Interpreting the Basic Contradiction of Ideological and Political Education from the Perspective of World History

Ideological and political education exists in different forms throughout human history and in daily life; these forms of existence are all the result of the movement of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education under different socio-historical conditions. Since the establishment of the discipline of ideological and political education, many scholars have explored the concept, content, and research methods of its basic contradiction, attempting to provide a scientific explanation of the fundamental driving force behind its continuous evolution. From existing research, the differences in scholars’ interpretations of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education largely stem from their differing understandings of the ontology of ideological and political education. In other words, advancing research on the basic contradiction of ideological and political education requires breakthroughs and innovations in the study of its ontology. However, how to provide an interpretation of the ontology of ideological and political education that is both historically and logically sound has long been a difficult problem troubling the academic community. Although many scholars have long realized that when discussing the ontology of ideological and political education, it cannot be treated merely as a concrete educational activity but should be studied as a broader existence, they have not proposed an operable research plan for completing this shift from the micro to the macro. In fact, to form a relatively objective understanding of ideological and political education, it is necessary to examine it over a longer historical period and a wider geographical scope. The reason for introducing the perspective of world history is largely that the openness, historicity, and macro-scale of this perspective can break the inertia of thinking that the academic community has developed by using the paradigm of educational science to understand ideological and political education, and can recover the world dimension and national perspective that have long been missing from research. Specifically, the research path for the basic contradiction of ideological and political education from the perspective of world history is to base itself on the objective fact of human history becoming world history, to use the Marxist perspective on world history, and to construct the content of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education on the basis of examining the ontology of different forms of ideological and political education.

思想政治教育以不同的形态存在于人类历史以及日常生活中，这些存在形态皆是思想政治教育基本矛盾在不同社会历史条件下运动的结果。自思想政治教育学科设立以来，不少学者对思想政治教育基本矛盾的概念、内容以及研究方法进行了探讨，尝试对推动思想政治教育不断演变的根本动力作出科学解释。从既有研究来看，学者对思想政治教育基本矛盾的解读之所以不同，很大程度是因为他们对思想政治教育本体的理解不同。换言之，思想政治教育基本矛盾研究的推进，需要以思想政治教育本体研究的突破与创新为前提。然而，如何才能对思想政治教育本体作出既合历史又合逻辑的诠释，是困扰学界已久的难题。不少学者虽早已意识到在探讨思想政治教育本体时，不能仅把这一活动作为具体的教育活动，而应将其视为更宏大的存在加以研究，但并未就如何完成这种由微观向宏观的转变提出具有可操作性的研究方案。实际上，要对思想政治教育形成相对客观的认识，需要把它置于更长的历史时段以及更宽的地理范围中进行考察。之所以引入世界历史视域，很大程度上是因为这一视域所具有的开放性、历史性和宏观性，能够打破学界运用教育学范式认知思想政治教育的思维惯性，找回研究中长期以来缺失的世界维度与国家视角。具体来说，世界历史视域下思想政治教育基本矛盾的研究路径是立足人类历史生成为世界历史的客观事实，运用马克思主义世界历史视域，在审视不同思想政治教育形态之本体的基础上，建构思想政治教育基本矛盾的内容。

I. The Dilemma Facing Current Research on the Basic Contradiction of Ideological and Political Education

一、当下思想政治教育基本矛盾研究面临的困境

Research on the basic contradiction of ideological and political education explores the relationship of unity and opposition that plays an original and fundamentally controlling role in the development of ideological and political education. This relationship is temporally primordial and positionally decisive. There is currently a dilemma in the research: given that the academic community generally believes that “the basic contradiction of ideological and political education” is different from “the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education,” why do most interpretations of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education remain influenced by various discussions on the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education? Why do the two issues remain entangled, with core concepts unclear?

思想政治教育基本矛盾研究是对在思想政治教育发展中起着本源性和总制动作用的对立统一关系进行探讨，这一关系在时间上具有终始性，在地位上具有决定性。目前研究存在一个困境，那就是在学界普遍认为“思想政治教育基本矛盾”有别于“思想政治教育过程的基本矛盾”的情况下，为什么大多数有关思想政治教育基本矛盾的解读依然会受到各种有关思想政治教育过程基本矛盾论述的影响，为什么依然会存在两个议题相互缠绕、核心概念不清的问题。

A review of various documents related to the basic contradiction of ideological and political education reveals that scholars initially focused not on “the basic contradiction of ideological and political education” but on “the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education”; there was no confusion between the two. In the early days of the discipline’s establishment, although some scholars, such as Wang Lizhan, used the term “basic contradiction of ideological and political education” in their writings, they only used it as an abbreviation for “the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education,” without giving it any special meaning.[1]1 Wang Lizhan, ed., *Introduction to Ideological and Political Education* (Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 1983), pp. 187-193.187-193 However, when the academic community intentionally distinguished between the two terms and attempted to conduct specialized research on the basic contradiction of ideological and political education, they became entangled due to earlier verbal simplifications and the substitution of concepts that occurred when reviewing existing research. For example, in *Principles of Ideological and Political Education*, edited by Lu Qingren, it is explicitly written: “The basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education is: the contradiction between the ideological and political moral norms required by society that the educator masters and the level of the ideological and moral character of the educational object.”[2]2 Lu Qingren, ed., *Principles of Ideological and Political Education* (Beijing: Higher Education Press, 1991), p. 117.117 In *Principles of Ideological and Political Education*, edited by Zhang Yaocan, the special contradiction in the field of ideological and political education is expressed as “the contradiction between the ideological and political moral requirements of a certain society and class and the actual ideological and political moral level of the people.”[3]3 Zhang Yaocan, ed., *Principles of Ideological and Political Education* (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 1988), p. 5.5 However, when some scholars paraphrased these views, they directly replaced the original phrases “the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education” and “the special contradiction in the research field of ideological and political education” with “the basic contradiction of ideological and political education.” That is to say, without consulting the original documents, it is difficult to discover that many representative views on the basic contradiction of ideological and political education are actually discussions about the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education or other contradictions of ideological and political education. More importantly, in this process, the “research paradigm of the basic contradiction of the moral education process,”[4]4 The “research paradigm of the basic contradiction of the moral education process” refers to the analytical framework that treats the contradiction between societal moral requirements and the individual’s moral level as the fundamental driving force of the moral education process.117 which originally had a significant impact on the interpretation of the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education, also influenced the academic community’s understanding of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education. This is manifested in the following aspects. First, most views on the basic contradiction of ideological and political education are formed by slightly modifying or adjusting previous views on the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education, still using a mode of expression close to that of the basic contradiction of the moral education process. Second, the conclusions drawn have limited explanatory power for phenomena of ideological and political education in fields such as schools and society; indeed, they can be said to be only a relatively shallow excavation of the basic contradictions that can generate these phenomena. Third, in terms of research perspective, they are constrained by the relatively micro and concrete educational process, making it difficult to interpret the basic contradiction of ideological and political education from a more macro perspective.

对各种与思想政治教育基本矛盾相关的文献进行梳理，就会发现学者最开始关注的议题不是“思想政治教育基本矛盾”，而是“思想政治教育过程的基本矛盾”，不存在把两者混为一谈的情况。学科设立初期，尽管有学者如王礼湛在著述中使用了“思想政治教育基本矛盾”，但也只是把它作为“思想政治教育过程的基本矛盾”的简称，并未赋予其特殊含义[1]187-193。然而，在学界有意区分两个术语，并试图对思想政治教育基本矛盾展开专题性研究时，它们却因之前的语词简化和盘点既有研究时出现的概念替换而缠绕在一起。比如，在陆庆壬主编的《思想政治教育学原理》中明确写道：“思想政治教育过程的基本矛盾是：教育者掌握的社会要求的思想政治品德规范与教育对象思想品德水平之间的矛盾。”[2]117在张耀灿主编的《思想政治教育学原理》中，把思想政治教育领域的特殊矛盾表述为“一定社会和阶级的思想政治品德要求和人们实际的思想政治品德水准的矛盾”[3]5。但是，一些学者在转述这些观点时，把原文中的“思想政治教育过程的基本矛盾”“思想政治教育学研究领域的特殊矛盾”直接换成了“思想政治教育基本矛盾”。也就是说，如果不去翻阅原始文献，人们很难发现很多有关思想政治教育基本矛盾的代表性观点，实则是关于思想政治教育过程基本矛盾或者思想政治教育其他矛盾的论述。更重要的是，在这个过程中，原本对思想政治教育过程基本矛盾解读产生重要影响的“德育过程基本矛盾研究范式”[4]117，亦影响了学界对思想政治教育基本矛盾的理解。具体表现有以下几个方面。一是多数关于思想政治教育基本矛盾的观点，是在以往有关思想政治教育过程基本矛盾观点的基础上，稍加修改或调整后形成的，仍沿用着与德育过程基本矛盾相接近的阐述方式；二是所得结论对学校、社会等场域中思想政治教育现象的解释力有限，甚至可以说，仅是对能够衍化出这些现象的基本矛盾的较浅层次的挖掘；三是在研究视角上受缚于相对微观而具体的教育过程，难以从更宏观的角度对思想政治教育基本矛盾作出解读。

It is worth noting that although some scholars, when summarizing existing research results, have treated the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education as the basic contradiction of ideological and political education, on the basis of reflecting on and drawing lessons from research results on the basic contradiction of the process of ideological and political education, they have also made interpretations of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education that differ from the paradigm of the basic contradiction of the moral education process. For example, Yu Yangtao, on the basis of clearly defining the research object of the science of ideological and political work as ideological relations, points out that the basic contradiction of ideological and political work is the contradiction between the subject and object of thought and the ruling thought.[5]5 Yu Yangtao, *On the Science of Ideological and Political Work* (Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2006), pp. 59, 214.59, 214 Jin Linnan regards modern ideological politics as the ontology of ideological and political education, arguing that the tension among politics, education, and thought constitutes the connotation of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education.[6]6 Jin Linnan, *On the Political Nature of Ideological and Political Education* (Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2013), pp. 114, 154.114, 154 Wang Ying, on the other hand, believes that the ideological sphere is the birthplace of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education, and the essence of this contradiction is “the unity of opposites between the demand for ideological unification and the demand for ideological self-determination.”[7]7 Wang Ying, “On the Basic Contradiction of Ideological and Political Education,” *Ideological and Theoretical Education*, no. 3 (2019): 53-58. Although the aforementioned scholars used different phrases—ideological relations, the ideological sphere, or modern ideological politics—to articulate their understanding of ideological and political education, they all regard ideological and political education as an activity closely related to ideology and attempt to interpret the basic contradiction of ideological and political education starting from its activity form—“ideological interaction”[8]8 “Ideological interaction” refers to the process of mutual influence and exchange of ideas between subjects in ideological and political education.153 or its most important constituent element—ideology (thought). However, these interpretations have not had a significant impact on the construction of the knowledge system of the discipline of ideological and political education. First, some use terms different from the existing discourse system of ideological and political education, weakening their ability to engage in academic dialogue with other views. Second, some methods for understanding the history and ontology of ideological and political education still have imperfections, and the views formed cannot provide strong support for these interpretations.

值得注意的是，部分学者在综述既有研究成果时，虽存在把思想政治教育过程基本矛盾看作是思想政治教育基本矛盾的情况，但在反思和借鉴有关思想政治教育过程基本矛盾研究成果的基础上，亦对思想政治教育基本矛盾作出了有别于德育过程基本矛盾范式的解读。比如，余仰涛在明确思想政治工作学的研究对象是思想关系的基础上，指出思想政治工作基本矛盾是思想主客体与统治思想之间的矛盾[5]59、214。金林南把现代意识形态政治视为思想政治教育的本体，认为政治、教育、思想三者之间的紧张关系构成了思想政治教育基本矛盾的内涵[6]114、154。而王莹认为，思想领域是思想政治教育基本矛盾的诞生地，这一矛盾的实质是“思想统决诉求与思想自决诉求的对立同一”[7]。尽管上述学者使用了不同的词组——思想关系、思想领域或者现代意识形态政治来阐述自己对思想政治教育的理解，但是皆把思想政治教育视为一项与意识形态密切相关的活动，并试图从它的活动形式——“思想互动”[8]153或最重要的构成要素——意识形态（思想）入手，解读思想政治教育基本矛盾。不过，这些解读并未对思想政治教育学科知识体系建构产生明显影响：一是部分使用了一些不同于既有思想政治教育话语体系的语词，减弱了它们与其他观点展开学术对话的能力；二是部分认知思想政治教育历史和思想政治教育本体的方法仍有不完善之处，所形成的观点不能为这些解读提供有力支撑。

One solution to the above research dilemma is to change the way of understanding ideological and political education, focusing on examining this activity from both diachronic and synchronic dimensions, and further integrating the study of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education with its ontological study and historical study. In existing research, although some scholars have consciously combined these three issues for discussion, they often cannot be mutually corroborated theoretically due to inconsistent logical premises. Only when they are placed within the same perspective do they become capable of dialogue, and the research findings on the ontology and history of ideological and political education can effectively serve to substantiate arguments about its basic contradiction. The perspective of world history not only provides a common socio-historical background and theoretical foundation for understanding these three issues but also guides people to break through the limitations of understanding ideological and political education from the scope of a single country and the educational process, revealing from a more macroscopic dimension the basic contradiction that drives the continuous development and evolution of this activity.

破解上述研究困境的方案之一就是改变认知思想政治教育的方式，注重从历时性与共时性两个维度考察这一活动，进一步把思想政治教育基本矛盾研究同其本体研究以及历史研究结合起来。在既有研究中，虽然一些学者有意识地将这3个问题结合起来探讨，但是它们往往因逻辑前提不统一，无法在理论上进行相互印证。只有把它们置于同一视域时，彼此之间才具有对话的可能性，有关思想政治教育本体与历史的研究成果，也才能有效服务于对思想政治教育基本矛盾观点的论证。世界历史视域不仅为人们理解这3个问题提供了共同的社会历史背景和理论基础，还能够引导人们突破从一国范围以及教育过程认知思想政治教育的局限，从更宏观的维度去揭示推动这一活动不断发展演化的基本矛盾。

II. The Perspective of World History Provides a Unique Space for Interpreting the Basic Contradiction of Ideological and Political Education

二、世界历史视域为解读思想政治教育基本矛盾提供了独特空间

What is called a perspective, in Gadamer’s words, “is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point.” [9]9 “Spiritual communication” (精神交往) is a term derived from Marx and Engels’s concept of “geistiger Verkehr” in *The German Ideology*, referring to the exchange of ideas, values, and culture among people, as distinct from material intercourse.427-428 In other words, people understand and comprehend things within the range seen from a certain angle or standpoint. Choosing world history as the perspective for studying the basic contradiction of ideological and political education means understanding and comprehending this contradiction within the range seen from the standpoint of world history. Specifically, this range mainly encompasses two aspects: first, world history as an objective fact; second, the Marxist theory of world history as a theoretical form. Introducing the perspective of world history into the study of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education serves, on the one hand, to utilize the rich content inherent in this perspective to achieve a shift in research perspective from the micro to the macro, reconstructing and renewing the research paradigm of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education; on the other hand, under the guidance of historical materialism, it delves into the overall process of human social development and the historical development of ideological and political education, examining its basic contradiction and attempting to provide an interpretation consistent with historical facts.

所谓视域，用伽达默尔的话来说，“视域就是看视的区域（Gesichtskreis），这个区域囊括和包容了从某个立足点出发所能看到的一切”[9]427-428。换言之，人们是在基于某个角度或立足点所看到的区域中认识和理解事物。选择把世界历史作为研究思想政治教育基本矛盾的视域，就是在以世界历史为立足点看到的区域中认识和理解思想政治教育基本矛盾。具体来说，这个区域主要囊括了两方面的内容，一是作为客观事实的世界历史，二是作为理论形态的马克思主义世界历史理论。把世界历史视域引入思想政治教育基本矛盾研究，一方面是借助这一视域所内含的丰富内容，实现研究视角由微观向宏观的转变，重构和更新思想政治教育基本矛盾的研究范式；另一方面是在历史唯物主义的指导下，深入到人类社会发展的总体进程以及思想政治教育的发展历史中，考察思想政治教育基本矛盾，并尝试对其作出与历史事实相契合的解读。

What is the connection between the perspective of world history and ideological and political education? For scholars of ideological and political education, this is a very unfamiliar question. The reason lies in the fact that existing research rarely studies the existence and development of ideological and political education from such a grand perspective. Even when it does, it mostly relies on concepts such as “state,” “class,” and “human emancipation” to give ideological and political education a grand appearance in form, without deeply analyzing the connections therein. In reality, judging from the current practice of ideological and political education in different countries, it is an activity dedicated to the reproduction of a country’s mainstream ideology, bounded by national territory, and not subject to interference by other countries. However, under what socio-historical conditions and driven by what contradictions did such an activity gradually take shape and develop? In current research, because scholars mostly approach it from the perspective of micro-educational processes and rarely truly understand ideological and political education from the dimension of the state or across national boundaries, it is difficult to gain a holistic and comprehensive grasp of the pattern of existence and trajectory of evolution of this activity in human society. In other words, the more scholars focus on the constituent elements presented at the micro level of ideological and political education, such as educators, educatees, and educational content, the more they become lost in them and fall into a dilemma: research appears to penetrate ever deeper into the interior of ideological and political education activities, yet the understanding of its basic contradiction becomes increasingly distant from the objective facts of its development.

世界历史视域与思想政治教育有何关联？对思想政治教育学者来说，这是一个非常陌生的问题。原因在于既有研究较少从如此宏大的视角研究思想政治教育的存在与发展。即便是有，也多是借助“国家”“阶级”“人类解放”等概念，在形式上让思想政治教育拥有了宏大的外表，但并未就其中存在的联系作深刻剖析。实际上，从当下存在于不同国家的思想政治教育实践来看，它是一项致力于一国主流意识形态再生产，并以国家领土为边界，不容他国干涉的活动。然而，这样一种活动是在何种社会历史条件以及何种矛盾的推动下逐渐形成并发展起来的？在当下研究中，因学者多从微观教育过程的角度，而较少真正基于国家的维度或跨越国家的边界认识思想政治教育，所以很难对这一活动在人类社会中的存在样态与演变轨迹有一个整体且全面的把握。换言之，学者越是关注思想政治教育在微观层面呈现出来的构成要素，如教育者、受教育者、教育内容等，就越是迷失其中，并陷入一种困境，即研究看似越来越深入到思想政治教育活动内部，但对思想政治教育基本矛盾的认知，就越是远离思想政治教育发展的客观事实。

The introduction of the perspective of world history is, first, because world history as an objective fact is an extremely important socio-historical background for understanding and comprehending ideological and political education. If one strips away various irrelevant elements of ideological and political education, one finds that it is a state act, a spiritual communication [9]9 “Spiritual communication” (精神交往) is a term derived from Marx and Engels’s concept of “geistiger Verkehr” in *The German Ideology*, referring to the exchange of ideas, values, and culture among people, as distinct from material intercourse. carried out under the leadership of the holders of state power, targeting all members of a country. Its emergence and development are closely related to the state. However, both spiritual communication and the form of the state underwent qualitative changes after the formation of world history, and these changes also brought about fundamental transformations in the mode of existence of ideological and political education. Specifically, after the formation of world history, human spiritual communication developed from an ethnic and regional activity into a global activity. “Before the emergence of large-scale societies and large-scale politics, different groups pursued their own conceptions of the good life according to their own spiritual preferences, each going its own way, and there was no serious competition between different cultures and ways of life.” [10]10 The reference “[10]196” is a citation from a Chinese source (likely a book or article) that the author uses to support the claim about pre-world-history societies; the original source is not identified in the text.196 That is to say, before the formation of world history, interactions between different ethnic groups and regions concerning political ideas and political systems were relatively rare, and mostly occurred alongside war and conquest; there was no relationship of mutual gaming and competition between different ideologies. After the formation of world history, spiritual elements such as ideas, concepts, and culture flowed globally, and ideology transcended the limits of geographical boundaries to become an important force influencing the trend of world political development. Furthermore, the subjects of human spiritual communication expanded and showed a trend of diversification. The era of world history is an era of great development of human subject consciousness, mainly manifested in the awakening of individual rights consciousness and the enhancement of modern state sovereignty consciousness. With the spread of concepts such as freedom, equality, and democracy, more and more individuals participated in spiritual communication, and the development of their spiritual worlds gradually moved from dependence to independence. Modern states are both the primary drivers of the development of human spiritual communication into a global activity and the strongest defenders of national culture and mainstream state ideology. The result is that ideological security has become a common concern for modern states, and ideological and political education has become an indispensable component of modern state governance.

引入世界历史视域，一是因为作为客观事实的世界历史，是认知和理解思想政治教育极其重要的社会历史背景。如果剥离掉思想政治教育中各种无关的要素，就会发现它是一种国家行为，是在国家政权执掌者主导下展开的，以一国的全体成员为对象的精神交往。它的出现与发展同国家存在密切关联。然而，不论是精神交往还是国家形态，都在世界历史形成后发生了质的变化，且这些变化亦带来了思想政治教育存在形态的根本性改变。具体来说，在世界历史形成后，人类精神交往由民族性、地域性活动发展为世界性活动。“在大规模社会和大规模政治出现之前，不同人群按照各自的精神偏好追求各自心中的好生活，各过各的，不同文化和生活方式之间没有形成严重竞争。”[10]196也就是说，在世界历史形成前，不同民族和地区围绕政治理念、政治制度展开的交往较少，且多是伴随着战争与征服而发生的，不同意识形态之间未形成相互博弈与竞争的关系；在世界历史形成后，思想、观念、文化等精神性要素在全球范围内流动，意识形态更是超越地域边界的限制，成为影响世界政治发展趋势的重要力量。此外，人类精神交往的主体扩大且呈现出多元化趋势。世界历史时代是人类主体意识大发展的时代，主要表现为个体权利意识的觉醒和现代国家主权意识的增强。随着自由、平等、民主等观念的传播，越来越多的个体参与到精神交往中，其精神世界的发展逐渐由依附走向独立。现代国家既是人类精神交往发展成为世界性活动的最主要的推动者，同时也是民族文化和国家主流意识形态的最强捍卫者。这造成的结果是意识形态安全成为现代国家普遍关注的议题，思想政治教育也成为现代国家治理不可或缺的组成部分。

Second, because world history as a theoretical form provides methodological guidance for analyzing the basic contradiction of ideological and political education. The academic community collectively refers to the discussions, viewpoints, and the methodologies embedded in them that Marx and Engels scattered across different texts concerning world history as the theory of world history. Marx and Engels, in the early stages of capitalist development, perceived that people, events, and things existing in different regions had acquired world-historical significance. Standing from the height of human emancipation, they integrated their cognition and understanding of world history into their analysis of human society, economic life, and political development. In their writings, world history is not only an objective fact but also a worldview and methodology, representing a perspective and method for viewing history. This theory contains the basic concepts and methodological purport of historical materialism. According to the requirements of the theory of world history, when examining the basic contradiction of ideological and political education, first, importance must be attached to investigating the real foundation of worldwide material intercourse on which it depends for its existence. Although ideological and political education is an activity closely related to people’s ideological concepts, if the analysis of social existence is neglected, it may be impossible to accurately understand the material roots of why this or that contradiction exists in the realm of ideology. Second, it is necessary to transcend the limitations of a single country’s borders and bring the ideological and political education of different countries and regions into the scope of investigation. If attention is focused only on the ideological and political education of a certain country or region, it is difficult for people to understand that the emergence of this activity is the result of competition among different political subjects in the field of spiritual intercourse on a global scale, and the most important subjects of this competition are modern states. As Chen Lidan stated: “In modern national intercourse, the dominant aspect of intercourse differs from ancient times; it is the more developed countries that export products and disseminate culture to less developed countries and regions.” [11]11 Chen Lidan, *On Spiritual Intercourse* (Beijing: People’s Daily Press, 2005), p. 25. [A Chinese scholar of journalism and communication; the quote is from his work on spiritual intercourse.]25 Only by standing at the height of world history can we understand that ideological and political education is not a regional or national activity but an inevitable product of the development of human spiritual intercourse to the stage of globalization. Third, it is necessary to examine the existence and development of ideological and political education from the height of human emancipation. Although current ideological and political education mainly undertakes the responsibility of disseminating the mainstream ideology of the state and cultivating citizens needed by a country, people cannot therefore deny the revolutionary, class-based, and emancipatory nature contained within ideological and political education. Instead, its basic contradiction should be explored in the relationship between ideological and political education, human emancipation, and individual development. Of course, the prerequisite for this exploration is to present the ontology and history of ideological and political education from the perspective of world history.

二是因为作为理论形态的世界历史，为分析思想政治教育基本矛盾提供了方法论指导。学界把马克思和恩格斯散落在不同文本中有关世界历史的论述、观点以及其中蕴含的方法论统称为世界历史理论。马克思和恩格斯在资本主义发展早期就觉察到存在于不同地区的人、事、物具有了世界历史意义，并站在人类解放的高度，把自己有关世界历史的认知和理解融贯到对人类社会、经济生活以及政治发展的分析中。在他们的笔下，世界历史不仅是一种客观事实，也是一种世界观方法论，代表着看待历史的一种角度和方法。这一理论蕴含着历史唯物主义的基本观念和方法论旨趣。根据世界历史理论的要求，在考察思想政治教育基本矛盾时，其一，要重视对其赖以存在的世界性物质交往这一现实基础的考察。思想政治教育虽是一项与人的思想观念密切相关的活动，但若忽视了对社会存在的分析，可能无法准确理解思想观念领域之所以存在这种或那种矛盾的物质根源。其二，要超越一国边界的局限，把不同国家和地区的思想政治教育纳入考察范围。如果把关注点仅放在某个国家或地区的思想政治教育上，人们很难理解这一活动的出现是世界范围内不同政治主体在精神交往领域博弈的结果，而最重要的博弈主体是现代国家。正如陈力丹所言：“在现代民族交往中，交往的主导方面不同于古代，是比较发达的国家向不够发达的国家和地区输送产品和传播文化。”[11]25站在世界历史的高度，我们才能理解思想政治教育不是地域性民族性活动，而是人类精神交往发展到全球化阶段的必然产物。其三，要从人类解放的高度审视思想政治教育的存在与发展。虽然当下的思想政治教育主要承担着传播国家主流意识形态以及培养一国所需公民的职责，但是人们不能就此否定蕴含在思想政治教育中的革命性、阶级性和解放性，而应在对思想政治教育与人类解放、个性发展之间关系的思考中探寻其基本矛盾。当然，这种探寻的前提是在世界历史视域下呈现思想政治教育的本体和历史。

III. A Re-examination of the Ontology of Ideological and Political Education from the Perspective of World History

三、世界历史视域下思想政治教育本体的再审视

When exploring the basic contradiction of ideological and political education, two issues cannot be bypassed: first, the question of the ontology of ideological and political education, that is, what is the inherent proper existence or form behind the myriad phenomena of ideological and political education; second, the history of the formation and development of ideological and political education. How the ontology of ideological and political education is interpreted directly affects people’s understanding of the history and basic contradiction of ideological and political education. If the historical dimension is missing in research, our discussion of the essence and basic contradiction of ideological and political education will degenerate into logical speculation and theoretical deduction, detached from complex objective reality. Conversely, our cognition of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education can become the logical starting point for understanding its ontology and developmental history. “Thus we fall into a circle, because we must discuss everything simultaneously. The reason is simple: in reality, the things we are to examine operate as a whole… But in order to understand them, we must distinguish them, and especially explain them according to the narrative order we have chosen.” [12]12 Louis Althusser, *Reading Capital* (Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2001), pp. 56-57. [The French Marxist philosopher’s discussion of the difficulty of presenting a structured analysis of a totality.]56-57 Here, we encounter the same “trouble” as the French philosopher Louis Althusser. We still must explore the issues of concern according to a certain narrative order. First, combining existing theoretical research and objective reality, following the basic principle of “concrete—abstract—concrete,” a theoretical presupposition concerning the ontology of ideological and political education from the perspective of world history should be proposed. Second, the rationality of this theoretical presupposition should be demonstrated by combining the developmental history of human spiritual intercourse, and then the basic contradiction of this activity should be interpreted.

在探究思想政治教育基本矛盾时，有两个议题无法绕开，一是思想政治教育本体问题，即纷繁的思想政治教育现象背后，固有的恰当存在或样态是什么；二是思想政治教育的形成与发展历史。如何诠释思想政治教育本体，直接关乎人们对思想政治教育历史和基本矛盾的理解。在研究中若缺失了历史维度，我们对思想政治教育本质和基本矛盾的讨论将会流于逻辑思辨和理论推演，与复杂的客观实在相脱离。而我们对思想政治教育基本矛盾的认知，又可以成为理解思想政治教育本体及其发展历史的逻辑起点。“这样一来，我们就陷入一个循环，因为必须同时讨论所有的东西。原因很简单，因为在现实中，我们所要探讨的东西是整体运转的……但为了理解它们，我们必须对其进行区分，并且尤其要以我们所选定的叙述顺序对它们作出解释。”[12]56-57在此，我们遇到了和法国哲学家阿尔都塞一样的“麻烦”。我们仍须按照一定的叙述顺序对所关注的议题展开探究。一是要结合现有理论研究和客观现实，遵循“具体—抽象—具体”的基本原则，提出世界历史视域下有关思想政治教育本体的理论预设；二是要结合人类精神交往的发展历史论证这一理论预设的合理性，然后再对这一活动的基本矛盾进行解读。

Although many scholars have investigated the forms of existence and modes of operation of ideological and political education in slave society and feudal society, whether these activities can be called ideological and political education remains to be further verified. This is because current scholars are mostly based on reflections on the ideological and political education activities carried out by proletarian political parties, especially the Communist Party of China, and through comparison, induction, and refinement with some similar phenomena existing in capitalist countries, they have formed their cognition of the ontology of ideological and political education. In other words, scholars are relatively familiar with the ideological and political education that existed in the more recent historical period of humanity, but what they seek to refine is a concept that can integrate different forms of existence of ideological and political education, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign. This inconsistency between fact and theory easily weakens the value inherent in the concept itself. It is worth noting that although there is considerable debate in the academic community about whether ideological and political education existed before humanity entered modern society, most scholars have no major objection to the existence of ideological and political education in modern society. When we choose to examine ideological and political education from the perspective of world history, we are in fact clarifying the temporal starting point and spatial field of research, that is, setting aside the debate about the exact origin of ideological and political education and directly taking the ideological and political education after human history became world history as the object of study.

尽管不少学者对奴隶社会以及封建社会中思想政治教育的存在形态及运作方式进行了考察，但是这些活动能否被称为思想政治教育，还有待进一步的考证。因为当前学者多是基于对无产阶级政党，特别是中国共产党开展的思想政治教育活动的思考，并在与资本主义国家存在的一些类似现象的对比、归纳与提炼中，形成了有关思想政治教育本体的认知。换言之，学者较为熟知的是人类较近历史时期内存在的思想政治教育，但所要提炼的是一个能够融含古今中外不同思想政治教育存在形态的概念。这种事实与理论间的不一致，很容易削弱概念本身具有的价值。值得注意的是，虽然学界就人类步入现代社会之前是否存在思想政治教育争议比较大，但是大多数学者对现代社会中存在思想政治教育并无太大异议。当我们选择从世界历史视域考察思想政治教育时，实则是明确了研究的时间起点和空间场域，即搁置有关思想政治教育究竟起源于何时的争议，直接把人类历史生成为世界历史之后的思想政治教育作为研究对象。

When describing the ontology of ideological and political education, most scholars adopt a formulation along these lines: an activity in which a certain class, political group, political party, or social group uses specific ideological concepts to influence social members in a purposeful, planned, and organized manner, aiming to cultivate people who meet certain standards and requirements, thereby serving the realization of certain goals [2]2 Lu Qingren, ed., *Principles of Ideological and Political Education* (Beijing: Higher Education Press, 1991), p. 117.4, [13]13 "Peaceful evolution" (和平演变) refers to the strategy, attributed to Western powers, of using non-military means such as cultural influence and value export to subvert socialist states from within, a concept that became prominent in CPC discourse during the Cold War.5, [14]14 “One mainstream with multiple currents” (一主多元) is a Chinese academic term describing the ideological pattern in which one mainstream ideology (in China, Marxism) occupies a dominant position while multiple other ideological currents coexist.6, [15]11, [16]4. On the basis of drawing on this formulation, Shen Zhuanghai re-interpreted the concept of ideological and political education. He believes: “Ideological and political education is an educational practice activity consciously carried out by a certain class or political party to transform the ideology it advocates into an ideology widely accepted by the people, guiding people to form corresponding ideological and political qualities.” [17]2 According to scholars’ positioning of the attribution of ideological and political education activities, these views can be roughly divided into four types: educational practice, political practice, spiritual production practice, and spiritual intercourse practice. The dominant view regards ideological and political education as an educational practice closely related to core values, political values, or mainstream ideology. Some scholars, such as Jin Linnan, explicitly point out that ideological and political education is a political practice [6]6 Jin Linnan, *On the Political Nature of Ideological and Political Education* (Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2013), pp. 114, 154.152. Furthermore, an increasing number of scholars, such as Wang Xingang [4]4 The “research paradigm of the basic contradiction of the moral education process” refers to the analytical framework that treats the contradiction between societal moral requirements and the individual’s moral level as the fundamental driving force of the moral education process.2 and Xu Ruifang [18], classify ideological and political education as spiritual intercourse or spiritual production activities. Taken together, the academic community generally agrees that education is the most basic form of activity of ideological and political education. However, simply classifying it as educational practice or political practice cannot fully reflect the characteristic of this activity that guides individual spiritual development through ideological interaction. Moreover, spiritual production is not equivalent to spiritual intercourse; there is a fundamental difference between the two. The former refers to “various activities of human mental labor that create and express spiritual values” [19]; the latter refers to “spiritual activities among social members, between people, involving the continuous exchange of information, emotions, thoughts, and various wishes” [20]246. Therefore, this article argues that ideological and political education is a practice of spiritual intercourse with education as its basic form, that is, an activity that realizes the reproduction of mainstream ideology and the development of the individual spiritual world through intercourse, with education as its basic form.

在描述思想政治教育本体时，大多数学者都采用了这样的阐述方式，即一定阶级、政治集团、政党或社会群体用特定的思想观念，有目的有计划有组织地对社会成员施加影响，以期培养出符合一定标准和要求的人，从而为实现某种目标而服务的活动[2]4、[13]5、[14]6、[15]11、[16]4。沈壮海在借鉴这种阐述方式的基础上，对思想政治教育的概念进行了重释。他认为：“思想政治教育即一定的阶级或政党为将自己所倡导的意识形态转化为人们广泛接受的意识形态，引导人们形成相应的思想政治素质而自觉开展的教育实践活动。”[17]2根据学者对思想政治教育活动归属的定位，这些观点大致可分为四种，即教育实践、政治实践、精神生产实践、精神交往实践。占主流的观点是把思想政治教育视为一项与核心价值观、政治价值观或主流意识形态密切相关的教育实践。也有学者如金林南就明确指出思想政治教育是一种政治实践[6]152。此外，越来越多的学者，如王新刚[4]2、许瑞芳[18]等，把思想政治教育归类为精神交往或精神生产活动。综合来看，学界普遍认同教育是思想政治教育最基本的活动形式，但把其简单地归为教育实践或政治实践，又不能充分反映这一活动通过思想互动引领个体精神发展的特性。此外，精神生产不等同于精神交往，两者存在根本性区别，前者指的是“人类的脑力劳动创造以及表现精神性价值的各种活动”[19]；后者指的是“社会成员之间，人和人之间不断地交流信息、情感、思想和各种愿望等方面的精神活动”[20]246。所以，本文认为思想政治教育是以教育为基本形式的精神交往实践，即在交往中以教育为基本形式实现主流意识形态再生产与个体精神世界发展的活动。

After ideological and political education emerged in human history as world history, and after the modern state became the most active and important political subject, it has increasingly taken on a common form of existence, namely an activity closely related to sovereign states, political parties, mainstream ideology, and the development of the individual spiritual world. If we extract and summarize the various phenomena of ideological and political education existing in different countries and regions at present, we can arrive at the following understanding. First, the territorial boundaries of a state delimit the scope of activity of its ideological and political education. Second, the core content of ideological and political education is the mainstream ideology of a state, and the information transmitted through it must be screened and reviewed by the relevant state institutions. Third, top-down is the most basic and primary mode of operation of ideological and political education, while education is the method of ideological and political education that the holders of political power value most highly, institutionalize most thoroughly, and utilize most frequently. Based on this understanding, the ontology of ideological and political education can be expressed as: a spiritual communication activity in which a certain political group or ruling party, with the aim of reproducing the mainstream ideology and with education as its basic form, guides the development of the individual spiritual world through the mainstream ideology on a national scale. Although it is inseparable from the human tradition of attaching importance to the use of spiritual elements to consolidate ethnic strength, it is even more so the result of the mutual game between the mainstream ideologies of different countries and regions and other heterogeneous ideologies after the formation of an ideological pattern with world-historical significance, and the result of the contestation of political and economic forces of different class attributes in the ideological field.

思想政治教育在人类历史生成为世界历史，现代国家成为最活跃最重要的政治主体后，日趋形成了具有共同性的存在形态，即一项与主权国家、政党、主流意识形态以及个体精神世界发展密切相关的活动。如果对当下不同国家和地区存在的各种思想政治教育现象进行提炼和总结，可以得出以下认识。一是国家的疆域边界划定了一国思想政治教育的活动范围；二是思想政治教育的核心内容是一国的主流意识形态，经由它传播的信息需要经过国家相关机构的筛选和审查；三是自上而下是思想政治教育最基本、最主要的运行方式，而教育是政权执掌者最重视、制度化水平和使用率最高的思想政治教育方式。基于这样的理解，思想政治教育本体可以表述为：一定政治集团或执政党以主流意识形态再生产为旨趣，以教育为基本形式，在全国范围内通过主流意识形态引导个体精神世界发展的精神交往活动。它虽与人类重视运用精神性要素凝聚族群力量的传统密不可分，但更是具有世界历史意义的意识形态格局形成后，不同国家和地区的主流意识形态与其他异质性意识形态相互博弈的结果，是不同阶级属性的政治经济力量在意识形态领域角逐的结果。

IV. The Specific Content of the Basic Contradiction of Ideological and Political Education from the Perspective of World History

四、世界历史视域下思想政治教育基本矛盾的具体内容

When we clearly shift the coordinate system for understanding ideological and political education from the two-dimensional state (society) and individual to the three-dimensional world, state, and individual, we are in fact emphasizing that to understand the existence and development of a country's ideological and political education, we cannot seek answers solely from within the country, but must also examine the world political and economic structure in which it is situated, especially changes in the environment of ideological interaction. Before the formation of world history, although different types and forms of ideological and political education existed in various countries, their main function was to regulate conflicts at the ideological level within the state, and their development was less subject to the impact of ideological and cultural elements from other regions. However, after the formation of world history, developed countries that occupy a dominant position in politics and economy will engage in cultural export to countries that are politically and economically underdeveloped or have mainstream ideologies different from their own in spiritual communication, attempting to change the political process of another country through peaceful evolution of values. But under circumstances where the consciousness of modern state sovereignty is relatively fully developed, no country will voluntarily abandon its own national culture and mainstream ideology. Therefore, a situation of mutual game between different cultures and ideologies has formed in world spiritual communication. At the national level, this is mainly manifested in modern states constructing an ideological and political education system that matches the modern political system and education system around the security of the mainstream ideology. Its form of existence is jointly determined by multiple factors, including the world ideological pattern, the balance of political and economic forces among different subjects within a country, historical and cultural traditions, and the class attributes of the mainstream ideology. The basic contradiction that drives the continuous evolution of a country's ideological and political education is the relationship of unity and opposition between the demand for uniformity of the mainstream ideology and the existence of diversity in social consciousness. In other words, the inherent exclusivity of the mainstream ideology and the pursuit of uniformity of the mainstream ideology by modern state power impel modern states to continuously develop and perfect the activity mechanism related to the reproduction of the mainstream ideology—ideological and political education. Specifically, to maintain the security of the mainstream ideology, a modern state needs to properly handle two types of relations: first, the relationship between the national mainstream ideology and other ideologies in the world, especially heterogeneous ideologies; second, the relationship between the national mainstream ideology and other ideologies within the country, as well as the diversely developing individual spiritual world. Thus, the author believes that the basic contradiction of ideological and political education also includes two aspects.

当我们明确把认知思想政治教育的坐标系由二维的国家（社会）、个人转变为三维的世界、国家与个人时，实则是强调要理解一个国家思想政治教育的存在与发展，不能仅从国家内部寻找答案，还要考察其所处世界政治经济格局，尤其是意识形态交往环境的变化。在世界历史形成之前，各国虽存在着不同类型和形式的思想政治教育，但其主要功能是调节国家内部在意识形态层面存在的冲突，其发展也较少受到来自其他地区思想文化要素的冲击。然而，在世界历史形成之后，政治经济上居于主导地位的发达国家在精神交往中会向政治经济欠发达或者与其主流意识形态相异的国家进行文化输出，试图通过价值观和平演变改变另外一个国家的政治进程。但是，在现代国家主权意识发展比较充分的情况下，没有哪个国家会主动放弃本国的民族文化和主流意识形态。所以，在世界性精神交往中形成了不同文化以及意识形态相互博弈的局面。这在国家层面主要表现为现代国家围绕主流意识形态安全建构了与现代政治制度、教育体系相匹配的思想政治教育体系。它的存在形态则由世界意识形态格局、一国范围内不同主体的政治经济力量对比、历史文化传统以及主流意识形态的阶级属性等多种因素共同决定。而推动一国思想政治教育不断演变的基本矛盾是主流意识形态一统性诉求与社会意识多样性存在之间的对立统一关系。换言之，主流意识形态与生俱来的排他性，以及现代国家权力对主流意识形态一统性的追求，促使现代国家不断发展并完善与主流意识形态再生产相关的活动机制——思想政治教育。具体来说，现代国家为维护主流意识形态安全，需要妥善处理两种关系，一是国家主流意识形态与世界上其他意识形态，尤其是异质性意识形态之间的关系；二是国家主流意识形态与本国范围内其他意识形态，以及多样性发展的个体精神世界之间的关系。由此，笔者认为思想政治教育基本矛盾亦包含两方面的内容。

First, the contradiction between a country's mainstream ideology and other ideologies in the world. As a practice of spiritual communication, ideological and political education has its own unique history and developmental trajectory. Only by using holistic thinking to sort out and analyze ideological and political education existing in different countries, rather than only examining ideological and political education activities within a single country, is it possible to arrive at a relatively reliable interpretation of the basic contradiction of ideological and political education. When we place the ideological and political education existing in modern states within human society after the formation of world history for examination, we find that one of the original driving forces promoting the continuous development and evolution of this activity is the contradiction between the strong boundary consciousness of a country's mainstream ideology and the diffuseness, fluidity, and expansiveness inherent in other ideologies in the world. In fact, in the era of world history, the emergence of the modern state as a political subject with clear boundaries has further strengthened the exclusivity of a country's mainstream ideology, making it highly vigilant against ideologies and ideas that differ from it. However, under circumstances where human spiritual communication is becoming increasingly open and convenient, although this exclusivity can keep a country's ideological and political education system relatively stable within a certain historical period, the contradictory movement between a country's mainstream ideology and other ideologies in the world at the empirical level will directly affect the form of existence of a country's ideological and political education. If the rulers of a country do not properly handle these contradictions and disputes existing in the ideological field, and do not actively use advanced ideas and concepts from the world to develop and reconstruct the mainstream ideology, it may induce political change, or even accelerate the process of replacement of the country's mainstream ideology. And when a country's mainstream ideology is challenged or even threatened by other ideologies in the world, regardless of whether the country's mainstream ideology is advanced or backward, its rulers will mostly adjust the policies, regulations, and operational mechanisms related to ideological and political education, in order to mitigate the impact brought by the invasion of heterogeneous ideologies. However, as far as a country's ideological and political education is concerned, whether a qualitative change can occur depends on whether the force of the collision between the country's original mainstream ideology and the ideology that represents the direction of development of advanced productive forces and occupies a dominant position in the world can cause a fundamental change in the class attributes and core content of the country's mainstream ideology. Of course, the contradictory movement in the ideological field is ultimately constrained by the contradictory movement in the field of social existence. The replacement of a country's mainstream ideology and ideological and political education also ultimately depends on whether the social, political, and economic base on which they rely has undergone a qualitative change as a whole.

一是一国主流意识形态与世界上其他意识形态之间的矛盾。作为一项精神交往实践，思想政治教育有着自己独特的历史和发展脉络。只有运用整体性思维对存在于不同国家的思想政治教育进行梳理和分析，而不单只考察一国范围之内的思想政治教育活动时，才有可能对思想政治教育基本矛盾作出一个相对可靠的解读。在把现代国家中存在的思想政治教育放置于世界历史形成后的人类社会中加以考察时，就会发现推动这一活动不断发展演变的本源性动力之一是国家主流意识形态所具有的强烈边界意识与世界上其他意识形态本身所具有的弥散性、流动性、扩张性之间的矛盾。实际上，在世界历史时代，现代国家作为具有明确边界的政治主体的出现，进一步强化了一国主流意识形态的排他性，使其对与之相异的意识形态、思想观念都保持高度警惕。然而，在人类精神交往日趋开放与便利的情况下，这种排他性虽然能够让一个国家的思想政治教育体系在一定历史时期内保持相对稳定，但是一国主流意识形态与世界上其他意识形态在经验层面发生的矛盾运动，会直接影响到一国思想政治教育的存在样态。如果一个国家的执政者不妥善处理这种存在于意识形态领域的矛盾与纷争，不积极利用世界范围内先进的思想观念对主流意识形态进行发展与重构，则可能会诱发政治变革，甚至加速该国主流意识形态更迭的进程。而当一个国家的主流意识形态遭到来自世界上其他意识形态的挑战乃至威胁时，不管该国的主流意识形态先进还是落后，它的执政者大都会调整与思想政治教育相关的政策规定以及运行机制，以期消解异质性意识形态入侵带来的影响。但是，就一国思想政治教育而言，能否发生质变，则要看该国原有的主流意识形态与世界范围内代表着先进生产力发展方向且占主导地位的意识形态所发生碰撞的力度，能否让这个国家主流意识形态的阶级属性及核心内容发生根本性变化。当然，意识形态领域的矛盾运动最终受到社会存在领域矛盾运动的制约。一个国家主流意识形态和思想政治教育的更迭，也最终取决于其赖以存在的社会政治经济基础是否在整体上发生了质的改变。

Second, there is the contradiction between the monism of mainstream ideology within a single country and the diversity of ideologies in modern society as well as the diversity of development in individual political-spiritual worlds. After human spiritual communication acquired world-historical significance, the dissemination of various ideas and concepts broke through the constraints of geographical boundaries. This has produced the following effects on a country’s ideology and the development of the individual spiritual world: on the one hand, the worldwide spread of different ideologies has led modern states generally to form an ideological pattern of “one mainstream with multiple currents” [14]14 “One mainstream with multiple currents” (一主多元) is a Chinese academic term describing the ideological pattern in which one mainstream ideology (in China, Marxism) occupies a dominant position while multiple other ideological currents coexist.; on the other hand, people can come into contact with many different ideologies and, according to their own interests and preferences, select elements from them to construct a spiritual world with relative independence and autonomy, so that the individual spiritual world exhibits a tendency toward diversification. When this diversity of social consciousness within a single country becomes a universal phenomenon, the existing form of ideological and political education changes with the waxing and waning of the relationship between the “one” and the “many” in the ideological sphere. When a country’s mainstream ideology is able to strongly dominate other ideologies and shape the development of the individual spiritual world, the ruling authorities usually make only minor adjustments on the basis of maintaining the existing form and operational mechanism of ideological and political education, rather than undertaking substantial changes. That is to say, when ideological and political education can effectively coordinate the relationship between the “one” and the “many” and the reproduction mechanism of the mainstream ideology operates smoothly, its existing form remains basically stable. When the influence of various non-mainstream ideologies on the entire society’s values and the development of the individual spiritual world exceeds that of the mainstream ideology, but without weakening the latter’s dominant position at the national level, the ruling authorities usually adjust the concepts and mechanisms of ideological and political education at the macro level in response to new changes in domestic spiritual communication. And when the mainstream ideology declines, losing its capacity to dominate other ideologies and to guide individual spiritual development, a country mostly experiences a situation of mutual competition among different ideologies, and a new form of ideological and political education gradually takes shape and stabilizes in this process. In fact, the diversified development of social consciousness inherently contains elements that break the monism of the mainstream ideology; a country’s mainstream ideology and its ideological and political education continuously evolve in this dynamic development of the “one” and the “many.”

二是一国范围内主流意识形态的一元性与现代社会意识形态的多元性及个体政治精神世界发展的多样性之间的矛盾。在人类精神交往具有世界历史性意义后，各种思想观念的传播打破了地域边界的限制。这对一个国家的意识形态以及个体精神世界的发展产生了如下影响：一方面，不同意识形态在世界范围内的传播，使现代国家普遍形成了“一主多元”的意识形态格局；另一方面，人们可以接触到多种不同的意识形态，并能够根据自己的兴趣、爱好撷取其中的内容，建构出具有相对独立性与自主性的精神世界，个体精神世界呈现出多样化的发展趋向。在一国范围内社会意识的这种多样性发展成为普遍现象时，思想政治教育的存在形态会随着意识形态领域中“一”与“多”关系的强弱变化而变化。当一国主流意识形态能够强有力地统摄其他意识形态，并形塑个体精神世界的发展时，政权执掌者通常会在维持思想政治教育原有形态和运行机制的基础上作微调，而不会对其作太大幅度的调整。也就是说，在思想政治教育能够有效协调“一”与“多”的关系，主流意识形态再生产机制顺利运转的情况下，其存在形态会保持基本稳定。当各种非主流意识形态对整个社会价值观念以及个体精神世界发展的影响超过主流意识形态，但并未削弱其在国家层面的主导地位时，政权执掌者通常会根据国内精神交往出现的新变化，从宏观层面调整思想政治教育的理念与机制。而当主流意识形态式微，失去对其他意识形态的统摄能力以及对个体精神发展的引领作用时，一个国家大多会出现不同意识形态相互博弈的局面，新的思想政治教育存在形态将会在这一过程中逐渐成型并稳定下来。实际上，社会意识的多样性发展中本身蕴含着打破主流意识形态一元性的要素，一个国家的主流意识形态及思想政治教育就是在这种“一”与“多”的动态发展中不断演变。

Choosing to examine the basic contradiction of ideological and political education from the perspective of world history does not mean negating the research results previously formed by scholars on this topic. Rather, it attempts, on the basis of bridging the academic discourse gap between macro-level and micro-level ideological and political education, to provide a more convincing interpretation of the original driving force that continuously promotes the evolution and development of this activity. However, when we place ideological and political education in this broader spatiotemporal context for investigation, we find that how to interpret its basic contradiction is a complex and profound issue. It requires both re-examining the developmental trajectory of ideological and political education in light of the history of human spiritual communication, and updating the understanding of the ontology of ideological and political education through shuttling between theory and reality. Moreover, it requires refining the contradictions presented by ideological and political education at the empirical level into expressions of philosophical height. Although this article expresses the basic contradiction of ideological and political education from the perspective of world history as the relationship of unity and opposition between the monistic demand of mainstream ideology and the diverse existence of social consciousness, whether this interpretation is appropriate still depends on its explanatory validity regarding ideological and political education as a phenomenon; as for its argumentation, further logical sorting and supplementation of historical materials are also needed.

选择从世界历史视域探讨思想政治教育基本矛盾，并非否定以往学者就该议题形成的研究成果，而是尝试在打通宏观思想政治教育与微观思想政治教育学术话语隔阂的基础上，对推动这一活动不断发展演变的本源性动力作出更有说服力的解读。但是，当我们把思想政治教育放置于这一更广阔的时空背景中进行考察时，就会发现如何解读思想政治教育基本矛盾是一个复杂且深邃的问题，既需要结合人类精神交往发展的历史重新审视思想政治教育的发展轨迹，也需要在理论与现实的穿梭中更新对思想政治教育本体的认知，更需要把思想政治教育在经验层面呈现出的矛盾提炼成具有哲学高度的表达。本文虽然把世界历史视域下思想政治教育基本矛盾表述为主流意识形态一统性诉求与社会意识多样性存在之间的对立统一关系，但是就该解读是否妥当，仍须看其对作为现象的思想政治教育的解释效度，就其论证，亦须作进一步的逻辑梳理和史料补充。

(Author’s bio: School of Marxism, Nanjing Forestry University; Editorial Department of the Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition))

（作者简介：南京林业大学马克思主义学院，《南京林业大学学报（人文社会科学版）》编辑部）

Online editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心