The “Two Integrations” Possess a Thoroughly Dialectical Character

German, French, Ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew – Roland Boer, professor at the School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China, says that when he first began studying classical languages, it was merely a personal challenge; after embarking on the path of Marxist research, the advantage of his linguistic foundation was fully brought into play. Today, in order to better study socialism with Chinese characteristics, Boer has also learned Chinese, and currently 90% of his research is completed in Chinese. Boer states: “To understand how Marxism has taken root in China, one must study and understand Chinese culture and philosophy.” As a scholar who has delved deeply into Western Marxism and is now diligently researching the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, Boer, in an exclusive interview with this newspaper, analyzed from his own research experience the reasons why the Communist Party of China has maintained its vitality and vigor for over a century, as well as the great significance of its “self-revolution.” He also provided a detailed interpretation of the “Two Integrations” from a dialectical perspective and discussed his reflections, inspired by the “Two Integrations,” on how to creatively transform Western cultural traditions.

德语、法语、古希腊语、拉丁语和希伯来语，中国人民大学哲学院教授薄国强（Roland Boer）说他最初学习古典语言时，只是想要挑战自我，走上马克思主义研究道路后，他的语言功底优势得到了充分发挥。如今，为了更好地研究中国特色社会主义，薄国强还学会了中文，目前他90%的研究都用中文完成。薄国强说：“要理解马克思主义如何在中国扎根，必须学习理解中国文化和哲学。”作为一名深耕过西方马克思主义，正在潜心研究马克思主义中国化时代化的学者，薄国强在接受本报记者专访时，从自身的研究经历出发，分析了中国共产党百余年来保持生机和活力的原因及其“自我革命”的重大意义。他还以辩证思维详细解读了“两个结合”，并讲述了自己在“两个结合”的启发下，对如何创造性转化西方文化传统的思考。

The Communist Party of China Maintains Vitality and Vigor through “Self-Revolution”

中国共产党在“自我革命”中保持生机活力

*Chinese Social Sciences Today*: The Communist Party of China has been established for over 100 years, which is rare on a global scale. In your view, what are the unique characteristics of the Communist Party of China?

《中国社会科学报》：中国共产党已经成立100多年了，这在世界范围内并不多见。在您看来，中国共产党有哪些独特之处？

Boer: There are many reasons why the Communist Party of China has been able to maintain its vitality and vigor for over a century, such as self-revolution, leading economic development, establishing the world’s most mature and stable form of socialist democratic governance, and successfully transitioning from historical (revolutionary) legitimacy to practical (governance) legitimacy. What deserves particular attention is the experience of the Communist Party of China in integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities. Here, “realities” includes not only China’s specific concrete conditions and cultural traditions but also the realities of China’s continuously developing history, economy, society, culture, politics, and other dimensions over thousands of years.

薄国强：中国共产党能够持续百余年保持生机和活力的原因有很多，如自我革命、引领经济发展、建立世界上最成熟和稳健的社会主义民主治理形式、成功地从历史（革命）合法性过渡到实践（治理）合法性，等等。特别要注意的是，中国共产党将马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合的经验，这里的“实际”既包括中国的具体现实和文化传统，也包括数千年来中国不断发展的历史、经济、社会、文化、政治等多个维度的现实。

This experience of integration possesses both a practical dimension and a theoretical dimension, and the two dimensions are dialectically interrelated. There are many historical examples, sometimes experiences drawn from difficult and painful setbacks; these practical experiences prompt the formation of theory, which can then guide further practice. Many theoretical expressions originate from practical experience. Each theory has its own uniqueness, yet to a certain extent it continues the theories formed earlier. One might ask, why do new theoretical systems each have their own distinct titles? The answer is obvious: as China develops, new situations constantly emerge, and new challenges follow.

这种结合经验既具有实践维度，也具有理论维度，两个维度相互辩证关联。历史上有许多例子，有时是从艰难痛苦的挫折中吸取的经验，这些实践经验促使理论形成并可以指导进一步的实践。许多理论表达均源于实践经验。每个理论都具有自身的独特性，但又在一定程度上延续了早期形成的理论。人们可能会问，新的理论体系各自有独特的标题，原因何在？答案显而易见：随着中国的发展，新情况不断出现，新的挑战也随之而来。

From an international perspective, the remarkable achievements of the Communist Party of China over the past century and more offer a key insight for communist and workers’ parties in other countries: that each country needs to integrate Marxism with the specific conditions of its own country. This does not mean simply copying the Chinese template, but rather learning important methodological principles from the “Chinese model” or the “CPC model.”

从国际视角看，中国共产党在过去一个多世纪中取得的显著成就对其他国家的共产党和工人党有一个关键性的启示，那就是各国需要将马克思主义与他们所在国家的具体条件相结合。这并不是指简单地复制中国的模板，而是要从“中国模式”或者说“中国共产党模式”中去学习重要的方法论原则。

*Chinese Social Sciences Today*: In May 2015, General Secretary Xi Jinping first proposed to “have the courage to carry out self-revolution” in a speech at the twelfth meeting of the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized that “the Party has found a second answer to the question of how to escape the historical cycle of rise and fall – self-revolution.” [1]1 The “historical cycle of rise and fall” refers to the pattern observed in Chinese dynastic history, where a ruling house rises, flourishes, declines, and falls. Mao Zedong discussed this with Huang Yanpei in 1945; the “first answer” was allowing the people to supervise the government. How do you view the self-revolution carried out by the Communist Party of China?

《中国社会科学报》：2015年5月，习近平总书记在中央全面深化改革领导小组第十二次会议上的讲话中首次提出要“勇于自我革命”。《高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜 为全面建设社会主义现代化国家而团结奋斗——在中国共产党第二十次全国代表大会上的报告》强调，“党找到了自我革命这一跳出治乱兴衰历史周期率的第二个答案”。您如何看待中国共产党展开的自我革命？

Boer: Let us begin with the phrase “have the courage to carry out self-revolution” and analyze each part of this expression step by step. The first word is “courage,” meaning bravery, boldness, or having the courage to accomplish a certain task. Self-reform indeed requires courage, the honesty and frankness to face one’s own mistakes and learn from them, and to carry out necessary improvements deeply and extensively. The second word is “self.” Readers familiar with the communist tradition will recognize this as part of “criticism and self-criticism.” Although this practice can become formulaic, “criticism and self-criticism” embodies comradely trust and honesty. Another point that needs clarification is: who is this “self”? Readers raised in the Western liberal tradition might immediately think of the individual. But that is only part of it; here, “self” also refers to the Party. That is, “self” also has a collective meaning, referring to a Party with its original inspiration and clear communist goals. The third word is “revolution,” whose literal meaning is “to change destiny” – that is, through the tremendous efforts of the Communist Party and the people under its leadership, a society can change its own future destiny.

薄国强：让我们从“勇于自我革命”这个词开始，逐一分析这个表达的每一部分。第一个词是“勇于”，意思是勇敢、大胆或有勇气去完成某项任务。自我改革确实需要勇气，要诚实和坦率地面对自己的错误并从中学习，深入广泛地进行必要的改进。第二个词是“自我”。熟悉共产主义传统的读者会认出这是“批评与自我批评”的一部分。虽然这种做法有可能变得程式化，但“批评与自我批评”体现了同志间的信任和诚实。另外需要明确的是，这里的“自我”是谁呢？在西方自由主义传统中长大的读者可能立刻想到个体。但那只是部分，这里的“自我”同样指的是党。也就是说，“自我”还有一种集体的意义，指的是一个有着原始激励和明确共产主义目标的党。第三个词是“革命”，“革命”的字面意思是“改变命运”，即通过共产党及人们在共产党领导下做出的巨大努力，一个社会可以改变自己未来的命运。

Over the past decade and more, the discipline of the Communist Party of China has been significantly strengthened, effectively identifying weak and corrupt elements and consistently correcting and eliminating them. Furthermore, the positive values that Party members should possess have been emphasized, especially honesty, diligence, being people-centered (rather than self-centered), knowledge of Marxism and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and the value of leading by example.

过去十多年里中国共产党的纪律性得到显著加强，有效识别了薄弱和腐败元素并持续予以纠正和清除。此外，党员应具备的积极价值观，特别是诚实、勤奋、以人民为中心（而不是以自我为中心）、对马克思主义和习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的认识，以及以身作则的价值观，得到了强调。

Understanding the Dialectical Character of the “Two Integrations”

理解“两个结合”的辩证性

*Chinese Social Sciences Today*: General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized that on the profound foundation of over 5,000 years of Chinese civilization, developing and advancing socialism with Chinese characteristics, and integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the finest traditional Chinese culture, is the only path. Please share your views on the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the finest traditional Chinese culture.

《中国社会科学报》：习近平总书记强调，在五千多年中华文明深厚基础上开辟和发展中国特色社会主义，把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际、同中华优秀传统文化相结合是必由之路。请谈谈您对马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合的看法。

Boer: In my view, the “Two Integrations” possess a thoroughly dialectical character. This methodological principle can be expressed in many ways, including “making the past serve the present,” “discarding the outdated and bringing forth the new,” “dialectical selection,” “discarding the dross and selecting the essential,” “removing the false and retaining the true,” and “upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground.” [2]2 These are established Chinese idioms or political phrases. “Making the past serve the present” (古为今用) and “discarding the outdated and bringing forth the new” (推陈出新) were promoted by Mao Zedong for cultural policy. “Dialectical selection” (辩证取舍) and “discarding the dross and selecting the essential” (去粗取精) are common in Marxist methodological discourse. “Removing the false and retaining the true” (去伪存真) is a phrase from Mao’s essay “On Practice.” “Upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground” (守正创新) is a key term in Xi Jinping’s thought. There is no need to elaborate on the background of these expressions here; I will use three of them to illustrate my understanding of this dialectical character.

薄国强：在我看来，“两个结合”具有彻底的辩证性。这一方法论原则可以用多种方式表达，包括“古为今用”“推陈出新”“辩证取舍”“去粗取精”“去伪存真”“守正创新”等。在这里无需详细阐述这些表述的背景，可以用其中三种表述来说明我对这种辩证性的理解。

The first is “discarding the outdated and bringing forth the new.” Its literal meaning is to eliminate what is outdated and stale, and create new things. But its meaning has transformed into seeking new possibilities within cultural traditions, while discarding what is no longer useful. Note that this is not simply a direct use of past cultural values; rather, it is necessary to achieve transformation by integrating tradition into the present.

第一种是“推陈出新”。字面意思是淘汰过时的、陈旧的东西，创造新的事物。但其含义已经转变为在文化传统中寻求新的可能性，同时舍弃那些不再有用的部分。请注意这不仅仅是直接利用过去的文化价值，而是必须通过把传统融入当下实现转变。

The second is “dialectical selection.” This phrase is more direct, expressing the dialectical relationship between new possibilities and cultural traditions. The key point here is that a particular tradition and culture would not be what it is today without its prior history. The past of a particular tradition influences and shapes the present, but the crucial point is that this process involves continuous dialectical evaluation: what from the past should be rejected, and what should be adopted and further developed. For each era and each generation, the answer to this question will be different.

第二种是“辩证取舍”。这个短语更加直接，表达了新可能性与文化传统之间的辩证关系。这里的关键是，特定的传统和文化若没有先前的历史，就不会有今天的样子。特定传统的过去影响并塑造了现在，但关键是这个过程涉及持续的辩证评估：应该拒绝过去的什么，应该采纳和进一步发展什么。对于每个时代和每一代人，这个问题的答案都会不同。

The third is “upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground.” This term is closer to the core of the Marxist philosophical method, involving both defending and following the basic tenets of Marxism, while also proposing new ideas, or regarding Marxism as a profound and genuine innovation. The key here is that only by adhering to basic principles can we truly advance Marxism, and only through creative innovation can we truly put these basic principles into practice.

第三种是“守正创新”。这个词更接近马克思主义哲学方法的核心，涉及既要捍卫和遵循马克思主义的基本原理，又要提出新思想，或将马克思主义视为深刻而真正的创新。这里的关键是，只有坚持基本原则，才能真正推动马克思主义的发展，而我们也只有通过创造性创新才能真正践行这些基本原理。

Overall, the “Two Integrations” deserve serious study and research by Marxist scholars, communist parties, and relevant researchers around the world.

总体而言，“两个结合”值得世界各地的马克思主义学者、共产党以及相关研究人员认真研究学习。

Examining the Western Crisis from a Marxist Perspective

从马克思主义视角透视西方危机

*Chinese Social Sciences Today*: Currently, the West is facing multiple crises – economic, political, social, and cultural. In your view, which values inherent in Marxism can play an important role in responding to these crises?

《中国社会科学报》：当前，西方正面临经济、政治、社会、文化等多重危机。您认为，马克思主义所蕴含的哪些价值观在应对危机方面可以发挥重要作用？

Boer: The world is experiencing a rare but extremely important period of qualitative change. As we have already seen, such periods bring significant risks, but also contain enormous opportunities.

薄国强：世界正在经历一个罕见但极为重要的质变时期。正如我们已然所见，这样的时期带来了重大风险，但也蕴含着巨大的机遇。

Since the 1970s, the “West” has experienced a prolonged period of decline. We must be clear that the “West” here includes only a small number of countries (perhaps only 15–18), whose populations account for only about 12% of the global total. This decline began after the “small boom” that followed the end of the two world wars. From the 1970s onward, Western economic growth rates began to fall, hitting bottom with the 2008 financial crisis. The year 2008 also marked the end of the so-called “neoliberal” experiment, because, although the West attempted to restore the “golden age” of liberalism that ended in 1914, this effort clearly failed to halt the decline that had begun in the 1970s. Since 2008, these economies have stagnated. The so-called financialization phase may be dazzling in some respects, but from a historical perspective, it is often a harbinger of imminent collapse. By now, Western economic policymakers and business leaders have run out of options, and many political economists have written extensively on this.

自20世纪70年代以来，“西方”经历了一段长期的衰退。我们必须明确，这里的“西方”只包括很少的国家（或许只有15—18个），这些国家的人口数量仅占全球人口总数的12%左右。这种衰退始于两次世界大战结束后的“小繁荣”之后。从20世纪70年代起，西方的经济增长率开始下降，到2008年金融危机时跌至谷底。2008年也是所谓“新自由主义”实验的终结时刻，这是因为，虽然西方试图恢复结束于1914年的自由主义“黄金时代”，但这种努力显然未能阻止从20世纪70年代开始的衰退。自2008年以来，这些经济体停滞不前。而所谓的金融化阶段在某种程度上可能令人眼花缭乱，但从历史的角度看，它往往是即将崩溃的先兆。到目前为止，西方的经济决策者和商业领袖们已无计可施，许多政治经济学家对此有很多叙述。

We can view this issue from two interrelated angles. The first is the consensus on the multidimensional crisis facing the West. This crisis affects economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions. Intractable problems in the economic base have exerted growing influence on the social and political systems, including decline, social fragmentation, and even now open social and political division, to the point where people have begun to talk about state deconstruction and torn social structures in many Western countries. Trust in governance and public institutions has fallen to historic lows (below 40% in some English-speaking countries), and the disconnection between political structures and society has severed the supposedly “democratic” link that once existed between them. Culturally, these Western countries have reached their limits. I believe Western society is pervaded by widespread pessimism and melancholy, along with fear of the rest of the world and anxiety over an “existential crisis”—all manifestations of the Western crisis. It seems people know there are problems, but not their roots.

我们可以从两个相互关联的角度来看这个问题。第一个是对西方面临的多维危机的共识。这场危机影响着经济、政治、社会和文化层面。经济基础中难以解决的问题对社会和政治体系产生了越来越大的影响，包括衰退、社会碎片化，甚至如今公开的社会和政治分裂，以至于人们开始谈论许多西方国家中的国家解构和撕裂的社会结构。对治理和公共机构的信任降至历史最低点（在某些英语国家低于40%），政治结构与社会的脱节使得它们之间原本假设存在的“民主”联系被切断。从文化上看，这些西方国家已达极限。我认为西方社会充斥着普遍的悲观和忧郁情绪，还有对世界其他地方的恐惧以及对“生存危机”的焦躁不安，这些都是西方危机的表现。似乎人们知道问题重重，但不知根源在哪。

The second is that Western cultural arrogance and chauvinism still linger. A great deal can happen within a century, including conflicts within the West and a thorough shaking of the economic, political, social, and cultural structures formed over the past few centuries.

第二个是西方的文化傲慢和沙文主义依然挥之不去。一个世纪内可以发生很多事情，包括西方内部的冲突，以及对过去几个世纪所形成的经济、政治、社会和文化结构的彻底动摇。

The West will need a considerable amount of time—perhaps a century—to understand why it has reached this point. The West is still accustomed to blaming others, but I have noticed that it is now beginning to turn its attention to internal problems and contradictions, albeit still with bias. For qualitative change and something new to emerge, there is still a long way to go.

西方需要相当长的时间——或许一个世纪——来理解它们为何走到这一步。西方习惯上还是指责他人，但我注意到现在西方开始转向关注内部问题和矛盾，尽管仍然有偏颇。要出现质变和新事物，仍然任重而道远。

At the same time, in the vast majority of the world, the “real world” is also changing. Periods of qualitative change are full of creativity, and although the terminology differs—historically leaning toward the Atlantic-centered “great rebalancing,” a multipolar world, a new human civilization, etc.—we can see the contours of a new global structure taking shape.

与此同时，世界上绝大多数地方，“真实世界”也在发生变化。质变时期充满创造性，虽然在叫法上有所不同——在历史上偏向于大西洋中心的“重大再平衡”、多极化世界、新的人类文明等，我们可以看出新全球结构的轮廓正在形成。

In light of this multidimensional crisis in Western countries, I have spent the past year or more searching for remedies within Western cultural traditions. Inspired by the Two Integrations [3]3 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture, a key concept in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era., I believe that interaction with traditional culture requires a dialectical shift in thinking, so that values within traditional culture can be transformed in a socialist context. For example, replacing “zero-sum game” with “love your neighbor as yourself,” promoting “all things in common” rather than “possessive individualism,” and encouraging “the restoration of all things” instead of a narrow development concept that benefits only the “chosen.”

考虑到西方国家的这种多维危机，我在过去一年多时间里一直在西方文化传统中寻找化解之方。受到“两个结合”的启发，我认为与传统文化的互动需要一种辩证的思想转变，使传统文化中的价值观能够在社会主义背景下得到转化。如用“爱人如己”取代“零和博弈”，推行“凡物公用”而非“占有性个人主义”，鼓励“万物复兴”而非只有“被选中人”获益的狭隘发展观。

Sino-Western Dialogue in the Field of Marxist Studies

马克思主义研究领域的中西对话

*Chinese Social Sciences Today*: At present, what are the most pressing concerns in Western Marxist studies? In your view, what distinguishes Western scholars’ research on socialism with Chinese characteristics from that of Chinese scholars?

《中国社会科学报》：当下，西方马克思主义研究最关心的问题是什么？在您看来，西方学者对中国特色社会主义的研究有什么区别于中国学者之处吗？

Roland Boer: In fact, I have not focused on Western Marxist academic research for over ten years, because my research centers on Marxist political philosophy and socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, I have recently published three articles on the intellectual structure of “Western Marxism,” the deconstruction of Western hegemony since 1989, and the history of Chinese scholars’ reception of Western Marxism (from the early 1980s to the present). I believe that Western Marxist studies are not the mainstream of Marxist research but a tributary.

薄国强：实际上，我已经10多年没有重点关注西方的马克思主义学术研究了，因为我的研究重点是马克思主义政治哲学和中国特色社会主义。但是，我最近发表了关于“西方马克思主义”思想结构、1989年以来西方霸权的解构以及中国学者对西方马克思主义的接受史（从20世纪80年代初至今）的3篇文章。我认为西方马克思主义研究并不是马克思主义研究的主流，而是一条支流。

As for the second question, the research outcomes of Western and Chinese scholars on socialism with Chinese characteristics differ for many reasons. The first reason is language. Only a few Western scholars can read Chinese originals, so they cannot access existing important research findings. This limitation clearly affects the comprehensiveness and accuracy of their research. Nevertheless, I have noticed that, starting about ten years ago, English translations of major Chinese scholars’ research have gradually appeared, including new journals, journal articles, and monographs.

至于第二个问题，西方学者和中国学者对中国特色社会主义的研究成果不尽相同，原因很多。第一个原因是语言。只有少数西方学者能够阅读中文原文，所以他们无法接触到已有的重要研究成果。这一限制显然影响了他们研究的全面性和准确性。尽管如此，我注意到，从10年前开始，对中国主要学者研究成果的英文翻译工作逐渐展开，包括新的期刊、期刊文章和专著的出版。

The second reason concerns academic discourse. Although there are subtle differences among academic discourses in German, French, and English, overall they share a common academic discourse system developed over the past few centuries, which we can call the “Western academic discourse system.” This discourse system has specific problem-setting, research methods, argument structures, and evaluation criteria for outcomes. Over time, this discourse system has produced many important breakthroughs and discoveries, but it runs the risk of becoming a closed system.

第二个原因涉及学术话语。虽然德语、法语和英语国家的学术话语之间存在细微差别，但总体而言，它们共同继承了一个在过去几个世纪中发展起来的学术话语系统，我们可以称之为“西方学术话语系统”。这一话语系统有特定的问题设定、研究方法、论证结构和结果评估方式。随着时间的推移，这一话语系统产生了许多重要的突破和发现，但它有成为封闭系统的风险。

In contrast, today’s Chinese academic discourse is the product of its own millennia-old academic tradition. Of course, it has also been influenced by other discourse systems, but it has unique methods in research, writing, structure, expression, and evaluation. Although more and more foreign scholars are adapting to Chinese academic discourse, we are still in a period that requires “academic bridges”—bridges that remain faithful to the essence of Chinese academic discourse while conveying research findings in ways that relevant people in various countries can appreciate.

相较之下，今天的中国学术话语是自身千年学术传统的产物，当然它也受到了其他话语系统的影响，但在研究、写作、结构、表达和评估方面有着独特的方法。虽然越来越多的外国学者适应了中国学术话语，但我们仍处于需要“学术桥梁”的时期，这些“桥梁”要忠实于中国学术话语的本质，同时要以各国相关人士能欣赏的方式传达研究成果。

The third reason is the ideological background in which research is conducted. The Western education system is a product of Western liberal ideology, which has gradually developed since the 16th century and is inextricably linked to the capitalist economic system. In contrast, Chinese academia not only inherits a long educational tradition but is also particularly influenced by Marxism and the socialist path. Although this background is still evolving and maturing, it provides a rather unique educational and academic context for scholarly work—a socialist context.

第三个原因是进行研究的意识形态背景。西方教育体系是西方自由意识形态的产物，这种意识形态自16世纪以来逐渐发展至今，与资本主义经济体系有着千丝万缕的联系。与之相比，中国学术不仅继承了悠久的教育传统，而且尤其受到马克思主义和社会主义道路的影响。虽然这一背景仍在不断发展成熟，但为学术工作提供了一个相当独特的教育和学术背景——一个社会主义背景。

Considering these three reasons, the research of Western and Chinese scholars on socialism with Chinese characteristics is not in a state of mutual isolation; academic dialogue occurs from time to time. However, we need to keep these factors in mind and integrate them into Sino-Western academic dialogue to avoid misunderstandings and promote deeper understanding. This is not easy, but it must be done.

考虑到这三方面的原因，西方学者和中国学者对中国特色社会主义的研究并不是处于相互隔绝的状态，学术对话时时发生。然而，我们需要牢记这些因素并将其融入中西学术对话之中，以避免误解并促进更深的理解。这并不容易，但必须做到。

*Chinese Social Sciences Today*: In today’s world, how do you think China can better disseminate and introduce its own culture to other countries? How can Sino-Western cultural exchange be better promoted?

《中国社会科学报》：在当今世界，您觉得中国怎样才能更好地向其他国家传播和介绍自身的文化？如何更好地推动中西文化交流？

Roland Boer: On this question, I like to apply the Marxist distinction between economic base and superstructure; culture is part of the superstructure. We need to understand that the relationship between economic base and superstructure is not fixed or static, nor is it a one-way process. Rather, the relationship between them is dynamic and dialectical. Instead of imagining this metaphor as a building, it is better to think of it as railway tracks and the train running on them.

薄国强：谈到这个问题，我喜欢运用马克思主义对经济基础和上层建筑的区分，文化是上层建筑的一部分。我们需要明白经济基础与上层建筑之间的关系不是固定或静态的，也不是单向的过程。相反，它们之间的关系是动态和辩证的。与其将这个隐喻理解为一座建筑，不如把它想象成铁轨和在铁轨上行驶的火车。

What implications does this have for the influence of Chinese culture in the world and for cultural exchange? With economic development, China has received increasing attention on the world stage, which has laid a solid foundation for promoting the dissemination of Chinese culture and strengthening cultural exchange. Today, almost everyone in the world knows about China’s economic achievements, and I find that more and more people wish to understand China. For example, the Belt and Road Initiative is often regarded as a global infrastructure project focused on the economic base, but it provides a global foundation for cultural dialogue and exchange. Although a few Western countries may be facing multidimensional crises and still have a long way to go in understanding China, people in most countries of the world already have a certain degree of awareness of China and its culture and are eager to learn more.

这对中国文化在世界上的影响和文化交流有什么启示呢？随着经济的发展，中国在世界舞台上受到越来越多的关注，这为促进中国文化传播和加强文化交流奠定了良好的基础。如今，几乎世界上每个人都知道中国的经济成就，我发现越来越多的人希望了解中国。例如，共建“一带一路”倡议很多时候被视为一个全球基础设施项目，侧重于经济基础，但它为文化对话和交流提供了全球基础。虽然少数西方国家可能正面临多维危机，并且在理解中国方面还有很长的路要走，但世界上大多数国家的人对中国及其文化已经有了一定程度的认识，并渴望了解更多。

Interpreting Chinese-Path Modernization from an Etymological Perspective

从词源学视角解读中国式现代化

*Social Sciences in China*: Could you share your understanding of the philosophical significance and connotations of Chinese-path modernization?

《中国社会科学报》：能分享一下您对中国式现代化的哲学意义和内涵的理解吗？

Roland Boer: Etymologically, “modernization” means “to make modern.” So what is the origin of the word “modern”? It is not an ancient Greek or Latin term. Rather, “moderne” first appeared in medieval French. Of course, French is a Romance language, and we can trace it back to the Latin “modus” (a measure or manner). However, the new word “moderne” meant current or contemporary. The French word “moderne” spread to other European languages with only minor changes, becoming “modern” in English, German, Dutch, and so on.

薄国强：从词源学来说，“现代化”的意思是“使现代化”，那么“现代”这个词的起源是什么？它不是古希腊或拉丁语术语。相反，“moderne”首次出现是在中世纪的法语中。当然，法语是一种罗曼斯语，我们可以追溯到拉丁语“modus”（一种度量或方式）。然而，新词“moderne”的意思是当前或当代的。法语单词“moderne”传播到其他欧洲语言，只做了微小改动，在英语、德语、荷兰语等中都是“modern”。

The word “modern” did not emerge in a vacuum. We can say that by the 16th century, in the West, the French “moderne” and the English “modern” both carried the meanings of “recent time and style,” “newest,” and “contemporary.” “Modern” began to take on a dynamic and energetic significance. The reason is that the 16th century was a period of the budding development of Western capitalism, especially with the rise of the commercial empire of the Netherlands. The Netherlands was the first country to achieve “modernization” in the process of developing capitalism, and many countries followed suit. Therefore, the words “modern” and “modernization” were initially closely linked to the emergence of capitalism and the rise of a few Western European countries. In this sense, “modern” and “modernization” were regarded in the West as equivalent to “capitalism” and “Westernization.”

“现代”这个词并不是凭空产生的。我们可以说，到16世纪时，在西方，法语中的“moderne”和英语中的“modern”都有“最近的时间和风格”“最新的”和“当代的”含义。“现代”开始呈现出一种充满活力和动力的意义。究其原因，16世纪是西方资本主义萌芽发展的时期，尤其是随着商业帝国荷兰的崛起。荷兰是首个在发展资本主义的过程中实现“现代化”的国家，许多国家紧随其后。因此，“现代”和“现代化”这两个词最初与资本主义的出现和少数西欧国家的崛起密切相关。从这个意义上说，“现代”和“现代化”在西方被视为等同于“资本主义”和“西方化”。

We can distinguish the dynamic and creative significance of modernization, which opens the path for each country to achieve modernization within the context of global history. Considering the particularity of the Western capitalist path, it is clear that not all countries are suited to such a path.

我们可以区分现代化的动力和创造性意义，它为每个国家在全球历史背景下实现现代化开辟了道路。考虑到西方资本主义道路的特殊性，显然并不是所有国家都适合这样一条道路。

We can also consider this issue from the perspectives of “false” universality and “true” universality. “False” universality refers to a universality that arises within a specific historical context but then forgets or erases the particularity of that historical context, subsequently attempting to claim that this single model is “universal,” applicable to everyone and every country in the world. Clearly, this is the claim that “modernization = Westernization,” that a “modernized” country must be a “capitalist” country. We can also see the “false” universality of Western claims about “universal values,” [4]4 “Universal values” (普世价值, pǔshì jiàzhí) is a term used in Chinese political discourse to critique Western claims that liberal democratic values (e.g., freedom, democracy, human rights) are universally applicable, often contrasted with the Chinese emphasis on values rooted in specific national conditions. which assert the universality of their political systems, rule of law, social forms, and cultural assumptions. The very specific context in which these ideas originally emerged is always ignored.

我们还可以从“虚假的”普遍性和“真实的”普遍性这两个方面考虑这个问题。“虚假的”普遍性是指在特定历史背景下产生的普遍性，但随后忘记或抹去这一历史背景的特殊性，然后试图声称这一单一模型是“普遍的”，适用于每一个人和世界上的每一个国家。显然，这就是“现代化=西方化”的主张，即一个“现代化”的国家必须是一个“资本主义”国家。我们也可以看到西方关于“普世价值”的主张的“虚假的”普遍性，也就是认为其政治制度、法治、社会形式和文化假设具有普遍性。这些想法最初产生的非常具体的背景总是被忽略。

In contrast, “true” universality refers to a universality that is fully aware of and constantly considers the specific context of its emergence and application. If we understand modernization in this way, as a true universality, then modernization in different parts of the world is destined to have different styles or characteristics. Here, considering the connotations of the English word “universal” and the Chinese word “普遍性” (pǔbiànxìng) helps us understand the above logic. In English, the word “universal” contains the meaning of the Latin “unum” (one). Therefore, the term itself assumes a single entity, a single universality: it is usually assumed that there is only one universality. In this sense, the influence of Western philosophy on the meaning of “universality” is strong. The Chinese term used to translate “universality” is “普遍性,” but its semantic field includes the important meaning of “commonality” (共同性, gòngtóngxìng). When we consider the issue from this angle, the singularity of the Latin-derived “universality” disappears, becoming the task of identifying commonality from particularity.

相比之下，“真实的”普遍性是指充分意识到并始终考虑其产生和适用的特定背景的普遍性。如果我们以这样的方式理解现代化，将现代化视为一种真实的普遍性，那么现代化在世界不同地区注定会有不同的风格或特征。在这里，考虑英语中的“universal”和中文中的“普遍性”的内涵有助于我们理解以上逻辑。在英语中，“universal”这个词包含拉丁语“unum”（一个）的含义。因此，该术语本身假设了一个单一实体、一种单一的普遍性：通常假设只有一个普遍性。从这个意义上说，西方哲学对“普遍性”意义的影响是强烈的。而中文用于翻译“universality”的术语是“普遍性”，但其语义领域包括“共同性”的重要含义。当我们从这个角度考虑问题时，拉丁语衍生的“普遍性”的单一性便会消失，变成从特定性中识别共同性的任务。

Therefore, a single universality is neither possible nor necessary, because universality, by definition, must embody particularity. The implications for us are: First, one of the principles of Marxist dialectical analysis is that the contradiction between universality and particularity means these two terms are closely related. Second, Mao Zedong emphasized in the classic text *On Contradiction* [5]5 *On Contradiction* (《矛盾论》) is a philosophical essay by Mao Zedong, written in 1937, which develops Marxist dialectical materialism with Chinese characteristics, focusing on the law of contradiction in things. that “the universality of contradiction” [6]6 “The universality of contradiction” (矛盾的普遍性) is a key concept in Mao’s *On Contradiction*, referring to the idea that contradiction exists in all things and throughout their development, and that the particularity of each contradiction contains this universal aspect. is precisely that the particularity of contradiction contains the universality of contradiction. Finally, this observation is directly relevant to understanding modernization. It can be said: It is precisely in the particularity of the path of modernization that the universality of modernization exists. In other words, if modernization is to become a “true” universality, it must embody the particularity of modernization, embodying diverse paths of modernization.

因此，单一的普遍性既不可能也没有必要，因为普遍性按定义必须体现特性。这给我们的启示是：首先，马克思主义辩证分析的原则之一，是普遍性与特性之间的矛盾意味着这两个术语是紧密相关的。其次，毛泽东在经典文本《矛盾论》中强调的“矛盾的普遍性”，正是矛盾的特性中蕴含着矛盾的普遍性。最后，这一观察与理解现代化直接相关。可以这样说：正是在现代化路径的特性中，现代化的普遍性才得以存在。换句话说，如果现代化要成为一种“真实的”普遍性，它必须体现现代化的特性，体现多样化的现代化路径。

It is in this sense that we can better understand Chinese-path modernization and how it contributes, through its particularity, to the “universality” or “commonality” of modernization.

正是在这个意义上，我们才能更好地理解中国式现代化，以及它如何通过其特性贡献于现代化的“普遍性”或“共同性”。

Online Editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧