The Consolidation and Development of Chinese Cultural Subjectivity and the Principles It Follows

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development: “For any culture to stand firm, travel far, and possess guiding power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiating power, it must have its own subjectivity. The Communist Party of China has always attached importance to culture. In the New Era, on the basis of confidence in the path, confidence in the theory, and confidence in the system, we have added cultural confidence. Cultural confidence comes from our cultural subjectivity.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development” (June 2, 2023). This profoundly elucidates the importance of cultural subjectivity in cultural heritage and development, as well as its relationship with cultural confidence and the cause of socialist modernization. Cultural subjectivity is the foundation of cultural confidence; it provides powerful spiritual motivation and intellectual support for building a great modern socialist country. Looking back at history, from the “debate on substance and function” during the Westernization Movement period to the proposal of the proposition of “constructing Chinese cultural subjectivity” today, the academic community has put forward a series of different viewpoints such as “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use,” “Western learning as substance, Chinese learning for practical use,” and “wholesale Westernization.” However, many scholars’ understanding of cultural subjectivity has not escaped the shackles of oppositional or differential thinking; they regard cultural subjectivity as a static essence, attempting to seek an immutable cultural form. In reality, Chinese cultural subjectivity cannot be separated from the great practice of building a strong country and rejuvenating the nation. It has been continued and developed in the great course of national rejuvenation, and its philosophical foundation is the theory of integration and comprehensive innovation. The Communist Party of China, leading the Chinese people, has created a development miracle rarely seen in the world over the course of a century of struggle, and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has become an irreversible trend. “Through long-term efforts, we are more capable than any previous era of resolving the ‘debate between the ancient and the modern, China and the West,’ and we are also more urgently in need than any previous era of a batch of cultural achievements that fuse the ancient and the modern and integrate China and the West.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development” (June 2, 2023). In view of this, this article attempts to explore the consolidation and development of Chinese cultural subjectivity and the principles it follows from the perspective of the theory of comprehensive innovation, with a view to deepening the understanding and recognition of the issue of consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity.

习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上指出：“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。中国共产党历来重视文化，新时代我们在道路自信、理论自信、制度自信的基础上增加了文化自信。文化自信就来自我们的文化主体性。”这深刻阐明了文化主体性在文化传承发展中的重要性及其与文化自信、社会主义现代化事业之间的关系。文化主体性是文化自信的依托，它为建设社会主义现代化强国提供了强大的精神动力与智力支持。回顾历史，从洋务运动时期的“体用之争”到今天“构建中华文化主体性”命题的提出，学界提出了“中体西用”“西体中用”“全盘西化”等一系列不同的观点。但不少学者对文化主体性的理解没有跳出对立论或差异论思维的束缚，把文化主体性看成静态的本质，试图寻求一种一成不变的文化样态。实际上，中华文化主体性离不开强国建设、民族复兴的伟大实践，它在民族复兴的伟大历程中得到了赓续和发展，其哲学基础是结合论和综合创新论。中国共产党领导中国人民在百年奋斗历程中创造了世所罕见的发展奇迹，中华民族伟大复兴成为不可逆转的趋势。“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’，也比以往任何一个时代都更迫切需要一批熔铸古今、汇通中西的文化成果。”鉴于此，本文试图从综合创新论的视角来探究中华文化主体性的巩固发展及其原则遵循，以期深化对巩固中华文化主体性问题的理解和认识。

I. The Debate on Chinese Cultural Subjectivity and a Preliminary Exploration of Its Resolution

一、中华文化主体性之争及其破解初探

Chinese culture, like the Chinese nation, is a holistic concept. Before the Opium War, China, as a unified multi-ethnic country, gradually formed a Chinese cultural tradition of “one mainstream with multiple elements,” dominated by Confucian thought and with the common flourishing of other cultural thoughts, during the long-term process of exchange, interaction, and integration among various ethnic groups. From the rise of the Hundred Schools of Thought in the pre-Qin period to Qin Shi Huang’s burning of books and burying of scholars, from Dong Zhongshu’s proposal of “deposing the hundred schools, revering only Confucianism” in the Western Han Dynasty to the rise of Neo-Daoism, the introduction of Buddhism, and the flourishing of Daoism in the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, from the “confluence of the three teachings” of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism in the Sui and Tang Dynasties to the integration of diverse cultures in the Song, Liao, Jin, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties, the rise of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism and the inheritance and development of the Cheng-Zhu school and the Lu-Wang school of mind, especially the use of the “Four Books and Five Classics” and eight-legged essays for selecting officials in the imperial examination system during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, it can be seen that although Confucian thought long occupied the dominant position of feudal ruling ideology, other cultural thoughts also flourished, forming a trend of diverse cultural development with Confucian thought as the leading force. In this historical process, Chinese culture not only embodied the “cultural subjectivity” of continuous inheritance and innovation but also demonstrated its inclusiveness and openness in integrating and developing with the cultures of other ethnic groups. The reason Chinese culture has been able to endure for thousands of years is that it generally adapted to the needs of coordinating the relationship between humans and nature and between people in an agricultural society. Since modern times, the rapid development of capitalist modernization and its colonial invasion of China broke China’s feudal state of isolation and self-sufficiency, creating a situation of “passive suffering” where the nation was humiliated, the people were subjected to hardship, and civilization was covered in dust. How to achieve modernization and realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation? Faced with this “question of China,” countless people with lofty ideals engaged in unremitting exploration and indomitable struggle. Amid the struggles in the ideological and cultural fields, and in the process of exchange, integration, and confrontation between Eastern and Western cultural thoughts, the question arose of how to respond to the “debate between the ancient and the modern, China and the West” brought about by the impact of foreign cultures on Chinese culture and how to consolidate and develop Chinese cultural subjectivity.

中华文化和中华民族一样，是一个总体性概念。鸦片战争前，中国作为一个统一的多民族国家，在各民族长期的交流交往交融过程中，逐渐形成了以儒家思想为主导、其他文化思想共同繁荣的“一主多元”的中华文化传统。从先秦时期诸子百家的兴起到秦始皇焚书坑儒，从西汉时期董仲舒提出“罢黜百家、独尊儒术”到魏晋南北朝时期玄学的兴起、佛教的传入和道教的勃兴，从隋唐时期儒释道“三教合流”到宋辽金元明时期多元文化的交融，宋明理学的兴起以及程朱理学、陆王心学的传承与发展，尤其是明清时期科举考试制度中以“四书五经”和八股文取士等,可以发现，儒家思想尽管长期占据了封建社会统治思想地位，但其他文化思想也在蓬勃发展，形成了以儒家思想为主导的多元文化发展态势。在这一历史进程中，中华文化既体现了不断传承与创新的“文化主体性”，又体现了与其他民族文化融合发展的包容性和开放性。中华文化之所以能够绵延数千年，是因为它总体上适应了农业社会中对协调人与自然、人与人之间关系的需要。近代以来，资本主义现代化快速发展及其对中国的殖民入侵，打破了中国封建社会的封闭自守状态，造成了国家蒙辱、人民蒙难、文明蒙尘的“被动挨打”局面。如何实现现代化、实现中华民族伟大复兴？面对这一“中国之问”，无数仁人志士进行了不懈地求索和不屈不挠的斗争。伴随着意识形态和文化思想领域的斗争，在东西方文化思想交流交融交锋进程中，如何应对外来文化对中华文化冲击而带来的“古今中西”之争及如何巩固发展中华文化主体性的问题。

After the Opium War, the Chinese people truly began to reflect on issues such as cultural confidence and cultural subjectivity from the perspective of the needs of modernization. As early as 1842, Wei Yuan proposed the idea of “learning the superior technologies of the barbarians to control them.” [3]3 Wei Yuan (1794–1857), a Chinese scholar and official, proposed this idea in his work *Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms*. It can be said that this is the origin of modern China’s thought of learning advanced science and technology from the West. From the 1860s to the 1890s, a group of early reformist thinkers used the theory of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use” to guide the Westernization Movement, which aimed at self-strengthening and seeking wealth. Feng Guifen pointed out: “If we take China’s ethical norms and teachings as the foundation, and supplement them with the techniques of the various countries for wealth and power, would that not be even better?” This is the initial elaboration of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use,” advocating handling the relationship between Chinese learning and Western learning in a master-supplement relationship. Later, Zheng Guanying pointed out: “To put it together, Chinese learning is the root, and Western learning is the branch. The master is Chinese learning, supplemented by Western learning.” On this basis, Shen Yugui published the article “Strategies to Save the Times” in *The Review of the Times*, [4]4 *The Review of the Times* (*Wanguo Gongbao*) was a Chinese-language periodical founded by American missionary Young John Allen in Shanghai in 1868. clearly proposing the proposition of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use.” Zhang Zhidong, in his *Exhortation to Learn*, pointed out that “Chinese learning is internal learning, Western learning is external learning; Chinese learning governs the mind and body, Western learning deals with worldly affairs,” comprehensively elaborating the thought of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use.” It can be said that the theory of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use” during the Westernization Movement period was mainly elaborated from the distinction of cultural hierarchy between ethical principles and scientific technology. This had a certain positive significance for promoting social reform, as people began to think about countermeasures under the severe challenge and impact on cultural subjectivity.

鸦片战争后，中国人民才真正从现代化需求出发开启了对文化自信和文化主体性等问题的反思。早在1842年，魏源就提出了“师夷长技以制夷”的思想。可以说，这是近代中国向西方学习先进科学技术思想的源头。19世纪60年代至90年代，一批早期改良派思想家用“中体西用”论指导了一场自强求富的洋务运动。冯桂芬指出：“如以中国之伦常名教为原本，辅以诸国富强之术，不更善之善者哉？”这是“中学为体、西学为用”的最初阐述，主张在“本”与“辅”的主从关系中处理好中学与西学之间的关系。之后，郑观应指出：“合而言之，则中学其本也，西学其末也。主以中学，辅以西学。”在此基础之上，沈毓桂在《万国公报》上发表《救时策》一文，明确提出“中学为体，西学为用”命题。张之洞在《劝学篇》中指出，“中学为内学，西学为外学；中学治身心，西学应世事”，全面阐述了“中体西用”的思想。可以说，洋务运动时期的“中体西用”论主要是从纲常伦理与科学技术这一文化层次性的区分来加以阐述的，这对于推动社会改良具有一定的积极意义，人们开始思考文化主体性受到严峻挑战和冲击下的应对之策。

The defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War further proved that simply “learning artifacts” from the West could not save China. Therefore, the bourgeois reformists represented by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao proposed reforming the political and educational systems, developing agriculture, industry, and commerce, and advocating learning from the West. Kang Youwei refuted the Westernization faction for not starting from the so-called “fundamentals,” criticized the die-hard faction’s insistence that “the laws of the ancestors cannot be changed,” proposed implementing a Western constitutional monarchy, and advocated starting from political system reform, achieving the integration of Chinese and Western cultures through “reforming institutions by invoking ancient precedents.” [5]5 “Reforming institutions by invoking ancient precedents” (*tuogu gaizhi*) was a strategy used by Kang Youwei to justify political reforms by claiming they were restoring ancient Confucian ideals. Yan Fu sharply criticized the theory of “Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for practical use.” He believed that Chinese and Western cultures had fundamental differences and were irreconcilable and uncompromising. He pointed out that substance and function are spoken of in relation to “one thing”: a thing has a certain substance, and corresponding to it is a certain function. “Therefore, Chinese learning has its own substance and function, and Western learning has its own substance and function. Separate them, and they stand side by side; combine them, and both perish.” To this end, he advocated grasping the fundamental lifeline of Western learning, in academics to “discard the false and revere the true,” and in punishment and governance to “subordinate private interests to the public good,” emphasizing the combination of modern Western philosophy with the “good aspects” of traditional Chinese philosophy. This combination was not only seen in artifacts but also in ethical and political systems and ideological culture. From this, it can be seen that the reformists recognized the relationship between culture and politics, economy, education, science and technology, etc., pointed out the fundamental issue of political system reform, and attempted to place culture within the overall layout of national and ethnic development for consideration.

甲午战争的失败进一步证明了单纯向西方“学习器物”不能拯救中国。为此，以康有为、梁启超为代表的资产阶级维新派提出要改革政治、教育制度，发展农业、工业、商业等，提倡向西方学习。康有为驳斥洋务派不从所谓“根本”着手，批判顽固派固守“祖宗之法不可变”的主张，提出实行西方君主立宪制，主张从政治体制变革入手，通过“托古改制”以实现中西文化融合。严复对“中体西用”论进行了尖锐批判，他认为中西文化具有根本差异，两者之间是不可调和与折中的。他指出，体、用是就“一物”而言：一物有怎样的体，便有与之相应的用。“故中学有中学之体用，西学有西学之体用，分之则并立，合之则两亡。”为此，他主张要抓住西学的根本命脉，在学术上要“黜伪而崇真”，在刑政上要“屈私以为公”，强调将西方近代哲学与中国传统哲学的“善者”相结合。这种结合不仅有见于器物，而且有见于伦理政治制度与思想文化。从中可以看出，维新派看到了文化与政治、经济、教育、科技等之间的关系，指出了政治体制变革这一根本问题，并试图把文化放置在民族和国家发展的整体布局中来考虑。

With the failure of the Hundred Days’ Reform and the signing of the Treaty of Xinchou [6]6 The Treaty of Xinchou (辛丑条约) refers to the Boxer Protocol signed in 1901 (the 27th year of the Guangxu reign, a xinchou year in the Chinese calendar) between the Qing dynasty and eight foreign powers, imposing heavy reparations and further undermining China’s sovereignty., the crisis of the Chinese nation deepened further. Faced with the question of where China should go, Sun Yat-sen put forward the ideal goal of the “Three Principles of the People,” overthrowing feudal autocratic monarchy and establishing a bourgeois republic. On the issue of the conflict between Chinese and Western cultures, he advocated viewing China from the perspective of world development processes, arguing that learning from the West was meant to enable China to catch up from behind and surpass other countries. However, the outcome of the Xinhai Revolution proved that an incomplete anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle could not work in China. Neither the earlier “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use” thesis, nor learning from the West and establishing a democratic republican system, could lead China toward modernization. After reform and opening up, in the course of learning from the West, scholars such as Li Shu and Li Zehou further advanced the “Western learning as the substance, Chinese learning for practical use” thesis. Li Zehou argued that if one acknowledges that modern large-scale industry and technology are the “substance” and “essence” of modern social existence, “then the theoretical form of the self-consciousness (or ‘psychological substance’) that grows on this ‘substance’—that is, the ‘doctrine’ that produces, sustains, and propels the existence of this ‘substance’—should be taken as the ‘master,’ the ‘root,’ the ‘substance.’” Although Li Zehou clearly stated that “modernization” does not equal “Westernization,” he still regarded the development of “modern large-scale industry and technology” as the “substance,” and therefore it was necessary to take the “doctrine” that produces, sustains, and propels this “substance” as the “root.”

随着戊戌变法失败与辛丑条约的签订，中华民族的危机进一步加深。面对中国该向何处去的问题，孙中山提出了“三民主义”的理想目标，推翻封建君主专制，建立资产阶级共和国。在中西文化之争问题上，他主张立足世界发展进程看中国，学习西方是要实现后来居上并超越其他国家。但是辛亥革命的结果证明，不彻底的反帝反封建在中国行不通。无论是此前的“中体西用”论，还是向西方学习和建立民主共和制度，都不能引领中国走向现代化。改革开放后，我们在向西方学习的过程中，黎澍、李泽厚等学者进一步提出了“西体中用”论。李泽厚主张，如果承认现代大工业和科技是近现代社会存在的“本体”和“实质”，“那么生长在这个‘体’上的自我意识或‘本体意识’（或‘心理本体’）的理论形态，即产生、维系、推动这个‘体’的存在的‘学’，它就应该为‘主’，为‘本’，为‘体’”。尽管李泽厚明确指出“现代化”不等于“西方化”，但他又把发展“现代大工业和科技”看成“体”，因此就必须以产生、维系、推动这个“体”的“学”为“本”。

In fact, regarding Chinese cultural subjectivity, its essence is the question of how to achieve national rejuvenation and how to realize modernization. From the perspective of modernization, the modernization we seek to achieve differs from that of Western countries, which is built on the foundation of “atomic individualism” and the logic of capital; rather, it is the continuation and inheritance of the humanistic spirit, innovative spirit, inclusive spirit, and spirit of harmony (合精神) contained in Chinese civilization, as well as the core of collectivist values in Chinese culture. After the failure of the Xinhai Revolution, advanced intellectuals represented by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao deeply recognized the importance of ideological emancipation. They raised high the banners of “Mr. Democracy” and “Mr. Science,” criticized the trend of revering Confucius and restoring ancient ways as well as feudal ethics, and advocated literary revolution and academic freedom. In response to the tendency in public opinion toward abstract “doctrines,” especially the “dangers” brought by various socialist schools, Hu Shi wrote in 1919 in the article “Study More Problems, Talk Less About ‘Isms’” that “empty talk about pleasant-sounding ‘isms’ is an extremely easy thing, something any Tom, Dick, or Harry can do.” He pointed out that the greatest danger of “isms” is that they can make people feel satisfied and complacent, sparing them the effort of studying concrete solutions to specific problems. Subsequently, Li Dazhao published “On Problems and Isms Again” to refute this: “The solution of a social problem must rely on the common movement of the majority of society. Therefore, if we want to solve a problem, we should try to make it a common problem for the majority of society. To make a social problem a common problem for the majority of society, we should first enable the majority of people who can jointly solve this or that social problem to have a common ideal and ism.” In fact, the fundamental issue involved in the debate between Li Dazhao and Hu Shi was whether and what kind of ism was needed to unite hearts and minds and strive together. In November 1920, Mao Zedong, in his reply to Luo Zhanglong, pointed out that the solution to Hunan’s problems and the formation of the Xinmin Society both required a clear ism. “I do not approve of a solution that treats the head when the head aches and the foot when the foot hurts, without an ism.” “I think our society should not suddenly become a gathering of people or a union of emotions; it should become a union of isms. An ism is like a flag; once the flag is raised, everyone has something to look to and knows where to turn.” With the spread of Marxism in China and the founding of the Communist Party of China, China began the practical process of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture mutually achieving each other. On the one hand, the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture gained the guidance of Marxism; on the other hand, Marxism’s ability to take root, sprout, blossom, and bear fruit on Chinese soil was inseparable from the nourishment of fine traditional Chinese culture.

实际上，关于中华文化主体性，其实质是如何实现民族复兴以及如何实现现代化的问题。从现代化角度看，我们要实现的现代化不同于西方国家那种建立在“原子个人主义”和资本逻辑基础之上的现代化，而是对中华文明中蕴藏的人文精神、创新精神、包容精神和合精神以及中华文化中集体主义价值观内核的赓续与传承。辛亥革命失败后，以陈独秀、李大钊为代表的先进知识分子深刻认识到思想解放的重要性，他们高举“德先生”与“赛先生”的旗帜，对尊孔复古思潮及封建礼教进行批判，倡导文学革命与学术自由。针对舆论界偏向纸上的“学说”，尤其是各种社会主义流派带来的“危险”，1919年胡适在《多研究些问题，少谈些“主义”》一文中指出：“空谈好听的‘主义’，是极其容易的事情，是阿猫阿狗都能做的事。”他指出，“主义”的最大危险就是能使人心满意足，不用费心力去研究具体问题的解决办法了。随后，李大钊发表《再论问题与主义》对此进行反驳：“一个社会问题的解决，必须靠着社会上多数人共同的运动。那么我们要想解决一个问题，应该设法使他成了社会上多数人共同的问题。要想使一个社会问题，成了社会上多数人共同的问题，应该使这社会上可以共同解决这个那个社会问题的多数人，先有一个共同趋向的理想、主义。”实际上，李大钊和胡适之间的争论涉及的根本问题就是，究竟要不要和要什么样的主义来凝心聚力、团结奋斗。1920年11月，毛泽东在给罗章龙的复信中指出，湖南问题的解决，新民学会的结合，都要有明确的主义。“我不赞成没有主义头痛医头脚痛医脚的解决。”“我想我们学会，不可陡然做人的聚集，感情的结合，要变为主义的结合才好。主义譬如一面旗子，旗子立起了，大家才有所指望，才知所趋附。”随着马克思主义在中国的传播和中国共产党的成立，中国开启了马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化互相成就的实践历程。一方面，中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展有了马克思主义的指导；另一方面，马克思主义能够在中华大地上生根发芽开花结果，离不开中华优秀传统文化的滋养。

In the debate between “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use” and “Western learning as the substance, Chinese learning for practical use,” Zhang Shenfu proposed in 1932 the idea of “the unity of the three currents: Russell, Lenin, and Confucius” [7]7 “The unity of the three currents” (三流合一) refers to Zhang Shenfu’s proposal to synthesize the thought of Bertrand Russell (representing Western analytic philosophy), Vladimir Lenin (representing Marxism-Leninism), and Confucius (representing traditional Chinese thought).. Subsequently, Zhang Dainian expressed agreement with the “unity of the three currents” and put forward the concept of “comprehensive innovation,” forming the “theory of cultural comprehensive innovation.” Zhang Dainian believed that the theory of Eastern cultural superiority contained a tendency toward restorationism, while the “theory of total Westernization” had tendencies toward national nihilism and historical nihilism. Although these two value positions were opposed in viewpoint, their way of thinking in dealing with problems was similar: both viewed the issue of cultural development in an isolated and one-sided manner. He argued that in the process of cultural change and development, it is necessary both to carry forward the excellent elements of the old culture and to break free from constraints and dare to innovate, actively transforming the old culture to create a new culture. He pointed out: “Culture is based on the development of productive forces and social relations. When productive forces develop to a new form and social relations change, culture will inevitably change.” The essence of the old culture can be preserved in a new form or developed through renewal, rather than completely and thoroughly disappearing; the proper handling of cultural issues requires the application of dialectical materialism. Zhang Dainian further proposed: “A new path for future philosophy: it should synthesize materialism, idealism, and analysis into one.” That is, a path for Chinese philosophy that synthesizes Chinese philosophy, Western philosophy, and Marxist philosophy to create something new. “This new cultural system, under the guidance of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, uses socialist values to synthesize the strengths of Chinese and Western cultures and thereby innovate Chinese culture.” He emphasized that innovation on the basis of synthesis is the law of development of thought and culture. In the early 21st century, on the basis of the “theory of cultural comprehensive innovation,” Fang Keli proposed the “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western practical use” thesis, developing the theory of comprehensive innovation and deepening the path of comprehensive innovation through analysis and synthesis. This interpretation of the ternary cultural pattern of “soul, substance, and practical use” had more important progressive significance. Overall, the “theory of cultural comprehensive innovation” emphasizes the construction of a multicultural pattern, transcending the limitations of understanding a single cultural subjectivity, providing a new choice for breaking out of the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western” cultural debate, and offering a possible direction for achieving the great prosperity and development of Chinese culture. However, the “theory of cultural comprehensive innovation” still has considerable room for development, especially in that it does not further clarify the status and function of Marxism, fine traditional Chinese culture, and excellent Western culture within this “cultural synthesis.”

在“中体西用”与“西体中用”的论争中，1932年张申府提出“百提、伊里奇、仲尼，三流合一”的思想（“百提”即罗素，“伊里奇”即列宁，“仲尼”即孔子）。随后，张岱年对“三流合一”表示认同，并提出了“综合创新”的设想，形成“文化综合创新论”。张岱年认为，东方文化优越论包含复古主义倾向，“全盘西化论”具有民族虚无主义与历史虚无主义倾向，这两种价值主张虽观点相悖，但处理问题的思维方式是相似的，都是孤立片面地看待文化发展问题。他认为文化在变革发展中，既要发扬旧文化中的优秀成分，又要摆脱束缚、勇于创新，主动对旧文化进行改造，创造新的文化。他指出：“文化以生产力及社会关系的发展为基础，生产力发展到一新形态，社会关系改变，则文化必然变化。”旧文化的精粹可以在新的形态下保存或在更新中发展，而非完全彻底消亡，文化问题的妥善处理需要运用唯物辩证法。张岱年进而提出：“今后哲学之一个新路：当是将唯物、理想、解析，综合于一。”即综合中国哲学、西方哲学、马克思主义哲学而创新的中国哲学之路。“这个新的文化体系，是在马克思列宁主义原则的指导下，以社会主义的价值观来综合中西文化之所长而创新中国文化。”他强调在综合基础上的创新才是思想文化的发展规律。21世纪初期，方克立在“文化综合创新论”基础上，提出“马魂中体西用论”，对综合创新论加以发展，在分析综合中深化了综合创新之路，这一“魂、体、用”三元文化格局的阐释具有更为重要的进步意义。总体来看，“文化综合创新论”强调建构一个多元文化格局，超越了对单一文化主体性认识的局限性，为跳出“古今中西”文化之争提供了全新选择，为实现中华文化大繁荣大发展提供了一种可能的方向。但是“文化综合创新论”仍具有较大的发展空间，尤其是对于马克思主义、中华优秀传统文化以及西方优秀文化在这一“文化综合体”中的地位和功能没有作进一步阐明。

II. The Consolidation and Development of Chinese Cultural Subjectivity

二、中华文化主体性的巩固发展

Cultural construction is closely related to issues such as the direction of development and future of the nation-state. Over the past hundred years and more, the Communist Party of China chose Marxism, continuously advanced the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, reshaped cultural subjectivity from the developmental requirements of Chinese-path modernization, and gained a more vivid form and development in practice.

文化建设与民族国家的发展方向和发展前途等问题息息相关。百余年来，中国共产党选择了马克思主义，不断推进马克思主义中国化时代化，从中国式现代化的发展要求重塑了文化主体性，并在实践中得到了更为鲜活的形塑与发展。

The consolidation and development of the subjectivity of Chinese culture and the resolution of practical national issues are mutually unified. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the task facing the Party and the people was how to overthrow the oppression of the three great mountains[n] and strive for national independence; this was also the primary question that had to be answered in consolidating and developing cultural subjectivity. In this stage, the Communist Party of China proceeded from reality, integrated Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the finest traditional Chinese culture, and led the people in creatively blazing a path of encircling the cities from the countryside and seizing political power by armed force, transforming a passive situation into one of grasping the initiative and taking one’s own revolutionary path. Revolutionary culture is the ideological preparation before revolution and a powerful weapon of revolution; without revolutionary theory and a revolutionary cultural movement, the practical process of revolution cannot proceed smoothly. Mao Zedong consistently emphasized the importance of cultural construction in the Chinese revolution. In *On Practice* and *On Contradiction*, he profoundly elucidated the principle of integrating Marxism with China’s specific realities, opposing both dogmatism and empiricism. In 1938, Mao Zedong put forward the important proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context,” stressing the need to use concrete rather than abstract and empty Marxism to guide Chinese practice. In *On New Democracy*, he further deepened his understanding of cultural construction during the revolutionary stage, pointing out that the question of where China was heading must rely on objective practice, that we must build a new China, and that in the cultural sphere we must build a new culture for the Chinese nation, eliminating the old culture that served the old politics and economy, “turning a China that was ignorant and backward under the rule of the old culture into a China that is civilized and advanced under the rule of the new culture.” This new culture must be based on the new politics and new economy; “the so-called new culture of the Chinese nation is the culture of New Democracy.” The New Democratic Revolution was to win the victory of the democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism led by the proletariat, and then to make the transition to socialism; the New Democratic culture was the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal culture of the masses led by the proletariat. The Seventh National Congress of the Party formally established Mao Zedong Thought as the guiding ideology of the Party and wrote it into the Party Constitution. This meant that the theoretical achievement of integrating Marxism with China’s specific realities was established as the Party’s guiding ideology, marking the Party’s further ideological maturity, ensuring the Communist Party of China’s cultural leadership, enabling the Chinese people to shift spiritually from passivity to initiative, and realizing the first historic leap in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. It can be said that in the process of guiding the Chinese revolution to victory, Mao Zedong Thought gradually became the dominant ideology within the Chinese cultural综合体[n]. From then on, the connotation of the subjectivity of Chinese culture was further expanded.

中华文化主体性的巩固发展与解决民族实践问题是相互统一的。新民主主义革命时期，摆在党和人民面前的任务是如何推翻三座大山的压迫、争取民族独立，这也是巩固发展文化主体性必须回答的首要问题。这一阶段，中国共产党从实际出发，把马克思主义同中国具体实际、同中华优秀传统文化相结合，领导人民创造性地走出了一条农村包围城市、武装夺取政权的道路，把被动局面转化为把握主动权、走自己的革命道路。革命文化是革命前的思想准备与革命的有力武器，没有革命的理论与革命的文化运动就不能顺利推进革命的实践进程。毛泽东在中国革命中始终强调文化建设的重要性，在《实践论》《矛盾论》中，他深刻阐释了马克思主义与中国具体实际相结合的原则，反对教条主义与经验主义。1938年，毛泽东提出“马克思主义中国化”的重要命题，强调要用具体的而非抽象空洞的马克思主义来指导中国实践。在《新民主主义论》中，他进一步深化对革命阶段文化建设的认识，指出中国向何处去的问题必须依靠客观实践，我们要建立一个新中国，要在文化领域建设中华民族的新文化，革除为旧政治经济服务的旧文化，“把一个被旧文化统治因而愚昧落后的中国，变为一个被新文化统治因而文明先进的中国”。这种新文化要以新政治、新经济为根据，“所谓中华民族的新文化，就是新民主主义的文化”。新民主主义革命就是要赢得无产阶级领导的反帝反封建的民主主义革命的胜利，进而向社会主义转变，新民主主义文化是无产阶级领导的人民大众的反帝反封建的文化。党的七大将毛泽东思想正式确立为党的指导思想并写入党章，这意味着将马克思主义与中国具体实际相结合的理论成果确立为党的指导思想，标志着党在思想上进一步成熟，保证了中国共产党的文化领导权，使中国人民在精神上由被动转为主动，实现了马克思主义中国化的第一次历史性飞跃。可以说，毛泽东思想在指导中国革命走向胜利的过程中，逐渐成为中华文化综合体中的主导性思想。从此，中华文化主体性的内涵得到了进一步拓展。

During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the task facing the Party and the people was to resolve the remaining issues of the New Democratic Revolution, realize the transition from New Democracy to socialism, and carry out socialist modernization. Faced with the confrontation between the “two camps” of capitalism and socialism and the domestic situation of a hundred things waiting to be done, the Communist Party of China persisted in promoting the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the finest traditional Chinese culture, clarified the Party’s general line for the transition period, and put forward the goal and task of building “modernized science and culture.” During this period, Mao Zedong proposed realizing the “second integration” of Marxism with China’s specific realities, creatively put forward the policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, which became the guiding principle for socialist cultural construction. Mao Zedong emphasized: “Implementing the policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend will not weaken Marxism’s leading position in the ideological sphere; on the contrary, it will strengthen that position.” He further pointed out: “Whether within the Party or in the ideological and literary and artistic circles, what is mainly and dominantly must be fragrant flowers, must be Marxism. Poisonous weeds, non-Marxist and anti-Marxist things, can only be in a subordinate position.” “We must learn together with the masses to carefully distinguish fragrant flowers from poisonous weeds, and together use correct methods to struggle against poisonous weeds.” At the same time, Mao Zedong put forward the literary and artistic policy of “making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China,” emphasizing the need to critically inherit traditional culture, actively learn the reasonable elements of world culture, and promote the flourishing development of socialist culture. These ideas further established Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological sphere, clarified the necessity and rationality of the existence of other cultural thoughts, and thereby made the issue of the subjectivity of Chinese culture more distinct. However, during the “Cultural Revolution,”[n] an erroneous line of “

社会主义革命和建设时期，摆在党和人民面前的任务是解决新民主主义革命遗留问题，实现从新民主主义向社会主义过渡，进行社会主义现代化建设。面对资本主义与社会主义“两大阵营”的对峙以及国内百废待兴的局面，中国共产党坚持推进马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际、同中华优秀传统文化相结合，阐明了党在过渡时期的总路线，提出了建设“现代化的科学文化”目标任务。这一时期，毛泽东提出要实现马克思主义与中国具体实际“第二次结合”，创造性地提出了百花齐放、百家争鸣的方针，成为社会主义文化建设的行动指南。毛泽东强调：“实行百花齐放、百家争鸣的方针，并不会削弱马克思主义在思想界的领导地位，相反正是会加强它的这种地位。”他进一步指出：“无论在党内，还是在思想界、文艺界，主要的和占统治地位的，必须力争是香花，是马克思主义。毒草，非马克思主义和反马克思主义的东西，只能处在被统治的地位。”“我们要同群众一起来学会谨慎地辨别香花和毒草，并且一起来用正确的方法同毒草作斗争。”同时，毛泽东提出了“古为今用、洋为中用”的文艺方针，强调要批判地继承传统文化，积极学习世界文化中的合理成分，推进社会主义文化繁荣发展。这些思想进一步确立了马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位，明确了其他文化思想存在的必要性与合理性，从而使中华文化主体性问题更加明晰。然而，在“文化大革命”期间，在理论与实践上形成了“以阶级斗争为纲”的错误路线，社会主义现代化建设遭遇了严重挫折。

During the new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, the main task facing the Party and the people was to continue exploring the socialist path, to liberate and develop the productive forces, and to achieve the rapid development of the modernization cause. To correct the errors of the "Cultural Revolution," the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Deng Xiaoping as their chief representative, resolutely criticized the erroneous policy of the "Two Whatevers,"[8]8 The "Two Whatevers" refers to the policy, promoted after Mao Zedong's death in 1976, of "firmly upholding whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly following whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave." It was criticized by Deng Xiaoping and other reformist leaders as put forward that "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth," carried out ideological rectification, and adhered to seeking truth from facts. In the course of advancing theoretical and practical innovation, they established Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of the "Three Represents,"[9]9 The Chinese term 综合体 (zongheti) denotes a complex, integrated entity or synthesis. The authors use it to describe Chinese cultural subjectivity as a dynamic synthesis of multiple cultural elements. and the important theoretical achievement of the Scientific Outlook on Development. However, cultural construction during this period was still affected by various external factors. The drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union dealt a heavy blow to the development of world socialism. Western scholars frequently put forward assertions such as the "end of history," the "China collapse theory," and the "China threat theory," which disparaged China, and propositions such as "wholesale Westernization" also exerted a certain influence within domestic ideological circles. In this process, the Communist Party of China upheld and developed socialism with Chinese characteristics and continuously advanced the construction of the subjectivity of Chinese culture. Deng Xiaoping proposed promoting socialist cultural-ethical progress, emphasizing that material progress and cultural-ethical progress should be "grasped with both hands, and both hands must be firm," put forward that "science and technology are the primary productive forces," and stressed the important position of developing science, technology, and education in the modernization process. Jiang Zemin proposed building a "culture with Chinese characteristics," emphasized that the Communist Party of China always represents the direction of the development of advanced culture, and called for vigorously developing socialist culture. He pointed out that "strengthening socialist ideological and moral construction is an important content and central link in developing advanced culture," and that all excellent cultures should be inherited and promoted to build an advanced socialist culture. Hu Jintao emphasized the need to build a harmonious socialist society, continuously liberate and develop cultural productive forces, enhance the country's cultural soft power, and strive toward the goal of building a socialist cultural power. The Sixth Plenary Session of the 17th Central Committee of the CPC pointed out: "The system of core socialist values is the soul of the nation, the essence of advanced socialist culture, and determines the direction of the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics." During this period, the guiding ideology within the comprehensive system of Chinese culture was further developed.

改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，摆在党和人民面前的主要任务是继续探索社会主义道路，解放和发展生产力，实现现代化事业的快速发展。为纠正“文革”的错误，以邓小平同志为主要代表的中国共产党人坚决批判“两个凡是”的错误方针，提出“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”，在思想领域进行拨乱反正，坚持解放思想、实事求是。在推进理论与实践创新进程中，创立了邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想与科学发展观重要理论成果。但是，这一时期的文化建设仍然受到各种外部因素影响，东欧剧变、苏联解体使世界社会主义发展遭受沉重打击，西方国家学者频繁抛出“历史终结论”“中国崩溃论”“中国威胁论”等唱衰中国的论断，“全盘西化”等主张在国内思想界也产生了一定影响。在这一过程中，中国共产党坚持和发展中国特色社会主义，不断推进中华文化主体性建设。邓小平提出推进社会主义精神文明建设，强调物质文明与精神文明要“两手抓，两手都要硬”，提出“科学技术是第一生产力”，强调发展科技与教育在现代化进程中的重要地位。江泽民提出建设“有中国特色社会主义的文化”，强调中国共产党始终代表先进文化的前进方向，要大力发展社会主义文化，指出“加强社会主义思想道德建设，是发展先进文化的重要内容和中心环节”，要继承与弘扬一切优秀的文化，建设社会主义先进文化。胡锦涛强调要构建社会主义和谐社会，不断解放发展文化生产力，提高国家文化软实力，向建设社会主义文化强国的目标努力奋进。党的十七届六中全会指出：“社会主义核心价值体系是兴国之魂，是社会主义先进文化的精髓，决定着中国特色社会主义发展方向。”这一时期，中华文化综合体中的主导思想得到了进一步发展。

Since entering the New Era, the main task facing the Party and the people has been to build a great modern socialist country and realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, proceeding from the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, has attached great importance to the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, steadily advancing toward the goal of building a cultural power, and the socialist cultural enterprise and cultural industry have continuously flourished. Comrade Xi Jinping formally proposed the concept of “cultural subjectivity” at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development. During this period, Chinese cultural subjectivity has been further enriched and developed in both theory and practice. On the one hand, the development of Chinese cultural subjectivity needs to be grounded in the overall strategic situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the changes unseen in a century in the world, using historical initiative to enhance cultural confidence and the communication capacity of Chinese culture, constructing a Chinese discourse system and an international communication system, telling China’s stories well, and spreading China’s voice well. On the other hand, Chinese cultural subjectivity is rooted in the great practice of the Chinese nation, continuously opening up new realms for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and shouldering the mission of cultural development in the New Era by adhering to the Two Integrations. It can be said that Chinese cultural subjectivity has been further consolidated and developed in the great practice of the Chinese people achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China over the past century. It is closely linked to the process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and Chinese-path modernization, and represents the continuation and development of fine traditional Chinese culture in the New Era.

进入新时代以来，摆在党和人民面前的主要任务是建设社会主义现代化强国、实现中华民族伟大复兴。以习近平同志为核心的党中央从“五位一体”总体布局出发，高度重视中国特色社会主义文化建设，向着文化强国目标的实现稳步推进，社会主义文化事业、文化产业不断繁荣发展。习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上正式提出“文化主体性”概念。这一时期的中华文化主体性在理论和实践方面都得到了进一步丰富和发展。一方面，中华文化主体性的发展需要立足中华民族伟大复兴战略全局与世界百年未有之大变局，以历史主动精神增强文化自信与中华文化传播力，构建中国话语体系与国际传播体系，讲好中国故事，传播好中国声音。另一方面，中华文化主体性扎根于中华民族的伟大实践之中，并不断开辟马克思主义中国化时代化新境界，推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展，在坚持“两个结合”中担负起新时代文化发展的使命。可以说，中华文化主体性是在百年来中国共产党领导人民实现中华民族伟大复兴的伟大实践中得到了进一步巩固和发展，它与中华民族伟大复兴和中国式现代化发展进程息息相关，是中华优秀传统文化在新时代的赓续和发展。

History has proven that Chinese cultural subjectivity is rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, which gave birth to and created a splendid Chinese civilization. From a modernization perspective, Chinese cultural subjectivity has been further shaped and developed in the practice of the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people in revolution, construction, and reform. It has given birth to and created a new form of human civilization and serves as the cultural foundation for realizing Chinese-path modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In fact, Chinese cultural subjectivity possesses both the “soul vein” of Marxism and the “root vein” of fine traditional Chinese culture. It is the cultural crystallization of continuously advancing the Two Integrations, a “cultural综合体” [9]9 The Chinese term 综合体 (zongheti) denotes a complex, integrated entity or synthesis. The authors use it to describe Chinese cultural subjectivity as a dynamic synthesis of multiple cultural elements. established on the basis of persistently promoting the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, inheriting revolutionary culture, developing advanced socialist culture, and drawing on and absorbing all outstanding achievements of human civilization. This “cultural综合体” is dynamic and evolving, and will continue to develop along with the process of Chinese-path modernization.

历史已经证明，中华文化主体性植根于中华优秀传统文化之中，孕育并创造了辉煌的中华文明。从现代化角度来看，中华文化主体性在中国共产党领导中国人民进行革命、建设、改革的实践中得到了进一步的塑造和发展，它孕育和创造了人类文明新形态，是实现中国式现代化和中华民族伟大复兴的文化根基。事实上，中华文化主体性既有马克思主义“魂脉”，也有中华优秀传统文化“根脉”，是不断推进“两个结合”的文化结晶，是在坚持推进马克思主义中国化时代化，推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展，继承革命文化，发展社会主义先进文化，借鉴吸收人类一切优秀文明成果基础上建立起来的“文化综合体”。这一“文化综合体”是动态发展的，将随着中国式现代化进程而不断演进。

First, in terms of cultural modes of thinking, this “cultural综合体” achieves the unity of dialectical thinking and analytical thinking. For a long time, fine traditional Chinese culture has emphasized dialectical thinking and holistic thinking, while Western culture emphasizes analytical thinking. These two modes of thinking each have their own strengths and characteristics. How to unify these two modes of thinking is the key to consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity. This “cultural综合体” rationally and dialectically views the similarities and differences between ancient and modern, Chinese and Western cultures. It adheres to the fundamental guidance of Marxism, advances the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, actively integrates with diverse cultures such as fine traditional Chinese culture and outstanding achievements of world civilization, grasps systematic thinking, dialectically analyzes diverse cultures, insists on critical absorption and making them serve our purposes, promotes cultural development through continuous comprehensive innovation, and endows the new cultural life form with vitality and dynamism.

第一，在文化思维方式上，这一“文化综合体”实现了辩证思维与分析思维的统一。长期以来，中华优秀传统文化注重辩证思维和整体思维，而西方文化注重分析思维，这两种思维方式有着各自的优势和特点。如何使这两种思维方式统一起来，是巩固中华文化主体性的关键。这一“文化综合体”理性辩证看待古今中西文化异同，坚持马克思主义根本指导，推进马克思主义中国化时代化，积极与中华优秀传统文化、世界优秀文明成果等多元文化相融合，把握系统思维，辩证分析多元文化，坚持批判吸收、为我所用，在持续综合创新中推进文化发展，赋予新的文化生命体生机与活力。

Second, in terms of values, this “cultural综合体” achieves a concrete and historical unity of collectivism and individualism. How to handle the relationship between individual interests and collective interests is a worldwide historical challenge. Capitalist society, built on the foundation of individualist values, easily leads to the proliferation of extreme individualism, while in the “great unity” tradition of Chinese culture, it is easy for a minority to borrow the name of “collectivism” to achieve the reality of protecting the interests of a privileged few classes or strata. In the generation and development of Chinese cultural subjectivity, the Communist Party of China, through the overall design of the fundamental systems of the Party and the state and the construction of institutions and mechanisms, has concretely and historically unified collectivism and individualism in the practical process of building a great modern socialist country in all respects and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It has achieved both taking the overall situation into account and meeting individual needs, dissolved the extreme individualism of Western capitalist modernization, scientifically grasped the development and balance between collectivism and individualism, and unified them to serve the construction of socialist modernization.

第二，在价值观上，这一“文化综合体”实现了集体主义与个人主义具体的、历史的统一。如何处理好个人利益与集体利益之间的关系是一个世界性的历史难题。建立在个人主义价值观基础上的资本主义社会很容易导致极端个人主义的泛滥，而在“大一统”的中华文化传统中很容易出现少数人借“集体主义”之名来达到保护少数特权阶级、阶层利益之实。在中华文化主体性生成发展中，中国共产党通过党和国家根本制度的总体设计以及体制机制的构建，将集体主义与个人主义具体地、历史的统一全面建成社会主义现代化强国实现中华民族伟大复兴的实践进程中，做到了既顾全大局又满足个体需要，消解了西方资本主义现代化中的极端个人主义，科学把握了集体主义与个人主义之间的发展与平衡，统一为社会主义现代化建设服务。

Third, in terms of cultural form, this “cultural综合体” achieves the unity of “monistic” guidance and “diverse” development. Among them, Marxism as the “one” is the core and the mainstream. History and practice have repeatedly proven that without this “one,” there would be no Communist Party, no New China, no Chinese-path modernization, and no great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The Communist Party of China has always adhered to the fundamental system of Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological domain. At the same time, because the multifaceted functions of culture determine that its specific forms for promoting social development and meeting the needs of the people are also diverse, it must not only provide spiritual impetus for realizing Chinese-path modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation but also provide intellectual support for coordinating the relationships between people and people, people and society, and people and nature. Without “diverse” development, there is no “monistic” guidance; without “monistic” guidance, “diverse” development loses its direction and soul. It is precisely because of the layered and diverse nature of culture that it can accommodate diverse cultural needs and enhance cultural vitality through the common development of “monistic” guidance and “diverse” development.

第三，在文化形态上，这一“文化综合体”实现了“一元”指导与“多样”发展的统一。其中，马克思主义这个“一”是核心、是主流。历史和实践反复证明，没有这个“一”，就没有共产党、没有新中国、没有中国式现代化、没有中华民族伟大复兴。中国共产党始终坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位这一根本制度。同时，由于文化的多方面功能决定了其推动社会发展和满足人民群众需求的具体形态又是多样的，它既要为实现中国式现代化和中华民族伟大复兴提供精神动力，也要为协调人与人、人与社会、人与自然之间的关系提供智力支持。没有“多样”发展，就没有“一元”指导；没有“一元”指导，“多样”发展就失去了方向和灵魂。正因为文化的层次性和多样性，才能兼顾多样化的文化需求，在“一元”指导与“多样”共同发展中增强文化生命力。

III. The Principles to Be Followed by Chinese Cultural Subjectivity

三、中华文化主体性的原则遵循

History tells us that Chinese cultural subjectivity is a “cultural综合体” of “one main body with multiple elements” [10]10 The phrase “one main body with multiple elements” (一主多元, yizhu duoyuan) describes a structure where Marxism serves as the single guiding core, while diverse cultural forms and traditions are allowed to develop. that has been continuously generated in the long-term practice of production and interaction by the Chinese nation and the Chinese people. In this “cultural综合体,” the core issue remains properly handling the relationship among China, the West, and Marxism. To this end, it is necessary to further summarize the historical experience of the Communist Party of China in consolidating and developing Chinese cultural subjectivity over the past century, and to further reveal the basic principles for properly handling the relationship among China, the West, and Marxism, in order to better consolidate and develop Chinese cultural subjectivity in the practical process of building a great modern socialist country in all respects and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

历史告诉我们，中华文化主体性是中华民族和中国人民在长期的生产和交往实践中不断生成的、“一主多元”的“文化综合体”。在这一“文化综合体”中，其核心问题仍然是处理好中西马三者之间的关系。为此，需要进一步总结百年来中国共产党巩固发展中华文化主体性的历史经验，进一步揭示处理好中西马三者之间关系的基本遵循，以期在全面建成社会主义现代化强国和实现中华民族伟大复兴的实践进程中，更好地巩固和发展中华文化主体性。

For today, the guiding position and leading role of Marxism in the Chinese cultural综合体 are unshakable; this is a fundamental principle for consolidating and developing Chinese cultural subjectivity in practice. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out: “Possessing the scientific theoretical guidance of Marxism is the fundamental basis for our Party to strengthen its convictions and beliefs and to grasp the historical initiative.” [11]11 This is a direct quotation from the report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in October 2022. Since modern times, in the process of promoting the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture, the Communist Party of China has produced Marxism that has been adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, enriching the treasure trove of Marxist theory, laying a solid ideological foundation for consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity, and further expanding the development space of Chinese cultural subjectivity. In its inheritance and development, Chinese cultural subjectivity has formed a pattern of “one main body with multiple elements,” where the “one main body” refers to Marxism. That Marxism can occupy a dominant position is both a choice of history and a choice of the people, possessing historical inevitability. It is precisely under the guidance of Marxism that the Communist Party of China has led the Chinese people to achieve one great victory after another in the process of revolution, construction, and reform, and socialist modernization has achieved tremendous development achievements. Marxism has completely changed the future and destiny of Chinese social development since the New Democratic Revolution. Therefore, always adhering to Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological domain is the fundamental principle to be followed in further consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity in practice.

就今天而言，马克思主义在中华文化综合体中的指导地位和主导作用是不可动摇的，这是在实践中巩固和发展中华文化主体性的一条根本原则。党的二十大报告指出：“拥有马克思主义科学理论指导是我们党坚定信仰信念、把握历史主动的根本所在。”近代以来，中国共产党在推动马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际、同中华优秀传统文化相结合的过程中，产生了中国化时代化的马克思主义，丰富了马克思主义理论宝库，也为巩固中华文化主体性奠定了坚实的思想基础，进一步拓展了中华文化主体性的发展空间。中华文化主体性在传承与发展中形成了“一主多元”格局，其中“一主”指的就是马克思主义。马克思主义之所以能够占据主导地位，既是历史的选择，也是人民的选择，具有历史必然性。正是在马克思主义的指导下，中国共产党领导中国人民在革命、建设、改革进程中取得了一个又一个伟大胜利，社会主义现代化建设取得了巨大发展成就。马克思主义彻底改变了新民主主义革命以来中国社会发展的前途和命运。因此，始终坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位是在实践中进一步巩固中华文化主体性所要遵循的根本原则。

Looking back at history, after Marxism and various Western social trends of thought were introduced into China, the development of Chinese culture has faced the question of how to handle the relationships among ideological and cultural resources such as Chinese, Western, and Marxist thought. The adherence to Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological domain was also established in this process. On the one hand, Chinese, Western, and Marxist thought and culture are not entirely mutually exclusive; in the course of their exchange,交融 and confrontation, there are also many “points of convergence.” Under the premise of upholding Marxism’s guiding role, it is necessary to fully absorb the ideological essences of fine traditional Chinese culture and fine Western culture, to deeply elucidate the contemporary value of fine traditional Chinese culture and fine Western culture, to promote innovation in the Chinese cultural综合体, and to achieve balanced and coordinated development among Chinese, Western, and Marxist elements. On the other hand, it must be fully recognized that the ideological achievements formed in the process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times have long been integrated into the subjective development of Chinese culture, becoming an indispensable and core component in consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity. Marxism, with its scientific worldview and methodology, has withstood the tests of history and practice, providing theoretical guidance for advancing Chinese-path modernization and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Looking to the future, we need to handle the various problems faced in the process of modernization, and the resolution of these problems cannot be separated from the guidance of Marxism.

回顾历史，在马克思主义以及西方各种社会思潮传入中国后，中华文化的发展就面临着如何处理中西马等思想文化资源之间关系的问题。坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位也是在这一过程中确立起来的。一方面，中西马思想文化不完全是相互排斥的，它们在交流交融交锋进程中也存在着较多的“结合点”。在坚持马克思主义指导地位的前提下，要充分吸收中华优秀传统文化、西方优秀文化中的思想精华，深入阐释中华优秀传统文化与西方优秀文化的当代价值，推动中华文化综合体的创新，实现中西马三者之间的平衡协调发展。另一方面，要充分认识到，马克思主义中国化时代化进程中所形成的思想成果早已融汇在中华文化的主体发展中，成为巩固中华文化主体性必不可少且占据核心地位的部分，马克思主义以其科学的世界观和方法论经受住了历史和实践的考验，为推进中国式现代化和实现中华民族伟大复兴提供了理论指导。面向未来，我们需要处理好现代化进程中面临的各种问题，这些问题的解决离不开马克思主义的指导。

Fine traditional Chinese culture is the “root vein” (根脉) of the “cultural综合体”; it represents the unique spiritual identity of the Chinese nation and is a concrete manifestation of the developmental achievements and fundamental creativity of Chinese civilization. Therefore, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture is the most basic principle that must be followed in consolidating and developing Chinese cultural subjectivity in practice. History tells us: “The major proposition of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times itself determines that we must never abandon the soul vein (魂脉) of Marxism, nor must we abandon the root vein of fine traditional Chinese culture.” Only by promoting the organic integration of the “soul vein” and the “root vein” can we further consolidate and develop Chinese cultural subjectivity, enable the Chinese nation to possess a firm self in the cultural sense, and provide cultural support for the socialist modernization cause. Looking to the future, constructing a pattern of “one mainstream with multiple elements” (一主多元) for the Chinese cultural综合体 requires adhering to the Two Integrations, especially the Second Integration, in order to achieve the mutual interpenetration of the “soul vein” and the “root vein.” If adhering to Marxism’s fundamental guiding role provides direction and impetus for Chinese-path modernization, then adhering to the Second Integration and to the diversified and pluralistic development of Chinese culture provides the cultural soil for coordination and balance in Chinese-path modernization. Only by achieving the dialectical unity and mutual reinforcement of impetus and balance can we promote the healthy and orderly development of Chinese-path modernization.

中华优秀传统文化是“文化综合体”的“根脉”，它代表着中华民族独特的精神标识，是中华文明发展成果与根本创造力的具体展现。因此，推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展，这是在实践中巩固和发展中华文化主体性所必须遵循的最基本原则。历史告诉我们：“马克思主义中国化时代化这个重大命题本身就决定，我们决不能抛弃马克思主义这个魂脉，决不能抛弃中华优秀传统文化这个根脉。”只有推动“魂脉”与“根脉”的有机结合，才能进一步巩固好与发展好中华文化主体性，使中华民族在文化意义上具有坚定的自我，为社会主义现代化事业提供文化支撑。面向未来，构建中华文化综合体的“一主多元”格局，需要坚持“两个结合”，特别是坚持“第二个结合”，以实现“魂脉”与“根脉”的相互贯通。如果说坚持马克思主义的根本指导地位给中国式现代化提供了方向和动力的支持，那么坚持“第二个结合”，坚持中华文化的多元化与多样性发展就是给中国式现代化提供了协调和平衡的文化土壤。只有实现动力与平衡的辩证统一、相辅相成，才能推进中国式现代化的健康有序发展。

Looking to the future, in advancing the process of the Second Integration, we must accomplish the following: First, distinguish the essence from the dross of traditional Chinese culture. Mao Zedong pointed out: “Clearing up the developmental process of ancient culture, discarding its feudal dross and absorbing its democratic essence, is a necessary condition for developing a new national culture and enhancing national self-confidence.” [12]12 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy” (1940). Second, starting from the epochal demands of Chinese-path modernization, grasp the scientific connotation and ideological essence of fine traditional Chinese culture, transform and develop the value propositions in fine traditional Chinese culture so that they manifest new connotations in the New Era. For example, the Confucian “benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness” (仁义礼智信), as core values in traditional culture, still hold significant value for the development of modern society. In the course of modernization, they must be further transformed into a discursive expression suitable for socialism with Chinese characteristics, providing a value interpretation for the New Era. Third, systematically excavate the values in fine traditional Chinese culture that are compatible with socialism, further inherit and develop the genes of fine traditional Chinese culture, and lay a solid ideological foundation for Chinese cultural subjectivity.

面向未来，在推进“第二个结合”过程中，我们要做到：一是区分中国传统文化的精华与糟粕。毛泽东指出：“清理古代文化的发展过程，剔除其封建性的糟粕，吸收其民主性的精华，是发展民族新文化提高民族自信心的必要条件。”二是从中国式现代化的时代诉求出发，把握中华优秀传统文化的科学内涵与思想精华，把中华优秀传统文化中的价值观主张加以转化发展，使其在新时代展现新的内涵。如儒家“仁义礼智信”作为传统文化中的核心价值观，对现代社会发展仍具有重要价值，在现代化建设中要进一步将其转化为适合中国特色社会主义的话语表达，作出新时代的价值阐释。三是对中华优秀传统文化与社会主义相契合的价值观进行系统挖掘，进一步传承和发展中华优秀传统文化基因，为中华文化主体性筑牢坚实的思想根基。

Dialectical materialism holds that “tradition” can only be called “tradition” when it is needed by the practical development of reality. The mutual achievement of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture has activated the contemporary value of tradition and consolidated the cultural foundation of Chinese-path modernization. The developmental achievements of Chinese-path modernization are not only the result of combining Marxism with China’s concrete realities, but also the developmental achievements of inheriting fine traditional Chinese culture and continuing the precious spiritual wealth of Chinese civilization, created in the process of consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity. The Second Integration has activated the modern vitality of fine traditional Chinese culture, and Marxism has increasingly become an indispensable part of Chinese cultural development, integrated into the living organism of Chinese culture. Therefore, a nation’s culture must both connect with the traditions left by history and keep pace with the times in practice. The Second Integration represents a grasp of the laws of Chinese cultural development and manifests the modern value of fine traditional Chinese culture.

唯物辩证法认为，“传统”只有在实践中被现实的发展所需要，才能称得上是“传统”。马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相互成就激活了传统的当代价值，夯实了中国式现代化的文化根基。中国式现代化的发展成就不仅是马克思主义同中国具体实际相结合的结果，更是传承中华优秀传统文化、赓续中华文明的宝贵精神财富的发展成果，是在巩固中华文化主体性过程中创造的。“第二个结合”激活了中华优秀传统文化的现代生命力，马克思主义也日益成为中华文化发展必不可少的一部分，融入中华文化这一生命体中。因此，一个民族的文化既要与历史留存下来的传统相连，又要在实践中与时俱进，“第二个结合”是对中华文化发展规律的把握，彰显了中华优秀传统文化的现代价值。

Chinese cultural subjectivity is characterized by openness and inclusiveness. Absorbing and drawing on all outstanding cultural achievements created by humanity is an important principle that must be followed in consolidating and developing Chinese cultural subjectivity in practice. In the consolidation of Chinese cultural subjectivity, it is necessary not only to handle the issue of the Second Integration, but also, on the basis of thoroughly criticizing Western cultural value positions, to draw on and absorb the reasonable components and positive factors within Western culture. Chinese cultural subjectivity itself is continuously generated and consolidated in the exchange of diverse ideological cultures. Only by absorbing and drawing on the outstanding cultural achievements of countries around the world can we enhance the creativity and influence of Chinese culture, further promote Chinese culture’s going global, facilitate the worldwide dissemination of Chinese culture, and endow the development of Chinese cultural subjectivity with global significance. In this process, it is necessary to clearly oppose Western centrism and Western superiority, as this is the prerequisite for dialectically treating the various ideological elements within Western culture. Under the premise of objectively examining and rationally criticizing Western culture, it is necessary to draw on and absorb the reasonable components and positive factors in Western culture, prompting them to become important cultural resources for consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity.

中华文化主体性具有开放包容的特点，吸收和借鉴人类创造的一切优秀文化成果是在实践中巩固和发展中华文化主体性所必须遵循的重要原则。在中华文化主体性的巩固中，不仅需要处理好“第二个结合”的问题，而且需要在彻底批判西方文化价值立场基础上，借鉴和吸收西方文化中的合理成分与积极因素。中华文化主体性本身就是在多元的思想文化交流中不断生成和巩固的，吸收和借鉴世界各国的优秀文化成果，才能增强中华文化的创造性与影响力，进一步推动中华文化走向世界，促进中华文化的世界传播，赋予中华文化主体性发展以世界性意义。在这一过程中，需要明确反对西方中心论、西方优越论，这是辩证对待西方文化中各种思想要素的前提。在对西方文化进行客观审视和理性批判的前提下，需要对西方文化中的合理成分和积极因素进行借鉴与吸收，促使其成为巩固中华文化主体性的重要文化资源。

In summary, correctly handling the relationships among Marxism, fine traditional Chinese culture, and Western culture, and constructing a pattern of “one mainstream with multiple elements” for the Chinese cultural综合体, is the core of consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity. The Chinese cultural综合体 must both adhere to Marxism as the guiding ideology and deepen the Second Integration. On the basis of deeply excavating the important ideological resources in fine traditional Chinese culture, it must promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and criticize and draw on Western culture, so as to enrich the connotation and extension of Chinese cultural subjectivity. At the same time, the various constituent elements within the Chinese cultural综合体 are interconnected and develop in relation to each other. The “one mainstream” of Marxism and the “multiple elements,” including the reasonable components and positive factors of fine traditional Chinese culture and Western culture, must all serve the practice of Chinese-path modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The consolidation and development of Chinese cultural subjectivity must always serve the cause of socialist construction, lead the healthy development of various fields in the process of promoting cultural great development and flourishing, and contribute spiritual strength to national rejuvenation.

概括地说，正确处理好马克思主义、中华优秀传统文化与西方文化三者之间的关系，构建中华文化综合体的“一主多元”格局，是巩固中华文化主体性的核心。中华文化综合体既要坚持马克思主义指导思想，又要深化“第二个结合”，在深入挖掘中华优秀传统文化中的重要思想资源基础上，推动中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展，并对西方文化加以批判与借鉴，以丰富中华文化主体性的内涵与外延。同时，存在于中华文化综合体中的各个构成要素是相互联系发展的，马克思主义“一主”与中华优秀传统文化、西方文化中的合理成分与积极因素等“多元”都要服务于中国式现代化和中华民族伟大复兴的实践。中华文化主体性的巩固发展要始终为社会主义建设事业服务，在推进文化大发展大繁荣过程中引领各领域健康发展，为民族复兴贡献精神力量。

In summary, fine traditional Chinese culture is a "cultural综合体"[n13] formed through the integrated development of diverse elements such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. This "cultural综合体" was shaped on the basis of productive practices in the long era of agrarian civilization; it adapted to the conditions of economic and social development at the time and created a splendid and brilliant Chinese civilization. In modern times, especially with the development of capitalism, fine traditional Chinese culture, which was founded on an agricultural mode of production, experienced insufficient momentum and even a temporary absence of dynamism in areas such as promoting scientific and technological development and activating social creativity, thereby giving rise to a situation of incompatibility with modern development. It was precisely in this process that Marxism and various Western currents of thought were introduced into China, breaking the fixed patterns of thinking brought about by the original "cultural综合体." Hence arose the debate over "the ancient and the modern, China and the West" and the question of how to handle the relationships among China, the West, and Marxism within the new "cultural综合体." Marxism has infused fresh blood into the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, pointing the way for national rejuvenation and modernization. It is the "soul" (魂脉) of the new "cultural综合体," while fine traditional Chinese culture is its "root" (根脉). The Second Integration[n14] has realized the mutual achievement of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture.

总而言之，中华优秀传统文化是儒释道等多元文化融合发展的“文化综合体”。这一“文化综合体”是在漫长农耕时代生产实践基础上形成的，它适应了当时经济社会发展的状况，创造了辉煌灿烂的中华文明。近代以来，尤其是伴随着资本主义的发展，建立在农业生产方式上的中华优秀传统文化，在如何推动科技发展、激活社会的创造性等问题上，出现了动力不足乃至一度缺失的现象，从而带来与现代化发展不相适应的状况。正是在这一过程中，马克思主义与西方各种思潮传入中国，打破了原有“文化综合体”所带来的思维定式，于是便有了“古今中西”之争及如何处理好新的“文化综合体”中中西马之间关系等问题的提出。马克思主义给中华优秀传统文化创造性转化和创新性发展注入了新鲜血液，为民族复兴和现代化指明了方向，是新的“文化综合体”的“魂脉”，中华优秀传统文化是其“根脉”， “第二个结合”实现了马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的相互成就。

(The authors are, respectively, Vice Dean of the School of Marxism at East China University of Science and Technology, and a doctoral student in the School of Marxism at East China University of Science and Technology.)

（作者系华东理工大学马克思主义学院副院长；华东理工大学马克思主义学院博士生）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁