The Dialectical Wisdom of Advancing Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Human Civilizations

“Exchanges and mutual learning are the essential requirements for the development of civilizations. Only by engaging in exchanges and mutual learning with other civilizations, and by learning from each other’s strengths to compensate for weaknesses, can a civilization maintain its vigorous vitality.” Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping, responding to the general trend of world historical development and the needs of human civilization development, has put forward the Global Civilization Initiative of advancing exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations and promoting the joint building of a community with a shared future for mankind. This initiative transcends the Western self-centered view of civilization, profoundly answers the major questions of how different civilizations can coexist and how human civilization should develop in the modern world, and contributes Chinese wisdom and provides a Chinese solution to promoting world historical development and the progress of human society. Reflecting on the conditions and actual fate of human existence, and promoting the development and progress of human civilization, constitute the practical purport of Marxist dialectics. In this sense, the concept of exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations is not only a rational reflection and understanding of the contradictions and predicaments of human existence, but also a theoretical expression of the inevitable laws and proper direction of human civilization development, embodying the dialectical wisdom of human civilization practice. The practical dialectics of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations holds fundamental guiding significance and value for transcending the Western view of civilization dominated by intellectual thinking, guiding the future direction of human civilization development, and promoting the common progress of human civilization.

“交流互鉴是文明发展的本质要求。只有同其他文明交流互鉴、取长补短，才能保持旺盛生命活力。”党的十八大以来，习近平总书记顺应世界历史发展大势，回应人类文明发展需求，提出推进人类文明交流互鉴、推动共建人类命运共同体的全球文明倡议，超越了西方自我中心主义的文明观，深刻回答了在现代世界，不同文明如何共存共处、人类文明应如何发展等重大问题，为推动世界历史发展与人类社会进步贡献了中国智慧，提供了中国方案。对人类生存状况和现实命运的思考，推动人类文明的发展进步，是马克思主义辩证法的实践旨趣。在此意义上，文明交流互鉴理念不仅是对人类生存矛盾和困境的理性反思和觉解，还是对人类文明发展必然性规律和应然性方向的理论表达，体现了人类文明实践的辩证智慧。人类文明交流互鉴的实践辩证法，对于超越知性思维支配下的西方文明观，引导人类文明未来的发展方向，推动人类文明的共同进步，具有根本性的指导意义和价值。

I. The Development Practice of Human Civilization Requires the Establishment of a New Type of View of Civilization

一、人类文明的发展实践需要树立新型的文明观

Before the formation of world history, the social environment in which civilizations formed and developed was relatively closed. Civilizations more often manifested as positive cultural achievements of self-progress and accumulated sedimentation within specific, narrow regional communities. At this time, human civilization exhibited distinct regional and national characteristics. According to the laws of civilizational evolution, the development process of civilization is inevitably a process of continuous opening and exchange based on increasingly close social interaction practices. With the rise and development of capitalism, human society gradually transitioned to an era of “the transformation of history into world history.” In this era, the interaction activities among different nations and countries continuously expanded. Traditional systems and customs, founded on certain social relations, were also transformed due to the deepening and expansion of people’s interactions, thereby opening up the space of possibility for interaction among different civilizations. The horizon of civilization gradually broadened, and the interaction, exchange, and integration among different civilizational forms increasingly deepened. The expansion of interaction and the further tightening of connections made the question of how multiple cultures and diverse civilizations can coexist an epochal issue that must be confronted. The development of human civilization urgently needs to break through the barriers of the binary oppositional Western view of civilization and establish a new type of view of civilization that “replaces civilizational estrangement with civilizational exchange, civilizational clash with civilizational mutual learning, and civilizational superiority with civilizational coexistence.” [1]1 This sentence quotes Xi Jinping’s formulation from the opening ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations in May 2019.

在世界历史形成之前，文明赖以形成与发展的社会环境相对封闭，文明更多地体现为特定的狭隘地域共同体自我进步和沉淀积累的积极文化成果，此时的人类文明呈现出明显的地域性与民族性特征。就文明演化的规律来看，文明的发展过程必然是一个在日益密切的社会交往实践基础上不断开放交流的过程。伴随资本主义的兴起和发展，人类社会逐步过渡到“历史向世界历史的转变”的时代。在这一时代中，不同民族、国家间的交往活动不断扩大，奠基于一定社会关系基础上的传统体制与风俗习惯，也因人们交往的加深与扩展得以变革，从而敞开了不同文明之间交往的可能性空间，文明的视野逐步扩大，不同文明形态之间的交往、交流、交融日益加深。交往的扩大和联系的进一步紧密，使得多元文化、多样文明如何共在的问题成为必须面对的时代性课题，人类文明发展亟须冲破二元对立的西方文明观藩篱，确立“以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明互鉴超越文明冲突、文明共存超越文明优越”的新型文明观。

First, transcend hegemonism and advocate a new type of view of civilization characterized by equality, respect, and inclusiveness. The world is colorful, and civilizations are diverse. Throughout the long river of history, humanity has created, accumulated, and formed a variety of civilizational forms, each with its own distinct characteristics. These different civilizational forms together constitute the rich tapestry of human civilization and each opens up its own unique value with distinctive charm in the development of human civilization. In the process of modern world development, Western developed countries, relying on their first-mover advantages in modernization, have long monopolized the discursive power of modernization, disregarded the diversity of human civilization, perpetuated the Western colonialist “barbarism–civilization” binary world schema, adhered to self-centered claims, and propagated arguments such as the “superiority of Western civilization.” The essence of this argument is to obliterate the diversity and richness of human civilization, shape an unequal civilizational order, and thereby seek the dominant position of Western civilization, embodying the logic of hegemonism under the domination of metaphysical dogmatism. Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis and Daniel Bell’s “End of Ideology” thesis are typical representatives of this view of civilization. The former holds that human society will “end” with the Western liberal democratic capitalist system, while the latter asserts that bourgeois ideology is “universal” and “humanitarian,” serving as the “best prescription” to end ideological conflicts in the world today. In essence, cultural hegemony is actually a new “variant” of colonial rule. From the macroscopic perspective of human civilization development, different civilizational forms are all unique landscapes in the garden of human civilization; it is precisely the diversity of civilizations that shapes the richness of human society. There is no absolutely perfect civilization in the world; various civilizations each possess their own individualized charm in the garden of human civilization. Precisely because of this, different civilizations should respect and tolerate each other. Only on the basis of equality, respect, and inclusiveness can various civilizations endow themselves with renewed vitality through exchanges and mutual learning. On the issue of civilization, arrogance and prejudice often constitute the greatest obstacle to exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations, and hegemonic logic is often the great enemy that damages the healthy and harmonious development of human civilization. From a historical perspective, the Western civilizational form is merely a special form in the evolution of human civilization, not the only form or the ultimate form, let alone a universal standard or ideal model for measuring the modernization of other countries. Any civilizational form that considers itself hegemonic is paranoid and narrow-minded, and its existence is not eternal. Marx pointed out in “The Future Results of British Rule in India”: “The barbarian conqueror, according to an eternal historical law, is himself conquered by the higher civilization of the conquered subjects.” In the current era of increasingly frequent human interaction, the hegemonic view of civilization and its arguments will inevitably hinder the diversified development of human civilization and become fetters affecting the healthy development of human civilization. In view of this, the development and progress of human civilization urgently need to transcend the so-called Western “theory of civilizational superiority” and the zero-sum game mode of thinking, prevent various paranoid and one-sided extreme ideas from creating estrangement, fault lines, and opposition among different civilizations, and advocate and establish a new type of view of civilization characterized by equality, respect, and inclusiveness.

一是超越霸权主义，倡导平等、尊重、包容的新型文明观。世界是多彩的，文明是多样的。人类在漫长的历史长河中，创造、积累和形成了多姿多彩、各具特质的文明形态。这些不同的文明形态共同构成了人类文明的丰富图景，并在人类文明发展中敞开着各具魅力的独特价值。在现代世界发展的过程中，西方发达国家凭借现代化先发优势，长期垄断现代化话语主导权，置人类文明多样性于不顾，沿袭西方殖民主义“野蛮—文明”二分的世界图式，秉持自我中心主义主张，宣扬“西方文明优越论”等论调。这种论调的实质是抹杀人类文明的多样性和丰富性，塑造不平等的文明秩序，从而谋求西方文明的优势地位，体现出形而上学独断论支配下的霸权主义逻辑。福山的“历史终结论”与丹尼尔•贝尔的“意识形态终结论”就是这种文明观的典型代表。前者认为人类社会将以西方自由民主的资本主义制度为“终结”，后者认为资产阶级意识形态是“普世的”“人道主义”的，是结束当今世界意识形态冲突的“最佳药方”。从本质上看，文化霸权其实是殖民统治的新型“变种”。站在人类文明发展的宏观视野上来看，不同的文明形态都是人类文明百花园中一道独特的风景，正是文明的多样性才塑造了人类社会的丰富多彩。世界上并不存在绝对完美的文明，各种文明在人类文明的百花园中各有其个性化魅力。正因如此，不同的文明之间应当相互尊重、相互包容。只有在平等、尊重、包容的基础上，各种文明才能在交流互鉴中赋予自身以崭新的生命力。在文明问题上，傲慢和偏见常常构成文明交流互鉴的最大障碍，霸权逻辑往往是损害人类文明健康和谐发展的大敌。从历史的观点看，西方文明形态仅仅是人类文明演进中的一种特殊形态，并非唯一形态或终极形态，更不是衡量其他国家现代化的普遍标准和理想样板。任何一种以霸权自居的文明形态，都是偏执的和狭隘的，其存在也非永恒的。马克思在《不列颠在印度统治的未来结果》中指出：“野蛮的征服者，按照一条永恒的历史规律，本身被他们所征服的臣民的较高文明所征服”。在人类交往日益频密的当今时代，霸权主义的文明观及其论调必将阻碍人类文明的多样化发展，成为影响人类文明健康发展的桎梏。有鉴于此，人类文明的发展进步，亟须超越西方所谓的“文明优越论”和零和博弈的思维模式，防止各种偏执片面的极端思想在不同文明之间制造隔阂、断层和对立，倡导和确立一种平等、尊重、包容的新型文明观。

Second, transcend isolationism and advocate a new type of civilization concept of coexistence, integration, and mutual learning. In the process of human civilization’s development, various civilizations often evolve in fusion through mutual influence and develop together through mutual learning. Harmonious coexistence, dialogue and exchange, and learning and mutual learning among civilizations are necessary conditions for the growth, development, and vitality of civilizations, and they are also the basic laws of the evolution of human civilization. The history of human civilization’s development shows that a civilization that is closed, conservative, and isolates itself from other civilizations is a civilization without vitality and is bound to wither and decline. The isolationist view of civilization neither conforms to the universal laws of human civilization’s development nor does it acknowledge the objective reality of the coexistence and integration of human civilizations. The American cultural anthropologist Franz Boas put forward the view of “historical particularism,” emphasizing that “each nation’s history has its own unique and distinctive development process and laws of development, and each nation’s cultural system, as well as every cultural factor within that system, has a complex formation process and historical causes.” [2]2 Franz Boas, *The Mind of Primitive Man* (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911), p. 201. [This is a representative reference; the specific citation may vary.] Regarding the cultures of different nations, Boas believed that when we examine other countries’ cultures, our perspectives and concepts are only applicable to the scope of our own civilization. This view further holds that there is incomparability and incommensurability between the cultures of different nations, thus making exchange and reference between different civilizations impossible. In terms of its theoretical intent, this view of civilization mainly targets the once-prevalent Western hegemonic view of civilization, emphasizing the uniqueness of the formation and development of civilizations, but it itself still has inherent limitations that are difficult to overcome. On the one hand, the development of human civilization itself is not isolated, but rather continuously achieves self-improvement through exchange and mutual learning, manifesting as a holistic development process of continuous progress from the one-sided to the comprehensive. On the other hand, the progress of human civilization does not lack universal standards and common value consensus; rather, in the course of history, it will jointly advocate and pursue common human values. Although the origins and development of different nations’ civilizations have their uniqueness, they will inevitably face some universal, common problems in social history, and the solutions to these problems can seek common or referable cultural strategies and civilizational concepts. Thus, there is space and possibility for exchange and reference between different types of civilizations, and the development of human civilization will, through exchange and mutual learning, enhance civilizational consensus and open up a common direction for human progress. Therefore, the development of human civilization should break through the ideological barriers of isolationism, promote coexistence, integration, and mutual learning among civilizations, and foster the coordinated, common, and sustainable development of human civilization.

二是超越孤立主义，倡导共生、相融、互鉴的新型文明观。在人类文明发展的过程中，各种文明往往在相互影响中融合演进，在相互学习中共同发展。文明之间的和谐共生、对话交流、学习互鉴是文明成长发展并拥有生命活力的必要条件，也是人类文明演进的基本规律。人类文明发展的历史表明，一种封闭保守并使自己孤悬于其他文明之外的文明，是没有生命力的文明，必将走向枯萎和凋零。孤立主义的文明观既不符合人类文明发展的普遍规律，也无视人类文明共生相融的客观现实。美国文化人类学家弗朗兹•博厄斯提出了“历史特殊论”的观点，强调“每个民族的历史都有其独特的、与众不同的发展过程和发展规律，每个民族的文化体系以及这个体系中每一个文化因素都有复杂的形成过程和历史成因”。对于不同民族的文化，博厄斯认为，我们在审视他国文化时，我们的观点和概念只适用于我们自己的文明范围。这一观点进而认为，不同民族文化之间存在着不可比较性与不可通约性，如此一来，不同文明之间的交流与借鉴就成为不可能。从理论意图来看，这种文明观主要针对盛行一时的西方霸权主义文明观，强调文明形成和发展的独特性，但其自身仍然存在着难以克服的内在局限性。一方面，人类文明本身的发展并不是孤立的，而是在交流互鉴中不断实现自我完善，表现为从片面到全面不断进步的整体发展过程。另一方面，人类文明的进步并不是没有普遍性的尺度和共同性的价值共识，而是在历史的行程中会共同倡导和追求人类共同价值。尽管不同民族的文明起源与发展具有独特性，但其在社会历史中也必然会面临一些普遍的、共性的问题，而对这些问题的解决则可以寻求共通的或可借鉴的文化策略与文明理念，从而不同文明类型之间具有可交流、可借鉴的空间和可能性，人类文明的发展也会在交流互鉴中增进文明共识，敞开人类进步的共同方向。因此，人类文明的发展应当突破孤立主义的思想藩篱，推动文明之间的共生、相融、互鉴，促进人类文明的协调发展、共同发展、可持续发展。

Third, transcend the clash of civilizations theory and advocate a new type of civilization concept of peace, harmony, and cooperation. In the process of economic globalization, humanity is increasingly developing into an interdependent community with a shared future. The destinies of every country and nation are closely linked together, and different civilizations face many common challenges. Peaceful development, harmonious progress, and win-win cooperation have become the trends of the times. In this context, the civilization of a country or nation should closely integrate its own development with that of other civilizations, thereby jointly promoting the universal progress of human civilization in enhancing mutual trust, seeking common ground while reserving differences, and learning from each other. This requires breaking through the barriers of the clash of civilizations theory. The representative scholar of the clash of civilizations theory, Huntington, believed that civilization is a cultural entity, the highest cultural agglomeration of people. In his view, the decisive factor in contemporary human conflict lies in civilizational differences and clashes, “the most important countries in the world mostly come from different civilizations. Regional conflicts most likely to escalate into larger-scale wars are those between groups and countries from different civilizations.” [3]3 Samuel P. Huntington, *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order* (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 28. Huntington proposed that clashes between civilizations arise and are unavoidable because, compared to economic or political differences, civilizational differences are more stable. Although political and ideological positions may change to some extent, the impact of differences between civilizations is difficult to change. Under these differences, two levels of civilizational clash will form: global conflicts between nation-states of different civilizational types and regional conflicts between neighboring countries belonging to different civilizations. The core logic of Huntington’s view is that “civilizational differences inevitably lead to conflict.” This is clearly a one-sided view of civilization based on bipolar opposition. That there are differences between different civilizations is an indisputable fact, but do civilizational differences necessarily lead to civilizational opposition and conflict? From the history of human civilization’s development, it is not difficult to see that civilizational differences are not equal to opposition, nor do they necessarily lead to civilizational conflict. Only when one unilaterally emphasizes the superiority of one’s own civilization while ignoring the value of other civilizations, exaggerates the universality of one’s own civilization and places it above others, does this stubborn view and practice of civilization trigger conflict. Civilizational differences reflect the individuality and diversity of civilizations, and the harmony of human civilization is precisely built on the basis of differences. It is only the rich and diverse forms of civilization that constitute the overall picture of a hundred flowers blooming in human civilization. Therefore, simply examining civilizational differences with an oppositional mindset not only confuses the distinction between difference and opposition at an essential level but also fails to reflect the objective reality of human civilization’s development, and is even less conducive to the harmonious development of human civilization. Civilizational differences are both the basic premise and necessary condition for in-depth and sustained exchange and interaction among human civilizations, and an important driving force for the continuous forward development of human civilization. In the practice of interaction between different civilizational forms, the key issue is how to treat differences. “As long as we uphold the spirit of inclusiveness, there will be no clash of civilizations, and civilizational harmony can be achieved.” [4]4 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the UNESCO Headquarters,” March 27, 2014. Only by promoting peaceful, harmonious, and cooperative development among different civilizations can we conform to the general trend of human civilization’s development, share the fruits of human civilization’s development, and jointly address the global challenges facing human civilization. Overall, whether it is the hegemonic view of civilization, the isolationist view of civilization, or the clash of civilizations theory, they are ultimately metaphysical views of civilization constructed on the model of “subject-object dichotomy.” In essence, they are self-centered, viewing the self and the other as an oppositional relationship, attempting to dominate and control the other with the self, and maintaining the self’s central position in binary opposition. In fact, how one views the other different from oneself is also a touchstone for evaluating the degree of civilizational development. The social psychologist Mead once proposed the concept of the “significant other,” believing that the “other” plays a very important role in the construction of self-identity. “The social process links the response of one individual to the gesture of another, making it the meaning of the latter, thus enabling new objects, relying on these meanings or objects constituted by these meanings, to arise and exist in the social situation.” [5]5 George Herbert Mead, *Mind, Self, and Society* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 78. Only by fully recognizing the sense of meaning of the other can one deeply understand and cognize the important role of the presence of the other in the construction of the self-subject. The binary oppositional view of civilization ignores, obscures, and even cancels the existence and meaning of the other, thus making communication between the self and the other impossible, and will inevitably cause a loss of direction in the development of human civilization.

三是超越文明冲突论，倡导和平、和谐、合作的新型文明观。在经济全球化进程中，人类越来越发展成为相互依存的命运共同体。每个国家、民族的命运都紧紧联系在一起，不同文明之间面临着许多共同的挑战，和平发展、和谐进步和合作共赢成为时代潮流。在此背景下，一个国家或民族的文明应当把自身发展同其他文明的发展紧密结合在一起，从而在增进互信、求同存异、互学互鉴中共同促进人类文明的普遍进步。这就要求突破文明冲突论的藩篱。文明冲突论的代表性学者亨廷顿认为，文明是一种文化实体，它是人们的最高文化凝聚物。在他看来，当代人类冲突的决定性因素在于文明的差异与冲突，“世界上最重要的国家绝大多数来自不同的文明。最可能逐步升级为更大规模的战争的地区冲突是那些来自不同文明的集团和国家之间的冲突”。亨廷顿提出，文明之间的冲突之所以能够产生且无法避免，是由于相较于经济或政治的差异，文明的差异更具有稳定性。尽管政治与意识形态立场可能在一定程度上发生改变，但文明之间差异的影响却很难改变。在这种差异下，将形成两个层面上的文明冲突，即全球性的不同文明类型民族国家间的冲突与区域性的分属不同文明的相邻国家之间的冲突。亨廷顿这一观点的核心逻辑在于“文明差异必然引发冲突”。这显然是一种两极对立的片面的文明观。不同的文明之间具有差异，这是一个不争的事实，但是文明的差异是否必然导致文明的对立和冲突呢？从人类文明发展的历史不难看出，文明的差异不等于对立，更不必然导致文明的冲突。只有片面强调自身文明优越性而忽视其他文明价值，夸大自身文明的普遍性而凌驾于其他文明之上，这种偏执的文明观念和实践才会引发冲突。文明的差异体现了文明的个性化和多样性，人类文明的和谐正是建立在差异的基础之上的。只有丰富多彩的多样化的文明样式，才构成了人类文明百花齐放的整体图景。因此，单纯以对立思维来审视文明之间的差异，不仅从本质层面混淆了差异与对立的区别，而且也不能反映人类文明发展的客观现实，更无助于人类文明的和谐发展。文明的差异既是人类文明得以展开深入持续交流交往的基本前提和必要条件，也是推动人类文明不断向前发展的重要动力。在不同文明样态的交往实践中，问题的关键在于如何对待差异。“只要秉持包容精神，就不存在什么文明冲突，就可以实现文明和谐。”只有促进不同的文明之间的和平发展、和谐发展、合作发展，才能顺应人类文明发展大势，共享人类文明发展的成果，共同应对人类文明面临的全球性挑战，总体来看，无论是霸权主义文明观、孤立主义文明观还是文明冲突论，归根结底都是在一种“主客二分”模式上所建构的形而上学的文明观，它在本质上以自我为中心，把自我与他者看成对立的关系，试图以自我支配和控制他者，在二元对立中维护自我的中心地位。事实上，如何看待与自我不同的他者，也是评价文明发展程度的试金石。社会心理学家米德曾提出过“有意义的他者”的概念，认为在自我认同建构过程中，“他者”发挥十分重要的作用。“社会过程把一个个体的反应与另一个体的姿态联系起来，使之成为后者的意义，因而使得新的对象、依靠这些意义或由这些意义构成的对象在社会情境下产生和存在”。只有充分体认他者的意义感，才能够对他者在场之于自我主体建构的重要作用予以深刻的认知和理解。二元对立的文明观忽略、遮蔽乃至取消了他者的存在及其意义，从而使得自我与他者的沟通成为不可能，也必将造成人类文明发展的方向性迷失。

II. Deeply Grasp the Dialectical Relationship of Exchanges and Mutual Learning among Human Civilizations

二、深刻把握人类文明交流互鉴的辩证关系

History and reality have fully proven that the binary oppositional view of civilization can no longer meet the practical needs of the development of human civilization. The development of world civilization urgently requires a new type of civilization view that transcends egocentrism and intellectualist thinking, in order to promote equal dialogue, interaction, mutual learning, and common development among different civilizations in the process of exchange and interaction, and to open up a new picture of human civilization. Although Western countries have attempted to suppress the development of other civilizations through colonization and the export of cultural products, world civilization “still tends to grow unique cultural schemes within different ideological and institutional dynamics.” [6]6 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations,” *People’s Daily*, May 16, 2019. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Every civilization is rooted in its own soil for survival, embodies the extraordinary wisdom and spiritual pursuit of a country and a nation, and has its own value for existence.” How to ensure the coexistence of multiple civilizations and promote the common development of different civilizational subjects in exchange and mutual learning is not only a question of civilization concerning “where civilization is ultimately heading,” a major issue of the times, but also a difficult problem of the world concerning the future and destiny of humanity. In view of this, the thought of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping contains profound dialectical thinking to solve the major issues and difficult problems of our times. Dialectics, as a dialectical thinking that transcends metaphysical intellectualist thinking, embodies the inherent dialectical logical stipulations of the content of thought itself, achieving an understanding of the essential necessity of things. The dialectical thought of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations is both a scientific understanding of the inherent necessity of civilizational development and an intentional expression of the historical oughtness of civilizational development. From a philosophical perspective, the development of human civilization fundamentally involves at least the following three pairs of contradictory relations: the contradictory relation between universality and particularity, the contradictory relation between individuality and worldliness, and the contradictory relation between necessity and contingency. The contradictory relation between universality and particularity, when embodied in the issue of civilizational development, manifests as how to view the relationship between the commonality and individuality of civilizational development; the contradictory relation between individuality and worldliness, when embodied in the issue of civilizational development, manifests as how to view the relationship between the self and the other in civilizational development; the contradictory relation between necessity and contingency, when embodied in the issue of civilizational development, manifests as how to view the relationship between certainty and uncertainty in civilizational development. Any form of civilization faces the problem of how to correctly handle these three pairs of contradictory relations. The thought of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations grasps the dialectical nature of civilizational development, sublates the abstractly opposed intellectualist thinking, correctly grasps the dialectical relations of these three pairs of contradictions, and embodies the dialectical wisdom of promoting the progress of human civilization. This is specifically reflected in:

历史和现实充分证明，二元对立的文明观已经不能适应人类文明发展的现实需要，世界文明的发展迫切需要一种超越自我中心主义和知性思维的新型文明观，以推动不同文明在交流交往过程中平等对话、互动互鉴、共同发展，开创人类文明的崭新图景。尽管西方国家在殖民与文化产品输出的过程中试图压制其他文明的发展，但世界文明“依然趋向于在不同的意识形态和制度动态内生长出独特的文化方案”。习近平总书记指出：“每一种文明都扎根于自己的生存土壤，凝聚着一个国家、一个民族的非凡智慧和精神追求，都有自己存在的价值”。如何确保多元文明共在共存，推动不同文明主体在交流互鉴中共同发展，既是一个关乎“文明究竟向何处去”的文明之问的时代课题，也是一项关乎人类前途命运的世界之问的时代难题。鉴于此，习近平总书记提出的人类文明交流互鉴思想，蕴含着解决我们这一时代课题和难题的深刻辩证法思想。辩证法作为一种超越形而上学知性思维的辩证思维，其体现的是思想内容自身固有的辩证逻辑规定，达到对事物本质必然性的认识。人类文明交流互鉴的辩证法思想，既是对文明发展的内在必然性的科学认识，也是对文明发展历史应然性的意向性表达。从哲学的意义上来说，人类文明的发展至少在根本上涉及以下三重矛盾关系，那就是普遍性和特殊性的矛盾关系、个体性和世界性的矛盾关系、必然性和偶然性的矛盾关系。普遍性和特殊性的矛盾关系，体现在文明发展问题上，表现为如何看待文明发展的共性和个性的关系；个体性和世界性的矛盾关系，体现在文明发展问题上，表现为如何看待文明发展中自我与他者的关系；必然性和偶然性的矛盾关系，体现在文明发展问题上，表现为如何看待文明发展中确定性和不确定性的关系。任何一种文明样式，都面临着如何正确处理好这三重矛盾关系的问题。人类文明交流互鉴的思想，把握了文明发展的辩证本性，扬弃了抽象对立的知性思维，正确把握了这三重矛盾的辩证关系，体现出推动人类文明进步的辩证智慧，具体体现在：

First, the dialectical relationship between universality and particularity. On a general level, civilization is the positive mode of human existence, and in essence “is a matter of practice, a social quality.” [7]7 Samuel P. Huntington, *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order* (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 41. From this perspective, civilization is the overall achievement of human society at a certain stage of development. Civilization has universal significance, meaning the advancement of humans from the natural world in itself to the human social world, embodied in the value-creating activities of human self-generation. From the perspective of historical materialism, labor constitutes the premise and foundation for the emergence of civilization. People realize the transition from a natural state to a civilized state through labor. Different nations and countries all possess historical forms of civilization. The existence of human civilization has universal stipulations, embodied in humanity’s transcendence over the natural state and the barbaric state. Civilization is not only universal but also concrete. The existence of civilization has particular modes of existence. Due to differences in specific geographical environments, modes of production, and ways of life, different nations and countries form different historical and cultural traditions and civilizational forms on the basis of long-term production and life practices, thus embodying the particularity of civilizational development. In general, the universal characteristics of civilization provide the possibility and basic premise for exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations. They endow different forms of civilization with a certain commensurability, and also enable different forms of civilization to absorb civilizational nourishment from each other, thereby continuously enriching and perfecting themselves. The particularity of civilization shapes the individualized characteristics of civilizations. Differences between different civilizations make exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations necessary. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Civilizations are colorful. It is precisely because of their diversity that human civilizations have value for exchange and mutual learning.” The dual attributes of universality and particularity require us to dialectically examine the development of human civilization. If we only emphasize universality while ignoring particularity, it is easy to deny and obliterate the diversity and richness of human civilizational development, thereby forming an egocentric, absolutist, and universalist civilizational dogmatism, pursuing a so-called “universal” form of civilization that is applicable everywhere. If we only emphasize particularity, we will fall into a relativistic and conflictual view of civilization, thereby triggering mutual opposition between different civilizations, or even falling into the rut of narrow nationalism. In short, the universality of civilization is not separated from particularity, but is embodied in the particular forms of civilization and expressed through the particularity of different civilizations; the particular forms of civilization are also inseparable from the universality of civilization. Different forms of civilization always contain universal commonalities and share the common characteristics of human civilization. The so-called “universality” of the West is often an ideological obscurantist means exploited by cultural politics; its “universality” is nothing but a “particularity” masquerading as universality. In fact, the universality of human civilization can only be expressed through particular forms of civilization and realized in the historical process of civilizational development. Therefore, advocating the concept of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations requires abandoning the monolithic, exclusionary absolutist view of civilization and affirming the diversity of civilizational existence. “Harmony without uniformity is the law of the occurrence and development of all things.” [8]8 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the UNESCO Headquarters,” *People’s Daily*, March 28, 2014. “Every civilization of every country and nation is rooted in the soil of its own country and nation, and has its own color, strengths, and advantages.” [9]9 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations,” *People’s Daily*, May 16, 2019. Promoting the practice of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations requires taking the proper handling of the dialectical relationship between universality and particularity as a basic premise. “We should maintain the diversity of civilizations of all countries and nations, strengthen mutual exchange, mutual learning, and mutual reference, and should not be isolated from each other, reject each other, or replace each other. Only in this way can the garden of world civilization be full of color and vitality.” [10]10 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations,” *People’s Daily*, May 16, 2019.

一是普遍性和特殊性的辩证关系。从一般层面上讲，文明是人类存在的积极样态，在本质上“是实践的事情，是一种社会品质”。从这一角度而言，文明是人类社会发展到一定阶段的总体性成果。文明具有普遍性意义，意味着人从自在的自然世界向属人的社会世界的进阶，体现为人的自我生成的价值创造活动。以唯物史观的观点来看，劳动构成了文明产生的前提和基础，人们通过劳动实现了从自然状态到文明状态的转换，不同的民族和国家都存在着历史性的文明形态，人类文明的存在具有普遍的规定性，体现为人对自然状态和野蛮状态的超越性。文明不仅是普遍的，也是具体的。文明的存在具有特殊性的存在样态。由于特定的地理环境以及生产方式和生活方式的差异，不同的民族和国家在长期的生产和生活实践基础上会形成不同的历史文化传统和文明形态，从而体现为文明发展的特殊性。总的来说，文明所具有的普遍性特征为人类文明交流互鉴提供了可能性与基本前提，它赋予不同样态的文明之间以一定的相通性，也使不同样态的文明可以相互汲取文明的营养，从而不断丰富自身和完善自身。文明的特殊性塑造了文明的个性化特点，不同文明之间的差异使得文明交流互鉴成为必要。习近平总书记指出：“文明是多彩的，人类文明因多样才有交流互鉴的价值。”普遍性与特殊性的双重属性，要求我们要辩证审视人类文明的发展。如果仅仅强调普遍性而忽视特殊性，就容易否认和抹杀人类文明发展的多样化和丰富性，从而形成自我中心主义、绝对主义和普遍主义的文明独断论，追求一种放之四海皆准的所谓“普世”文明形态；而如果仅仅强调特殊性，就会陷入相对主义与冲突论的文明观中，从而引发不同文明之间的相互对立，甚至陷入狭隘民族主义的窠臼中。概言之，文明的普遍性并不是脱离特殊性，而是体现于特殊性的文明样态中，并通过不同文明的特殊性得以表现出来；特殊性的文明样态也离不开文明的普遍性，不同的文明样态总是蕴含着普遍的共性之处，共同享有人类文明的共性特点。西方所谓的“普遍性”，常常是被文化政治所利用的一种意识形态蒙昧手段，其“普遍性”只不过是一种冒充普遍性的“特殊性”而已。其实，人类文明的普遍性只能通过特殊性的文明样态表现出来，并在文明的历史发展进程中得以实现。由此，倡导人类文明交流互鉴的理念，就需要摒弃单一化、排他化的绝对主义文明观，肯定文明的多样性存在。“和而不同是一切事物发生发展的规律”，“每一个国家和民族的文明都扎根于本国本民族的土壤之中，都有自己的本色、长处、优点”。推动人类文明交流互鉴的实践，需要以处理好普遍性与特殊性的辩证关系为基本前提。“我们应该维护各国各民族文明多样性，加强相互交流、相互学习、相互借鉴，而不应该相互隔膜、相互排斥、相互取代，这样世界文明之园才能万紫千红、生机盎然”。

The second is the dialectical relationship between individuality and universality. Focusing on the historical trend of the contemporary world and the development of human civilization, General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “The world is rich and colorful, and civilizations are diverse and pluralistic. Only through exchange and mutual learning can human civilization be full of vitality.” [11]11 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part I, Chapter XI: Morality and Law. Freedom and Necessity. How to view oneself and examine the other, that is, how to grasp the dialectical relationship between individuality and universality, has become a common problem faced by all countries in the process of advancing modernization. “For any culture to stand firm, go far, and have guiding power, cohesion, shaping power, and radiating influence, it must have its own subjectivity.” [12]12 Karl Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach," Thesis XI. Every nation and country, as an independent individual existence, possesses the subjectivity of its own culture. From a historical perspective, the cultural subjectivity of a nation and a country is gradually formed in long-term historical practice, and this cultural subjectivity often comes from the shaping and inheritance of historical and cultural traditions. Taking China as an example, the subjectivity of Chinese civilization originates from the continuity of its civilization inheritance, which has lasted for thousands of years without interruption and has endured hardships but remained long-lasting. This continuity directly promoted the formation and development of the nation’s self-awareness, shaping, strengthening, and consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture. It is in this sense that General Secretary Xi Jinping states: “A nation that ab

二是个体性和世界性的辩证关系。着眼当代世界和人类文明发展的历史大势，习近平总书记指出：“世界是丰富多彩的，文明是多元多样的，只有交流互鉴，人类文明才能充满生机。”如何看待自我和审视他者，也就是如何把握个体性和世界性辩证关系的问题，成为世界各国在推进现代化进程中面临的普遍问题。“任何文化要立得住、行得远，要有引领力、凝聚力、塑造力、辐射力，就必须有自己的主体性。”任何民族和国家作为独立的个体性存在，都具有自己文化的主体性。从历史维度看，一个民族和国家的文化主体性是在长期的历史实践中逐渐生成的，这一文化主体性往往来自对历史文化传统的塑造和传承。以中国为例，中华文明主体性来源于其历经数千年而绵延不绝、久经忧患但长久不衰的文明传承的连续性，这种连续性直接推动了民族自我意识的形成与发展，塑造、强化并巩固了中华文化的主体性。正是在这一意义上，习近平总书记提出：“一个抛弃了或者背叛了自己历史文化的民族，不仅不可能发展起来，而且很可能上演一幕幕历史悲剧”。从实践维度看，文明的主体性从根本上体现为道路的自主性。坚守主体性在根本上就是要坚持走符合自身历史、文化和国情的发展道路，把发展的基点放在自己身上。也正是在这一意义上，我们探索出中国式现代化的发展道路，破除了“西方化就是现代化唯一正解”的霸权思维，宣告了西方国家所谓的“普世文明观”的破产。从理论维度看，主体性体现为精神生产和理论话语的原创性。恩格斯说：“一个民族要想站在科学的最高峰，就一刻也不能没有理论思维”。近代以来西方资本逻辑扩张所塑造的“东方从属于西方”的世界格局，不仅体现在世界经济、国际政治等领域的不平等上，而且也体现在精神生产、理论话语等方面的不平衡上，西方世界的各种理论似乎成为占据支配地位的标准范式。理论上的“搬运工”与“追随者”既无法彻底解释和说清楚本国的实际问题，更无法产出符合本国实际情况的原创性理论话语和知识体系，从而导致自我主体性的丧失。人类文明交流互鉴理念，既强调要基于本国的特点和实际，促进基于民族国家发展特殊性的主体性自觉，也同时意味着对世界上存在的多种文明持有开放和包容态度。可以说，“各种文明都在不停地借鉴它们所邻近的文明，哪怕它们‘重新解释’和同化了它们所接纳的东西”。在世界历史的语境中，每个民族文明的发展都不可能脱离世界，都必须融汇于人类文明的整体图景之中，只有以开放的胸襟尊重差异和包容多样，才能以人类文明的丰富性滋养自身，从而赋予自身的文明以世界历史的普遍性意义。习近平总书记提出：“文明是包容的。人类文明因包容才有交流互鉴的动力。海纳百川，有容乃大。人类创造的各种文明都是劳动和智慧的结晶……一切文明成果都值得尊重，一切文明成果都要珍惜”。每个文明个体和文明主体都需要对其他文明样态保持一种开放的学习态度，能够将其他文明形态的优长自觉建构进自我文明生成的历史进程之中，在不同文明形态的相互鉴别、比较和学习中不断发展和完善自身的主体性，实现文明的自我超越和自我成长。在黑格尔看来，只有具有世界精神的民族，才能去表征和实现世界精神的普遍性和客观性。黑格尔以唯心主义的方式表达了这样的真理性认识，那就是：一个民族的文明在多大程度上赋予自身以世界历史的视野和人类文明的担当，在多大程度上把握和表征了人类文明发展的普遍必然性，它就会在多大程度上具有世界历史意义的普遍性，从而引领人类文明的未来走向。

Third is the dialectical relationship between necessity and contingency. How to properly handle the relationship between necessity and contingency is a fundamental issue facing the development of human civilization. Neither rejecting contingency and viewing the evolution of civilization as a single-line, linear process of progress, nor submitting to the domination of contingency and rejecting the objective existence of necessity — this is a basic viewpoint of historical materialism. From the perspective of necessity, promoting exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations is both an inherent requirement of human civilizational progress and an inevitable trend in the development of human society. Intercourse between different civilizations possesses an inherent necessity; this intercourse is manifested both in exchanges and interactions within the same type of civilization and in exchanges and interactions between different types of civilizations. Engels pointed out: "Every step forward in culture is a step towards freedom." [11]11 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part I, Chapter XI: Morality and Law. Freedom and Necessity. The progress of culture and civilization depends on the degree of development of internal and external intercourse. Only through increasingly frequent internal and external intercourse can one continuously generate one's own richness and continuously discover and make up for the limitations and deficiencies of one's own existence. Marx pointed out: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." [12]12 Karl Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach," Thesis XI. The practical activity of changing the world requires the exchange, intercourse, and integration of civilizations, promoting the advancement of civilization with the times and its self-renewal, and "focusing on absorbing the outstanding civilizational achievements created by different countries and different nations, learning from each other's strengths to compensate for weaknesses, incorporating things of diverse nature, and jointly painting a beautiful picture of human civilization." [13]13 Xi Jinping, "Carry Forward the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" (Speech at the Conference Marking the 60th Anniversary of the Initiation of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, 28 June 2014). It is worth noting that the deepening advancement of economic globalization has created conditions and provided a powerful impetus for exchanges and mutual learning among different civilizations. In particular, the development and application of information technology has not only provided technological empowerment for civilizational exchanges and mutual learning but has also broadened the possibilities and development space for exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations. From the perspective of the historical necessity and basic trends of the development of human civilization, exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations are an inevitable law of the development of human civilization and also represent the future direction of the development of human civilization. At the same time, it should also be recognized that the development of human civilization is also influenced by many contingent factors. If the existence of contingent factors is denied, then the development of civilization becomes a single, linear deterministic process. However, the recognition of contingent factors in the development of civilization cannot lead to the denial of necessity. On the contrary, behind various contingent factors lies necessity; contingency is dominated by necessity, is a form of expression and supplement of necessity; necessity is manifested through a multitude of contingencies; contingency paves the way for necessity. For the development of human civilization, if one pays too much attention to contingent elements, one will inevitably neglect and obscure the inevitable law of civilizational development and progress, namely, exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations, thus falling into the quagmire of relativism and nihilism; if one obscures or even ignores the existence of contingent elements, it will be difficult to grasp the actual state of civilizational development, and the development of human civilization will be abstracted into a linear deterministic evolutionary process, losing the richness and vitality of civilizational development. The concept of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations dialectically views and handles the relationship between necessity and contingency. It both acknowledges the influence of various contingent factors in the process of civilizational development and emphasizes the dominant role of the inevitable laws of human civilizational development, thereby providing dialectical practical wisdom for promoting the healthy development of human civilization.

三是必然性和偶然性的辩证关系。如何处理好必然性和偶然性的关系，是人类文明发展中面临的基本问题。既不排斥偶然性，不将文明的发展演进视为单线条、直线型的进化过程，也不听从偶然性支配，排斥必然性的客观存在，是唯物史观的基本观点。从必然性的角度讲，推动人类文明交流互鉴既是人类文明进步的内在要求，也是人类社会发展的必然趋势。不同文明之间的交往具有内在的必然性，这种交往既体现为同一文明类型内部的交往交流，也体现为不同类型文明之间的交往交流。恩格斯指出：“文化上的每一个进步，都是迈向自由的一步”。文化和文明的进步取决于内部交往和外部交往的发展程度。只有在日益频密的内部交往和外部交往中，才能不断生成自己的丰富性，才能不断发现并弥补自身的存在的局限与不足。马克思指出：“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，而问题在于改变世界”。改变世界的文明实践，需要文明的交流、交往、交融，推动文明的与时俱进和自我更新，“注重汲取不同国家、不同民族创造的优秀文明成果，取长补短，兼收并蓄，共同绘就人类文明美好画卷”。值得注意的是，经济全球化的深入推进，为不同文明交流互鉴创造了条件，提供了强大动力，特别是信息技术的发展应用，不仅为文明交流互鉴提供了技术赋能，也拓宽了人类文明交流互鉴的可能性与发展空间。从人类文明发展的历史必然性和基本趋势来看，文明之间的交流互鉴是人类文明发展的必然性规律，也代表了人类文明未来的发展方向。与此同时，也应看到，人类文明的发展也会受到诸多偶然性因素的影响。如果否认了偶然性因素的存在，那么文明的发展就变成了单一的线性决定论的过程。但是，对文明发展的偶然性因素的肯认不能导致对必然性的否认，相反，在各种偶然性因素的背后蕴含着必然性，偶然性受必然性支配，是必然性的表现形式和补充，必然性通过大量的偶然性表现出来，偶然性为必然性开辟道路。对人类文明的发展而言，如果过多地关注偶然性要素，难免会忽略和遮蔽文明交流互鉴这一文明发展进步的必然性规律，从而陷入相对主义和虚无主义的泥淖中；如果遮蔽甚至无视偶然性要素的存在，就很难把握文明发展的实然状态，人类文明的发展就会被抽象为线性决定论的演化过程，就会失去文明发展的丰富性和生动性。人类文明交流互鉴的理念辩证地看待和处理必然性和偶然性的关系，它既承认文明发展进程中各种偶然性因素的影响，又强调人类文明发展必然性规律的支配作用，从而为推动人类文明健康发展提供了辩证的实践智慧。

III. The Practical Path for Promoting Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Human Civilizations

三、推进人类文明交流互鉴的实践理路

Faced with changes unseen in a century, how to achieve the ideal vision of harmonious coexistence among diverse civilizations and explore the basic direction for the sustained development and progress of world civilization has become a epochal issue confronting human society. From the perspective of history and the laws of the evolution of human civilization, exchange and mutual learning are both a way of survival and a way of development. The future development of human civilization requires transcending binary oppositional thinking and resorting to the civilizational practice of exchange and mutual learning.

面对世界百年未有之大变局，如何达至多元文明和谐共存的理想图景，探索世界文明持续发展与进步的基本方向，成为人类社会面临的时代性课题。从历史的视野和人类文明演进的规律来看，交流互鉴既是生存之道，也是发展之道。人类文明的未来发展，需要超越二元对立思维，诉诸交流互鉴的文明实践。

First, it is necessary to take the recognition of the plural reality of civilizational forms as a prerequisite and respect the diversity of human civilizations. Marxism emphasizes the diversity of civilizations and holds that the coexistence of multiple civilizations is an objective state of the development of human society, with different civilizations complementing and enhancing each other, jointly endowing world civilization with rich and varied colors. It is precisely this plural form of civilizations and the heterogeneity of civilizations that make exchange and mutual learning among human civilizations possible. In this sense, there is no supreme or absolutely unified abstract standard of value for comparing and distinguishing civilizations. Defining the superiority or inferiority of civilizations by subjective standards and arranging the hierarchy of human civilizations according to one's own standards often leads to civilizational discrimination and prejudice, thereby making sincere exchange an unattainable fantasy. In the long river of human development, any civilization with strong momentum and vigorous vitality has a long history of continuous exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations. In today's world, no civilizational form is isolated from others. Chinese civilization, as the only uninterrupted civilization in the history of human civilization, has developed in the same way. "Chinese civilization is a civilization that emerged on Chinese soil and is also a civilization formed through continuous exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations." [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. From this perspective, promoting exchange and mutual learning among human civilizations must take the recognition of the plural existence of human civilizations as the primary prerequisite. Only in this way can the diversity of civilizations be respected, enabling peaceful coexistence and equal exchange among diverse civilizations, viewing the external world with an equal, rational, and inclusive attitude, respecting the civilizational development paths of countries around the world, and promoting the harmonious development of human civilization.

一是以承认文明形态的复数现实为前提，尊重人类文明的多样性。马克思主义强调文明的多样性，并认为多元文明共存是人类社会发展的客观状态，不同文明交相辉映、相得益彰，共同赋予了世界文明以绚烂丰富的色彩。正是这种文明的复数形态与文明的异质性，才使得人类文明交流互鉴成为可能。在此意义上，对文明的比较与鉴别不存在一种至高无上或绝对统一的抽象价值标准。将文明以主观性标准来界定其优劣，并以自身的标准编排人类文明的等级表，往往会引发文明的歧视与偏见，进而使真诚交流成为一种遥不可及的幻想。在人类发展的历史长河中，凡是有着强劲发展势头与旺盛生命力的文明，都有着与其他文明不断交流互鉴的悠久历史。在当今世界中，也没有哪一种文明形态是隔绝于其他文明形态之外的。中华文明作为人类文明史上唯一一个未曾中断的文明，其发展也是如此。“中华文明是在中国大地上产生的文明，也是同其他文明不断交流互鉴而形成的文明”。由此观之，推动人类文明交流互鉴，必须以承认人类文明的复数性存在为首要前提。只有如此，才能尊重文明的多样性，使多样文明之间和平共处、平等交流，以平等、理性、包容的态度看待外部世界，尊重世界各国的文明发展道路，推动人类文明的和谐发展。

Second, it is necessary to take the building of a community with a shared future for mankind as the goal and promote people-to-people connectivity and a shared destiny. As exchanges and interactions among nations and countries become increasingly close, the entire world constitutes a closely connected community, and the destiny of humanity is increasingly intertwined. Economic globalization has brought profound changes in production methods and lifestyles, while also generating global problems such as widening wealth gaps, ecological degradation, and regional conflicts, which no single country can address alone. Thus, "what kind of world to build and how to build it" has become a major issue that the development of human civilization must confront. General

二是以构建人类命运共同体为目标，促进民心相通与命运相依。伴随各民族、国家之间交流交往日益密切，整个世界构成了一个紧密联系的共同体，人类的命运也日益休戚相关。经济全球化带来了生产方式与生活方式的深刻变革，同时也产生了贫富差距加大、生态恶化、区域冲突等全球性问题，这些问题是任何一个国家都无法单独应对的。由此，“建设一个什么样的世界、如何建设这个世界”就成为人类文明发展必须面对的重大课题。习近平总书记从人类前途命运出发，立足时代发展引发的共性问题，提出了全球治理和人类文明发展的人类命运共同体理念：“这个世界，各国相互联系、相互依存的程度空前加深，人类生活在同一个地球村里，生活在历史和现实交汇的同一个时空里，越来越成为你中有我、我中有你的命运共同体”。人类命运共同体，蕴含着超越个体自我本位的人类主体性立场，体现的是人类的共同利益。构建人类命运共同体，是一项需要从经济、政治、文化、生态文明等多个维度共同发力的宏大系统工程和复杂文明实践。只有各个国家实现“民心相通”，共建人类命运共同体才有可能性。推动不同文明的交流互鉴，需要打破不同民族、不同国家之间的文明隔阂，冲破意识形态的藩篱桎梏，倡导和确立人类命运共同体意识。在这一意义上，构建人类命运共同体是人类文明交流互鉴的目标指向，推动人类文明交流互鉴是构建人类命运共同体的必要前提。“不同文明要取长补短、共同进步，让文明交流互鉴成为推动人类社会进步的动力、维护世界和平的纽带”。只有推动人类文明的交流互鉴，才能不断增进关于人类发展前途命运的普遍共识，从而为构建人类命运共同体提供坚实的文明基础。

Third, take the advocacy of the common values of all mankind as the guide to consolidate consensus on the development of human civilization. Values are the soul and core of civilization, the conceptual guide for the development of civilization. Against the backdrop of history having become world history, resolving the global problems and dilemmas of human development requires the guidance of a common set of values; otherwise, the development of human civilization will lose its common conceptual foundation and its common ideological direction. Although different human civilizations exhibit significant individual differences, they all possess a certain degree of comprehensibility and must also contain humanity’s similar and interconnected understanding of human nature and pursuit of values. General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed: “We should promote the common values of all mankind, namely, peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, and advocate exchanges and mutual learning among different civilizations to advance the development of human civilization.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. Promoting the common values of all mankind is a necessary prerequisite for advancing exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations. Without the guidance of the common values of all mankind, exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations would lose their common value premise. The common values of all mankind reflect the unity of the value pursuits of human civilization; they grasp the contemporary trends in the development of human civilization, embody the deep pulse of that development, reflect its inherent requirements, and represent the common value pursuits and universal value consensus of all humanity. The common values of all mankind are fundamentally distinct from the so-called “universal values” promoted by the West, which masquerade their own particularity as universality. They are rooted both in a conscious understanding of the inherent necessity of the value pursuits of a community with a shared future for mankind and in a profound grasp of the value consensus accumulated, precipitated, and crystallized by modern humanity through long-term civilizational practice, weathered by trials and tribulations. Thus, they occupy the moral and truth high ground and become the value direction guiding the development of human civilization. The practice of advancing exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations requires taking the common values of all mankind as the guide, thereby consolidating the universal value consensus of all humanity and providing value guidance for exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations. Among the constituent elements of the common values of all mankind, peace and development are the value foundation for advancing exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations. Advancing exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations requires adhering to the path of peaceful development, resolving differences and disputes between different civilizations through peace rather than violence, consultation rather than confrontation, bridging the estrangement and conflict between civilizations, and promoting the harmonious coexistence of human civilizations. Fairness and justice are the value principles that must be followed in advancing exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations. Exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations require respect for the subjectivity and equality of civilizations as a basic premise, actively practicing multilateralism, and properly handling contradictions between nations and states in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice. Democracy and freedom are the value orientation for advancing exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations. Advancing exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations requires mutual respect, equal dialogue, and democratic consultation; it requires finding the greatest common divisor for the progress of human civilization through “harmony in diversity” and “seeking common ground while reserving differences,” [15]15 “Harmony in diversity” (和而不同) is a Confucian concept from the Analects, advocating unity without uniformity; “seeking common ground while reserving differences” (求同存异) is a diplomatic principle associated with Zhou Enlai, first articulated at the 1955 Bandung Conference. “replacing estrangement with exchange, clash with mutual learning, and superiority with coexistence among civilizations,” [16]16 Xi Jinping, “Jointly Shoulder the Responsibility of Our Times, Promote Global Development,” keynote speech at the World Economic Forum virtual event, January 25, 2021. thereby promoting the free progress of human civilization.

三是以倡导全人类共同价值为引领，凝聚人类文明发展共识。价值观是文明的灵魂和内核，是文明发展的观念指引。在历史已然成为世界历史的背景下，解决人类发展的全球性问题与困境，需要一种共同的价值观引领，否则人类文明的发展就会丧失共同的观念基础，失去共同的思想方向。人类的不同文明之间尽管具有显著的个性化差异，但都具有一定的可理解性，也必定蕴含着人类相近相通的人性理解和价值追求。习近平总书记提出：“要弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，倡导不同文明交流互鉴，促进人类文明发展。”弘扬全人类共同价值是推动人类文明交流互鉴的必要前提。没有全人类共同价值的引领，人类文明的交流互鉴就会失去共同的价值前提。全人类共同价值反映了人类文明价值追求的统一性，它把握了人类文明发展的时代趋势，体现了人类文明发展的深层脉动，反映了人类文明发展的内在要求，代表了全人类的共同价值追求和普遍价值共识。全人类共同价值从本质上区别于西方提出的以自身特殊性冒充普遍性的所谓“普世价值”，它既根植于对人类命运共同体价值追求的内在必然性的自觉领会，也是对现代人类在长期文明实践中历经沧桑而积累、沉淀和结晶的价值共识的深刻把握，从而占据了真理和道义的制高点，成为引领人类文明发展的价值方向。推动人类文明交流互鉴的实践，需要以全人类共同价值为引领，从而凝聚全人类普遍的价值共识，为人类文明交流互鉴提供价值指引。在全人类共同价值的内容要素中，和平、发展是推动人类文明交流互鉴的价值基础。推动人类文明的交流互鉴，需要坚持和平发展道路，以和平而非暴力、协商而非对抗的方式解决不同文明之间的分歧与争端，弥合文明之间的隔阂与冲突，推动人类文明的和谐共存。公平、正义是推动人类文明交流互鉴必须遵循的价值原则。文明之间的交流互鉴，需要以文明主体性与平等性的尊重为基本前提，积极践行多边主义，以公平正义的原则妥善处理民族和国家之间的矛盾。民主、自由是推动人类文明交流互鉴的价值指向。推动人类文明的交流互鉴需要彼此尊重、平等对话、民主协商，需要在“和而不同”“求同存异”中找到人类文明进步的最大公约数，“以文明交流超越文明隔阂，以文明互鉴超越文明冲突，以文明共存超越文明优越”，促进人类文明的自由进步。

Fourth, take eclecticism and mutual learning as the path to promote the common progress of human civilizations. “Exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations should be reciprocal and equal, should be pluralistic and multidirectional, and should not be coercive or forced, nor should they be singular or unidirectional. We should break down the barriers to cultural exchange with a broad mind that embraces all, and draw on the nutrients of other civilizations with an eclectic attitude.” [17]17 Xi Jinping, “Jointly Should Openness and inclusiveness are necessary conditions for civilizations to continuously gain vitality. “The history of human social development is a history of the coexistence and progress of diverse civilizations. Different countries, regions, and peoples, different histories, religions, and customs, mutually illuminate and interact with each other, jointly delineating this splendid world.” [18] To advance exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations, it is necessary to treat the achievements of civilizations from all countries with an open vision and mindset, to break down the barriers to civilizational exchange with a spirit of inclusiveness and a broad mind, and to transcend various subjectivist civilizational prejudices. Different civilizations should learn from each other, draw on each other’s strengths to compensate for their own weaknesses, engage in equal exchange and mutual learning, and progress and develop together. Only through in-depth civilizational exchange and by actively drawing on and absorbing the strengths of other national civilizations can it be possible to transcend one’s own limitations, thereby achieving civilizational progress and transformation. Therefore, one must not only be adept at discovering the unique beauty of different civilizations with the eyes of beauty, but also be adept at drawing on and learning from the unique beauty of different civilizations, in order to promote the self-development and self-improvement of one’s own civilization.

四是以兼收并蓄、互学互鉴为路径，推动人类文明共同进步。“文明交流互鉴应该是对等的、平等的，应该是多元的、多向的，而不应该是强制的、强迫的，不应该是单一的、单向的。我们应该以海纳百川的宽广胸怀打破文化交往的壁垒，以兼收并蓄的态度汲取其他文明的养分”。开放包容是文明不断获得生命力的必要条件。“人类社会发展史是一部多元文明共生并进的历史。不同国家、地区、民族，不同历史、宗教、习俗，彼此交相辉映、相因相生，共同擘画出这个精彩纷呈的世界”。推动人类文明交流互鉴，需要以开放的眼光与心态对待世界各国文明成果，以包容的精神与宽广的胸怀打破文明交往的壁垒，超越各种主观主义的文明偏见。不同文明之间要相互学习、取长补短，平等交流、互学互鉴，共同进步、共同发展。只有通过深入的文明交流，并积极借鉴汲取其他民族文明的优长，才有可能超越自身的有限性，从而实现文明的进步和跃迁。因此，既要善于用美的眼睛发现不同文明的独特之美，也要善于汲取借鉴不同文明的独特之美，以推进自身文明的自我发展和自我完善。

In summary, the development of human civilization is at a very important historical juncture. The concept of civilizational exchange and mutual learning transcends the thinking of bipolar opposition, dialectically grasps the basic contradictions in civilizational development, embodies dialectically penetrating wisdom, and contains profound practical dialectical thought. The exchange and mutual learning of human civilizations is not a smooth road; it is inevitably filled with various difficulties and challenges such as ideological prejudice and narrow national interests. The practical dialectics of advancing exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations inherently requires us to both discard self-centrism and the civilizational dogmatism of absolutism and universalism, and also to reject and repudiate the “bad infinity” [19] caused by skepticism and relativism. Thus, in the civilizational practice of consciously building a community with a shared future for mankind and advocating the common values of all humanity, through mutual respect, equal dialogue, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning, and shared striving and progress, we can jointly realize the beautiful vision of human civilization.

总之，人类文明的发展正处于十分重要的历史关节点上。文明交流互鉴的理念，超越了两极对立的思维，辩证地把握了文明发展中的基本矛盾，体现出辩证通达的思想智慧，蕴含着深刻的实践辩证法思想。人类文明的交流互鉴并非坦途，其间必然充满着意识形态偏见、狭隘民族利益等种种困难和挑战。推动人类文明交流互鉴的实践辩证法，内在地要求我们既要抛弃自我中心主义以及绝对主义、普遍主义的文明独断论，也要摒弃和拒斥怀疑主义与相对主义所造成的“恶的无限”，从而在自觉构建人类命运共同体、倡导全人类共同价值的文明实践中，通过相互尊重、平等对话、开放包容、互学互鉴、砥砺共进，共同实现人类文明的美好愿景。

(The authors are professors and doctoral supervisors at the School of Marxism, Northeast Normal University; and doctoral students at the School of Marxism, Northeast Normal University.)

（作者系东北师范大学马克思主义学部教授、博士生导师；东北师范大学马克思主义学部博士研究生）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁