The Ideological Implications of the “Second Integration” in Resolving the “Dispute between the Ancient and the Modern, China and the West”

The relationship between “tradition” and “modernity,” and between “the indigenous” and “the foreign,” constitutes the two axes of the transformation of modern Chinese civilization or Chinese culture. The impact of the tension among the elements of “the ancient, the modern, China, and the West” in China’s modern and contemporary history is undoubtedly intense and enduring. After the Opium War, “the British cannon battered down the authority of the emperor and forced the Celestial Empire into contact with the terrestrial world” [1]1 Karl Marx, “The Opium War,” in *Marx and Engels on Colonialism* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1972), p. 2. The original quote is from Marx’s article on the Opium War.. The powerful modern European civilization shattered the ancient Chinese dream of the “Celestial Empire,” and China was thrust into world history and the tide of global modernization. This drastic change gave rise to a crisis of identity among the Chinese people regarding their own civilization, which had been passed down for over five thousand years. In the realm of ideology and culture, this manifested as endless disputes over the “debate between China and the West” and the “debate between the ancient and the modern.” It can be said that the discussion of civilization and culture in the “dispute between the ancient and the modern, China and the West” constitutes a key perspective through which the Chinese people have understood themselves and the world since modern times, and it is also an important background for our study of the modern transformation of traditional Chinese culture. In June 2023, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage Development: “After long-term efforts, we are more capable than any previous era of resolving the ‘dispute between the ancient and the modern, China and the West.’” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage Development,” *People’s Daily*, June 3, 2023. The confidence and foundation of this assertion stem from the “Second Integration’s” clarification and dialectical handling of the relationship between “the ancient, the modern, China, and the West.”

“传统”与“现代”、“本土”与“外来”的关系问题构成近代中华文明或中国文化变迁的两大轴心，“古今中西”各要素之间的张力在中国近现代历程中的影响无疑是剧烈而持久的。鸦片战争后，“英国的大炮破坏了皇帝的权威，迫使天朝帝国与地上的世界接触”，强势的欧洲现代文明打碎了古老中国“天朝上国”的迷梦，中国被抛入世界历史和世界现代化潮流之中。这种急剧变化使中国人对自身传承五千多年的文明产生认同危机，表现在思想文化领域就是关于“中西之辩”、“古今之辩”的聚讼不休。可以说“古今中西之争”关于文明和文化的讨论构成近代以来中国人认识自身以及理解世界的关键视角，也是我们研究中华传统文化现代转型的重要背景。2023年6月，习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上的讲话中指出：“经过长期努力，我们比以往任何一个时代都更有条件破解‘古今中西之争’。”这一论断的自信和底气来自“第二个结合”对于“古今中西”关系的厘清和辩证处理。

I. The “Second Integration” Transcends the Opposition between Tradition and Modernity

一、“第二个结合”超越传统与现代的对立

Formally speaking, the “dispute between the ancient and the modern” or the “debate between the ancient and the modern” refers to the question of how to view the civilization and culture of “tradition” and “modernity” from a temporal dimension. However, it has always contained a cultural tendency: the more thoroughly tradition is discarded, the faster one can enter modern society. Thus, since modern times, the mode of thinking that opposes “tradition” and “modernity” has secretly and profoundly dominated the minds of the Chinese people, to the extent that Western civilization was, for a long time, regarded as representing advanced, developed, and superior civilization, something to be wholly accepted. The “debate between the ancient and the modern” essentially contains important questions such as how to understand tradition, how to handle the relationship between tradition and modernity, and whether the modern transformation of tradition can be achieved. The “Second Integration” transcends the opposition between tradition and modernity precisely through its theoretical and practical answers to these questions.

从形式上看，“古今之争”抑或“古今之辩”是指时间维度上如何看待“传统”与“现代”的文明和文化问题，但其始终内蕴着一种文化倾向，即越彻底地抛弃传统就越能快速地迈入现代社会。于是近代以来，“传统—现代”对立的思维模式隐秘而深刻地支配着中国人的头脑，以至于西方文明在很长一段时间内是代表先进、发达、优质的文明，是需要全盘接受的对象。“古今之辩”实质上内含着如何理解传统、如何处理传统和现代之间的关系、是否能实现传统的现代转型等重要问题，“第二个结合”正是在对这些问题的理论性和实践性回答中超越了传统和现代的对立。

1. “Tradition” and “Modernity” Have a Dialectical Relationship

1. “传统”与“现代”具有辩证关系

Regarding the understanding and definition of the relationship between tradition and modernity, academia usually traces back to the emergence of modernity in the Enlightenment era. It holds that the Enlightenment, building on the Reformation, explicitly proclaimed that “man,” by virtue of his reason, could become the master of himself, opposing the previous obscurantism of religious theology and the constraints of kingship and patriarchal relations on people. It subjected everything to the scrutiny of reason, gradually establishing human subjectivity, thereby “emerging from his self-incurred immaturity” [3]3 Immanuel Kant, “An Answer to the Question: ‘What Is Enlightenment?’” (1784). The phrase “emerging from his self-incurred immaturity” is Kant’s definition of enlightenment.. “Reason” and “subjectivity,” as expressions of modern spiritual consciousness and the current state of modernity, created an opposition and rupture between tradition and modernity. Therefore, “modernity is always opposed to tradition; this seems to have become its definition” [4]4 This is a common formulation in Western social theory, often associated with the work of scholars like Anthony Giddens or Zygmunt Bauman, but here it is cited as a general definition.. We generally believe that the modernity created by the Enlightenment is an era “opening up to the future.” It expresses a value judgment and behavioral choice that contains human initiative and involves a complete break with the past and tradition. When modernity breaks free from the heavy burden of the past and tradition, it should then be a “self-sufficient” concept. That is, “modernity can no longer borrow its developmental tendencies from other epochs; it must draw its normativity from itself. This clarifies the highly sensitive ‘self-understanding’ of modernity and the ongoing effort to ‘confirm’ its own self, which continues to our time” [5]5 Jürgen Habermas, *The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), p. 7. Habermas discusses modernity’s need to generate its own normativity.. People seek the rationality of the era not from tradition and historical models but by facing the future. Modernity gains self-confirmation precisely through the contrast between tradition and modernity. Thus, Luo Rongqu believes that the West’s “basic structure of modernization theory is built on the pair of opposing concepts of ‘tradition and modernity’” [6]6 Luo Rongqu, *A New Theory of Modernization* (Beijing: Peking University Press, 1993), p. 35. Luo Rongqu (1927–1996) was a prominent Chinese historian of modernization theory.. When China was dragged into the process of modernization by the West’s strong ships and powerful cannons, facing the immense crisis of national subjugation and extinction, intellectuals, under the dual psychological mechanisms of cultural inferiority and a utilitarian pursuit of national wealth and power, adopted an extreme or overcorrecting attitude toward tradition and traditional culture. This led to the irreconcilable opposition between extreme conservatism, which blindly excluded foreign things and clung to tradition, and extreme radicalism, which completely discarded tradition and wholesale Westernization. It gave rise to two diametrically opposed sentiments: arrogant self-conceit and self-deprecation. Consequently, various theories and new factions eager for quick success appeared on the Chinese political stage in succession, leading to various reforms and revolutions.

关于传统与现代关系的理解和界定，学界通常回溯至启蒙时代现代性的出场，认为启蒙运动在宗教改革的基础上明确地宣扬“人”凭借其理性能够成为自我的主宰，反对以往宗教神学对人的蒙昧化以及王权、宗法关系对人的束缚，用理性拷问一切，使人的主体性逐步确立，从而逐渐“脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态”。“理性”和“主体性”作为现代的精神意识和现代性当下状态的一种表述，使传统与现代之间发生对立和断裂。因此，“现代性总是与传统相对立的，这似乎已经成为其定义”。我们通常认为，启蒙所造就的现代性是一个“向未来开显”的时代，它表达了一种内含人的主动性的与过去、传统进行彻底决裂的价值判断和行为选择。当现代脱离了沉重的过去和传统，那么现代就理应是一个“自足”的概念，即“现代不能或不愿再从其他时代样本那里借用其发展趋向的准则，而且必须自力更生，自己替自己制定规范。这便澄清了现代那高度敏感的‘自我理解’，以及直到我们的时代仍在不停地努力‘确证’其自我的动力”。人们不是从传统和历史典范中，而是面向未来探寻时代的合理性，现代性也正是在传统与现代的对比中获得自我确证。所以罗荣渠认为，西方的“现代化理论的基本结构建立在‘传统与现代性’这对对立的概念上”。当中国被西方的坚船利炮拖拽入现代化进程时，面对即将亡国灭种的巨大危机，知识分子在文化自卑心态和对国家富强的功利追求双重心理机制的作用之下，对传统和传统文化采取了一种过激或矫枉过正的态度，以至于有了盲目排外、拘泥于传统的极端保守和彻底摒弃传统、全盘西化的极端激进之间的势不两立，有了夜郎自大和妄自菲薄两种截然对立的情绪。于是有了各种急于求成的理论和新派人物在中国政治舞台上的轮番登场，出现了种种变革与革命。

In reality, tradition and modernity are not absolutely opposed. A pure “modernity” that contains no “tradition” does not exist. When we examine the history of modernization using Marx’s method of “retrospective analysis” [7]7 “Retrospective analysis” (从后思索法) refers to Marx’s method in *Capital* of analyzing earlier forms of society from the standpoint of the most developed form, as he wrote: “The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape.”, we can see that the factors and driving forces of modernity are actually rooted in the pre-modern. On this point, even those who theoretically might sever the relationship between tradition and modernity would, when observing reality, acknowledge the continuity of the process between the two. For example, Anthony Pagden points out that the European Renaissance sought to revive ancient Greek and Roman art and culture, while the Reformation attempted to restore the apostolic church of the early Roman Empire. Yet the Renaissance and Reformation are precisely the buds of modernity [8]8 Anthony Pagden, *The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters* (New York: Random House, 2013), p. 12. Pagden discusses the Renaissance and Reformation as precursors to Enlightenment modernity.. The Enlightenment “attacked the past in the name of the future,” opposing tradition to reason and using the supreme authority of reason to negate the meaning and value of tradition. At the same time, this prejudice of the Enlightenment brought about the inherent paradox of modernity. Instrumental reason, like an “iron cage,” crowded out the space of value reason, causing its decline and marginalization. People suffered from nihilism and spiritual crisis; “he no longer believes he can know what is good and what is bad; what is right and what is wrong” [9]9 Alasdair MacIntyre, *After Virtue* (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), p. 2. MacIntyre describes the modern moral condition as one of emotivism and loss of objective standards.. Gadamer vindicated tradition, pointedly stating: “Whether we oppose tradition in a revolutionary way or preserve it, tradition is still regarded as the abstract opposite of free self-determination, because its validity does not require any rational basis but constrains us as a matter of course” [10]10 Hans-Georg Gadamer, *Truth and Method* (New York: Continuum, 1989), p. 282. Gadamer argues for the positive role of tradition in understanding.. The Enlightenment always tries to discard tradition to achieve innovation, but in fact, while we are deconstructing certain traditions, we are also creating new ones. Examining the early process of China’s modernization, we can see that in the first half of the 20th century, one important reason why China’s modernization was fraught with difficulties was the misplacement of the relationship between tradition and modernity. There was a failure to correctly recognize that achieving modernization requires tradition as soil and resource, because “tradition is the organizing medium of collective memory” [11]11 Jan Assmann, *Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 6. Assmann develops the concept of cultural memory and tradition as its medium., providing a cultural community with the basis for identity needed to distinguish itself from other communities. This is crucial for national identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity, and even self-identity. Similarly, tradition also needs modernization. Only by taking modernity as a reference and coordinate can tradition gain its own definition and locate its direction and goals of development. Although, for various reasons, China missed the opportunity to spontaneously generate modernization from its own traditional soil, the most important traditional foundation—traditional Chinese culture—still exists and has never been interrupted. The “Second Integration” is a theoretical creation by the Communist Party of China based on a grand historical perspective that connects the past and the present. It aims to re-examine the value system of traditional Chinese culture, realize the modern transformation of traditional culture, and thereby build a bridge connecting tradition and modernity.

实际上，传统与现代并非绝然对立的，不包含任何“传统”、纯粹的“现代”并不存在。当我们用马克思“从后思索”法来审视现代化的历史可以发现，现代性的因素和动力其实扎根于前现代中。关于这一点，即使是在理论上可能割裂传统与现代二者关系的人从现实去观察也会正视二者的过程连续性。例如，安东尼·帕格登就指出，欧洲文艺复兴运动企图复兴古希腊文化艺术，宗教改革则试图重建罗马帝国早期的使徒教会。而文艺复兴和宗教改革恰是现代性的萌芽。启蒙运动“以未来的名义对过去攻击”，将传统与理性对立，以理性的最高权威否定传统的意义和价值的同时，这种启蒙的成见带来了现代性的内在悖反，工具理性如“铁的牢笼”般挤占价值理性的空间使其式微和边缘化，人们遭受着虚无主义和精神危机的攻击，“他再也不相信自己能够知道什么是好的，什么是坏的；什么是对的，什么是错的”。伽达默尔为传统正名，一针见血地指出：“不管我们是想以革命的方式反对传统还是保留传统，传统仍被视为自由的自我规定的抽象对立面，因为它的有效性不需要任何合理的根据，而是理所当然地制约我们的。”启蒙总是试图抛弃传统实现创新，但是事实上我们一边消解着某些传统，一边又在创造着新的传统。检视中国早期现代化进程可以看到，20世纪上半叶，中国的现代化之所以举步维艰，其重要原因在于错置了传统与现代之间的关系，并未正确认识到实现现代化需要以传统作为土壤和资源，因为“传统是集体记忆的组织媒介”，能够给予一个文化共同体所需的认同的依据，并将其与其他共同体区别开来，对于国家认同、民族认同、文化认同甚至是自我认同至关重要。而同样，传统也需要现代化，只有以现代为参照和坐标，传统才能获得自身规定性，才能定位发展的方向和目标。尽管由于种种原因，中国错失了从自身传统土壤中自觉生发出现代化的机会，但是最重要的传统根基——中华传统文化还在，而且一直未曾中断。“第二个结合”是中国共产党以贯通古今的大历史观所进行的理论创造，旨在重新审视中华传统文化价值体系的基础上，实现传统文化的现代转型，以搭建起连接传统与现代的桥梁。

2. Deconstructing Tradition: Excellent Traditional Chinese Culture Is One of the Subjects of the “Second Integration”

2. 消解传统：中华优秀传统文化是“第二个结合”的主体之一

During the May Fourth New Culture Movement period, an important reason for intellectuals’ total negation of tradition was that, from an abstract holistic perspective, they conflated traditional Chinese culture with autocratic political order, believing that “all things unique to China are diseased because the mother that produced them is diseased.” [12]12 The May Fourth New Culture Movement (c. 1915–1920s) was an intellectual and cultural movement that criticized traditional Chinese culture, especially Confucianism, as an obstacle to modernization. But as Gadamer pointed out, one cannot completely exclude the existence within tradition of some “impossible things,” “absurd things,” and “fixed rituals” that are opposed to or even anti-rational, because “tradition, by its essence, is preservation… preservation is a rational activity.” [13]13 Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002), German philosopher known for his work on hermeneutics, particularly *Truth and Method* (1960). Tradition not only preserves old, outdated things but is also an incubator for new, planned things. The characteristic of “preservation” determines that tradition itself constitutes a dynamic, open system; within tradition, there are simultaneously positive and negative, progressive and backward elements. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt a dialectical attitude and a progressive perspective to find criteria that can dissolve the decadent and negative factors within tradition, and only on this premise can tradition be developed and reconstructed. The most important meaning of tradition is not the past, but the present, the now; hence, the criterion for dissolving those aspects of tradition that contain decadent and negative layers is practical need.

五四新文化运动时期，知识分子对于传统的全盘否定的一个重要原因是，以一种抽象整体观将中国传统文化和专制主义政治秩序混为一谈，认为“中国特有的东西均因产生它们的母体患有病毒而患有病毒”。但正如伽达默尔所指出的，不能完全排除传统中存在一些“不可能的东西”、“荒谬的东西”以及“固定的礼仪”等与理性相对立甚至是反理性的东西，因为“传统按其本质就是保存……保存是一种理性活动”，传统不仅能够保存旧有的、过时的东西，而且也是新的、被计划的东西的孵化地。“保存”的特质决定了传统本身构成一个动态的、开放的系统，传统的内部同时包含着积极的和消极的、进步的和落后的因素。因此，需要以辩证的态度和进步的视野，找寻可以消解传统中腐朽、消极的因素的标准，在此前提下才能对传统进行发展和重构。传统最重要的意义不是过去，而是当下、现在，所以消解那些存在着腐朽、消极层面的传统的标准就是现实需要。

General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “We must make the past serve the present, use the past to illuminate the present, treat tradition with discernment and inherit it with critical selection, and must not exalt the past over the present or use the past to negate the present; we must strive to achieve the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional culture, so that it integrates and interpenetrates with contemporary culture.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, speech at a forum on cultural work, 2014. The phrase “creative transformation and innovative development” (创造性转化、创新性发展) is a standard formulation in CCP cultural policy, often abbreviated as “two creations” (两创). As a historical existence, tradition gains its legitimacy from the needs of contemporary culture and the development of the times. This also indirectly shows that tradition can only be called “tradition” when, in the course of epochal change marked by a clear sense of rupture, a new set of cultural symbols and value systems is needed to replace the old ones. This is precisely why the “controversy over the ancient and the modern, China and the West” could only emerge under the historical conditions of modern China, in the process of China moving from national history to world history. The “Second Integration” was proposed under the epochal task of urgently needing an effective answer to and resolution of the “controversy over the ancient and the modern, China and the West.” Faced with the dilemma of maintaining a traditional foundation at the cultural level while pursuing modern development at the developmental level, an important prerequisite for the “Second Integration” to reactivate the vitality of traditional culture in the process of China’s modernization is that one of the subjects of the “integration” is fine traditional Chinese culture, not Chinese culture or traditional culture in general. This has two significant implications: First, the “Second Integration” opposes the “charismatic” [15]15 “Charisma” (克里斯玛) is used here in the sociological sense derived from Max Weber, referring to the authority or legitimacy of tradition based on its perceived sacred or exceptional quality. character borne by tradition, identifying and dissolving those parts of traditional culture that do not meet the demands of the times. It thereby separates and extracts fine traditional Chinese culture from the original, complex system of traditional culture and integrates it with Marxism, transcending the “tradition–modernity” oppositional mindset rather than falling into the mire of cultural revivalism. Second, the elevation of fine traditional Chinese culture from the object of the “First Integration” to the subject of the “Second Integration” means that the wisdom of fine traditional Chinese culture is, through the “Second Integration,” penetrating all aspects of socialism with Chinese characteristics, providing continuous spiritual nourishment for social development.

习近平总书记指出：“要坚持古为今用、以古鉴今，坚持有鉴别的对待、有扬弃的继承，而不能搞厚古薄今、以古非今，努力实现传统文化的创造性转化、创新性发展，使之与现实文化相融相通。”传统作为历史性存在，它在现实文化和时代发展的需求中获得合法性依据。这也从侧面说明，传统只能是在出现明确断裂感的时代更替中，需要一套新的文化符号、价值体系去取代旧的文化符号、价值体系的时候才能被称之为“传统”，这也是为什么“古今中西之争”只会是在中国近代历史条件下、在中国从民族历史走向世界历史的过程中出现。“第二个结合”是在“古今中西之争”迫切需要有效性回答和破解的时代任务下提出来的，面对文化层面维持传统底色与发展层面谋求现代发展的两难选择，“第二个结合”能够在中国现代化进程中重新激活传统文化生命力的重要前提在于，“结合”的主体之一是中华优秀传统文化，而不是笼统的中华文化或传统文化。这有两方面重要意义：其一，“第二个结合”反对传统所承载的“克里斯玛”特质，对传统文化中不适应时代要求的部分进行了甄别和消解，从而将中华优秀传统文化从原有庞杂的传统文化体系中加以剥离和萃取，并将其与马克思主义进行结合，超越了“传统—现代”对立的思维格局，而不是陷入文化复古主义的泥淖。其二，中华优秀传统文化从“第一个结合”的对象上升为“第二个结合”的主体，意味着中华优秀传统文化的智慧正通过“第二个结合”深入到中国特色社会主义的各方面，为社会发展提供源源不断的精神滋养。

3. Maintaining Tradition: Cultural Subjectivity Is the Object of Consolidation for the “Second Integration”

3. 维护传统：文化主体性是“第二个结合”的巩固对象

For a cultural community, tradition, as the “organizational medium of collective memory,” constitutes the unique cultural memory of that community. The importance of this cultural memory lies in its ability to connect the community’s past with the present and to reflect on and influence the future, giving individuals within the community a strong sense of belonging and identity. As beings of meaning, humans need to find support to anchor their spiritual home. Civilization and culture, as fundamental dimensions of human existence, “encompass a nation’s history and reality in complex and inclusive forms,” profoundly influencing and shaping the identity and cultural identification of individuals born and raised within them. Huntington argues: “Civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species… The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest identity with which he strongly identifies. Civilization is the biggest ‘we’ within which we feel culturally at home, because it distinguishes us from all the ‘thems’ outside it.” [16]16 Samuel P. Huntington (1927–2008), American political scientist, author of *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order* (1996). Therefore, historical and cultural tradition is an important foundation and source of Chinese cultural identity. As the “deepest level of identity,” cultural identity is a people’s affirmative recognition of their own culture and the value anchor that sustains their spiritual home. However, after the Opium War, the nation was subjected to humiliation, the people to suffering, and the civilization to dust. Accompanied by the process of China’s descent into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society was the decline of the traditional Chinese cultural and ideological system. Until the introduction of Marxism, faced with the desperate situation of “a great fire burning the house, leaving it empty and without support,” “the thought and value clusters formed in the highly integrated Chinese society, after the disintegration of the cultural and moral system, were either corrupted or scattered; in other words, the traditional cultural and moral framework no longer existed.” [17]17 The phrase “大火焚室，空空无依” (a great fire burning the house, leaving it empty and without support) is a classical Chinese allusion to a state of utter desolation. The subsequent quotation is from the Chinese intellectual historian Yu Yingshi (1930–2021). The Chinese nation lost its spiritual support in an existential sense and experienced a severe crisis in cultural identity, even leading to a temporary decline in cultural subjectivity. This is because the crisis of cultural identity is essentially a weakening or even lack of cultural subject consciousness, and cultural subject consciousness takes cultural subjectivity as its core. The proposal of the “Second Integration” is a concrete manifestation of the distinct cultural subject consciousness of the Chinese nation. This cultural subject consciousness is a firm self-affirmation in a cultural sense; it first implies the subject’s “self-knowledge” of its own culture, and on this basis, a high degree of self-awareness regarding traditional culture. The “Second Integration” regards fine traditional Chinese culture as the most fundamental spiritual essence of the Chinese nation, further consolidating cultural subjectivity. This enables us, amid the changes unseen in a century, to avoid falling into the cultural disorientation that modern Chinese intellectuals once faced. Therefore, rather than saying that the “Second Integration” consolidates cultural subjectivity by maintaining tradition, it is more accurate to say that it maintains the factors and forces of subjective cultural identity inherent in fine traditional Chinese culture. This is precisely the basic prerequisite for promoting the modern transformation of fine traditional Chinese culture in the New Era.

对于文化共同体而言，传统作为“集体记忆的组织媒介”构成这个共同体特有的文化记忆，这种文化记忆的重要性在于能够将这个共同体的过去与当下联结，并观照和影响未来，使共同体中的个体获得强烈的归属感和认同感。人作为意义的存在物，需要找寻依托来安置精神家园，而文明和文化作为人基本的生存向度，“以复杂且包容的形式涵盖了一个民族的历史与现实”，深刻地影响和塑造着生于斯、长于斯的个体的身份认同和文化认同。亨廷顿认为：“文明是对人最高的文化归类，是人们文化认同的最广范围，人类以此与其他物种相区别。……他所属的文明是他与之强烈认同的最大的认同范围。文明是最大的‘我们’，在其中我们在文化上感到安适，因为它使我们区别于所有在它之外的‘各种他们’。”所以，历史文化传统是中华文化认同的重要基础和来源。作为“最深层次的认同”，文化认同是一个民族对自身文化的肯定性体认，是精神家园得以维系的价值归依。但是鸦片战争后，国家蒙辱、人民蒙难、文明蒙尘，伴随着沦为半殖民地半封建社会历程而来的，是中国传统文化思想体系的式微，直至马克思主义传入之前，面对着“大火焚室，空空无依”的绝望情势，“在过去高度整合的中国社会中所形成的思想和价值丛聚，在文化与道德系统解体以后不是败坏，便是零落；或者说，传统的文化和道德的框架已不复存在了”。中华民族在存在意义上失去精神依托，在文化认同上出现严重危机，甚至一度导致文化主体性沉沦，因为文化认同的危机本质上是文化主体意识的弱化甚至是欠缺，而文化主体意识又是以文化主体性为内核。“第二个结合”的提出是中华民族所具有的鲜明文化主体意识的具体表现，这种文化主体意识是文化意义上坚定的自我确认，它首先意味着主体对自身文化的“自知之明”，以及在此基础上所生发的对于传统文化的高度自觉。“第二个结合”将中华优秀传统文化看作中华民族最根本的精神内蕴，进一步巩固了文化主体性，使我们在世界百年未有之大变局下避免陷入近代中国知识分子所面临的文化迷失境遇。所以，与其说“第二个结合”对文化主体性的巩固是在维护传统，不如说它维护的是中华优秀传统文化所内蕴的主体文化认同因子和力量，而这正是在新时代推动中华优秀传统文化现代转型的基本前提。

4. Discovering Tradition: The “Second Integration” Carries Out “Two Creations” [18]18 “Two Creations” (两创) refers to the policy of “creative transformation and innovative development” of traditional culture, as introduced in note [14]. of Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

4. 发现传统：“第二个结合”对中华优秀传统文化进行“两创”

Tradition is a historical existence. Marx pointed out that “the outdated always seeks to restore and consolidate itself in new forms,” and that tradition “weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*. Tradition will never disappear with the passage of time, nor can any tradition be fully revived in the course of social history; tradition “is the ‘living past,’ that part of the past which can ‘live on’ into the present.” [20]20 Source of this quotation not identified in the original text; likely a paraphrase of a concept from hermeneutics or cultural theory. Tradition and modernity mutually endow each other with meaning, which also explains why the “Second Integration,” through its dissolution of some traditions and its preservation of others, further highlights the importance of traditional Chinese culture. This is because traditional Chinese culture is the concentrated expression at the cultural level of the “living” past. “Living” not only means that modernity can reconstruct tradition, but also that on this basis new traditions can be discovered, for “these ideas and categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy*. Traditional Chinese culture not only possesses the characteristic of being a “living past,” capable of traversing historical changes with resilient vitality and distinctive traditional features, but also contains vital factors that “live on” into the present, adapting to the demands of different eras at different stages of historical development through its strong inclusiveness and outstanding innovativeness. This capacity for continuous development in traditional Chinese culture is an important prerequisite for its being “newly constructed.” Engels pointed out: “The world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes.” [22]22 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. Traditional Chinese culture, like flowing river water, is in constant flux and belongs to a “complex of processes.” The “Second Integration” explicitly proposes to carry out creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, this “root vein,” so that fine traditional Chinese culture can better serve China’s modernization process and provide indispensable spiritual strength and cultural resources for China’s modernization development. The “Two Creations” [23]23 “Two Creations” (两创) refers to the policy of “creative transformation and innovative development” of fine traditional Chinese culture. are a reconstruction and new construction of fine traditional Chinese culture. The former faces the past, focusing on transforming and updating the form and content of fine traditional Chinese culture in step with the times, based on the social conditions of the “present”; the latter faces the future, requiring that “in accordance with the new progress and new developments of the times, the connotations of fine traditional Chinese culture be supplemented, expanded, and perfected, enhancing its influence and appeal.” [24]24 Quotation from a Chinese official document or speech, likely related to Xi Jinping’s discussions on traditional culture.

传统是历史性存在。马克思指出，“过时的东西总是力图在新生的形式中得到恢复和巩固”，传统“像梦魇一样纠缠着活人的头脑”。传统绝不会随着时间的推移而消亡，同样也没有任何一种传统能在社会历史进程中完全复活，传统“是‘活着的过去’，是能够‘活到’现在的那一部分过去”。传统与现代相互赋予对方意义，这也解释了为什么“第二个结合”对于部分传统的消解和部分传统的维护更加突出了中华传统文化的重要性，因为中华传统文化是“活着”的过去在文化层面的集中表达。“活着”不仅意味着现代可以重构传统，也可以在此基础上发现新的传统，因为“这些观念、范畴也同它们所表现的关系一样，不是永恒的。它们是历史的、暂时的产物”。中华传统文化不仅具备“活着的过去”的特性，能够以坚韧的生命力和鲜明的传统特色穿梭于历史的流变中，而且具有“活到”现在的活力因素，以极强的包容性和突出的创新性，在不同的历史发展阶段适应不同时代的要求。中华传统文化这种持续发展的能力特征，是其能够被“新构”的重要前提。恩格斯指出：“世界不是既成事物的集合体，而是过程的集合体。”中华传统文化宛如流动的河水般变动不居，属于“过程的集合体”。“第二个结合”明确提出要对中华优秀传统文化这一“根脉”进行创造性转化和创新性发展，使中华优秀传统文化更好地服务中国的现代化进程，为中国现代化发展提供不可或缺的精神力量和文化资源。“两创”是对中华优秀传统文化的重构和新构。前者面向过去，注重以“现在”的社会条件与时俱进地改造和更新中华优秀传统文化的形式和内容；后者面向未来，要求“按照时代的新进步新进展，对中华优秀传统文化的内涵加以补充、拓展、完善，增强其影响力和感召力”。

In this process, it is Marxism, this “soul vein,” that injects a “living soul” into fine traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, the approach to fine traditional Chinese culture is not merely simple inheritance and transformation; more importantly, it is to “discover tradition,” and, by integrating with the new era’s context and the requirements of social practice, to achieve a qualitative improvement in the form and content of fine traditional Chinese culture, thereby making it a constructive component of the modernization system. Through the progressive layers of dissolving tradition, preserving tradition, and discovering tradition, the “Second Integration” repeatedly confirms its transcendence of the opposition between tradition and modernity.

在这个过程中，是马克思主义这一“魂脉”为中华优秀传统文化注入“活的灵魂”。所以，对待中华优秀传统文化不仅是简单的继承和转化，更重要的是“发现传统”，结合新的时代语境和社会实践要求，使中华优秀传统文化的形式与内容得到质的提升，从而成为现代化体系的建设性内容。“第二个结合”在消解传统、维护传统和发现传统的层层递进中，反复印证其对于传统和现代对立的超越。

II. The “Second Integration” Eliminates the Tension between the Indigenous and the Foreign

二、“第二个结合”消弭本土与外来的张力

The “controversy over the Chinese and the Western,” or the “debate on the Chinese and the Western,” refers to the question of how to view the civilizations and cultures of the “indigenous” and the “foreign” in the spatial dimension. It is an ideological and cultural shock inevitably encountered by China as it entered into world history in modern times. Since modern times, a key reason why the cultural tension between the “indigenous” and the “foreign” could not be broken through or transcended is that intellectuals fell into the ideological trap of “Western-centrism.” The “Second Integration” breaks the ideological shackles of “Western-centrism,” enabling Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture to mutually achieve each other on Chinese soil.

“中西之争”或曰“中西之辩”是指在空间维度上如何看待“本土”与“外来”的文明和文化问题，是中国近代以来走向世界历史过程中必然遭遇的思想文化冲击。近代以来，“本土”和“外来”之间的文化张力无法被突破和超越的重要原因在于知识分子落入了“西方中心主义”的思想陷阱，而“第二个结合”破除了“西方中心主义”的思想禁锢，使马克思主义同中华优秀传统文化在中国大地互相成就。

1. The “Indigenous” and the “Foreign” Directly Point to Difference, but the Subject of the “Second Integration” Possesses an Inter-Subjective Character

1. “本土”与“外来”直指差异性，但“第二个结合”的主体具有间性特质

The “controversy over the ancient and the modern” is a universal issue in the process of human civilization. How to handle the relationship between tradition and modernity is a question that all nation-states must face and answer in the process of modernization. The “controversy over the Chinese and the Western,” however, is a particular problem derived from China’s incorporation into the modernization process. In the first half of the 20th century, discussions among Chinese intellectuals on the “controversy over the Chinese and the Western” once overshadowed the exploration of the “controversy over the ancient and the modern.” The transformation of cultural mentality caused the “controversy over the Chinese and the Western” to carry strong emotional overtones. For instance, Liang Shuming pointed out: “The Chinese attitude towards the import of Westernization has gradually changed. Easternization has yielded step by step to Westernization, and Westernization has hacked away at Easternization bit by bit! The final question has come to stripping away the branches and leaves, to striking at the throat! To fundamentally overthrow Chinese culture!” [25]25 Liang Shuming, *The Essential Meanings of Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies* (1921). Behind the intense cultural attitudes of Chinese intellectuals at that time, a prominent issue deserves attention: compared to tradition and modernity, between the “indigenous” and the “foreign” there exists a dimension of the “self” and the “other.” The most important marker of this dimension is “difference.” That is, when facing enormous epochal changes and severe social crises, the tension between the “indigenous” and the “foreign” is infinitely magnified. When modern Chinese intellectuals encountered qualitatively different forms of civilization, they would unconsciously emphasize the identity difference between the “self” and the “other,” reflecting on themselves through the Western “other.” As mentioned earlier, the Enlightenment created the myth of “human reason” and established Western modernity, and this modern society is one that pursues uniformity and universality. Mike Featherstone pointed out: “Modernity has been seen as leading to an exploration that imposes ideas of unity and universality on thought and the world. In fact, its mission is to impose order on disorder, the rules of obedience on virgin territory.” [26]26 Mike Featherstone, *Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity* (1995). The characteristic of Western modernity’s pursuit of uniformity leads Western civilization to reject the “difference” of non-Western regions and civilizations. Along with the global expansion of capitalism, Western developed countries continuously “universalize” their values and cultural concepts. Under the linear evolutionary scale of civilization formulated by the West, the distinction between civilization and barbarism, center and periphery, reduces other civilizations to appendages of Western civilization. Since modern times, whether Chinese intellectuals leaned towards “radical anti-traditionalism” or “anti-modernity,” their ideological tendencies actually fell into the ideological trap of “Western-centrism,” that is, equating modernization with Westernization. The cultural bias of “Western-centrism” is deeply influenced by the “subject-object dichotomy” thinking mode of traditional Western philosophy, leading to a lack of equal dialogue between civilizations and the absolutization of differences between different civilizations. Unlike traditional Western philosophy, Husserl’s theory of “intersubjectivity” emphasizes the coexistence of the transcendental ego and the alter ego, representing a breakthrough from the “subject-object dichotomy” thinking mode of traditional Western philosophy. On the basis of critically inheriting Husserl’s theory, Habermas applied intersubjectivity to the cultural field, proposing the theory of “interculturality.” Its core viewpoint is: under the premise of acknowledging cultural differences, achieve dialectical integration on the basis of difference. Both Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture possess the character of interculturality. Although they have differences in time-space, region, and ethnicity, the conceptual system constructed by Marxism in its development process and the core value system of Chinese culture have an inherent consistency, with compatibility in multiple aspects such as epistemology, practice theory, methodology, and values. At the same time, from the cultural perspective of the free essence of humanity, both cultural forms possess universal values that transcend their formative backgrounds and specific economic-social conditions. This is the prerequisite for their ability to “integrate.” The “Second Integration,” with its broad theoretical vision and spiritual character of respecting civilizational diversity, achieves an organic connection between indigenous civilization and foreign civilization.

“古今之争”是人类文明进程中的普遍性问题，如何处理传统和现代之间的关系是各民族国家在现代化进程中必须面对和解答的问题，而“中西之争”是中国在纳入现代化进程中所衍生的特殊性问题。20世纪上半叶，中国知识分子关于“中西之争”的讨论一度盖过对“古今之争”的探讨，文化心态的嬗变导致“中西之争”带有强烈的情感色彩。如梁漱溟指出：“中国人对于西方化的输入，态度逐渐变迁，东方化对西方化步步的退让，西方化对东方化的节节斩伐！到了最后的问题是已将枝叶去掉，要向喉咙去着刀！而将中国化根本打倒！”在当时的中国知识分子激烈的文化态度背后，一个显性的问题值得关注：相较于传统和现代，“本土”与“外来”之间存在一个“自我”和“他者”的维度，这一维度最重要的标志在于“差异性”，即面对巨大的时代变迁和严重的社会危机，“本土”和“外来”之间的张力会被无限放大，当近代中国知识分子面对有质的差异性的文明形态时，会不自觉地强调“自我”和“他者”之间的身份差异，经由西方的“他者”反观自身。如前所述，启蒙运动创造了“人类理性”的神话，确立起西方的现代性，而这种现代性社会是追求同一性和普遍性的社会。迈克·费瑟斯通指出：“现代性已被视为导致了将统一性和普遍性观念强加于思想和世界之上的探索。实际上，它的使命就是要把有序强加给无序，把服从的规则强加给未开垦的处女地。”西方现代性追求同一性的特性使西方文明拒斥非西方地区及文明的“差异性”。伴随着资本主义在世界范围内的拓展，西方发达国家不断将其价值准则和文化观念“普世化”，在西方所制定的文明线性进化标尺之下，文明与野蛮、中心与边缘的分野使其他文明被降格为西方文明的附庸。近代以来，中国知识分子无论是“激进反传统”还是“反现代性”的思想倾向其实都落入了“西方中心主义”的思想陷阱，即把现代化等同于西方化。而“西方中心主义”的文化偏见深受西方传统哲学“主客二分”思维模式的影响，导致了文明间平等对话的缺失，不同文明之间的差异性被绝对化。不同于西方传统哲学，胡塞尔提出的“主体间性”理论强调先验自我和他我的共存，是对西方传统哲学“主客二分”思维模式的突破。哈贝马斯在批判继承胡塞尔理论的基础上，将主体间性应用于文化领域，提出“文化间性”的理论，其核心观点在于：在承认文化差异性的前提之下，实现差异基础上的辩证融合。马克思主义同中华优秀传统文化都具有文化的间性特质，两者虽然有着时空性、地域性和民族性的差异，但是马克思主义在发展过程中构建起来的观念体系和中华文化的核心价值体系有着内在一致性，在认识论、实践论、方法论和价值观等多个方面存在契合性。同时，从人的自由本质的文化视野而言，这两个文化形态都具有超越其形成背景和经济社会条件的普遍价值，这是两者能够“结合”的前提条件。“第二个结合”以开阔的理论视野和尊重文明多样性的精神特质，实现了本土文明和外来文明的有机衔接。

2. The “Second Integration” Realizes the Two-Way Selection of Different Cultural Forms on the Basis of Coexistence

2. “第二个结合”在共在基础上实现不同文化形态的双向选择

According to a general understanding, before Marxism was introduced into China, due to the violent impact of Western civilization, various Western social trends of thought appeared on the Chinese stage in succession, but none of them could solve the problem of China’s future and destiny. “The salvoes of the October Revolution” brought Marxism to China, and from then on, under the guidance of Marxism, China emerged from its predicament and advanced the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context from the “First Integration” to the “Two Integrations.” [27]27 The “First Integration” refers to the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities, first formally proposed by Mao Zedong in 1938. The “Two Integrations” adds the integration with fine traditional Chinese culture, formally articulated by Xi Jinping in 2021. Although this is indeed a historical fact, this explanation is actually similar in logic to the “impact-response” theory, namely, that China urgently needed a theory capable of leading it toward modernization, and Marxism happened to possess such theoretical qualities and capabilities. From this perspective, Marxism and Chinese society, Chinese reality, and Chinese culture merely achieved a coexistence at a specific point in time. However, if we re-examine this historical fact from a dynamic historical analytical perspective, we will find that China’s choice of Marxism and its progression from the “First Integration” to the current “Second Integration” is actually an inevitable choice in the historical process of China’s transition from a traditional society to a modern society, from a subjugated civilization to a civilization with Chinese cultural subjectivity. Western capitalist civilization, dominated by the logic of capital, thrust China into the process of modernization. As “barbarism” in opposition to Western civilization, China could only passively accept the order of Western civilization. Therefore, breaking free from the unidirectional civilizational or cultural order of Western capitalist countries, consolidating cultural subjectivity, taking an independent path of Chinese modernization, and achieving modernization in the true sense have been the goals of China’s development since modern times. Marxism is a doctrine concerning human society and human civilization’s liberation from the dominance of the logic of capital, the breaking of the “center-periphery” hierarchical pattern of civilizations, and the realization of “the free and comprehensive development of the individual.” Hence, the development of history and civilization objectively required China to break free from the logic of capital and the logic of hierarchy and to choose Marxism. In this sense, returning to the “Second Integration,” we can say that, on the basis of grasping the essence and developmental trends of capitalist civilization, it has achieved a historical coexistence of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture. This “coexistence” is a dynamic process of occurrence, and this historical coexistence is the prerequisite for the continuous realization of a two-way selection between Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture. The “Second Integration” constructs a mode of cultural compatibility where different cultural forms are compatible, interconnected, and mutually supportive. From the perspective of Marxism, the “Second Integration” is an important pathway for Marxism to continuously achieve theoretical innovation, and the theoretical achievements of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times are an important component of the Marxist theoretical system. From the perspective of fine traditional Chinese culture, in the “Second Integration,” Marxism enables fine traditional Chinese culture to find the basis for its modern transformation; no link in the chain of dissolving tradition, maintaining tradition, or discovering tradition can be separated from Marxism. The two-way selection of two cultural forms originating from different regions and different civilizations in the “Second Integration” takes the “interstitial” nature of culture as its premise, the equality between cultures and the benign interaction between “self” and “other” as its process, and the creation of a new cultural space in a shared context as its goal. It is precisely in the process of this two-way selection that Marxism, which was originally an option for China’s early advanced intellectuals, has become an inevitability in the historical process of China’s modernization.

按照一般性的理解，马克思主义传入中国之前，由于西方文明的猛烈冲击，西方各种社会思潮在中国轮番登场，但都没能解决中国的前途和命运问题。“十月革命一声炮响”，为中国送来了马克思主义，从此中国在马克思主义的指导下走出困境，并从“第一个结合”到“两个结合”不断推进马克思主义中国化。虽然这确是历史事实，然而这种解释其实与“冲击—反应”理论的逻辑有类似之处，即中国迫切需要一套能够带领中国走向现代化的理论，而马克思主义正好有这样的理论特质和理论能力，从这个层面而言，马克思主义与中国社会、中国实际、中国文化仅仅实现了特定时间点上的共在。但是，若以动态的历史分析视野重新审视这段历史事实，我们会发现中国选择马克思主义，并提出“第一个结合”到现在的“第二个结合”，其实是中国从传统社会迈向现代社会、从被附属的文明走向具有中华文化主体性的文明历史进程的必然选择。以资本逻辑为主导的西方资本主义文明将中国抛入现代化进程中，作为与西方文明相对的“野蛮”，中国只能被动接受西方文明的秩序安排。因此，摆脱西方资本主义国家单向度的文明或文化秩序、巩固文化主体性，走中国自主的现代化道路，实现真正意义上的现代化是近代以来中国发展的目标。而马克思主义是关于人类社会和人类文明摆脱资本逻辑主导、打破“中心—附庸”文明差序格局、实现“人的自由全面发展”的学说。因此，历史的发展、文明的发展客观上要求中国摆脱资本逻辑和等级逻辑，选择马克思主义。在这个意义上，回到“第二个结合”，我们可以说它在把握资本主义文明本质和发展趋势的基础上，实现了马克思主义和中华优秀传统文化的历史性共在，这种“共在”是一个动态的发生过程，而这种历史性共在是马克思主义和中华优秀传统文化不断实现双向选择的前提。“第二个结合”建构起一种不同文化形态之间兼容共通、相互支撑的文化契合模式。从马克思主义的角度来讲，“第二个结合”是马克思主义不断实现理论创新的重要路径，马克思主义中国化时代化理论成果是马克思主义理论体系的重要组成部分。从中华优秀传统文化的视域而言，在“第二个结合”中，马克思主义使中华优秀传统文化找到了现代转型的依据，消解传统、维护传统、发现传统的任何一个环节都离不开马克思主义。“第二个结合”中两个产生于不同地域、不同文明的文化形态的双向选择，是以文化的“间性”特质为前提，以文化间的平等性、“自我”和“他者”的良性互动为过程，在共同的语境中创造新的文化空间为目的的。而正是在双向选择的过程中，原本是作为中国早期先进知识分子选择项的马克思主义，早已在中国现代化的历史进程中成为一种必然。

3. The “Second Integration” Achieves Heterogeneous Compatibility of Different Cultural Forms on the Basis of Difference

3. “第二个结合”在差异性基础上实现不同文化形态的异构契合

General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “The prerequisite of ‘integration’ is mutual compatibility,” and “the result of ‘integration’ is mutual achievement.” [28]28 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage,” 2023. When we re-examine the “Second Integration” with such a declarative ideological “pre-understanding,” a prerequisite question requires reflection: we have in fact already tacitly accepted the “difference” of civilizations or cultures, and how to grant this tacitly accepted “difference” a rational and legitimate foundation needs further elaboration, and is also something that needs to be “unconcealed” in the further discussion of the “Second Integration.” The author believes that the “difference” of civilizations or cultures can be understood from two aspects. On the one hand, it emphasizes uniqueness. Culture, as a category of the superstructure, is determined by the productive forces and the relations of production, and changes in the productive forces and relations of production cause changes in human culture. Therefore, “the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.” [29]29 Karl Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy* (1847). The uniqueness of culture is internally based on cultural subjectivity, so on the surface we see that different nations have different cultural symbols, but in essence, it is these cultural symbols that constitute the evidence of “what makes our ethnic group our ethnic group.” On the other hand, it implies “harmony” on the basis of “difference.” That is to say, civilization, as a product of people’s practical activities, has commonalities, but this commonality resides within specific civilizational forms. When we, while acknowledging the uniqueness of civilizations, rationally examine different civilizations and cultures with a “value-oriented” mode of understanding, mutual understanding between civilizations and cultures becomes possible. After explaining the “difference” of civilizations and cultures at a macro level, we can find that Western civilization’s rejection of the “difference” between different civilizations and its labeling of other civilizations as “backward” and “barbaric” actually constitutes an infringement on the diversity and difference of civilizations. A strong sense of civilizational superiority morally evolves into arrogance and prejudice. Applied to the “Second Integration,” it is precisely on the premise of acknowledging and respecting the rationality of the difference between Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture that it continuously reflects on the general principles of Marxism within the substantive content of fine traditional Chinese culture, gradually achieving their “heterogeneous compatibility.” The attitude of “acknowledgment and respect” highlights an open, inclusive, peaceful, and confident cultural mentality of the cultural subject, which is a complete end to the state of spiritual emptiness and cultural inferiority among the Chinese people after the Opium War. [30]30 The Opium War (1839–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, often seen as the beginning of a century of “national humiliation” and semi-colonial subjugation. At the same time, the “acknowledgment” of the difference of cultural forms has the distinctive feature of leaving space for the integration and innovation of different civilizations. In this space for cultural innovation, it is precisely the social practice carried out by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China that constitutes the internal driving force for the difference between Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture, as represented by “native” and “foreign,” to be continuously transformed into the driving force for their integration. Therefore, today, Marxism can no longer be regarded as a foreign cultural form; it has long achieved localization and adaptation to the times in the process of its Sinicization. From this perspective, the “Second Integration” dissolves the tension between “native” and “foreign,” achieving “harmony in diversity” between Chinese and Western cultures, forming a sharp contrast with the Western view that cultural “homogenization and universalization” should be achieved with Western civilization as the center and standard.

习近平总书记指出，“‘结合’的前提是彼此契合”，“‘结合’的结果是互相成就”。当我们带着这样一个陈述性的思想“前见”再一次审视“第二个结合”时，一个前提性的问题需要反思，即我们其实已经默认了文明或者文化的“差异性”，而如何给予这种被默认的“差异性”以合理性和合法性基础，是需要进一步阐述的，也是在进一步讨论“第二个结合”过程中需要“解蔽”的。笔者认为，文明或文化的“差异性”可以从两个方面来理解。一方面，强调独特性。文化作为上层建筑范畴是由生产力和生产方式决定的，生产力和生产方式的变革会引起人类文化的变迁。因此，“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会”。文化的独特性是以文化主体性为内在依据的，所以表面上我们看到各个民族具有不同的文化符号，实质上正是这些文化符号构成了“我族之为我族”的证据。另一方面，内蕴“不同”基础上的“和”，也就是说，文明作为人们实践活动的产物，是有共性的，只是这种共性寓于特殊的文明形态中。当我们在承认文明独特性的前提之下，以一种“价值性”的理解方式去合理审视不同的文明和文化，文明、文化间的相互理解就成为一种可能。从宏观意义上对文明和文化的“差异性”进行解释之后，我们可以发现，西方文明对不同文明间“差异性”的排斥以及将其他文明视为“落后”、“野蛮”，实际上构成了对文明多样性和差异性的侵犯，强烈的文明优越性在道德上演化为一种傲慢和偏见。而落脚到“第二个结合”，它正是在承认并且尊重马克思主义和中华优秀传统文化之间差异性的合理性前提之下，在中华优秀传统文化的实体性内容中不断反思马克思主义的一般性原理，逐步实现了两者的“异构契合”。“承认、尊重”的态度背后彰显了文化主体开放、包容、和平、自信的文化心态，这是对鸦片战争后国人精神空洞、文化自卑状态的彻底终结。同时，文化形态差异性的“承认”具有为不同文明交融创新留下空间的鲜明特征。在这个文化创新空间中，正是中国共产党领导人民所展开的社会实践，构成马克思主义和中华优秀传统文化两者之间由“本土”和“外来”所表征出来的差异性不断被转化为两者结合的内在动力。所以，今天已经不能将马克思主义视为一种外来文化形态，它早已在中国化过程中实现本土化、时代化。从这个层面而言，“第二个结合”消弭了“本土”和“外来”之间的张力，实现了中西文化的“和而不同”，与西方所认为的应以西方文明为中心和准则实现文化“同质化、普世化”发展的观点形成了鲜明的对比。

III. The Practical Enlightenment of the “Second Integration” in Resolving the “Controversy over the Ancient and the Modern, China and the West”

三、“第二个结合”破解“古今中西之争”的现实启示

The “controversy over the ancient and the modern, China and the West,” which has lingered in the course of the development and evolution of Chinese civilization since modern times, has been truly resolved in the “Second Integration.” With its powerful force of connecting tradition and modernity and breaking down the cultural barriers between “native” and “foreign,” the “Second Integration” has realized the modern transformation of traditional culture, fulfilled the historical mission of cultural innovation, and provided a contemporary echo to the modern intellectuals who once agonized over achieving cultural transformation to save the nation from peril. The resolution of the “controversy over the ancient and the modern, China and the West” by the “Second Integration” holds strong practical enlightenment for the development of civilization and culture and for the innovation of theories and paths today.

盘桓于近代以来中华文明发展演进历程中的“古今中西之争”，在“第二个结合”中得到真正的破解。“第二个结合”以贯通传统与现代、打破“本土”与“外来”文化壁垒的强大力量，实现了传统文化的现代转型，完成了文化创新的历史使命，给予曾苦恼于实现文化转型以挽救民族危亡的近代知识分子以当代回响。“第二个结合”破解“古今中西之争”对于当今文明和文化发展、道路理论创新有着强烈的现实启示。

The fact that the Second Integration resolves the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate” shows that we need to maintain an open and inclusive mindset and attitude in both time and space, and that promoting exchange and mutual learning among different civilizations is the only path to the flourishing and development of human civilization. Returning to the problem domain of civilization and culture, radical intellectuals in modern times who “opposed tradition” have unidirectionally looked up to Western modern civilization, believing that Western civilization is the sole form of modern civilization. This ideological straitjacket cannot be separated from the internal cause of their own cultural mentality, nor from the prejudice of the actual rulers of Western modern civilization—that only the West can create and will continue to possess the true modern civilization of humanity. Western countries have not only deeply embedded such prejudice into the core of their thought, but have also continuously disseminated this illusion in the process of constructing and advancing Western modernization. The public sphere of human civilization in time and space should be colorful and splendid; why should a single form of civilization be allowed to obscure or swallow up diverse civilizations? Moreover, Western countries ignore an important fact: although Western capitalist civilization has shown great influence since the Industrial Revolution, it does not exist in isolation; it could never from beginning to end become a “Robinson Crusoe” living on a desert island. In the process of resolving the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate,” the Second Integration plays a profound role in disenchanting civilization, breaking the rigid logical thinking that only Western civilization is modern civilization, and continuously promoting ideological emancipation. As Marx pointed out: “Once the lightning of thought has thoroughly struck this naive soil of the people, the Germans will be liberated into human beings.” [31]31 Karl Marx, “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 187. The organic integration of the universal truth of Marxism with the fine traditional Chinese culture pushes the depth of integration to the level of thought, culture, and psychology, fundamentally removing the ideological shackles that Western-centrism has set for people worldwide, reshaping the new pattern of human civilization, and breaking the historical situation of “the East being subordinate to the West.” “Openness and inclusiveness have always been the source of vitality for the development of civilization, and also a notable sign of cultural confidence.” [32]32 Xi Jinping, speech at the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, May 15, 2019. Whether it was cultural restorationism or cultural nihilism in modern Chinese history, the root cause lay in the loss of cultural confidence; the emptiness in the spiritual realm was externalized as timidity and vigilance, hence tradition and modernity, China and the West were set in opposition, as an either-or choice. In the great coordinate axis of “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western,” the resolution of the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate” from the First Integration to the Second Integration shows that our Party’s historical confidence and cultural confidence have reached an unprecedented height, and also shows that only by achieving exchange and mutual learning among different civilizations with an open, inclusive, peaceful, and confident mindset can we find the path of mutual promotion among civilizations. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The Second Integration is another ideological emancipation, allowing us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture in a broader cultural space, and to explore theoretical and institutional innovations oriented toward the future.” [33]33 Xi Jinping, speech at the symposium on cultural heritage and development, June 2, 2023. The Second Integration opens up a broad cultural space, a space for theoretical and institutional innovation oriented toward the future, and continuously explores innovative forms of integrating Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture. This is both the current result of the openness and inclusiveness of the Second Integration and an inevitable future development trend.

“第二个结合”对于“古今中西之争”的破解表明，我们需要在时间和空间上都保持开放包容的心态和胸怀，推动不同文明之间的交流互鉴是人类文明繁荣发展的必由之路。回到文明、文化的问题域，近代以来“反传统”的激进知识分子一直单向度地仰视西方现代文明，认为西方文明是现代文明的唯一形态，这一思想桎梏离不开自身文化心态作祟的内在原因，也离不开西方现代文明的实际统治者的偏见——只有西方才能创造并将继续葆有人类真正的现代文明。西方国家不仅将这样的偏见深深植入思想内核，而且在西方现代化的建构和推进过程中不断弥散化这一假象。人类文明时空的公共领域本应多彩绚烂，何以能用单一的文明形态遮蔽或吞噬多样性的文明？而且西方国家忽略了一个重要事实，尽管西方资本主义文明自工业革命以来展现出巨大的影响力，但它也不是孤立存在的，它自始至终都不可能成为生活在孤岛的“鲁滨逊”。“第二个结合”在破解“古今中西之争”过程中起到了深刻的文明祛魅的作用，破除了只有西方文明才是现代文明的固化逻辑思路，不断推动思想解放。正如马克思所指出的：“思想的闪电一旦彻底击中这块素朴的人民园地，德国人就会解放成为人。”马克思主义的普遍真理同中华优秀传统文化的有机结合，将结合的深度推及到思想文化心理层面，从根本上解除了西方中心主义在世界范围内为人们设置的思想禁锢，重塑了人类文明新的格局，打破了“东方从属于西方”的历史境遇。“开放包容始终是文明发展的活力来源，也是文化自信的显著标志。”中国近代史上的文化复古主义抑或是文化虚无主义，其产生的根本原因在于文化自信的失落，精神领域的空虚外化为畏缩和警惕，故而传统与现代、中国与西方相互对立、非此即彼。在“古今中西”的大坐标轴中，从“第一个结合”到“第二个结合”对“古今中西之争”的破解，表明我们党的历史自信和文化自信达到了前所未有的高度，也表明只有以开放、包容、和平、自信的心态实现不同文明之间的交流互鉴，才是文明之间相互促进的发展之道。正如习近平总书记指出的：“‘第二个结合’是又一次的思想解放，让我们能够在更广阔的文化空间中，充分运用中华优秀传统文化的宝贵资源，探索面向未来的理论和制度创新。”“第二个结合”开辟了广阔的文化空间，开启了面向未来的理论和制度创新的空间，不断探索马克思主义同中华优秀传统文化相结合的创新形式，这是“第二个结合”开放包容性的当下结果，也是未来必然的发展走向。

Standing at the height of “world history” to reflect, a country’s path, theory, and system, a nation’s values and mode of production and life, can only possess enduring power that transcends the boundaries of time and space if they are endowed with deep cultural meaning and civilizational attributes, and if they possess a universal spirit. Only by rising from regional and national content to content with universal significance and broad recognition can the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate” be truly and effectively resolved. Facing the essential problem of the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western debate”—that is, the dilemma of achieving modernization and consolidating cultural subjectivity—modern Chinese intellectuals, under the immense psychological gap, were distressed and hesitant, failing to complete the historical mission of cultural innovation. The Second Integration combines the basic principles of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, not only allowing Marxism to take root, sprout, blossom, and bear fruit on this fertile soil of China, but also enabling the fine traditional Chinese culture to achieve a modern transformation, further consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture, and at the same time endowing China’s modernization with more Chinese characteristics and historical and cultural depth. Therefore, Chinese-path modernization can find its theoretical basis not only in Marxism but also its cultural genes and origins in fine traditional Chinese culture. And most importantly, on the premise that the basic principles of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture are mutually compatible, the Second Integration makes them mutually achieve each other, creating a new cultural form or civilizational pattern. The result of this achievement is not only the inheritance and development of the characteristics of Chinese civilization and the attributes of Marxism, but also the learning and borrowing from other outstanding civilizational achievements of the world. This determines that Chinese-path modernization, guided by Marxism and rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, possesses a high degree of civilizational attributes and universal spirit, and can provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese experience for other countries and nations also committed to achieving modernization. Therefore, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes that the Second Integration “shows that our Party’s understanding of the Chinese path, theory, and system has reached a new height, shows that our Party’s historical confidence and cultural confidence have reached a new height, and shows that our Party’s consciousness in promoting cultural innovation while inheriting fine traditional Chinese culture has reached a new height.” [34]34 Xi Jinping, speech at the symposium on cultural heritage and development, June 2, 2023. In contrast, looking at the modernization of Western capitalist countries, relying on the dominant position of the state in political, economic, and other fields, when the bourgeoisie “creates a world after its own image,” [35]35 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 488. they will also judge other countries and regions according to their own theories, systems, cultures, values, and even religious prejudices, as “civilized or barbaric,” “center or periphery.” Such a judgment centered on the superiority of Western civilization is a naked cultural violence against the civilizations and cultures of non-Western regions. Moreover, modernization with such a concept of civilization at its core lacks life ethics and true civilizational value; it replaces the modernization of people with the modernization of things, only creating a situation where “the prosperity of things” coexists with “the loss of human subjectivity.” Therefore, it is only paths, theories, and systems that achieve the unity of national characteristics with the commonality of world civilizational achievements that can truly gain lasting vitality and broad recognition, and make a genuine contribution to human development.

站在“世界历史”的高度来思索，一个国家的道路、理论、制度，一个民族的价值理念和生产生活模式，只有被赋予深层次的文化意义和文明属性，只有具备普遍性精神，才能拥有超越时空边界的恒久力量，从地域性的、民族性的内容上升为具有普遍意义的、能获得广泛认同的内容，才能真正有效地破解“古今中西之争”。面对“古今中西之争”的本质问题，即实现现代化和巩固文化主体性的两难境遇，中国近代知识分子在精神的巨大落差下苦闷彷徨，未能完成文化创新的历史使命。“第二个结合”将马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合，不仅让马克思主义在中国这片沃土上生根、发芽、开花、结果，而且使中华优秀传统文化实现了现代转型，进一步巩固了中华文化的主体性，同时也使中国的现代化更加具有中国特色和历史文化纵深。因此，中国式现代化不仅可以在马克思主义中找寻到理论依据，也可以在中华优秀传统文化中找寻到文化基因和源头。而且最重要的是，“第二个结合”在马克思主义基本原理和中华优秀传统文化相互契合的前提下互相成就，造就新的文化形态或文明样态，这一成就的结果不仅是对中华文明特性、马克思主义属性的继承与发展，也是对世界其他优秀文明成果的学习与借鉴，这就决定了以马克思主义为指导、扎根于中华优秀传统文化的中国式现代化具有高度的文明属性和普遍性精神，它能够为同样致力于实现现代化的其他国家和民族提供中国智慧、中国经验。所以，习近平总书记强调，“第二个结合”“表明我们党对中国道路、理论、制度的认识达到了新高度，表明我们党的历史自信、文化自信达到了新高度，表明我们党在传承中华优秀传统文化中推进文化创新的自觉性达到了新高度”。而反观西方资本主义国家的现代化，依凭国家在政治、经济等领域的优势地位，当资产阶级“按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界”时，他们也会按照自己的理论、制度、文化、价值观甚至包括宗教偏见去对其他国家和地区进行“文明还是野蛮”、“中心还是边缘”的评判。这样的一种以西方文明优越性为核心的评判，是对非西方地区的文明和文化的赤裸裸的文化暴力，而且以这样的文明观念为内核的现代化，缺乏生命伦理和真正的文明价值，它以物的现代化取代了人的现代化，只会造成“物的繁荣”与“人的主体性的失落”并存的局面。因此，一定是实现了民族特性同世界文明成果共性统一的道路、理论、制度等，才能真正获得持久的生命力和广泛的认同，才能为人类发展作出真正的贡献。

(The authors are professors and doctoral supervisors at the School of Marxism, Beijing Normal University)

（作者系北京师范大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁