The Constructive Content of the Autonomous Knowledge System of the Discipline of Ideological and Political Education

Knowledge is the carrier of a discipline, and the knowledge system is the mode of existence of a discipline. Scholarship, learning, disciplines, and scholars all act around a certain knowledge system. Academic research is precisely the study of disciplinary knowledge, reflecting upon and expanding the disciplinary knowledge system. The main achievement of the 40-year development of the discipline of ideological and political education lies precisely in having accumulated rich practical experience and theoretical conditions, forming a knowledge system (theoretical system) centered on the principles and methods of ideological and political education, substantially promoting and enhancing the scientific level of ideological and political education, and establishing its own disciplinary status. The ensuing question is: how are the knowledge of ideological and political education itself and the knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education distinguished and related? What knowledge supports and constructs the autonomous knowledge system of the discipline of ideological and political education? In what sense is it autonomous? What is its content?

知识是学科的载体，知识体系是学科的存在方式。学术、学问、学科、学人，都是围绕着一定的知识体系在行动。学术研究就是研究学科知识，反思并扩充学科知识体系。思想政治教育学科发展40年的主要成就，正是在于积累了丰富的实践经验和理论条件，形成了以思想政治教育原理与方法为核心的知识体系（理论体系），实质性地推动并增强了思想政治教育的科学化水平，确立了自身学科地位。随之而来的问题则是，思想政治教育的自身知识与用来进行思想政治教育的知识如何区分关联？哪些知识在支撑和建构着思想政治教育学科自主知识体系？何以自主？内容何在？

I. The Historical Materialist Foundation of Knowledge of Ideological and Political Education

一、思想政治教育知识的历史唯物主义基础

The discussion and answer to the question of how the knowledge of ideological and political education itself and the knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education are distinguished and related essentially leads to a principled theoretical premise: since ideological and political education possesses the essential attribute of ideology, and is fundamentally the ideological power by which the state dominates the individual [1]1 This phrase echoes Louis Althusser’s concept of “Ideological State Apparatuses,” where ideology functions as a material force through which the state reproduces the conditions of production by interpellating individuals as subjects. The author uses it to foreground the structural power relation inherent in ideological and political education., then the knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education is mainly ideology (knowledge). Does this mean that the knowledge system of ideological and political education is both ideology and knowledge about ideological work and ideological education? Thus the question becomes: is ideology itself knowledge? What kind of knowledge is it?

对于思想政治教育的自身知识与用来进行思想政治教育的知识如何区分关联这一问题的讨论和回答，实质上导向一个原则性的理论前提：既然思想政治教育具有意识形态的本质属性，在根本上是国家支配个人的意识形态力量[1]，那么用来进行思想政治教育的知识就主要是意识形态（知识），这是否意味着思想政治教育的知识体系，既是意识形态，也是关于意识形态工作和意识形态教育的知识，于是问题就变成，意识形态自身是知识吗？是何种知识？

Today we regard Marxism as a “scientific ideology.” On the one hand, we emphasize that the theoretical research, disciplinary construction, and practical development of ideological and political education (essentially “the ideological and political education of the Communist Party of China”) must adhere to the guiding ideology of Marxism. On the other hand, we emphasize that ideological and political education must study, explain, disseminate, and transform Marxist scientific theory, continuously consolidating the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere. For the ideological and political education of the Communist Party of China, Marxism is both the logical starting point, purpose, and value of ideological and political education, and its knowledge content and theoretical principles. It is both ideology and knowledge, both purpose and process, both principle and method, both content and form. It is the unity of truth and value, the unity of theory and practice.

我们今天把马克思主义视作“科学的意识形态”，一方面强调思想政治教育（实质是“中国共产党思想政治教育”）的理论研究、学科建设和实践发展，要坚持马克思主义指导思想；另一方面又强调思想政治教育要研究阐释、传播转化马克思主义科学理论，不断巩固马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位。对于中国共产党思想政治教育来说，马克思主义既是思想政治教育的逻辑起点、目的价值，也是思想政治教育的知识内容和理论原则，既是意识形态也是知识，既是目的也是过程，既是原理也是方法，既是内容也是形式，是真理与价值的统一、理论与实践的统一。

However, when Marx and Engels used the concept of ideology in a negative and false sense, they presumably would not have regarded their own theoretical doctrine as ideology. Just as they definitively characterized speculative metaphysics as “German ideology” and pointed out: “Where speculation ends—in real life—there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. The empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place” [2]2 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. *The German Ideology*. In *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976. The passage cited is from the section where Marx and Engels distinguish their materialist conception of history from speculative German philosophy.526, they also definitively characterized their own theoretical doctrine as “abstractions which are in contrast to ideology” that can be “illustrated by means of history” [2]2 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. *The German Ideology*. In *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976. The passage cited is from the section where Marx and Engels distinguish their materialist conception of history from speculative German philosophy.526—in their view, historical materialism is not “ideology” but “real knowledge” or “historical science.”

然而，当马克思恩格斯在否定性和虚假性意义上使用意识形态概念时，他们应该不会把自己的理论学说视为意识形态。正如他们把思辨形而上学明确定性为“德意志意识形态”，并指出：“在思辨终止的地方，在现实生活面前，正是描述人们实践活动和实际发展过程的真正的实证科学开始的地方。关于意识的空话将终止，它们一定会被真正的知识所代替”[2]526，他们也明确地将自己的理论学说定性为可以“用历史的实例来加以说明”的“与意识形态相对照的抽象”[2]526——在他们看来，唯物史观不是“意识形态”，而是“真正的知识”或者说“历史科学”。

Does this mean that Marx and Engels negated the knowledge attribute of ideology? Does it mean that ideology itself cannot serve as knowledge? In other words, were all philosophical principles and their systems of ideas before the emergence of historical materialism not “knowledge”? Obviously not, because the scientific principles of historical materialism that Marx and Engels founded were intended to advance civilization, not to abolish it. They only negated the conservative stance and ideological attributes of previous philosophy, but they did not negate knowledge itself, nor did they negate that ideology could become knowledge, nor did they believe that only their own theoretical doctrine was knowledge. However, they redefined knowledge, just as they redefined ideology. They divided knowledge into representational knowledge and essential knowledge, criticizing not only absolute knowledge but also the absolute applicability of knowledge, proposing that human knowledge always deepens and develops with changes in material production practice and its relations of life. In their view, ideology is not “real knowledge” precisely because it is not essential knowledge, yet it always seeks to create an appearance of eternity and universality. They believed that ideology is an inverted consciousness of an inverted world, not grasping reality but distancing itself from and covering up reality [2]2 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. *The German Ideology*. In *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976. The passage cited is from the section where Marx and Engels distinguish their materialist conception of history from speculative German philosophy.525. While expounding the basic principles of historical materialism, Marx and Engels profoundly revealed the roots and essence of knowledge (ideology). Knowledge is neither a priori existence nor bestowed by gods and immortals (on the contrary, knowledge fabricates the a priori and gods and immortals), but rather a form of consciousness originating from the production and life of real individuals. It is not knowledge that determines life, but life that determines knowledge. Ideology and knowledge share a common real root; it is precisely this root of material production that gives rise to class division, enabling ideology to acquire a logic of power and a special form—as knowledge, ideology is not necessarily “real knowledge.”

这是否意味着马克思恩格斯否定了意识形态的知识属性呢？是否意味着意识形态自身不能作为知识呢？换言之，是否在唯物史观出现之前的全部哲学原则及其观念体系都不是“知识”呢？显然不是，因为马克思恩格斯创立的唯物史观科学原理，是为了推进文明而不是取消文明。他们只是否定了以往哲学的保守立场和意识形态属性，却没有否定知识本身，也没有否定意识形态可以成为知识，更没有认为只有自己的理论学说才是知识，但是他们重新定义了知识，就像他们重新定义了意识形态那样。他们将知识分成表象知识和本质知识，不仅批判绝对性的知识，而且批判知识的绝对适用性，提出人类知识总是随着物质生产实践及其生活关系的变革而发展深化。意识形态在他们看来不是“真正的知识”，正是因其不是本质性的知识，却总是想制造永恒性和普遍性的理论外观。他们认为，意识形态是对颠倒世界的颠倒意识，不是在把握现实而是远离并掩盖现实[2]525。马克思恩格斯在阐述历史唯物主义基本原理的同时，深刻揭示了知识（意识形态）的根源和本质。知识既非先验存在，也不是神仙赐予（反倒是知识杜撰了先验和神仙），而是源自于现实个人生产生活的意识形式。不是知识决定生活，而是生活决定知识。意识形态和知识有着共同的现实根源，正是这个物质生产根源引起了阶级分化，才使得意识形态获得权力逻辑和特殊形式——作为知识，意识形态却未必是“真正的知识”。

Ideology conforms to the essential determination of knowledge. The essential requirement of knowledge is generalization, that is, universality based on particularity. As the objective relationality of consciousness, knowledge is the mode of existence and concrete action of consciousness. The generation of knowledge takes as its content the consciousness grasping the universality of the object, although the object here can be either the objective world or the subjective world, or consciousness itself. Consciousness’s consciousness of itself can also generate knowledge, as long as this consciousness possesses ideological content or civilizational content, such as self-consciousness, modes of thinking, and logical methods. Etymologically, the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy coined the concept of “ideology” hoping to establish a “science of ideas” or “science of knowledge” on the basis of “epistemology.” Thus he combined the Greek roots “ιδέα” (idea, concept) and “λόγιο” (doctrine, logos) to form the new word “l'idéologie,” used to express “the doctrine of the universal principles and laws of generation of ideas” [3]3 Destutt de Tracy, Antoine-Louis-Claude. *Éléments d'idéologie*. Paris: Courcier, 1817. Tracy coined the term “idéologie” to denote a science of ideas that would serve as the foundation for all other sciences, grounding knowledge in sensory experience.1817. In the view of Marx and Engels, what distinguishes ideology from general class consciousness lies precisely in its presentation of particular interests as universal interests, and in its generation and implementation of a dominant consciousness, logic of power, and systematic knowledge imbued with a certain political will. It contains analyses and assertions of “what is” regarding historical tradition and social reality, as well as future poetry and spiritual creeds of “what ought to be done.” In form, ideology manifests as legal, economic, political, moral, religious, artistic, philosophical, etc.; in essential connotation, it constitutes a knowledge system and conceptual system composed of “is” and “ought.” Ideology is certainly knowledge, just as Engels said: “any ideology, once it has arisen, develops in conjunction with the existing conceptual material and further processes this material” [4]4 Engels, Friedrich. *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. In *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990. The passage discusses the relative independence of ideology as it develops from inherited conceptual materials.309. If ideology itself were not knowledge, how could it combine with and further process this material to generate new systems of thought and ideas? As conceptual material that influences people’s thoughts and actions, ideology possesses the generalized connotation and theoretical appearance of knowledge. Even if this generalization is erroneous and this appearance is fictitious, it always influences and shapes people’s cognitive world and spiritual world in the name of knowledge and the morality of value. In this sense, those views that deny ideology as knowledge are themselves both a kind of knowledge and a kind of ideology.

意识形态符合知识的本质规定。知识的本质要求是概括，也就是基于特殊的普遍性。作为意识的对象性关系，知识是意识的存在方式和具体行动，知识的生成是以意识把握到对象的普遍性为内容的，尽管这里的对象既可以是客观世界也可以是主观世界或者说意识自身。意识对自身的意识也能生成知识，只要这种意识具有思想内涵或者说文明内涵，比如自我意识、思维方式、逻辑方法。从词源上讲，法国哲学家特拉西创制“意识形态”这个概念，就是希望在“知识学”上探索建立一门“知识的知识学”或“观念的科学”，所以他把希腊词源“ιδ?α”（理念、观念）和“λ?γιο”（学说、逻格斯）合成新词“l'idéologie”，用来表达“观念的普遍原则和发生规律的学说”[3]1817。在马克思恩格斯看来，意识形态超出一般阶级意识的地方，正在于它是把特殊利益说成普遍利益，并在其中生成和贯彻着一定政治意志的主导性意识、权力性逻辑与体系性知识，蕴含着关于历史传统和社会现实“是什么”的分析判定与言辞凿凿，以及“应该这样做”的未来诗情和精神信条。意识形态在形式上表现为法律的、经济的、政治的、道德的、宗教的、文艺的、哲学的，等等；在本质内涵上则由“是”与“应当”构成知识体系和观念系统。意识形态当然是知识，就像恩格斯所说的：“任何意识形态一经产生，就同现有的观念材料相结合而发展起来，并对这些材料作进一步的加工”[4]309，如果意识形态自身不是知识，怎么可能与之结合并作进一步加工而生成新的思想观念体系呢？作为影响人们思想和行动的观念材料，意识形态具有知识的概括内涵和理论外观，哪怕这种概括是错误的、这种外观是虚构的，却也总是要以知识的名义和价值的道义来影响和塑造人们的认知世界、精神世界。在此意义上，那些否认意识形态是知识的观点，本身既是一种知识，也是一种意识形态。

However, not all ideology constitutes “genuine knowledge.” Ideology is not general knowledge; it is class thought, ruling will, a system of indoctrination, and the logic of power. Ideology is a spiritual phenomenon that emerges from the great social division between manual and mental labor and, with the expansion of class struggle, leads to the formation of the state. “The state presents itself to us as the first ideological power over man.” [4]4 Engels, Friedrich. *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. In *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990. The passage discusses the relative independence of ideology as it develops from inherited conceptual materials.307 Ideology always revolves around state power and the activities of governance and administration; its intellectual, cognitive, or truth content is always subordinated to class standpoints and the needs of the state. It is precisely at this point that Marx criticized previous ideologies as not being “genuine knowledge.” On the one hand, this is because they did not proceed from the material life of real individuals as the historical premise, nor from flesh-and-blood human beings, but from imagined, abstract human beings; consequently, they understood neither the movement of history, nor the essence of reality, nor the true meaning of emancipation. On the other hand, it is because these ideologies, constrained by their own material relations and political positions, always adopt a theoretical intuition (however complex that intuition may be) toward the world of appearances. As a result, like vulgar economics, they “merely move within the superficial connections” and “limit themselves to systematizing the banal and conceited views of the bourgeois agents of production about their own best world, giving them a pedantic air and proclaiming them as eternal truths.” [5]5 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture. It is a guiding principle for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.99 Since they can only see the sphere of circulation and ignore the sphere of production, they naturally imagine and extol it as “the very Eden of the innate rights of man” and “the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham.” [5]5 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture. It is a guiding principle for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.204 Abstract activity produces abstract ideology.

但是，并非所有的意识形态都是“真正的知识”。意识形态不是一般知识，它是阶级思想、统治意志、教化体系和权力逻辑。意识形态是由于体力劳动和脑力劳动的社会大分工并随着阶级斗争扩大导致国家产生而出现的精神现象。“国家作为第一个支配人的意识形态力量出现在我们面前。”[4]307意识形态总是围绕国家政权和统治管理活动展开，其思想性、知识性或者说真理性总是要服从于阶级立场和国家需要。正是在这个地方，马克思批评以往的意识形态不是“真正的知识”，一方面是因为它们没有从现实个人的物质生活这个历史前提出发，不是从有血有肉的人出发，而是从想象的、抽象的人出发，因而它们既不懂得历史的运动，也不理解现实的本质，更不明白解放的真谛；另一方面是因为这些意识形态受制于自己的物质关系和政治立场，总是对表象世界采取理论直观（哪怕直观很复杂），结果就像庸俗经济学那样，它们“只是在表面的联系内兜圈子”“只限于把资产阶级生产当事人关于他们自己的最美好世界的陈腐而自负的看法加以系统化，赋以学究气味，并且宣布为永恒的真理”[5]99，既然它们只能看到流通领域而忽略生产领域，自然它们也就将之想象和吹捧为“天赋人权的真正伊甸园”“那里占统治地位的只是自由、平等、所有权和边沁”[5]204。抽象的活动造成了抽象的意识形态。

Thus it can be seen that whether an ideology constitutes “genuine knowledge” depends on whether it proceeds from the production and life of real individuals, whether it can truly reflect and express the economic structure and political movement of the real world, and whether it can consistently represent the fundamental interests of all working people and the direction of historical progress. Engels once summarized Marxism (whose philosophical principle is historical materialism) as “the science of real human beings and their historical development,” [4]4 Engels, Friedrich. *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. In *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990. The passage discusses the relative independence of ideology as it develops from inherited conceptual materials.295 and Lenin regarded it as “scientific ideology.” [6]6 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the principle of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, a key concept in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.137 It is precisely because Marxism achieves the dialectical unity of particularity and universality, truth and value, science and faith, and attains the internal consistency of class consciousness, ideology, science, and faith at the height of the world-historical principle of the proletarian revolution and the movement for human emancipation. It is at once a thoroughgoing class consciousness, a scientific system of thought and theory, and the spiritual principle of socialist ideology.

由此可见，一种意识形态是否构成“真正的知识”，取决于它能否从现实个人的生产生活出发，能否真实地反映和表述现实世界的经济结构与政治运动，能否始终代表全体劳动人民的根本利益和历史前进方向。恩格斯曾将马克思主义（哲学原则是唯物史观）概括为“关于现实的人及其历史发展的科学”[4]295，列宁将之视为“科学的意识形态”[6]137，正是因为马克思主义实现了特殊性与普遍性、真理性与价值性、科学与信仰的辩证统一，达成了阶级意识、意识形态、科学、信仰在无产阶级革命和人类解放运动这个世界历史原则高度上的内在一致，既是彻底的阶级意识，也是科学的思想理论体系，更是社会主义意识形态的精神原则。

The core category of all ideological and political education is ideology. [7]7 Marx, Karl. “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.” In *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 13.4 With the terminological revolution that ideology underwent in the hands of Marx and Engels, the mystery of consciousness and the veil of spirit were lifted, and the discipline of ideological and political education finally became a science, acquiring the historical materialist foundation for understanding its own history of formation and development, as well as its relationship with society and the times. On the one hand, under the guidance of Marxism, it studies the general phenomena and historical processes of ideological and political education that exist universally in human society, revealing its essential principles and grasping its laws of motion. On the other hand, as Marxist ideological and political education, it serves the proletarian revolution and the movement for human emancipation, innovating theory, disseminating truth, consolidating strength, developing production, elevating individuals, and advancing civilization. The concepts, categories, propositions, viewpoints, and theories formed by these two dimensions constitute the main knowledge of ideological and political education research. At the center lies the disciplinary knowledge of ideological and political education—that is, the theory of the laws governing the formation, development, operation, and transformation of ideological and political education itself. This also includes the relevant knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education. After all, ideology has both the distinction between surface knowledge and essential knowledge, and the distinction between what is and what ought to be, as well as the characteristic of knowledge construction that develops by combining with existing ideological materials. This causes “the knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education” to form a concentric knowledge spectrum around “the disciplinary knowledge of ideological and political education.” From the inside out, these are: the essential knowledge system of ideological and political education, the morphological knowledge system of ideological and political education, and the supporting knowledge system of ideological and political education. This answers the first question raised earlier, thereby indicating that the knowledge of ideological and political education has particularity and complexity. It includes both the disciplinary knowledge that clarifies ideological and political education itself and the relevant knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education. The two are mutually embedded and construct each other; their connections outweigh their differences, and they are unified in the historical generation and practical process of ideological and political education.

全部思想政治教育的核心范畴是意识形态[7]4。随着意识形态在马克思恩格斯那里发生术语革命，意识之谜和精神之幕被揭开，思想政治教育学终于成为一门科学，获得了理解自身形成发展历史以及与社会时代关系的历史唯物主义基础：一方面，在马克思主义指导下研究人类社会普遍存在的思想政治教育一般现象、历史进程，揭示本原要义、把握运动规律；另一方面作为马克思主义思想政治教育，服务于无产阶级革命和人类解放运动，创新理论、传播真理、凝心聚力、发展生产、提升个人、推进文明。这两个维度形成的概念范畴、论断观点、思想理论构成思想政治教育研究的主要知识，居于中心地位的是思想政治教育学科知识，也就是关于思想政治教育自身形成发展和运行转化的规律学说，同时也包括用来进行思想政治教育的相关知识，毕竟意识形态既有表象知识和本质知识之别，也有是与应当之分，更有同现有观念材料相结合而发展起来的知识构造特征。这就使得“用来进行思想政治教育的知识”环绕“思想政治教育学科知识”形成一个同心圆知识谱系，从里到外分别是思想政治教育的本质知识体系、思想政治教育的形态知识体系和思想政治教育的支撑知识体系。这就回答了前文提出的第一个问题，由此表明思想政治教育知识具有特殊性和复杂性，既包括思想政治教育自我澄明的学科知识，也包括用来进行思想政治教育的相关知识，两者相互嵌入、彼此建构，联系大于区别，统一于思想政治教育的历史生成和实践过程。

II. The Chinese Context of Independent Knowledge Construction in Ideological and Political Education

二、思想政治教育自主知识建构的中国语境

In this way, when we set out to examine the independent knowledge system of ideological and political education, a new question immediately arises: Since we are constructing independent knowledge, is it superfluous to examine the relevant borrowed knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education, and does it confuse the primary-secondary relationship? Moreover, the relevant knowledge borrowed by ideological and political education is broad in scope and diverse in kind; how can it be examined clearly and completely so as to serve the construction of the independent knowledge system of ideological and political education? In fact, it is precisely from this point that we derive the inquiry into the connotation of “independent knowledge of ideological and political education.” What is meant by independence? Who is independent? Independent from what? This further leads to the question of the Chinese context of independent knowledge construction in ideological and political education. In the general sense of ideological and political education, where are Chinese understanding, Chinese contributions, and Chinese knowledge? In the specific sense of the Chinese Communist Party’s ideological and political education, what contributions has the propaganda, ideological, and cultural work of the New Era (the construction of socialist ideology) made? What is its mission? In what direction is it heading? How will the “Two Integrations” [5]5 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture. It is a guiding principle for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. guide and fulfill the construction of the independent knowledge system of the discipline of ideological and political education? Answering this series of questions helps to establish the rationality and actuality of constructing an independent knowledge system for ideological and political education in contemporary China. The key is to fully understand and properly handle the following four pairs of basic relationships.

如此一来，当我们着手考察思想政治教育自主知识体系，随即引发新的问题：既然是建构自主知识，考察用来进行思想政治教育的相关借用知识是否多此一举、混淆了主次关系？更何况思想政治教育借用的相关知识，范围宽广、种类繁多，又如何考察得清楚完整并服务于思想政治教育自主知识体系建构呢？实际上，正是从这里引申出我们对“思想政治教育自主知识”的内涵追问，何谓自主？谁在自主？从何自主？进而引申出思想政治教育自主知识建构的中国语境问题，在思想政治教育一般上，中国认识、中国贡献、中国知识何在？在中国共产党思想政治教育具体上，新时代的宣传思想文化工作（社会主义意识形态建设）有何贡献、使命何为、方向在哪？“两个结合”又将怎样引领和成全思想政治教育学科自主知识体系构建？回答这一系列问题，有助于确立当代中国建构思想政治教育自主知识体系的合理性与现实性，关键则是要充分认识并妥善处理好以下四对基本关系。

First, the independent knowledge construction of ideological and political education must properly handle its relationship with Western knowledge. Some people question the issue of the independence or autonomization of knowledge, arguing that since knowledge is something to be shared by humanity and universally applicable, there is no such thing as special knowledge belonging to a particular person, nation, or country. Although this view recognizes the universality and principled nature of knowledge, it fails to see that any universality is not only constructed upon particularity but is always applicable to the concrete object of that particularity. Knowledge, as a universal, can certainly be universally applied, but it can only be applied within the concrete of the universal, or rather, it can only be applied within the concrete universal, universally applied to the concrete. If it is not concretely applied, knowledge is merely abstract universality and untested principle; knowledge is merely the formal appearance without specific content. It is precisely the concrete application of knowledge that generates the subjectivity of knowledge, enabling the subject to use existing knowledge to generate new knowledge, and enabling knowledge, through the intermediary of “people with practical power,” to become both “the existence of the universal” and “the subject of action.” The concrete application of knowledge is the subjectivization and actualization of knowledge. The reproduction of knowledge is when this subjectivization and actualization, having shed perceptual experience, arrives once again at universality and principledness through rational elevation. Thus, applied knowledge becomes developed knowledge, the concretization of knowledge becomes the abstraction of knowledge, and the subjectivization of knowledge becomes the autonomization of knowledge. In this sense, so-called independent knowledge is not knowledge determined by oneself, nor is it knowledge that is recognized as knowledge only because one acknowledges it as such. Rather, it is new knowledge generated in the application of one’s own knowledge. It is not knowledge self-determination but knowledge self-awareness and knowledge innovation. It is a reflection on and transcendence of existing knowledge, new knowledge that embodies new practice, new experience, new thinking, and new style. Independent knowledge is the presence and affirmation of the subject in the reproduction of knowledge.

第一，思想政治教育自主知识建构要处理好与西方知识的关系。有人质疑知识的自主性、自主化问题，认为既然是知识，就应该人类共享、普遍适用，不存在哪个人、哪个民族或者哪个国家的特殊知识问题。这种观点虽然看到了知识的普遍性和原理性，但却没有看到任何普遍性不仅是构造于特殊性之上，而且总是适用于特殊性这个对象具体上。知识作为共相当然是可以普遍适用的，但只能在普遍的具体中适用或者说只能在具体的普遍中适用、普遍地适用于具体。如果不是具体适用，知识就只是抽象的普遍性和未经检验的原理，知识就只是没有特殊内容的形式外观。正是知识的具体适用才生成了知识的主体性，才使主体可以利用已有知识生成新的知识，才使知识通过“有实践力量的人”这个中介，既成为“共相的存在”，也成为“行动的主体”。知识的具体适用就是知识的主体化和现实化，知识的再生产就是这种主体化和现实化摆脱了感性经验在理性提升中重新抵达了普遍性与原则性，于是适用知识就变成了发展知识，知识的具体化变成了知识的抽象化，知识的主体化也就变成了知识的自主化。在此意义上，所谓自主知识不是由自己决定的知识，不是自己承认其为知识才是知识，而是在自己的知识适用中生成的新知识，不是知识自决而是知识自觉、知识创新，是对既有知识的反思和超越，是体现出新实践、新经验、新思维、新风格的新知识。自主知识是知识再生产的主体在场与确权。

Marx once said: “Gunpowder, the compass, and the printing press — these are the three great inventions that heralded the arrival of bourgeois society. Gunpowder blew the knightly class to pieces; the compass opened up the world market and established colonies; and the printing press became the tool of Protestantism, in general the means for the revival of science, and the most powerful lever for creating the necessary preconditions for spiritual development.” [8]8 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's fine traditional culture, as proposed by Xi Jinping. It is considered a further ideological emancipation following the first integration (Marxism with the Chinese context).338 The three great inventions were knowledge originating from ancient China. In their concrete application, the Western bourgeoisie gave rise to modern natural sciences and the humanities and social sciences, shaping the autonomous knowledge system of Western society. This latter, riding on the material power and spiritual means of the bourgeoisie, spread and swept across the globe, becoming the “Western knowledge” that still holds discursive power internationally today. Constructing a Chinese autonomous knowledge system is first and foremost a response to the discursive hegemony of Western knowledge. Whether it is natural scientific knowledge, including its advanced technologies, or the social sciences, humanities, and arts, to shake off a state of apprenticeship, avoid being controlled by or disturbed by others, we must re-examine and dialectically handle Western knowledge. Especially for the autonomous knowledge construction of ideological and political education, critically treating Western knowledge (values) is itself an ideological action and a task of ideological and political education. This requires neither closing off nor fawning on foreign things, neither self-sufficiency nor arrogance. The key lies in taking Western knowledge as existing conceptual material, moving from borrowing to construction, from reflection to transcendence, and constructing a knowledge system, discourse system, and value system with Chinese characteristics.

马克思曾经说过：“火药、指南针、印刷术——这是预告资产阶级社会到来的三大发明。火药把骑士阶层炸得粉碎，指南针打开了世界市场并建立了殖民地，而印刷术则变成新教的工具，总的来说变成科学复兴的手段，变成对精神发展创造必要前提的最强大的杠杆。”[8]338三大发明是源自古代中国的知识，西方资产阶级在具体适用中催生了近代以来的自然科学和人文社会科学，塑造了西方社会的自主知识体系，后者随着资产阶级的物质力量和精神手段，蔓延席卷全球成为时至今日依然掌握着国际话语权的“西方知识”。构建中国自主知识体系首先就是针对西方知识的话语霸权来说的。无论是自然科学知识包括其先进技术，还是社会科学、人文艺术，我们要摆脱学徒状态、避免受制于人或者受其干扰，就必须重新审视和辩证处理西方知识，特别是对于思想政治教育自主知识建构来说，批判性地对待西方知识（价值观念）本身就是意识形态行动和思想政治教育任务。这就需要既不封闭也不媚外、既不自足也不自负，关键在于将西方知识作为现有观念材料，从借用到建构、从反思到超越，构建出具有中国特色的知识体系、话语体系、价值体系。

Second, the autonomous knowledge construction of ideological and political education must properly handle its relationship with traditional moral instruction. The nation is the subject of the formation, development, dissemination, and transformation of knowledge. Strictly speaking, the individual is often not the true subject of knowledge autonomization. Knowledge is the product of social practice and collective wisdom, although this product often requires the theoretical creation of outstanding figures to come into being. If the essence of the human being, in its reality, is the ensemble of all social relations, then knowledge is precisely this “ensemble”; knowledge is the sum total of spiritual activities and ideas of the human essence in the practice of social production and interaction. Knowledge has never been the knowledge of any individual; knowledge is always the knowledge of humanity, originating from society and applied in society. Just as Marx upheld the creed that those fortunate enough to be able to devote themselves to scientific research should first use their learning to serve humanity, the social essence and human spirit of knowledge are first embodied in the national character and national consciousness of knowledge. A nation is a nation precisely because it has constructed knowledge and symbols that signify its own particularity; the spiritual content of national continuity is the intergenerational transmission and epochal development of national knowledge. This means that examining the contemporary Chinese context of the autonomous knowledge construction of ideological and political education cannot bypass the traditional Chinese system of moral instruction (virtue knowledge) and start anew. After all, no tradition truly dies, and likewise, no modern concept or educational ideal has completely abandoned the tradition of virtue. It is just that the degree to which fine traditions are “revived” in real life depends on the extent to which this system of moral instruction (knowledge) can meet practical needs. Constructing contemporary Chinese autonomous knowledge cannot do without the philosophical examination and modern investigation of the “Two Integrations.” [6]6 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the principle of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, a key concept in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. In accordance with the spiritual principle and requirement of creative transformation and innovative development, we must seek truth from facts [实事求是] in transforming traditional virtue concepts and incorporating them into the knowledge system and social practice system of ideological and political education.

第二，思想政治教育自主知识建构要处理好与传统教化的关系。民族是知识形成发展、传播转化的主体。严格来说，个人往往不是知识自主化的真正主体。知识是社会实践、集体智慧的产物，尽管这个产物经常需要借助于杰出人物的理论创造才能问世。如果说人的本质在其现实性上是一切社会关系的总和，那么知识正是这个“总和”，知识是人的本质在社会生产交往实践中的精神活动与观念总和。知识从来不是哪个人的知识，知识总是人类的知识，源自于社会、运用于社会。就像马克思所秉持的信条，有幸能够致力于科学研究的人，首先应该拿自己的学识为人类服务，知识的社会本质、人类精神首先寓于知识的民族性、民族自觉之中。民族之所以是民族，正是因为这个民族建构了象征自身特殊性的知识与符号，民族赓续的精神内涵是民族知识的代际传承和时代发展。这就意味着考察思想政治教育自主知识构建的当代中国语境，不可能绕开中国传统教化体系（德性知识）另起炉灶，毕竟没有一种传统会真正死去，同样也没有哪个现代观念、教育理念彻底抛弃了德性传统，只不过优良传统在现实生活中“复活”的程度取决于这个教化体系（知识）能够满足现实需要的程度。构建当代中国自主知识，离不开“两个结合”的哲学审视和现代考察，按照创造性转化、创新性发展的精神原则要求，实事求是地将传统德性理念改造并纳入思想政治教育知识体系和社会实践体系。

Third, the autonomous knowledge construction of ideological and political education must properly handle its relationship with Chinese practice, Chinese experience, and Chinese achievements. When describing his own research method, Marx once said: “The anatomy of the human being is a key to the anatomy of the ape. Conversely, the intimations of higher forms in lower species can be understood only when the higher form itself is already known.” [8]8 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's fine traditional culture, as proposed by Xi Jinping. It is considered a further ideological emancipation following the first integration (Marxism with the Chinese context).29 By dissecting the reality of bourgeois society, this “human being,” Marx discovered the laws of development and evolutionary logic of all human society, pointing out the historical inevitability of humanity ultimately entering communist society. The “human being” metaphorically refers to the mature or highest stage reached by historical development up to the present. For the socialist movement, socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era is the “human being”; for humanity’s pursuit of modernization, Chinese-path modernization is the “human being”; for the universal phenomenon of ideological and political education, especially the development of proletarian ideological and political education and the history of socialist ideology (cultural) construction, the ideological and political education of the Communist Party of China is the “human being.” Only by deeply dissecting the “human being” can we truly reflect on and critically transcend Western knowledge and traditional culture, constructing a Chinese autonomous knowledge system originating from Chinese practice, Chinese experience, and Chinese achievements. This requires that in expanding knowledge, ideological and political education must both serve the concrete particularity of propagating, interpreting, consolidating, and developing Chinese practice, Chinese experience, and Chinese achievements, and also keep in view the overall situation of human society and the great trends of world history, contributing wisdom, sharing concepts, and expanding civilization on the fundamental questions of where to go and how to get there.

第三，思想政治教育自主知识建构要处理好与中国实践中国经验中国成就的关系。在叙述自己的研究方法时，马克思曾经说过：“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙。反过来说，低等动物身上表露的高等动物的征兆，只有在高等动物本身已被认识之后才能理解。”[8]29马克思通过解剖资产阶级社会现实这个“人体”发现了整个人类社会的发展规律和演进逻辑，指明了人类终将进入共产主义社会的历史必然性。“人体”喻指历史发展至今达到的成熟阶段或者最高阶段。对于社会主义运动来说，新时代中国特色社会主义是“人体”，对于人类追求现代化历程来说，中国式现代化是“人体”，对于思想政治教育普遍现象特别是无产阶级思想政治教育发展和社会主义意识形态（文化）建设历史来说，中国共产党思想政治教育是“人体”。只有深度解剖“人体”才能真正反思和批判性地超越西方知识与传统文化，建构出源自于中国实践、中国经验和中国成就的中国自主知识体系。这就要求思想政治教育在知识扩充上，既要服务于中国实践中国经验中国成就的宣传阐释、巩固发展这个具体特殊性，又要着眼人类社会全局和世界历史大势，在向何处去、怎么去这个根本问题上贡献智慧、共享理念、拓新文明。

Fourth, the autonomous knowledge construction of ideological and political education must properly handle its relationship with knowledge from other disciplines. The very term “autonomous knowledge” implies the reproduction of knowledge, the production and development of knowledge by knowledge. Since the essence of knowledge is generalization, engaging in knowledge production necessarily relies on existing knowledge, because generalization is always carried out through knowledge. If existing knowledge cannot complete the generalization, then new knowledge must be invented, leading to knowledge innovation and civilizational progress. When Heidegger said that the task of thinking lies in “abandoning previous thinking in order to determine the matter of thinking” [9]9 Martin Heidegger, *Hegel's Concept of Experience* (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 75. The original Chinese citation is from the Chinese translation of Heidegger's work.89, one wonders whether he realized that this view itself is a kind of thought, and that this thought is precisely an elaboration and deepening of Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” People can, of course, examine thinking itself, but they must do so with the help of thought and knowledge. In this sense, no thought, knowledge, or discipline is absolutely autonomous; all knowledge is related knowledge, and all disciplines are interdisciplinary. The true meaning of the autonomous knowledge construction of ideological and political education lies precisely in recognizing and properly handling its distinctions and connections with other disciplinary knowledge. At the historical origin of ideology, many disciplinary knowledges—philosophy, ethics, literature, religious studies, history, political science, pedagogy, and others—all served the activities of ideological and political education. Today, in studying ideological and political education holistically and specifically, we must not only regard related disciplinary knowledges such as philosophy and political science as “knowledge used for ideological and political education,” but also understand and express them as knowledge that originally belonged to “the matter of ideological and political education itself.” This is similar to the disciplinary relationship between philosophy and other humanities and social sciences: related disciplines are both “used” by ideological and political education and also construct its “substance,” revealing a theoretical logic where substance and function share the same origin and are thoroughly connected.

第四，思想政治教育自主知识建构要处理好与其他学科知识的关系。自主知识这个提法本身就意味着知识的再生产，是知识对知识的生产和发展。既然知识的本质是概括，那么进行知识生产就必然要借助于已有知识，因为概括总是要通过知识来概括，如果原有知识无法完成概括，那就发明新的知识，这就有了知识革新和文明进步。当海德格尔说思的任务在于“放弃以往的思想，而去规定思的事情”[9]89之时，不知他是否意识到这个观点本身就是一种思想，而这个思想正是对笛卡尔“我思故我在”思想的发挥和深入。人们当然可以只考察思本身，但需要借助思想和知识来考察。在此意义上，没有哪种思想、知识或者说学科，是绝对自主的，全部知识都是相关知识、全部学科都是交叉学科。思想政治教育自主知识建构的真实要义，恰恰就是认清并处理好与其他学科知识的区别与联系。在意识形态的历史开端处，哲学、伦理学、文学、宗教学、历史学、政治学、教育学等诸多学科知识，都是服务于思想政治教育活动的，而今我们在整体性上专门研究思想政治教育，既要把哲学、政治学等相关学科知识看成“用来进行思想政治教育的知识”，也要将其理解和表述为起初就属于“思想政治教育事情本身的知识”。这类似于哲学与其他人文社会科学的学科关系，相关学科既为思想政治教育所“用”，也建构着思想政治教育之“体”，展现出体用同源、体用贯通的理论逻辑。

In summary, the main tasks of constructing autonomous knowledge of ideological and political education in the contemporary Chinese context can be summarized as: reflecting on and transcending Western knowledge, inheriting and sublating traditional moral instruction, explaining Chinese reality and contributing world wisdom, clarifying disciplinary relations and establishing one’s own independence, integrating and constructing the knowledge about the formation and development of ideological and political education and the knowledge used for ideological and political education into an autonomous knowledge system of the discipline of ideological and political education, using knowledge to consolidate the discipline, and using theory to guide practice.

综上，在当代中国语境下建构思想政治教育自主知识的主要任务概括起来就是：反思和超越西方知识，继承和扬弃传统教化，阐释中国实际贡献世界智慧，厘清学科关系确立自身独立性，将关于思想政治教育形成发展的知识和用来进行思想政治教育的知识整合建构为思想政治教育学科自主知识体系，用知识夯实学科，用理论引领实践。

III. The Systemic Content of Autonomous Knowledge of the Discipline of Ideological and Political Education

三、思想政治教育学科自主知识的体系内容

Constructing autonomous knowledge is precisely intended to enable the discipline of ideological and political education not only to maintain its research distinctiveness within the matrix of Marxist theory disciplines, but also to demonstrate its disciplinary advantages within the entire system of philosophy and social sciences. This autonomy is relative; it does not deliberately pursue a so-called pure disciplinary knowledge that is exclusively owned by and used only by ideological and political education. Losing rich substantive content and the spirit of the times, and setting aside knowledge from related disciplines, discussing ideological and political education merely within the secondary discipline easily falls into departmentalism, formalism, and instrumentalism, failing to satisfy people’s desire for content in the discipline’s development. Of course, the discipline of ideological and political education cannot be submerged in substantive knowledge, losing its own theoretical advantages and disciplinary positioning. Not only would its own knowledge system fail to be constructed, but it would also affect the direction and quality of constructing the system of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, after all, the construction of the autonomous knowledge system of ideological and political education has not only disciplinary value but is also, in essence, an ideological action. Based on the above discussion and existing research achievements in the academic community (scholars such as Liu Jianjun, Wang Shunan, Huang Rongsheng, Gao Guoxi, Xiang Jiuyu, Sun Qi’ang, Dong Yahua, Yang Wei, Ren Zhifeng, among others, have successively made structural designs and layered explanations of the content of the autonomous knowledge system of the discipline of ideological and political education, covering various connotations including discipline and scholarship, principles and methods, concepts and ideas, static and dynamic aspects, history and reality, tradition and modernity), this article explores the main content of the autonomous knowledge system of ideological and political education from a disciplinary perspective that relatively distinguishes between constitutive and functional aspects.

建构自主知识，正是要使思想政治教育学科不仅在马克思主义理论学科方阵中保持研究特色，而且在整个哲学社会科学体系中彰显学科优势。这种自主性是相对的，并非刻意追求专属于思想政治教育、只有思想政治教育使用的所谓纯粹学科知识。失去丰富的实体性内容和时代性精神，抛开相关学科知识，仅在二级学科谈论思想政治教育容易掉入本位主义、形式主义和工具主义，不能满足人们对学科发展的内容渴望。当然思想政治教育学科也不能淹没于实体性知识，失去自身理论优势和学科定位，不仅自身知识体系建构不起来，还会影响中国特色哲学社会科学体系构建的方向和品质，毕竟思想政治教育自主知识体系建构不只具有学科价值，其在本质上还属于意识形态行动。基于上述讨论和学界现有研究成果（刘建军、王树荫、黄蓉生、高国希、项久雨、孙其昂、董雅华、杨威、任志锋等学者先后就思想政治教育学科自主知识的体系内容作了架构设计和分层释理，涵盖学科与学术、原理与方法、概念与观念、静态与运动、历史与现实、传统与现代等各方面内涵），本文从构成性和功能性相对区分的学科视角，探讨思想政治教育自主知识体系的主要内容。

(I) The Constitutive Knowledge System of Ideological and Political Education

（一）思想政治教育构成性知识体系

Constitutive knowledge is distinguished from the operational process of ideological and political education. It focuses on the formation and development of ideological and political education, concentrating on examining the knowledge system concerning the constitution of ideological and political education itself, constructing the disciplinary knowledge and theoretical system for the existence and development of ideological and political education itself, and emphasizing the questioning and answering of what ideological and political education “is.”

构成性知识是区别于思想政治教育运行过程来说的，着眼于思想政治教育的形成发展，重点考察关于思想政治教育自身构成的知识体系，建构思想政治教育本身存在和发展的学科知识与理论体系，侧重于追问和回答思想政治教育“是什么”。

First, constructing the conceptual system of ideological and political education with ideology as the core. Concepts are a universal grasp and definitional expression of the object of cognition. Concepts are the initial form of knowledge; at the beginning, knowledge consists of simple concepts. However, these concepts merely refer to things as nouns (A or B), rather than defining things as judgments (A is…B). Only when concepts mature enough to achieve self-clarification and strict definition, and when name and reality truly correspond, do concepts become advanced forms of knowledge, theoretical forms. In essence, disciplinary construction deals more with concepts and the logical relationships and theoretical hierarchies among concepts. Whether a discipline is mature depends on whether it has an organized conceptual system. The more concepts there are, the more they can cover real life, the broader the research object of the discipline, the richer its theoretical connotations, and the longer its development history. For example, in philosophy, there is hardly any concept that cannot be incorporated into it, yet no one uses this to deny philosophy’s professionalism and disciplinarity, because the entire conceptual system of philosophy is constructed and developed around its unique core disciplinary concept—Being—and continuously endows “Being” with new conceptual understandings and knowledge forms, thereby forming philosophy’s unique mode of thinking and research methods, such that philosophy always exists and develops within the conceptual development of “Being.” The more fully a thing develops, the more names and labels it has, the deeper the connotation and broader the extension of its concept, and the more concrete and thorough people’s understanding of that thing becomes. The same applies to the discipline of ideological and political education. Rather than debating which concept among “moral education,” “propaganda,” “political work,” “ideological and political work,” “political education,” “ideological work,” and “propaganda, ideological, and cultural work” is the best summary of “ideological and political education,” it is better to acknowledge that this conceptual diversity precisely indicates that the time is ripe for constructing a conceptual system. The key lies in finding the discipline’s own unique concept and constructing a conceptual system with it as the core. Thought, politics, or education can all be considered unique concepts of the discipline of ideological and political education, but the conceptual foundation that can integrate these three and always distinguish itself from other disciplines while being deeply embedded in them is ideology. Ideology is the essential attribute of ideological and political education; ideological and political education is an ideological force that influences and shapes people, an ideological action by the state for governance and administration. As the conceptual foundation for the existence and development of ideological and political education, ideology is the core concept for constructing the conceptual system of ideological and political education. Although it is not the initial starting concept, it is the most important, fundamental concept that runs through the entire system.

一是以意识形态为核心建构思想政治教育概念体系。概念是对认识对象的普遍性把握和定义式表述。概念是知识的起初形式，开端处的知识就是一些简单的概念。但是这些概念仅仅作为名词（A或者B）在指称事物，而不是作为判断（A是……B）在定义事物，只有当概念日益成熟能够作出自我澄明和严格规定，名与实真正契合起来时，概念才是知识的高级形式、理论形态。从实质上看，学科建设更多地是在处理概念以及概念之间的逻辑关系和理论层级。一个学科是否成熟，就要看这个学科有没有成建制的概念体系，概念越多越能覆盖现实生活，这个学科的研究对象就越广大、理论内涵就越丰富、发展时间就越悠久。例如哲学，几乎没有哪个概念不能被纳入其中，但并没有人以此否定哲学的专业性和学科性，因为哲学的整个概念体系都是围绕其独有的核心学科概念——存在——而构造发展起来的，并不断赋予“存在”新的观念理解与知识形式，由此也形成了哲学所独有的思维方式和研究方法，使得哲学总是在“存在”的概念发展中存在和发展。一个事物只有发展得越充分，其名称和标签越多，这个事物的概念才会内涵越深、外延越广，人们对这个事物的理解才会越具体和透彻。思想政治教育学科同样如此，与其争论“德育”“宣传”“政治工作”“思想政治工作”“政治教育”“意识形态工作”“宣传思想文化工作”哪个概念才是“思想政治教育”的最好概括，不如承认这种概念多样性恰恰说明建构概念体系的时机已成熟，关键在于找到自身学科的特有概念并以之为核心构造概念体系。思想、政治或者教育都算得上是思想政治教育学科的独特概念，但能把三者整合起来并始终将自己与其他学科区别开来同时又深度嵌入其中的概念基座是意识形态。意识形态性是思想政治教育的本质属性，思想政治教育是影响和塑造人的意识形态力量，是国家进行统治和管理的意识形态行动。作为思想政治教育存在发展的概念基座，意识形态是建构思想政治教育概念体系的核心概念，虽然不是起始性的开端概念，但却是最为重要、贯穿始终的根本性概念。

Second, constructing the categorical system of ideological and political education with thought and reality as the core. Categories are concepts of concepts; they are basic concepts for understanding and grasping concepts. All categories are concepts, but not all concepts can become categories; only those basic concepts that play a mediating role in the cognitive system are categories. Categories are the intermediaries and tools of cognition, which often causes categories to appear in the form of dualistic concepts, but this does not mean that categories are always a pair of concepts. In fact, the core concept of ideology itself can not only serve as a category but is also a core category. Categories appearing in the form of dualistic concepts (A and non-A) are the inherent structure and expressive habit of speculative logic. Strictly speaking, any basic concept (category) can be decomposed into dualistic concepts, and likewise, any dualistic concepts can be combined into new basic concepts (categories). As the core concept of ideological and political education, ideology can be decomposed into several dualistic categories: “thought and reality,” “individual and society,” “truth and value,” “freedom and will,” “cognition and action,” “economic base and superstructure,” and so on. Among these, “thought and reality” is the most fundamental category of ideological and political education. The relationship between thought and reality is the basic problem of ideological and political education; all ideological and political education deals with and handles this problem. In this sense, Marx once said: “It is not enough for thought to strive for realization; reality must itself strive toward thought”[7]7 Marx, Karl. “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.” In *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 13.13, which indirectly reveals the process essence of ideological and political education: it is both the process of making reality ideological and the process of making thought real; thought and reality are both opposed and unified within the ideological structure. Phenomena of ideological and political education can always be explained through the interactive process of thought and reality from the perspective of historical materialism, and concepts of ideological and political education can always be clarified through the cognitive mediation of thought and reality from the perspective of historical materialism. Therefore, “thought and reality” is the core category for constructing the categorical system of ideological and political education.

二是以思想与现实为核心建构思想政治教育范畴体系。范畴是概念的概念，是理解和把握概念的基本概念。范畴都是概念，但不是所有概念都可以成为范畴，只有那些在认知体系中起到中介作用的基本概念才是范畴。范畴是认识的中介和工具，这使得范畴往往以对偶性概念出现，但这并不意味着范畴总是一对概念，实际上意识形态这个核心概念不仅本身可以作为一个范畴，而且是核心范畴。范畴以对偶性概念（A与非A）的形式出现，是思辨逻辑的内在结构和表述习惯，严格来说任何基本概念（范畴）都可以分解成对偶性概念，同样任何对偶性概念也都可以组合成新的基本概念（范畴）。意识形态作为思想政治教育的核心概念，从中可以分解出若干对偶性范畴，“思想与现实”“个人与社会”“真理与价值”“自由与意志”“认知与行动”“经济基础与上层建筑”等等；其中“思想与现实”是最基础的思想政治教育范畴。思想与现实的关系问题是思想政治教育的基本问题，全部思想政治教育都是在应对和处理这个问题。在此意义上，马克思曾说过：“光是思想力求成为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想”[2]13，无疑间接揭示了思想政治教育的过程本质：既是现实的思想化过程，也是思想的现实化过程，思想与现实在意识形态结构中既对立又统一。思想政治教育现象总是可以通过思想与现实的互动过程获得历史唯物主义解释，思想政治教育概念总是可以通过思想与现实的认识中介获得历史唯物主义澄明，因而“思想与现实”是建构思想政治教育范畴体系的核心范畴。

Third, constructing the propositional system of ideological and political education with its basic issues as the core. The relationship between thinking and being, as the fundamental question of philosophy, gives rise to differences among philosophical schools such as materialism and idealism, epistemology and agnosticism, rationalism and irrationalism, and dominates a series of philosophical propositions such as "What is the origin of the world?", "How do people understand the origin?", "What is the essence of man?", and "How does man know himself?" Those philosophies that can serve as the true essence of the spirit of the times have invariably proposed or resolved (even if only partially) major philosophical propositions, such as Heraclitus's dialectical proposition, Plato's theory of Ideas, Descartes's epistemological turn, Hume's skepticism, Kant's antinomies, Hegel's proposition that substance is subject, and Marx's propositions of changing the world and human emancipation. It is precisely these philosophical propositions, which reflect the course of human history and the logic of intellectual evolution, that run through the history of philosophy like a string of pearls. It is through responses to, challenges to, and transcendence of these philosophical propositions—even their renewed resolution and questioning—that philosophical systems of thought and theoretical schools are formed, making the history of philosophy the history of philosophical propositions and thus philosophy itself. To construct an autonomous knowledge system for ideological and political education, it is also necessary to center on the fundamental issue of the relationship between thought and reality, to sort out, summarize, propose, and deepen the system of propositions (problems) in ideological and political education. By raising and resolving distinctive propositions in ideological and political education—such as "How do ideas enter the mind?", "Where do people's correct ideas come from?", and "How can knowledge be transformed into belief?"—we can expand knowledge, develop theory, and respond to reality.

三是以思想政治教育基本问题为核心建构思想政治教育命题体系。思维与存在的关系问题作为哲学的基本问题，引申出唯物主义与唯心主义、可知论与不可知论、理性主义与非理性主义等哲学流派差异，并主导了诸如“世界的本原是什么”“人们如何认识本原”“人的本质是什么”“人如何认识他自己”等系列哲学命题。能够作为时代精神的真正精华的那些哲学，无一不是曾提出或解决（哪怕是部分解决）过重大的哲学命题，比如赫拉克利特的辩证法命题、柏拉图的理念命题、笛卡尔的认识论转向命题、休谟的怀疑论命题、康德的二律背反命题、黑格尔的实体即主体命题以及马克思的改变世界和人的解放命题，等等。正是这些反映人类历史进程和思想演变逻辑的哲学命题，像珍珠手串一样贯穿了哲学史，正是对这些哲学命题的回应、质疑和超出甚至是重新解决和提问，才形成了哲学的思想体系和理论流派，才使得哲学史就是哲学的命题史因而也就是哲学本身。建构思想政治教育自主知识体系，也需要围绕思想与现实的关系问题这个基本问题，梳理和总结、提出和拓深思想政治教育命题（问题）体系，通过提出和解决诸如“观念如何进入头脑”“人的正确思想从哪里来”“知识何以转变为信仰”等独具特色的思想政治教育命题来扩充知识、发展理论、回应现实。

Fourth, constructing the conceptual system of ideological and political education with the view of ideological and political education as its core. The view of ideological and political education is people's fundamental perspective on what ideological and political education is and what it ought to be, and it is an essential understanding of the laws governing the formation and development of ideological and political education. The dominant propositions of ideological and political education in different eras are, in fact, conceptual representations of the view of ideological and political education in that era. Ideological and political education concepts are precisely the reflections on and transcendence of existing views of ideological and political education that people achieve in the process of raising and resolving the epochal propositions of ideological and political education. The concept of ideological and political education crystallizes the presuppositional, reflective, and profound understanding of the fundamental issues concerning the existence and development of ideological and political education in a given era, and it manifests the main achievements of the exploration of principles and practical development of ideological and political education in the spiritual domain of that era. For Marx and Engels, the spiritual quest of the proletariat's concept of ideological and political education was to unravel the riddle of ideology, while its essential pursuit was the emancipation of humanity. Therefore, when Xi Jinping emphasized that "'the Second Integration' is another ideological emancipation,"[8]8 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's fine traditional culture, as proposed by Xi Jinping. It is considered a further ideological emancipation following the first integration (Marxism with the Chinese context). he was in fact raising a major proposition for ideological and political education in the New Era, while also innovating the concept of ideological and political education and deepening the understanding of its essence. This constitutes the core meaning of the autonomous knowledge system of ideological and political education in the New Era, requiring the academic community to interpret and construct a conceptual system of ideological and political education centered on the view of ideological and political education in the New Era.

四是以思想政治教育观为核心建构思想政治教育理念体系。思想政治教育观是人们对思想政治教育是什么以及应当是什么的根本看法，是关于思想政治教育形成发展规律的本质认识。不同时代的主导性思想政治教育命题，实际都是对这个时代思想政治教育观的理念表征。思想政治教育理念正是人们在提出和解决思想政治教育时代命题过程中，对既有思想政治教育观作出的反思和超越。思想政治教育理念凝结着一个时代关于思想政治教育存在发展根本问题的前提性、反思性和深刻性认识，彰显了这个时代思想政治教育原理探索和实践发展在精神领域的主要成就。在马克思恩格斯那里，无产阶级思想政治教育理念的精神求索是破解意识形态之谜，本质追求则是为人类求解放。因此，习近平在强调“‘第二个结合’是又一次的思想解放”[10]时，实际上是给新时代思想政治教育提出了一个重大命题，同时也创新了思想政治教育理念、深化了思想政治教育本质认识，构成了新时代思想政治教育自主知识体系的核心要义，需要学界围绕新时代思想政治教育观来阐释和建构思想政治教育理念体系。

(II) The Functional Knowledge System of Ideological and Political Education

（二）思想政治教育功能性知识体系

Structure determines function, and function optimizes structure. Functional knowledge of ideological and political education is a dynamic investigation and theoretical processing of the operational process of ideological and political education. Constitutive knowledge and functional knowledge are relative to each other; in fact, they are inseparable and interpenetrating. The former focuses on examining the self-system of ideological and political education, while the latter focuses on examining the actions of ideological and political education as this system unfolds in social life, asking and answering the question of "how to do" ideological and political education. This involves both the principles and methods of the process of ideological and political education and the knowledge of related disciplines used for ideological and political education.

结构决定功能，功能优化结构。思想政治教育功能性知识是对思想政治教育运行过程的动态考察和理论加工。构成性知识和功能性知识是相对来说的，实际上两者密不可分、你中有我我中有你，前者重点考察思想政治教育的自身体系，后者重点考察这个体系在社会生活中展开的思想政治教育行动，追问和回答思想政治教育“怎么办”，既涉及思想政治教育过程的原理与方法，也涉及用来进行思想政治教育的相关学科知识。

First, constructing the system of laws of ideological and political education with its basic laws as the core. The truth form of a concept is law. Law is the oppositional and logical determination of the infinite multiplicity and contingency of things; this determination further reflects the phenomenal changes of things and reveals the essential distinction between a thing and other things. Law and essence are categories of the same order; they are the historical logic inherent in things themselves, deeply hidden behind phenomena, and determining things or governing phenomena. This historical logic, as it unfolds in the process of ideological and political education, constitutes the operational law of ideological and political education and forms the core of the system of principles of ideological and political education. In a broad sense, the disciplinarization of ideological and political education is the regularization of ideological and political education—that is, the study and revelation of the laws of ideological and political education. Of course, the laws of ideological and political education referred to here are at a meso-level, referring only to the specific ideological forms followed in the process of the generation and operation of ideological and political education. Constructing a system of laws for ideological and political education means providing the discipline with hardcore knowledge and basic principles, which should be centered on the basic laws of ideological and political education. However, there is considerable debate in the academic community about what constitutes the basic laws of ideological and political education. This debate is precisely a process of deepening the study of the laws of ideological and political education and concretizing the knowledge of its principles. The author believes that since ideology is the core category of all ideological and political education, the basic law of ideological and political education should be the law of ideology (the law of the formation, development, operation, and transformation of ideology), and this is precisely the basic principle revealed by historical materialism as "genuine knowledge."

一是以思想政治教育基本规律为核心建构思想政治教育规律体系。理念的真理形态就是规律。规律是对事物的无限杂多及其偶然性作出的反对性规定和逻辑性规定，这种规定又进一步反映了事物的现象变化并揭示出该事物同其他事物的本质区别。规律和本质是同等程度的范畴，是事物本身所固有的、深藏于现象背后并决定着事物或支配着现象的历史逻辑。这个历史逻辑展现于思想政治教育过程就是思想政治教育的运行规律，构成思想政治教育原理的体系内核。在宽泛意义上讲，思想政治教育学科化就是思想政治教育规律化，就是研究和揭示思想政治教育规律。当然这里所说的思想政治教育规律是中观意义上的，仅指思想政治教育生成运行过程中所遵循的那些意识形态具体性。建构思想政治教育规律体系就是要为思想政治教育学科提供硬核知识和基本原理，应当围绕思想政治教育基本规律来进行。不过学界关于何谓思想政治教育基本规律争论较多，这种争论恰恰是在深化思想政治教育规律研究、具化思想政治教育原理知识。笔者认为，既然意识形态是全部思想政治教育的核心范畴，那么思想政治教育基本规律就应该是意识形态规律（意识形态的形成发展和运行转化规律），而这正是历史唯物主义作为“真正的知识”所揭示的基本原理。

Second, constructing the methodological system of ideological and political education with dialectical materialism as its core. Heidegger once said: "The generation of Being toward itself takes place in speculative dialectics. Only the movement of the Idea, that is, the method, is the matter itself."[9]9 Martin Heidegger, *Hegel's Concept of Experience* (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 75. The original Chinese citation is from the Chinese translation of Heidegger's work.75 Being always exists according to a certain method, and thus always exists with a certain method. Knowledge is precisely the method by which we arrive at the truth of Being. For the existence, development, operation, and transformation of ideological and political education, method is not a theoretical shell or formal mold that can be stripped away, but a conceptual force and internal logic that runs through the whole. The principles of ideological and political education and the methods of ideological and political education are intimately connected: principles are principles precisely because they can serve as methods for guidance and application, and methods are methods precisely because they can grasp laws as principles. This shows that constructing a methodological system for ideological and political education cannot be limited to the level of "application"; rather, it must face ideological and political education itself, examining not only theoretical appearance and logical form but also the principles of thinking and the system of transformation. The methodological system of ideological and political education consists of methodology, basic methods, and specific methods, among which dialectical materialism is the method of methods and the principle of principles. Dialectical materialism is both the foundational knowledge guiding the deepening development of ideological and political education in the New Era and the overarching method for constructing the autonomous knowledge system of ideological and political education. Dialectical materialism will prove itself to be a method of ideological and political education, just as Marxism, which implements its basic spirit, is itself a scientific ideology—both a knowledge method guiding how to teach and a principled knowledge used for teaching.

二是以唯物辩证法为核心建构思想政治教育方法体系。海德格尔曾说过：“存在向它本身的生成是在思辨辩证法中进行的。只有观念的运动，即方法，才是事情本身。”[9]75存在总是按照一定的方法存在，因而总是存在一定的方法。知识正是我们抵达存在真相的方法。对于思想政治教育存在发展和运行转化来说，方法不是可供剥离的理论外壳和形式模具，而是贯穿始终的观念力量和内在逻辑。思想政治教育原理和思想政治教育方法息息相通，原理之所以是原理正是因为能够作为方法指导运用，方法之所以是方法正是因为能够作为原理把握规律。这就说明建构思想政治教育方法体系不能只在“用”这个层面，而是要面向思想政治教育本身，既考察理论外观和逻辑形式，也考察思维原理和转化体系。思想政治教育方法体系由方法论、基本方法和具体方法构成，其中唯物辩证法是方法的方法、原理的原理。唯物辩证法既是指导新时代思想政治教育深化发展的基础知识，也是思想政治教育自主知识体系建构的总方法。唯物辩证法将证明其自身就是一种思想政治教育方法，正如贯彻其基本精神的马克思主义本身就是科学的意识形态，既是指导怎么教的知识方法，也是用来教的原理知识。

Third, a support system for conducting ideological and political education is constructed with substantive knowledge as its core. Regarding the comprehensive characteristics of knowledge in ideological and political education, Xi Jinping once pointed out: “Teaching in ideological and political theory courses involves Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism; it involves economics, politics, culture, society, ecological civilization, and Party building; it involves reform, development, stability, domestic and foreign affairs, national defense, and the governance of the Party, the military, and the state; it involves Party history, national history, the history of reform and opening up, and the history of socialist development; it involves world history and the history of the international communist movement; it involves world conditions, national conditions, Party conditions, and popular sentiment, and so on.”[11]10 In fact, apart from disciplinary professional teaching and talent team cultivation, in the teaching of ideological and political theory courses, social education, and ideological work, the existing knowledge system of ideological and political education mainly addresses the questions of what to teach, why to teach, and how to teach. However, on the content question of what to use for teaching, it relies more on substantive knowledge provided by other philosophical and social sciences, and even natural sciences and related disciplines, to conduct ideological and political education. Only in this way can it reason with evidence and make reasoning credible, avoiding abstract thinking and empty meaning. In this situation, some people, on the one hand, regard ideological and political education merely as tools, channels, forms, and means, as if ideological and political education does not need to participate in the production and reproduction of substantive knowledge, but only needs to be responsible for interpreting, disseminating, and transforming this knowledge. On the other hand, they lament that the concepts, categories, and even systems of viewpoints currently used in ideological and political education mostly come from philosophy, political science, pedagogy, ethics, sociology, and so on, and that there are no truly academic discourses and conceptual principles belonging to the discipline itself. This misunderstanding arises precisely from failing to correctly understand the logical relationship between the knowledge of ideological and political education’s own development and the knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education. We should not regard the knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education as knowledge external to the matter of ideological and political education itself. Because there is no pure action of ideological and political education; as long as this action is present, it must be the action of ideological and political education knowledge. The knowledge used to conduct ideological and political education itself belongs to the knowledge of ideological and political education, although it is not yet knowledge that specializes in studying ideological and political education; it is, however, knowledge that the study of ideological and political education must specifically examine. Knowledge is always shared and common. The same category indeed has different paradigms and connotations in different disciplines, but this is precisely the process of knowledge becoming disciplinary and autonomous, concrete and individualized. In fact, as long as Marxist ideology is adhered to and dialectical materialism and historical materialism are concretely applied, it is not very important which field the categories and principles currently used in the discipline of ideological and political education originally came from. What is important is to carry out creative transformation and innovative development of these categories and principles from the perspective of ideological and political education, to understand and express them as categories and principles of ideological and political education based on the historical laws and practical needs of ideological and cultural-ethical progress, so that they gain new interpretations, construct new meanings, and generate new theories. Therefore, for the construction of an independent knowledge system of ideological and political education, the key lies in further processing these relevant knowledge that plays a substantive and supporting role into disciplinary concepts, categories, propositions, judgments, and theoretical principles of ideological and political education, so that all human civilized knowledge can serve the innovative development of ideological and political education.

三是以实体性知识为核心建构用来进行思想政治教育的支撑体系。关于思想政治教育知识的综合性特征，习近平曾指出：“思政课教学涉及马克思主义哲学、政治经济学、科学社会主义，涉及经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明和党的建设，涉及改革发展稳定、内政外交国防、治党治国治军，涉及党史、国史、改革开放史、社会主义发展史，涉及世界史、国际共运史，涉及世情、国情、党情、民情，等等。”[11]10实际上，除学科专业教学和人才队伍培养外，在思想政治理论课教学、社会教育和意识形态工作中，现有的思想政治教育知识体系主要是在解决什么是教、为什么教、怎么教的问题，而在用什么来教这个内容问题上，更多地是借助其他哲学社会科学乃至自然科学等相关学科提供的实体性知识来进行思想政治教育，才能做到有理讲理、讲理有理，避免思维抽象和意义空洞。在这种情况下，有人一方面把思想政治教育仅仅看成工具和管道、形式和手段，似乎思想政治教育不需要参与实体性知识的生产和再生产，只需要负责阐释、传播和转化这些知识；另一方面又感叹思想政治教育正在使用的概念、范畴乃至观点体系，多是来自哲学、政治学、教育学、伦理学、社会学等等，没有真正属于自己学科的学术话语和观念原理。这种误解正是因为没有正确理解思想政治教育自身发展的知识和用来进行思想政治教育的知识之间的逻辑关系。我们不应该把用来进行思想政治教育的知识当成思想政治教育事情本身之外的知识。因为没有纯粹的思想政治教育行动，只要这个行动在场，就一定是思想政治教育知识在行动。那些用来进行思想政治教育的知识本身就属于思想政治教育知识，只不过还不是专门研究思想政治教育的知识，却是研究思想政治教育要专门考察的知识。知识总是共通和共享的，同一个范畴确实在不同学科有不同范式和内涵，但这恰恰是知识在学科化和自主化，在具体化和个性化。实际上，只要坚持马克思主义意识形态，具体运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义，思想政治教育学科正在使用的范畴和原理，一开始来自哪个领域并不十分重要，重要的是对这些范畴和原理进行思想政治教育学的创造性转化、创新性发展，根据意识形态和文化文明建设的历史规律与现实需要，将之理解和表述为思想政治教育范畴和思想政治教育原理，使其获得新解、构造新义、生成新理。因此，对于思想政治教育自主知识体系建构来说，关键就在于将这些在发挥着实体性和支撑性作用的相关知识进一步加工为学科化的思想政治教育概念范畴、命题论断、观念原理，使人类一切文明知识都能服务于思想政治教育的创新发展。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心