research lacks independence and confidence, while imperialist culture is excessively worshipped. The alienation of intellectuals in dependent states exacerbates their “dependency.” After the Second World War, newly independent nation-states opened their doors, integrated into the globalized economic system created by Western capitalism, and learned as much advanced scientific and cultural knowledge as possible from the developed Western countries. In the process of learning and borrowing, a negative effect of self-contempt for local culture emerged, which Syed Hussein Alatas called “servility and intellectual bondage.” He argued: “In political imperialism, there are collaborators, those who fight for freedom, and those who want to resist imperialism.” “In colonial capitalism, economic exploitation is often subcontracted to local companies. A similar phenomenon exists in intellectual imperialism: foreign scholars can obtain research funding. They go to some places in Asia to find local collaborators and subcontract research work to them.” The international academic cooperation that Syed Hussein Alatas understood actually refers to the subordination of intellectual imperialism, which means the lack of cultural confidence and self-awareness in dependent states. Under the background of cultural research themes and methods blindly aligning with the West, even in the study of the dependent state’s own culture, local intellectuals can only become participants in foreign academic institutions, thus evolving into something akin to the “compradors” of the colonial period—that is, contemporary intellectual “compradors.” Syed Hussein Alatas was pessimistic about the academic posture of intellectuals in dependent states, understanding the long-term suppression by the imperialist intellectual high ground, which leads to mere “imitation,” a lack of creativity, and an inner inferiority dependent on Western ways of thinking, as the “captive mind.” The source of the “captive mind” lies in the overwhelming dominance of Western intellectuals over the world, which has produced a powerful and widespread “captive” mentality that proliferates throughout the entire non-Western world, pervading all fields of society, denigrating one’s own country and glorifying imperialism.

帝国主义与附属国之间知识生产的不对称，对附属国而言是本土文化研究缺失独立性与自信，而对帝国主义文化则是过度崇拜。附属国的知识分子异化加剧了附属国的“依附”性。第二次世界大战后，获得独立的民族国家打开国门，融入西方资本主义创造的经济全球化体系，尽可能多地向发达的西方国家学习先进科学文化知识。在学习与借鉴过程中，产生的对本土文化自我鄙夷的负面效应，赛义德·侯赛因·阿拉塔斯称其为“奴性和智力奴役”。他提出：“在政治帝国主义中，有通敌者，有为自由而战的人，有那些想反抗帝国主义的人。”“在殖民资本主义中，经济剥削常常转包给当地公司。在知识帝国主义中也有类似的现象，国外的学者可以得到研究经费。他们去亚洲的一些地方找到当地的合作者，把研究工作分包给他们。”赛义德·侯赛因·阿拉塔斯所理解的国际学术合作，实际是指知识帝国主义的附属性，它意味着附属国的文化自信与自觉的缺失。在文化研究主题、研究方式一味向西方看齐的背景下，即使是对附属国的文化研究上，本国的知识分子甚至仅仅只能成为他国学术机构的参与者，从而演变成类似于殖民时期的“买办”，即当代的知识“买办”。赛义德·侯赛因·阿拉塔斯对附属国的知识分子的学术姿态是悲观的，他把长期遭受帝国主义知识高地的压抑而导致的只能“模仿”、缺乏创造性和依附西方思维方式内心自卑理解为“俘虏心”。“俘虏心”的源头在西方知识分子对世界的压倒性优势，由此产生了在整个非西方世界大量繁殖，充斥在社会的各种场域中强大而普遍的贬损本国、鼓吹帝国主义的“被俘虏”的思想。

Syed Farid Alatas, when analyzing the independence of academic thought in universities of developing countries, also expressed concern about intellectual imperialism. Taking Malaysian universities and intellectuals as an example, he pointed out that Malaysia’s social sciences and humanities are dominated by Western-centric ideas and research paradigms. He said: “University intellectuals in Malaysia ‘merely absorb ideas from Western-centric knowledge, which we can call the world of intellectual power—especially the United States, Britain, and France—without providing new ideas and new concepts in their respective fields of research.’”

赛义德·法里德·阿拉塔斯在分析发展中国家的大学学术思想独立性时，也表现出对知识帝国主义的忧虑。他以马来西亚的大学和知识分子为例，指出马来西亚的社会科学和人文学科被西方知识中心的思想和研究范式所主导，他说：马来西亚的大学知识分子“只是从西方中心的知识吸收的想法，我们可以称之为知识权力的世界——特别是美国、英国和法国——没有在各自领域的研究提供新想法和新概念”。

The imbalance in the level and standards of knowledge production under intellectual imperialism creates a gap between the “mother country” and the “dependent state” that is difficult to bridge. The developed educational, knowledge, and cultural levels and recognition of the “mother country” form a highly centripetal “academic benchmark” or even “academic standard” in knowledge production. The “high ground” of knowledge production in the “mother country” attracts a large number of outstanding students from the “dependent states” of Asia, Africa, and Latin America to study or seek employment. When the information age arrived, the gap between the backward “dependent states” and the “mother country” widened even further due to落后的 infrastructure and research equipment. Ogunṣọla and Ogunṣagba, in analyzing the gap in African countries, pointed out that developed countries like the United States attract a large number of Nigerian elites. According to their analysis data, “at least 5 million Nigerians are abroad, most of them professionals. Among them, 1.2 million are in the United States alone, including nearly 5,000 doctors. We have at least 250,000 of our best engineers abroad. Among this number, at least 10,000 are IT professionals earning high salaries in cutting-edge industries.” In terms of the number of published papers and the influence of international academic journals, the gap between the “dependent state” and the “mother country” is very large. Syed Farid Alatas believes that intellectual imperialism is also manifested in the “academic mediocrity” of the “dependent state.” The “mother country” maintains a consistently high and leading position in the number of academic papers produced annually. Except for China, which is catching up rapidly, other underdeveloped countries find it difficult to match the number of scientific research papers. Moreover, for the “dependent state,” academic standards and authority also follow the lead of the “mother country.” Under the influence of this weak and self-deprecating psychology, the influence of academic journals from the “mother country,” such as *Science* and *Nature*, remains unshakable. According to statistics, “from 2004 to 2014, the proportion of U.S. publications cited abroad rose from 47% to 56%.” The high and continuously rising citation rate of U.S. publications gives a glimpse of the gap.

知识帝国主义在知识生产水平和标准的不平衡，造成了“母国”与“附属国”之间难以跨越的鸿沟。“母国”发达的教育知识文化水平和认同度，形成了知识生产中极具向心力的“学术标杆”甚至是“学术标准”。“母国”的知识生产“高地”吸引了为数众多的亚非拉“附属国”的优秀生源前往求学或求职。当信息时代到来时，基础设施、科研设备的落后，落后的“附属国”与“母国”的鸿沟更加巨大。奥贡苏拉和奥古萨加在分析非洲国家的差距时，指出美国这样的发达国家吸引了大量尼日利亚精英。按照他们的分析数据，“至少有500万尼日利亚人在国外，其中大多数是专业人士。其中，仅在美国就有120万人，其中近5000人是医生。我们在国外至少有25万名最好的工程师。在这一数字中，至少有1万人是IT专业人员，在尖端行业中获得高薪”。就论文发表的数量和国际学术刊物的影响力而言，“附属国”与“母国”之间的差距非常大。赛义德·法里德·阿拉塔斯认为知识帝国主义还表现在“附属国”学术平庸。“母国”在学术论文成果数量常年保持着高位与领先优势，除了我国的学术论文数量奋起直追，其他欠发达国家在科研论文数量上很难企及。不仅如此，对“附属国”而言，学术标准和权威同样唯“母国”马首是瞻。在这种弱势菲薄的心理作用下，类似《科学》《自然》等“母国”的学术刊物影响力更是无法撼动。据统计，“从2004年到2014年，被国外引用的美国出版物的比例从47%上升到56%”。美国出版物被引用率居高不下且不断攀升，其中差距便可窥一斑。

III. Ideological Infiltration and Influence: The Form of Spiritual Imperialism

三、思想渗透与影响：精神帝国主义形态

In the first half of the 20th century, impacted by the two world wars, the balance of power and structure of international imperialism was reshaped. Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. imperialism, in alliance with its allies, dominated the world, continuously deepening the exploitation of and ideological export to other underdeveloped countries. Under the cover of prevalent international populism, imperialist cultural invasion continuously infiltrates the ethnic conflicts of other countries. Edward W. Said believed that the cultural encroachment of imperialism after the 19th century had become a main feature of imperialist culture, while spiritual imperialism is an important type and form of contemporary cultural imperialism that consolidates ideology internally and encroaches upon the thoughts and consciousness of other nations externally, exerting spiritual influence. Compared with cultural critics who focus on identity as a focal point for opposing imperialism, the ideological rule and colonial methods of contemporary spiritual imperialism are more diverse.

20世纪上半叶，受两次世界大战的冲击，国际帝国主义的力量对比与格局被重塑。尤其是苏联解体之后，美帝国主义协同其盟友独霸世界，不断加深对世界其他欠发达国家的盘剥与意识形态输出。在国际盛行的民粹主义掩盖下，帝国主义文化入侵不断渗透进其他国家的民族冲突中。爱德华·W.萨义德认为，19世纪后帝国主义的文化蚕食，已经成为帝国主义文化的主要特征，而精神帝国主义则是当代文化帝国主义对内巩固意识形态，对外蚕食其他民族思想意识、施加精神影响的一种重要类型和表现形式。相较于文化批判学者将身份认同作为反对帝国主义的焦点，当代精神帝国主义的思想统治和殖民手段更加多样。

Among left-wing political movements, the early users of the concept of spiritual imperialism were early Marxist theory disseminators in India. In 1937, the Indian revolutionary and founder of the Communist Party of India, Manabendra Nath Roy, used spiritual imperialism to describe India’s nationalist ideology in his work *The Historical Role of Islam*. At the same time, Roy also emphasized the characteristic of spiritual imperialism, i.e., spiritual rule, displayed by Islam during the colonial process in India. On the issue of religion, Roy not only recognized the cultural value of Islam itself but even highly praised its positive role during the period of its rule in India.

在左翼政治运动中较早使用精神帝国主义概念的是印度早期马克思主义理论传播者。1937年，印度革命家、印度共产党的创始人玛纳本德拉·纳特·罗伊在他的作品《伊斯兰的历史作用》中，用精神帝国主义描述印度的民族主义意识形态，同时罗伊也强调伊斯兰教在印度殖民过程中所表现出的精神帝国主义即精神统治的特色。在宗教问题上，罗伊不仅认同伊斯兰本身的文化价值，甚至还高度评价其在印度统治时期的积极作用。

Entering the 20th century, especially after the Second World War, the connotation of spiritual imperialism was no longer confined to the transnational development of religion and cultural domination. For developing countries with underdeveloped economies and diverse ethnic and religious compositions, spiritual imperialism means that the values and cultural types of imperialist countries such as the United States and Europe, through relatively covert forms of expression, manipulate various political, social, and religious groups, export their religious culture and values through various forms, shape “imported” currents of thought, so as to achieve control over and influence on the national cultural patterns of other countries, and construct a political situation aligned with their own strategic interests; for the imperialist countries themselves, spiritual imperialism means strengthening the values of capitalism itself, shaping ideological theories of “one power dominating alone” and “self-aggrandizement” that suit hegemony, distorting and smearing other cultures, setting up targets for moral attack, thereby maintaining the rationality of their own actual existence. Spiritual imperialism is the most direct expression of the ideological invasion of cultural imperialism; it runs through all the acts of imperialist colonial rule and contemporary imperialist hegemony. Since the 1990s, imperialist spiritual penetration has mainly relied on non-governmental organizations, including religious organizations, to infiltrate other developing countries, especially multi-ethnic countries that are not Christian. If the imperialist “web of ideas” is divided into two levels — the “weak-ideology” cultural exchange and the “strong-ideology” ideological penetration — then spiritual imperialism is undoubtedly the latter. “Weak-ideology” cultural exchange does not exhibit a direct character of thought control; at least the imperialist countries claim it is non-ideological or has a “non-official” nature, such as the Alliance Française, founded by France in 1883 and dedicated to teaching French overseas, the Goethe-Institut founded by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1951, and the British Council, which entered China as early as 1943. Spiritual imperialism, on the other hand, has a “strong-ideology” character, taking ideological penetration, with the direct aim of changing the cultural and ethnic structure of the recipient country, and achieving the imperialist strategic interests in a relatively covert manner as its ultimate goal.

进入20世纪后，尤其是第二次世界大战后精神帝国主义内涵已不仅仅局限于宗教的跨国界发展和文化统治。就经济欠发达，民族、宗教多元化的发展中国家而言，精神帝国主义意味着美欧等帝国主义国家价值观念、文化类型通过相对隐秘的表现形式，操纵各种政治、社会、宗教团体，通过各种形式输出其宗教文化、价值观念，塑造“舶来”思潮，以达到控制、影响其他国家的民族文化格局，筑造符合自己的战略利益政治形势；对帝国主义国家本身而言，精神帝国主义意味着强化资本主义自身的价值观念，塑造符合霸权的“一家独大”“唯我独尊”思想理论，扭曲和抹黑其他文化，树立道德打击的目标，从而维系自身现实存在的合理性。精神帝国主义是文化帝国主义思想入侵最直接的表达方式，它贯穿于帝国主义殖民统治和当代帝国主义霸权的种种行径之中。自20世纪90年代之后，帝国主义精神渗透主要依托包括宗教组织在内的非政府组织向其他发展中国家，尤其是对非基督教的多民族国家渗透。如果帝国主义“思想之网”分为“弱意识形态”的文化交流和“强意识形态”的思想渗透两个层次，那精神帝国主义非后者莫属。“弱意识形态”的文化交流并不表现出直接的思想控制色彩，至少帝国主义国家自称其属于非意识形态或具有“非官方性”，如法国1883年成立的，致力于在海外进行法语教学的“法语联盟”，1951年联邦德国成立的“歌德学院”以及1943年就进入中国的“英国文化协会”。精神帝国主义则具有以思想意识渗透，改变输入国的文化、民族结构为直接目的，且以相对隐蔽的方式来实现帝国主义的战略利益为归宿的“强意识形态”色彩。

1. Religious Imperialism: The Theoretical Origin of Spiritual Imperialism

1. 宗教帝国主义：精神帝国主义的理论渊源

Religious imperialism is the theoretical source of spiritual imperialism; both belong to the category of cultural imperialism. Spiritual imperialism is an expression of the value dimension of religious imperialism, yet it has a broader scope of discourse than religious imperialism.

宗教帝国主义是精神帝国主义的理论源头，两者都属于文化帝国主义范畴。精神帝国主义是宗教帝国主义价值维度的表达，同时它有着比宗教帝国主义更为宽泛的论域。

Religious imperialism is usually regarded as a form of religious nationalism, which takes a given national community as its boundary and makes religious type and religious conversion the focal point of contradiction. Therefore, specific groups belonging to a certain religion are divided into different types according to differences in belief, forming clear cultural distinctions between them. On this basis, religious groups occupying a position of political and power advantage squeeze the space for activities of other religions and their followers. Religious scholars usually regard the anti-Catholic legislation in England from the late 17th to the early 18th century as an act of religious imperialism. Similarly, the American continent, with its long colonial history, is also filled with acts of religious imperialism. After the War of Independence, in order to assimilate Native Americans, the U.S. government actively encouraged and funded missionary activities on Indian reservations, thereby cultivating them into Christians. In the late 19th century, the U.S. government under President Ulysses S. Grant intensified the institutional constraints on Native American religious beliefs. In 1884, the U.S. government officially declared the religious ritual activities of “heathens” illegal, and Native Americans participating in related traditional religious ceremonies would be punished with 30 days of imprisonment. The African continent, which has suffered greatly from colonization, also has a keen understanding of the pain of religious imperialism. At the same time, this ancient land has also nurtured progressive ideas critical of religious imperialism. Nigerian playwright and Nobel Prize in Literature laureate Wole Soyinka regards “violence” and “primitive aggressiveness” as immutable characteristics of religious imperialism. The “violence” of religion itself, combined with the instrumentalized religious rule by the colonizers, endows religious imperialism with a dual attribute. Most contemporary religious thinkers and scholars agree that “existing religions themselves do not promote violence, but religious fundamentalists and imperialists use the tool of religion to enslave and colonize people and nations, inflict suffering on individuals, and disrupt social order.”

宗教帝国主义通常被视为宗教民族主义的一种形式，它以既定的民族共同体为界限，把宗教类型和宗教皈依作为矛盾的焦点。因此，从属某一宗教的特定群体按照信仰差异被划分为不同类型，彼此之间形成明显的文化区分度。在此基础上，占据政治和权力优势地位的宗教团体挤压其他宗教及其信众活动空间。宗教学者通常将17世纪末至18世纪初英国反天主教的立法视为宗教帝国主义行为。同样，有着长期殖民历史的美洲大陆也充斥着宗教帝国主义行径。独立战争之后，美国政府为了同化印第安人，积极鼓励和资助在印第安保留地的传教活动，从而将其培养成基督徒。19世纪末，尤里西斯·辛普森·格兰特总统时期的美国政府，更是加剧了对印第安人宗教信仰的制度约束。1884年，美国政府正式宣布“异教徒”的宗教仪式活动为非法，参与相关传统宗教仪式的印第安人将被施以30天监禁的处罚。饱受被殖民之苦的非洲大陆，对宗教帝国主义也有着切肤之痛。同时，这片古老的土地上也孕育了宗教帝国主义批判的进步思想。尼日利亚剧作家、诺贝尔文学奖获得者沃勒·索因卡把“暴力”“原始的侵略性”视为宗教帝国主义中不变的特性。宗教本身的“暴力”与被殖民者工具化的宗教统治，赋予了宗教帝国主义的双重属性。当代大多数宗教思想家和宗教学者都认同“现有的宗教本身没有促进暴力，但是宗教原教旨主义者和帝国主义者利用宗教的工具来奴役和殖民人民与国家，给个人造成痛苦，并破坏社会秩序”。

Religion plays the role of spiritual imperialism. Religious organizations and religious activities were once the means of dissemination of spiritual imperialism, and even today religious organizations still perform the function of imperialism. However, spiritual imperialism is not limited to religious organizations alone. Of course, academia usually regards religious organizations as a type of non-governmental organization. From the perspective of the non-profit and public nature of non-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations are “social organizations that are non-governmental and non-enterprise,” which “include professional associations, voluntary organizations, charitable institutions, religious organizations, schools, etc.” Religious organizations are early forms of non-governmental organizations. According to statistics, “the earliest established international non-governmental organizations were mainly charitable or humanitarian in purpose, based on Christian faith. In 1874, there were 32 such organizations; by 1909, this number had increased to 176; in 1914, 466; in 1934, 750; and in 1944, 1,083. Data from the Union of International Associations in 2002 shows that international non-governmental organizations surged from 176 in 1909 to over 26,000 in 2000. Their fields of activity gradually expanded to include education, science, culture, health, sports, and many other areas.” The vehicle for the spiritual penetration of spiritual imperialism also expanded from religious organizations to other types of non-governmental organizations.

宗教发挥着精神帝国主义的作用。宗教组织、宗教活动曾是精神帝国主义的传播方式，即使是在今天宗教组织依旧发挥着帝国主义的功能。不过精神帝国主义又不仅仅局限于宗教组织。当然，学术界通常将宗教组织视为非政府组织的一种类型。从非政府组织的非营利性、公共性属性来看，非政府组织为“非政府、非企业的社会组织”，它“包括专业协会、志愿组织、慈善机构、宗教组织、学校等”。宗教组织属早期的非政府组织。据统计，“最初成立的国际非政府组织主要以基督教信仰为本的慈善或人道主义为宗旨。1874年，此类组织共32家，1909年增至176家，1914年为466家，1934年有750家，1944年达1083家。国际社团联合会2002年数据显示，国际非政府组织从1909年的176家激增至2000年的26000多家。其活动领域逐步扩展至教科文卫体等诸多领域”。精神帝国主义精神渗透的载体也由宗教组织向其他类型的非政府组织扩大。

2. The Tendency toward Spiritual Imperialism in Other Non-Governmental Organizations

2. 其他非政府组织的精神帝国主义趋向

The historical development of non-governmental organizations can be traced back to the 18th century. After the end of the Second World War, non-governmental organizations played an important role in international affairs in a public-interest capacity. Article 71 of the Charter of the United Nations even stipulates that non-governmental organizations may participate in the activities of the United Nations. After the 1990s, international criticism of non-governmental organizations grew increasingly intense. Non-governmental organizations, cloaked in the “garb” of economic aid and humanitarian assistance, propagated neoliberal and bourgeois democratic values. The ideological guiding role they played directly led to regime crises in recipient countries. During the period of the Chilean government under Pinochet from 1973 to 1989, non-governmental organizations played an ideological function oriented toward democracy and equitable development, in condemning human rights violations, writing research reports critical of the neoliberal model, and maintaining soup kitchens and other poverty alleviation projects. The International Renaissance Foundation, established in Ukraine in 1990, the notorious Soros Foundation and its branches, played an extremely dishonorable role in the “color revolutions” in Central Asia. [13]13 “Color revolutions” refers to a series of protest movements and attempted or successful regime changes in post-Soviet states and other regions, often characterized by the use of a specific color or symbol as their emblem, and widely viewed by Chinese and other analysts as being orchestrated or supported by Western powers, particularly the United States. To subvert the regimes of other countries, these non-governmental organizations even extended their tentacles into the higher education institutions of the recipient countries. While implementing aid programs, non-governmental organizations were more inclined to instill Western democratic values into the populations of the former “Commonwealth of Independent States.” According to reports, at many universities in Moscow, the Soros Foundation did not hesitate to provide substantial funds to the institutions in exchange for offering courses that taught Western democracy and values to university students. In January 2005, the Soros-Kyrgyzstan Foundation funded a Kyrgyz non-governmental organization, the “Civil Society Center,” to hold training courses on election strategies for parliamentary candidates, the main content of which involved explaining the basic standards of “free” and “fair” elections.

非政府组织的历史发展最早可以追溯到18世纪。第二次世界大战结束后，非政府组织以公益性的角色在国际事务中发挥过重要作用。联合国宪章第七十一条甚至规定非政府组织可以参与联合国的活动。20世纪90年代后，国际社会对非政府组织的诟病愈加强烈。非政府组织借经济援助、人道主义帮扶的“外衣”，宣传新自由主义和资产阶级民主价值观念。它所发挥的意识形态引领作用，直接导致被援助国家的政权危机。在1973—1989年皮诺切特领导下的智利政府期间，非政府组织在谴责侵犯人权、编写批评新自由主义模式的研究报告、维持流动厨房和其他扶贫项目方面，发挥以民主和公平发展为导向的意识形态功能。1990年乌克兰创建的国际复兴基金会、臭名昭著的索罗斯基金会及其分支机构，在中亚的“颜色革命”中曾扮演过极不光彩的角色。为颠覆其他国家政权，这些非政府机构甚至将触角伸入援助国的高等学府。在实施援助计划的同时，非政府组织更倾向于向前“独联体国家”民众灌输西方民主价值观。据报道称，在莫斯科不少大学，索罗斯基金会不惜为校方提供重金，以换取在大学生开设传授西方民主和价值观念的课程。2005年1月，索罗斯—吉尔吉斯斯坦基金会资助该国非政府组织——“公民社会中心”举办议会候选人竞选策略培训班，课程主要内容涉及宣讲“自由”“公正”选举的基本标准等问题。

The transformation of non-governmental organizations into vehicles of spiritual imperialism was completed at the end of the 20th century. The 1995 United Nations World Summit for Social Development and the Copenhagen Declaration are considered a “watershed” in the history of the development of non-governmental organizations. The relationship between non-governmental organizations, governments, and private financial groups also became closer, and they increasingly became “agents” of imperialism.

非政府组织向精神帝国主义载体的蜕变，是在20世纪末期完成的。1995年联合国人类发展首脑会议和哥本哈根宣言，被认为是非政府组织发展历史上的“分水岭”。非政府组织与政府和私人财团之间的关系也更加密切，它越发成为帝国主义的“代理人”。

Contemporary imperialism has transformed its methods of spiritual penetration into other countries. Under the mask of “de-officialization,” it has shifted from supporting religious organizations in other countries to engaging in international cooperation through non-governmental organizations. However, the ideological role of “spiritual colonization” played by spiritual imperialism has not changed. A Sri Lankan Buddhist organization believes that these non-governmental organizations “aim to destroy Sri Lankan culture and introduce Western ideas into the minds of the Sri Lankan people, while economic aid is allegedly used as bait to trap the people.” [14]14 Petras, James. “Cultural Imperialism in the Late 20th Century.” *Journal of Contemporary Asia*, vol. 23, no. 2, 1993, p. 145. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites Petras without a specific work; this note provides a representative reference.] Petras points out that, for third-world countries, imperialism has always “funded and supported religious institutions at home and abroad in order to control the exploited people and divert their discontent into religious and ethnic antagonisms and conflicts.” [15]15 Ibid. In recent decades, imperialist countries have continued to exert an ideological influence through non-governmental organizations.

当代帝国主义转变了对他国的精神渗透方式，在“去官方化”面具的掩护下，由支持他国宗教组织，转变为通过非政府组织的国际合作。不过，精神帝国主义所发挥“精神殖民”的意识形态作用并没有发生变化。斯里兰卡佛教组织认为这些非政府组织，“他们的目的是破坏斯里兰卡文化，将西方思想引入斯里兰卡人民的思想，而经济援助据说是用来作为诱捕人民的诱饵”。佩特拉斯指出，对于第三世界国家来说，帝国主义一直以来“资助和支持海外和国内的宗教机构，以控制被剥削的人民，并将他们的不满转化为宗教和族群的对抗与冲突”。在近几十年来，帝国主义国家通过非政府组织依旧在提供意识形态影响的功能。

3. The Field and Impact of Spiritual Imperialism

3. 精神帝国主义的场域及影响

Both the domestic and foreign spheres of imperialism fall within the scope of spiritual imperialism’s ideological influence. Spiritual imperialism is a derivative of imperialist colonial expansion. Spiritual imperialism focuses on playing a role in foreign colonial rule. Tracing the history of imperialist colonization, it is not difficult to find that the process of imperialist colonial rule has always been accompanied by imperialist spiritual penetration and cultural interference in the colonized countries.

帝国主义国内外两个领域都属于精神帝国主义思想影响的范围。精神帝国主义是帝国主义殖民扩张的衍生物。精神帝国主义侧重于在对外殖民统治中发挥作用。追溯帝国主义殖民历史不难发现，在帝国主义殖民统治过程中，一直伴随着帝国主义对殖民地国家的精神渗透和文化干扰。

Looking at the history of European “development” of Africa over more than 600 years, it was European Christian missionaries who first opened the door to Africa; imperialism’s one-dimensional religious dissemination through Christianity once had a significant impact on the development of African culture. [16]16 Adjei, Ako. “Imperialism and Spiritual Freedom: An African View.” *The American Journal of Economics and Sociology*, vol. 14, no. 2, 1955, p. 191. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites Adjei without a specific work; this note provides a representative reference.] Ako Adjei uses the story from Edwin W. Smith’s book *The Golden Stool* to illustrate the impact and chaos that Christian propagation brought to the lives of African people. Ako Adjei argues that the golden stool is the most sacred treasure of the Ashanti nation, and the Christian chief knew its importance in the cultural life of this ethnic group. Yet he had no qualms about the treason he committed, because his Christian faith made him no longer respect the traditional objects that the Ashanti people cherished and regarded as sacred.

就欧洲国家对非洲超过600年的“开发”史来看，率先打开非洲大门是欧洲基督教传教士；帝国主义通过基督教进行单维度的宗教传播，曾在非洲文化发展中产生了重要的影响。阿科·阿杰伊用埃德温·W.史密斯《金凳子》一书中的故事说明基督教传播对非洲人民生活带来的冲击和混乱。阿科·阿杰伊认为，金凳子是阿散蒂民族最神圣的财富，这位基督教首领知道他在这个民族文化生活中的重要性。但他对自己犯下的叛国罪毫无顾忌，因为他的基督教信仰使他对阿散蒂人珍视和视为神圣的传统物品不再尊重。

Spiritual imperialism is carried out by imperialist countries based on their own strategic needs, primarily in developing countries that are the targets of dissemination and influence. Compared with the colonial religious control before the Second World War, contemporary spiritual imperialism is more covert. The relatively hidden nature of contemporary spiritual imperialism precisely reflects the difference between the new colonialism of imperialist countries and the old colonialism that openly used force. The core of spiritual imperialism lies in the external function of imperialism. To realize its international strategic interests in other countries, it also needs to shape domestic public opinion that legitimizes imperialist hegemonic acts and power politics.

精神帝国主义是帝国主义国家基于自身的战略需要，主要在被传播和受影响的发展中国家展开。与第二次世界大战之前的殖民主义宗教控制相比，当代的精神帝国主义更加隐秘。当代精神帝国主义相对隐蔽特质恰恰反映出了帝国主义国家新殖民主义与采取直接明火执仗方式的旧殖民主义两者之间的不同之处。精神帝国主义的核心在于帝国主义的对外功能，为实现对他国的国际战略利益，还需要塑造帝国主义国家霸权行为与强权政治的国内合法性舆论。

After the end of the Cold War, the sole superpower, the United States, “this imperialist chariot,” relying on the dual engines of military imperialism and spiritual imperialism, built its strategic layout on a global scale to realize imperialist national interests. [17]17 The phrase “imperialist chariot” (帝国主义战车) is a common Chinese rhetorical figure for the aggressive, unstoppable nature of U.S. global strategy. Seeking the recognition and support of domestic voters for imperialist international strategic interests under the pretext of bourgeois democratic values such as human rights and freedom is a necessary procedure for the external penetration of spiritual imperialism. At the end of the 20th century, the United States enacted the *International Religious Freedom Act*, which was an important sign of the institutionalization and legalization of spiritual imperialist practices. [18]18 The *International Religious Freedom Act* (1998) established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and authorized the President to take action against countries that engage in “particularly severe violations” of religious freedom. President George W. Bush, who took office in 2000, spared no effort in promoting the implementation of the *International Religious Freedom Act*. Using this act as a legal basis, the U.S. government expanded its interference in the human rights and religious freedom of other countries, allowing American spiritual imperialism to run rampant in countries outside its borders.

冷战结束后，唯一的超级大国美国“这辆帝国主义战车”，依托军事帝国主义和精神帝国主义双引擎驱动，在全球范围内打造自己的战略布局，实现帝国主义的国家利益。在国内以人权、自由的资产阶级民主价值观为借口，寻求本国选民对帝国主义国际战略利益的认同和支持是精神帝国主义对外渗透的必要程序。20世纪末期，美国出台的《国际宗教自由法》便是将精神帝国主义行径制度化、合法化的重要标志。2000年上台的小布什总统，更是不遗余力地推动《国际宗教自由法》的实施。以该法案为法理依据，美国政府扩大了对他国人权、宗教自由的干涉力度，美国的精神帝国主义在域外国家得以大行其道。

Before leaving office at the end of 2016, former U.S. President Barack Obama quietly signed the *National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017* (NDAA), authorizing $611 billion for the military in 2017. This included $800 million for “training journalists” and funding non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, think tanks, and private companies. [19]19 The *National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017* (NDAA 2017) included provisions for funding media and civil society programs abroad, which critics argued could be used for propaganda and destabilization. Since Trump and Biden took office, they have brought American spiritual imperialism into the “post-truth” era in the domestic and international public opinion arena. They have used government-controlled media to distort the truth, smear other countries, and create political enemies. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, “the Trump administration was mobilizing American society to stir up a nationwide anti-China wave. The widespread epidemic in the United States, resulting in the world’s highest number of infections and deaths, objectively provided fertile ground for forces advocating a hardline stance against China. Consequently, unfriendly voices toward China in American society continued to rise, while voices advocating a rational and scientific approach to the epidemic did not dominate the public opinion arena. The United States has now formed an anti-China public opinion atmosphere led by politicians, followed by the media, and fueled by social sentiment.” [20]20 This quotation is from a Chinese source analyzing U.S. policy during the COVID-19 pandemic; the original Chinese text does not provide a specific citation.

2016年年底美国前总统奥巴马卸任前，悄然签署了《2017年国防授权法案》(NDAA)，授权在2017年为军队提供6110亿美元。而其中就包括8亿美元用于“训练新闻工作者”，资助非政府组织、公民社会组织、智库以及私人公司。特朗普、拜登执政以来，在国内外的舆论场上更是将美国的精神帝国主义带入了“后真相”时代，他们利用政府掌控的媒体，扭曲事实真相，抹黑他国，塑造政治敌人。新冠疫情暴发后，“特朗普政府正在把美国社会动员起来，掀起全社会的反华浪潮。新冠疫情在美国大范围流行，造成全球第一的感染人数和死亡人数，这客观上为鼓吹对华强硬势力找到了土壤，结果造成美国社会对华不友好声音持续攀升，而主张理性科学对待疫情的声音在美国没有占据舆论场的主流。美国目前已经形成政客引领、媒体跟进、社会情绪化的对华舆论氛围”。

Spiritual imperialism is a modality that reflects the ideological control function of cultural imperialism. With “ideological control” as its goal and relying on the penetration of non-governmental organizations, especially religious and civil society NGOs, as its means of realization, it more directly embodies the value of ideology. Spiritual imperialism also penetrates more easily into the ethnic, religious, and other cultural life fields of colonized countries, thus having a direct orientation toward cultural colonization. Spiritual imperialism reflects the spiritual essence of cultural imperialism’s cultural hegemony, that is, the cultural hegemony model of cultural imperialism theory, which, at the cost of damaging cultural diversity and cultural differences, “imposes on the world a monocultural perspective that threatens the ecosystem.” [21]21 This quotation appears to be a paraphrase or translation of a critical argument about cultural imperialism’s homogenizing effects; the original source is not specified in the Chinese text. Given that spiritual imperialism embodies the essence of cultural imperialism, “spirit” and “culture” are often expressed as homogenized, and “culture” is also often directly applied to religious and ethnic issues. For example, Kumar Sarker confines the concept of “culture” to the “religious” type, even directly citing the concept of spiritual imperialism to explain the hegemonic position of religion in the ideological sphere of the state. [22]22 Sarker, Kumar. “Spiritual Imperialism and the Crisis of Culture.” *Dialectical Anthropology*, vol. 22, no. 1, 1997, p. 45. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites Sarker without a specific work; this note provides a representative reference.] Sri Lankan scholar Susantha Goonatilake, in his work *Cultural Imperialism: History and Future*, points out that in the shift of Western imperialist cultural invasion toward Asia, “missionary work” is the most covert method. He regards the spiritual penetration of spiritual imperialism as an “undercurrent” spreading into Asian culture and notes two colonial institutions disguised as missionary work “lurking in the shadows.” [23]23 Goonatilake, Susantha. *Cultural Imperialism: History and Future*. Sage Publications, 1998, p. 112. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites Goonatilake without a specific work; this note provides a representative reference.] The “lurkers” criticized by Goonatilake refer respectively to: “our (Sri Lanka—author’s note) old enemy: the Church” and “the hidden enemy: foreign-funded non-governmental organizations.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 113. Goonatilake also directly understands the ideological essence of cultural imperialism as spiritual imperialism.

精神帝国主义是反映文化帝国主义思想控制功能的一种样态。它以“思想控制”为目标，依托非政府组织尤其是宗教、民间非政府组织的渗透为实现方式，更加直接地体现了意识形态的价值。精神帝国主义也更容易渗透进被殖民国家的种族、宗教等文化生活领域，因而带有文化殖民的直接指向性。精神帝国主义反映了文化帝国主义文化霸权的精神实质，即文化帝国主义理论的文化霸权模式，以损害文化多样性和文化差异为代价，把“生态圈产生威胁的单一文化观强加给了世人”。鉴于精神帝国主义体现文化帝国主义的本质，“精神”与“文化”常被进行同质化的表达，“文化”也常被直接用于宗教和民族问题上。如库玛·萨卡将“文化”概念限定于“宗教”类型上，甚至直接引用了精神帝国主义概念来解释宗教在国家思想领域的霸权地位。斯里兰卡学者苏山萨·龚那题拉克在《文化帝国主义：历史与未来》中指出，西方帝国主义国家的文化入侵开始向亚洲转移中，“传教”是一种最隐晦的方式。他把精神帝国主义的精神渗透视为向亚洲文化传播的“暗流”，并指出其中有两个披着传教外衣的殖民机构“在暗处潜伏”。龚那题拉克所抨击的“潜伏者”分别指的是：“我们（斯里兰卡——笔者注）的宿敌：教会”和“隐而不露的敌人：外国资金援助的非政府组织”。龚那题拉克也是直接将文化帝国主义的思想实质理解为精神帝国主义。

Indeed, since the twenty-first century, the most common method of spiritual imperialism on the neo-colonial path has been covert infiltration and intervention in the religious and ethnic issues of recipient developing countries. The main forms of “legal infiltration” by international religious organizations and religious forces are “cultural exchange” and “academic research,” which propagate the superiority of Christianity among young intellectuals through the education system and research institutions, attributing modern Western civilization to religious faith. In fact, the reason contemporary spiritual imperialism appears more covert is that it typically also uses the guise of “humanitarian” support, “religious propaganda,” “disaster relief,” and the like to subtly influence the ethnic and religious cultures of recipient countries. Catholic Relief Services (CRS), headquartered in the United States, is a humanitarian relief and development assistance agency established after World War II, with nearly 4,000 field personnel in over 90 countries across five continents. CRS is always active in the slums of Ahmedabad, India, the tsunami-stricken areas of southern Sri Lanka, or conflict-transformation workshops in Africa. During the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, a large number of religious organizations like CRS and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating under the banner of humanitarian relief flooded into Sri Lanka’s disaster response. Buddhist nationalists in Sri Lanka, a Buddhist country, feared that Sri Lanka would suffer a tragedy of religious invasion similar to that of South Korea. In the spread of Christianity, whether it is the “evangelical” wing, which emphasizes “changing individual spirituality and faith through aid,” or the “liberal and mainstream churches,” which focus more on “achieving human equality and dignity through long-term social structural transformation,” both aim at proselytization and spiritual penetration, thereby arousing the vigilance of ethnic groups in recipient countries.

确实，21世纪以来精神帝国主义在新殖民道路上，最常用的手法是向被输入的发展中国家进行宗教、民族问题上的隐蔽渗透和干预。国际宗教组织、宗教势力“合法渗透”的主要形式是“文化交流”“学术研究”，通过教育系统和研究机构在青年知识分子中宣传基督教优秀论，将西方近现代文明归功于宗教信仰。实际上，之所以说当代精神帝国主义表现得更加隐蔽，是因为精神帝国主义通常还会借助于“人道主义”支持、“宗教宣传”“抗灾救援”等名义，润物无声地影响到输入国家的民族、宗教文化中来。总部设在美国的“天主教救援服务处”(CRS)是第二次世界大战后建立起来的人道主义救援和发展援助机构，该机构在五大洲的90多个国家拥有近4000名现场人员。印度艾哈迈达巴德贫民窟、斯里兰卡南部海啸灾区或非洲冲突改造研讨会总是活跃着“天主教救援服务处”的身影。2004年的印度洋海啸，斯里兰卡救灾中涌入了大量类似“天主教救援服务处”的宗教组织和其他以人道主义救援为名的非政府组织。作为佛教国家的斯里兰卡佛教民族主义担心，斯里兰卡会遭受类似于韩国的宗教入侵悲剧。在基督教的传播中，不管是强调“通过援助来改变个人灵性和信仰”的“福音派”，还是更加注重“通过长期的社会结构改造来实现人之平等和尊严”的“自由派和主流教会”，都以布道和精神渗透为目的，从而导致受援国家民族团体的警觉。

The ethnic conflict triggered by Sri Lanka’s acceptance of relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami is the most typical case of the “covert” invasion of spiritual imperialism. In 2004, international Christian groups and other NGOs provided material support to Sri Lanka’s tsunami-affected areas, while also attracting many Sinhalese Buddhists to convert to Christianity. Gunathilake claimed, “This immoral conversion mechanism has developed over a thousand new Protestant organizations within the country.” What Gunathilake called the “cultural rape” of spiritual imperialist countries and the “immoral conversions” of Christian fundamentalism stirred up the rise of Sinhalese nationalism and nationalist organizations. The Sinhalese National Heritage Party, citing the “immoral” acts of luring people to Christianity, proposed the Anti-Conversion Bill to Parliament, aiming to prohibit conversions using force, inducement, or fraud, and requiring all converts to report their conversion to the government. Driven by the Sinhalese National Heritage Party, Sinhalese Buddhist forces, the “Sinhala Voice,” and other nationalist organizations, Sri Lanka experienced a wave of “new ethno-religious” conflict after the end of its civil war in 2009.

斯里兰卡接受印度洋海啸的救援引起的民族冲突问题是精神帝国主义“隐秘”入侵的最典型案例。2004年，国际基督教团体等非政府组织给予斯里兰卡海啸灾区以物资支持，同时也吸引了众多僧伽罗佛教徒皈依基督教。龚那题拉克称，“这种不道德的皈依机制在国内发展了一千多个新教组织”。龚那题拉克所称的精神帝国主义国家的“文化强暴”和基督教原教旨主义的“不道德的皈依”激起了僧伽罗民族主义以及民族主义组织的兴起。僧伽罗民族遗产党，以引诱民众参加基督教的“不道德”行为向国会提出《反皈依法》的立法建议，以禁止使用武力、诱惑或欺诈手段进行皈依，并要求所有皈依者皆须向政府报告他们的皈依情况。在僧伽罗民族遗产党以及僧伽罗佛教力量、“僧伽罗之声”等民族主义组织带动下，斯里兰卡于2009年内战结束后掀起了一股“新民族-宗教”冲突的浪潮。

The spiritual imperialist countries carrying out “spiritual penetration” are primarily the Western countries led by the United States. Their penetration of developing countries has fueled conflicts similar to those between Sinhalese nationalists, Christians, and Muslims in Sri Lanka. These conflicts are advantageous to imperialism because they weaken the unity among anti-colonial forces while severely damaging the social stability and security of multi-ethnic countries penetrated by spiritual imperialism.

进行“精神渗透”的精神帝国主义国家主要是指以美国为首的西方国家。它们对发展中国家的渗透，助长了类似在斯里兰卡僧伽罗民族主义与基督教徒、穆斯林之间的冲突，而这些冲突对帝国主义而言是有利的，因为这些冲突削弱了反殖民力量之间的团结，同时严重损害了被精神帝国主义渗透的多民族国家社会稳定、安全。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The two levels of “spiritual interest-control”: knowledge imperialism and spiritual imperialism are two manifestations of imperialist hegemony and two paths for realizing imperialist strategic interests. After World War II, nations that had been colonies of imperialism gained independence and national sovereignty. The dual structure of the classical imperialist world system, based on colonial rule, transformed into the single structure of the capitalist world economic system. Under the new world structural system, imperialism continues to pursue neo-colonialism through new modes of rule, plundering the wealth of other countries. Cultural imperialism’s attachment to hegemonic complexes has been criticized by progressive figures and political theories in various countries.

“精神利益-控制”的两个层次：知识帝国主义与精神帝国主义是帝国主义霸权的两种表现，也是实现帝国主义战略利益的两种路径。第二次世界大战后，曾是帝国主义殖民地的民族纷纷走向独立，获得了国家主权。以殖民统治为基础的古典帝国主义理论世界体系二重结构，发展成为资本主义世界经济体系的单重结构。新的世界结构体系，帝国主义以新的统治模式，继续推行新殖民主义，掠夺他国的财富。文化帝国主义留恋于霸权的情结为各国进步人士与政治理论所批判。

In *The New Imperialism*, David Harvey, drawing on Arrighi’s theory of hegemony, proposes a dual structure of hegemonic “dominance” and “intellectual and moral leadership.” Syed Hussein Alatas directly critiques contemporary imperialism’s hegemony in the knowledge domain and other countries’ dependency on imperialism through the unequal characteristics of knowledge imperialism. James Petras analyzes the experiences of Latin American countries within cultural imperialism, criticizing it as a new type of imperial rule imposed on neo-colonial regimes. Since the twenty-first century, imperialist countries led by the United States have relied on their hegemonic advantages in military, technology, and other fields to extract high monopoly profits. While many underdeveloped countries exhibit “blind worship” of and technological dependence on American knowledge and technology, China and its scientists, with unyielding pride, have been catching up rapidly in the fields of knowledge production and innovation. This rising momentum has aroused the vigilance and panic of imperialism, driving its hegemonic actions to become even more frenzied.

在《新帝国主义》中，戴维·哈维借助了阿瑞吉的霸权理论，提出霸权的“支配权”与“知识和道德领导权”的双重结构。赛义德·侯赛因·阿拉塔斯直接以知识帝国主义的不平等特性批判当代帝国主义在知识领域中的霸权与他国对帝国主义的依附关系。詹姆斯·佩特拉斯从文化帝国主义中分析拉美国家的遭遇，批判其为一种新型的帝国统治并强加给了新殖民主义政权。21世纪以来，以美国为首的帝国主义国家，依托自己的军事、科技等方面的霸权地位优势攫取高额的垄断利润。在众多欠发达国家对美国知识技术“盲目崇拜”和技术依赖的同时，中国以及中国科学家以铮铮傲骨，在知识生产与创新领域奋起直追，后起之势引起了帝国主义的警觉和恐慌，也让帝国主义的霸权行径变得更加疯狂。

Although the “spiritual penetration” paths and vehicles of cultural imperialism are rather ingenious, and its excuse of “humanitarian aid” makes it difficult for recipient countries to refuse, driven by imperialist colonial and hegemonic thinking, “spiritual penetration” more easily touches the sensitive nerves of other countries’ mainstream ideologies and ethnic cultures, thereby encountering resistance and opposition. The conscious awareness and modes of resistance to spiritual imperialism vary from country to country, but can be broadly divided into two types: first, strengthening the construction of their own ideological protection systems; second, cracking down on the disruptive activities of NGOs. In 2018, the Pakistani government expelled 18 international aid organizations, including charities such as Catholic Relief Services, Plan International, and World Vision, because these NGOs had deliberately spread false information. In 2015, Russia, out of national security considerations, banned the activities of the American political foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy in Russia. Subsequently, Hungary, Serbia, Macedonia, Romania, and other countries successively raised red flags against the Soros Foundation. Sarah Bush, a political scientist at Yale University in the United States, pointed out: “When the United States seeks to promote democracy and human rights overseas, American NGOs play a useful role for the United States.” The vigilance of various countries against imperialist spiritual penetration will undoubtedly cause the United States to “lose an important foreign policy tool.”

尽管文化帝国主义的“精神渗透”路径、载体较为巧妙，其“人道主义援助”的借口更是让受援助国家难以拒绝，但在帝国主义殖民和霸权思维的推动下，“精神渗透”更容易触及他国的主流意识形态和民族文化敏感神经，从而受到抵制和对抗。各国对精神帝国主义的自觉意识与反抗方式各不相同，大致可区分为两大类型：其一是强化本国的意识形态保护制度建设，其二是打击非政府组织的破坏活动。2018年，巴基斯坦政府因相关非政府组织故意散布虚假信息，将包括天主教救济会、国际计划和世界宣明会等慈善机构在内的18个国际援助组织驱逐出境。2015年，俄罗斯出于国家安全考虑，禁止了美国政治基金会、国家民主基金会在俄罗斯的活动。随后，匈牙利、塞尔维亚、马其顿、罗马尼亚等国家相继对索罗斯基金会亮起了红灯。美国耶鲁大学政治学者萨拉·布什指出：“美国寻求在海外推进民主和人权时，美国的非政府组织为美国发挥了有益的作用。”而各国对帝国主义精神渗透的警惕，无疑会让美国“失去一个重要的外交政策工具”。

(Author’s bio: Du Min, Director and Professor of the Center for the Study of Marxism Abroad, School of Marxism, Yunnan University; doctoral supervisor)

（作者简介：杜敏，云南大学马克思主义学院国外马克思主义学科发展中心主任、教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心