The Historical Evolution and Reflective Reconstruction of the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture

Subjectivity is a fundamental category of philosophical epistemology, emphasizing the autonomy, initiative, and creativity that the self exercises in object-oriented activities of a “for-me” character. Cultural subjectivity is mainly manifested in whether the “self” can absorb and integrate the culture of the “other” and consciously engage in innovative development. “Self,” “other,” and cultural innovation are three indispensable elements for considering cultural subjectivity. Cultural subjectivity is the fundamental support for cultural confidence. The subjectivity of Chinese culture underwent a transformative shift from prominence to loss in modern China. The Communist Party of China has successfully led the Chinese people in reconstructing, consolidating, and elevating cultural subjectivity through the practices of revolution, construction, and reform. Clarifying the historical evolution of the subjectivity of Chinese culture can provide a mirror for further enhancing it.

主体性是哲学认识论的基本范畴，强调自我在“为我性”对象性活动中发挥的自主性、能动性与创造性。文化主体性主要体现为“自我”对“他者”文化是否能够吸收、融合，并自觉进行创新发展。“自我”“他者”与文化创新是考量文化主体性不可或缺的三个要素。文化主体性是文化自信的根本依托，中华文化主体性在近代中国经历了从彰显到失落的转折性变化。中国共产党成功带领中国人民在革命、建设、改革实践中重新建构、巩固和高扬文化主体性。理清中华文化主体性的历史嬗变，可以为进一步提升中华文化主体性提供镜鉴。

I. The Prominence and Loss of the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture

一、中华文化主体性的彰显与失落

Chinese culture has a long history, and its subjectivity has faced different problems and exhibited different characteristics at different stages. Before modern times, Chinese culture encountered the impact, collision, fission, and fusion of “other” cultures such as Buddhism and Christianity. Although it underwent many changes and transformations, Chinese culture was never interrupted, always running through with a consistent value concept. It is just that this fundamental and foundational value concept manifested in different forms in different historical circumstances. “The Chinese nation has formed a feedback loop of non-linear causality between its own practical activities and ideological creations, thereby enabling the Chinese nation to always maintain a cultural posture and life realm of ‘individual self.’” [1]1 The phrase “individual self” (个性自我) here refers to a distinctive cultural identity that maintains its own character and life force through historical change. However, after the Opium War, [2]2 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between the Qing Dynasty and Britain, triggered by trade disputes and the opium trade, which resulted in China’s defeat and the beginning of a series of unequal treaties. the all-round penetration and impact of Western culture weakened and dissolved Chinese culture, and the subjectivity of Chinese culture faced an unprecedented crisis.

中华文化源远流长，其主体性在不同阶段面临不同问题，彰显不同特征。近代以前，中华文化遭遇过佛教、基督教等“他者”文化的冲击、碰撞、裂变与融合。尽管历经多次更迭与变革，中华文化从未中断，始终贯穿着同一性的价值理念。只是这种具有根本性、基础性的价值理念在不同的历史境遇中呈现不同样态。“中华民族在自己的文明实践与思想创造之间形成了一个非线性因果律的反馈回路，从而使中华民族始终保持‘个性自我’的文化姿态与生命意境。”然而，鸦片战争后，西方文化的全方位渗透与冲击，弱化、消解着中华文化，中华文化主体性遭到前所未有之危机。

1. The Establishment and Integration of the “Center”: The Prominence of the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture

1.“中心”尊立与统合：中华文化主体性的彰显

Cultural subjectivity manifests a nation’s conscious awareness of innovating and developing its own culture. Over a long historical period, Chinese culture was a culture formed with the Huaxia [3]3 Huaxia (华夏) is an ancient term for the Chinese nation or Chinese civilization, often used to distinguish the central plains peoples from surrounding groups. nation as its main body; its gestation, generation, development, and innovation were rooted in the long history of the Huaxia nation. The ritual and music civilization and the patriarchal clan system of the Western Zhou period [4]4 The Western Zhou period (c. 1046–771 BCE) was a dynasty in Chinese history known for establishing the ritual and music system and the patriarchal clan system that shaped early Chinese culture. laid the foundation of Chinese culture. The Hundred Schools of Thought contending and the flourishing of various schools of thought in the pre-Qin period [5]5 The pre-Qin period refers to the time before the unification of China by the Qin Dynasty in 221 BCE, marked by intellectual flourishing and the Hundred Schools of Thought. initially shaped and consolidated the basic content of Chinese culture. Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty [6]6 Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty (r. 141–87 BCE) is known for promoting Confucianism as the state ideology. established Confucianism as the sole orthodox doctrine, initiating a Chinese history with Confucian culture as the mainstream. The concept of “all under heaven” (天下) is an important component of traditional Chinese culture, especially Confucian culture. Gu Yanwu’s [7]7 Gu Yanwu (1613–1682) was a Ming-Qing transition scholar who distinguished between the fall of a dynasty (亡国) and the fall of civilization (亡天下). “distinction between the fall of the state and the fall of all under heaven” pointed to the cultural centralist tendency of traditional Chinese society. The “all-under-heaven doctrine” (天下主义), which gradually evolved from the concept of “all under heaven,” contains rich conceptions of order, regulating and guiding the ancient dynasties’ foreign relations and cultural development practices, reflecting the developmental logic of a central culture integrating and fusing peripheral cultures. The “all-under-heaven doctrine” and the “distinction between Hua and Yi” [8]8 The “distinction between Hua and Yi” (夷夏之辨) is a traditional Chinese concept differentiating the civilized Huaxia from the barbarian Yi peoples, often used to justify cultural hierarchy and assimilation. not only manifest the internal tension of Chinese culture but also embody the transformative self-perpetuation of Chinese culture within the construction of a “center-periphery” order, thereby manifesting cultural subjectivity.

文化主体性彰显着一个民族创新发展自身文化的自觉意识。在较长的历史时期中，中华文化是以华夏民族为主体形成的文化，其孕育、生成、发展与创新根植于华夏民族悠久的历史。西周时期的礼乐文明与宗法制度，奠定了中华文化的基础。先秦百家争鸣、诸子之学蜂起，初步形塑并夯实了中华文化的基本内容。汉武帝将儒家思想定为一尊，开启了以儒家文化为主流的中国历史。“天下”观念是中华传统文化特别是儒家文化的重要组成部分，顾炎武的“亡国与亡天下之辨”指出了传统中国社会的文化中心主义倾向。由“天下”观念逐渐演变而来的“天下主义”包含着丰富的秩序构想，规范和指导着古代王朝对外关系、文化发展实践，反映了中心文化统摄融合边缘文化的发展理路。“天下主义”与“夷夏之辨”既彰显着中华文化的内在张力，也在“中心—边缘”的秩序建构中体现了中华文化嬗变式的自我延续，彰显文化主体性。

“All under heaven” includes the various Xia states and the barbarian tribes; it is both a geographical space and a cultural system. The so-called “all under heaven” does not mean that China believed “the world was only this big,” but rather that “under the bright sky and broad daylight, there is only one ethical order of human relations.” In the “all-under-heaven doctrine,” “China” (中国) is the geographical center, the “central state,” the “center of all under heaven,” as it is said: “That which is centered between heaven and earth is called China.” (Yangzi’s Model Sayings · Asking about the Way) [9]9 Yangzi’s Model Sayings (扬子法言) is a philosophical work by Yang Xiong (53 BCE–18 CE), a Han Dynasty scholar. The periphery relative to the center is referred to as the “four territories,” “four directions,” and “four seas,” and its people are the “barbarians”: “The nine Yi, eight Di, seven Rong, and six Man are called the four seas.” (Erya · Explaining Lands) [10]10 The Erya (尔雅) is an ancient Chinese dictionary and encyclopedia, traditionally attributed to the early Han period. At the same time, “China,” with the Huaxia nation as its main body, is a land of ritual propriety, practicing a way of life based on ritual and music, possessing a spiritual culture dominated by benevolence, righteousness, ritual, and music; it is a concept with cultural significance. In contrast, the “barbarians” lack cultural cultivation. However, the “center” of the “all-under-heaven doctrine” is not a fixed geographical space but has a dynamic evolutionary character, reflecting the strong creative and integrative capacity and inclusiveness of Chinese culture. The “all-under-heaven doctrine” does not advocate conquest by force but rather rule by virtue, transforming “barbarians into Xia” through cultivation, making the “other” into the “self”: “If a feudal lord adopts barbarian rites, then treat him as a barbarian; if he advances into China, then treat him as Chinese.” (Han Yu, [11]11 Han Yu (768–824) was a Tang Dynasty Confucian scholar and writer, known for his advocacy of Confucian orthodoxy against Buddhism and Daoism. On the Way) [12]12 On the Way (原道) is an essay by Han Yu that argues for the primacy of Confucian teachings. It can be said that the ultimate measure of whether one can become part of “China” is culture and values — that is, whether one can be cultivated by ritual customs and practice benevolence and righteousness. Faced with foreign cultures, on the one hand, Chinese culture always adhered to openness and inclusiveness, as exemplified by the Tang Dynasty’s [13]13 The Tang Dynasty (618–907) was a cosmopolitan Chinese dynasty known for its openness to foreign cultures and trade. policy of “treating Yi and Xia as one” and “Hua and Yi as one body” toward foreign cultures; on the other hand, Chinese culture always occupied the “center” position, consolidating the four directions in the process of dominating, controlling, and integrating the “other,” achieving self-transcendence and gaining the extension and expansion of life. The “all-under-heaven doctrine” contains tendencies toward centralism and holism; Chinese culture is the core, constantly achieving the integration of the “periphery” with a unified standard and value. The “distinction between Hua and Yi” also highlights cultural subjectivity: Huaxia culture, as the “self” of the subject, possessed superiority and advancement over the “other”; the “Yi” were the objects of cultivation. “The order of all under heaven excelled at accommodating, absorbing, incorporating, and assimilating the ‘external,’ bringing the external into the structure of Huaxia civilization, either through absorption and fusion, or by placing it within the differentiated yet integrated order pattern of the Hua-Yi distinction.”

“天下”包含诸夏、蛮夷，既是地理空间，也是文化体系。所谓“天下”，并不是中国自以为“世界只有如此大”，而是“光天化日之下，只有同一人文的伦理秩序”。“天下主义”中“中国”是地理意义上的中心，是“中央之国”“天下中心”，正所谓“中于天地者为中国”。（《扬子法言·问道》）与中心相对的周边为“四土”“四方”“四海”，其人则为“蛮夷”，“九夷、八狄、七戎、六蛮，谓之四海”。（《尔雅·释地》）同时，以华夏民族为主体的“中国”是礼仪之国，践行礼乐生活方式，拥有以仁、义、礼、乐为主导的精神文化，是一个文化意义上的概念。与之相对的则为缺乏文化教化的“蛮夷”。不过，“天下主义”的“中心”并不是固定不变的地理空间，而是具有动态演变性，反映着中华文化较强的融创能力和包容性。“天下主义”并不主张通过武力征服而是主张德治，通过教化“化夷为夏”，使“他者”成为“我者”，“诸侯用夷礼则夷之，进于中国则中国之。”（韩愈《原道》）可以说，是否能够成为“中国”之一部分，最终的衡量因素是文化与价值，即能否被礼仪习俗所教化、遵行仁义。面对外来文化，一方面，中华文化始终坚持开放包容，如唐王朝对待外来文化奉行“夷夏如一”“华夷一体”；另一方面，中华文化始终处于“中心”位置，在统摄、支配与融合“他者”的过程中凝聚四方，实现自我超越，获得生命的延伸与扩展。“天下主义”蕴含着中心主义、整体主义倾向，中华文化是核心，以统一的尺度与价值不断实现对“边缘”的统合。而“夷夏之辨”也凸显了文化主体性，华夏文化作为主体的“我者”较之“他者”具有优越性与先进性，“夷”是教化的客体，“天下秩序擅长于安置、吸纳、收编和同化‘外部’，将外部纳入华夏文明结构之内，或吸收融合，或置于华夷之辨的差异而一体化的秩序格局中”。

Overall, before the Opium War, Chinese culture primarily nurtured and served feudal rule. Although it experienced multiple impacts from foreign cultures, Chinese culture developed through constant self-reflection, autonomy, and self-action, always exhibiting autonomy and initiative. Chinese culture possessed both core cultural elements such as benevolence and ritual, and a unique value system, while continuously integrating the “other” to reshape itself, embodying the dialectical unity of upholding the Way and innovation. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “With cultural subjectivity, there is a firm self in the cultural sense.” [14]14 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech on cultural confidence. From this perspective, the subjectivity of Chinese culture was not absent before modern times.

总体来说，鸦片战争前，中华文化主要孕育与服务于封建统治，尽管多次经历外来文化的冲击，但中华文化在不断自省、自主与自为中发展，始终表现出自主性与能动性。中华文化既有仁、礼等核心性的文化要素与独特的价值体系，又不断融合“他者”重塑自身，体现承道与革新的辩证统一特征。习近平总书记指出：“有了文化主体性，就有了文化意义上坚定的自我。”从这个角度来讲，中华文化的主体性在近代以前并不缺位。

2. The Replacement and Transfer of the “Center”: The Loss of the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture

2.“中心”更替与转移：中华文化主体性的失落

After the Opium War, while the West used its strong ships and powerful cannons to open China’s doors, it also made the Chinese people pay attention to the cultural forces behind Western modernization. Western culture, relying on the criteria for judging cultural advancement formed by modernization, completely deconstructed the “center” potential of Chinese culture, causing it to fall from its previous “center” position. The “superiority” and “advancement” historically endowed by the past were constantly questioned, and its subjectivity gradually declined.

鸦片战争后，西方凭借坚船利炮打开中国大门的同时，也让中国人关注到西方现代化背后的文化力量。西方文化依托现代化形成的文化先进与否的判定标准，彻底解构了中华文化的“中心”势能，使其从以往的“中心”位置跌落，以往历史赋予的“优势”“先进”不断被质疑，主体性日渐式微。

Any cultural fusion and innovation has its inertia. The previous ideological paradigm of using “Huaxia” to integrate the “barbarians” still existed, and Westerners were once regarded by the Chinese as “barbarians.” Matteo Ricci [15]15 Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) was an Italian Jesuit missionary who lived in China during the Ming Dynasty and introduced Western knowledge while adapting to Chinese culture. could not help but lament this: “The Chinese regard all foreigners as ignorant savages.” [16]16 This is a paraphrase of Ricci’s observations on Chinese attitudes toward foreigners. However, after modern times, Chinese culture increasingly showed a sense of “powerlessness” in integrating “other” cultures, even having to undergo “passive acculturation.” In fact, after the mid-17th century, the radiation and integrative power of Chinese culture over the cultures of neighboring countries continuously weakened. The East Asian countries gradually became mutually intolerant and even contemptuous of each other. Within the seemingly identical civilization body, a huge split appeared. The neighboring countries in the original tributary system gradually “disembedded” themselves from the Chinese cultural system.

任何文化的融合与创新都有其惯性，以往以“华夏”融合“蛮夷”的思想范式依然存在，西方人也曾一度被中国人视为“蛮夷”。利玛窦对此不无感慨地说：“中国人把所有外国人都看作没有知识的野蛮人。”只是近代以后中华文化在统合“他者”文化中更多地显现出“无力感”，甚至不得不“被动涵化”。事实上，17世纪中叶后，中华文化对周边国家文化的辐射与统合力不断减弱，东亚各国渐渐互不相容甚至相互鄙夷，看似同一的文明体内出现了巨大的分裂，原来朝贡体系中的周边国家逐渐从中华文化体系中“脱嵌”。

The invasion of modern Western culture also completely changed the criteria for cultural superiority and advancement. The standards of judgment formed during the feudal era gradually declined, replaced by a new evaluation system centered on the capacity to create advanced material artifacts and the ability to integrate with modernity. It can be said that the traditional cultural view of superiority and inferiority, under the relentless pressure of Western guns and warships, gradually gave way to a Western cultural view of strength and weakness. Modern Western countries, in the course of industrial development, opened up a grand vision of “modern civilization” and thereby seized the power to interpret narratives such as “modernity,” “civilization,” and “progress.” To meet the needs of colonial expansion, Western states universalized their regional and concrete standards, constructing the value illusion that “modernization equals Westernization.” This value illusion, concealed beneath the surface of Western technological progress, material abundance, and national strength at the time, exerted a considerable influence on Chinese intellectuals. Modern Chinese intellectuals thus fell into the cognitive myth that “modernization means Europeanization and Westernization,” attributing to Western culture an advanced and superior character, while conversely disparaging traditional Chinese culture in many respects. In short, the immense gap in material artifacts pushed traditional Chinese culture off its cultural “pedestal.” Chinese culture was placed under the “re-examination” of the cultural value standards created by Western modernization. The cultural subject as the “self” was continuously weakened, dissolved, and even negated, turning instead into an “object” to be reformed and transcended.

近代西方文化的入侵也彻底改变了文化优越、先进的标准。封建时代所形成的评判标准逐渐式微，取而代之的是以先进器物创造能力、现代化融合能力为核心的新评价体系。可以说，传统文化所持的文化优劣观在西方坚船利炮的步步紧逼下逐步让位于西方文化强弱观。近代西方在工业发展中开辟了“现代文明”的宏大图景，并借此获取了对“现代”“文明”“进步”等话语叙事的解释权。为满足殖民扩张的需求，西方国家将地域性、具象性的标准普世化，建构了“现代化=西方化”的价值幻象。这种价值幻象隐匿于彼时西方技术进步、物质发达等国力强盛的表象之下，对中国知识分子产生了较大影响。近代中国知识分子由此陷入“现代化即欧化、西化”的认知迷思，赋予西方文化先进和优越色彩，反之对中华传统文化存在诸多贬抑。总之，巨大的器物差距将中华传统文化推下文化“神坛”，中华文化被放置于西方现代化所缔造的文化价值标准之下“重新审视”，作为“我者”的文化主体不断弱化、消解甚至否定，转而成为有待改造和扬弃的“客体”。

At the same time, the continuous influx of Western concepts, categories, judgments, and discourses completely overturned the developmental logic of Chinese culture formed within the notions of “all-under-heaven” (天下主义) and “the distinction between Hua and Yi” (夷夏之辨). [17]17 The distinction between Hua and Yi (夷夏之辨) was a traditional Chinese worldview that distinguished the civilized “Hua” (Chinese) from the barbarian “Yi” (non-Chinese), often implying Chinese cultural superiority. The concept of “all-under-heaven” was replaced by “all nations” and “the world.” A new worldview that “decentered China” supplanted the “China-centered” worldview of all-under-heaven. The Chinese nation changed from a civilized people into a people awaiting awakening, becoming an “object” to be enlightened by modern civilization. Traditional Chinese culture was questioned, criticized, and even negated by intellectuals. Around the time of the May Fourth Movement, [18]18 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was a major anti-imperialist and anti-feudal cultural and political movement, often seen as a watershed in modern Chinese intellectual history, marked by calls for science, democracy, and the rejection of Confucianism. the collision between tradition and modernity was exceptionally intense. Yan Fu’s theory of “survival of the fittest,” Hu Shi’s reference system of “modern Western civilization,” and the thesis of “wholesale Westernization” all promoted the deconstruction of the subjectivity of Chinese culture. Chinese people’s cultural confidence was replaced by cultural inferiority. The self-directedness, autonomy, and creativity of culture were continuously weakened and declined, and cultural subjectivity fell into crisis. He Lin believed: “The loss of autonomy and new life of Confucian thought in Chinese cultural life is the greatest crisis of the Chinese nation.” [19]19 He Lin (1902–1992) was a prominent Chinese philosopher and Neo-Confucian scholar.

同时，西方概念、范畴、判断与话语等不断涌入，彻底颠覆了中华文化在“天下主义”“夷夏之辨”观念中形成的文化发展理路。“天下”作为概念被“万国”“世界”所替代，“去中国中心”的新世界观取代“以中国为中心”的天下观。中华民族从以往开化的民族变成有待觉醒的民族，成为有待被现代文明教化的“对象”。中华传统文化被知识分子质疑、批判甚至否定。“五四运动”前后，传统与现代的碰撞异常激烈，严复的“适者生存”进化论、胡适的“西洋近代文明”参照系和“全盘西化”论等都推动了中华文化主体性的解构。中国人的文化自信被文化自卑所取代，文化的自为性、自主性和创造力等不断弱化、衰退，文化主体性陷入危机。贺麟认为：“儒家思想在中国文化生活上失掉了自主权，丧失了新生命，才是中华民族的最大危机。”

Of course, cultural subjectivity was not immediately deconstructed and dissipated; rather, it persisted as a secondary line and tributary current, reflecting the polyphonic struggles of some modern intellectuals. But overall, traditional Chinese culture was regarded as “old culture,” an object of questioning, criticism, and even wholesale negation, mired in a crisis of cultural subjectivity.

当然，文化主体性并不会立刻解构、消散，而是作为复线、辅流存在，反映出近代部分知识分子复调式的挣扎。但总体而言，中华传统文化被视为“旧文化”，被作为质疑批判甚至是全盘否定的对象，深陷文化主体性危机。

II. The Construction, Consolidation, and Reinforcement of the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture

二、中华文化主体性的建构、夯实与巩固

The loss of cultural subjectivity caused Chinese people’s cultural confidence to hit rock bottom. Cultural anxiety and cultural inferiority once spread widely. How to reconstruct, consolidate, and reinforce cultural subjectivity became an unavoidable problem. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Cultural confidence comes from our cultural subjectivity. This subjectivity was established by the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people on Chinese soil.” The Communist Party of China has taken on the historical mission of consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture, leading the Chinese people with a high degree of cultural consciousness to continuously reshape and reinforce the subjectivity of Chinese culture.

文化主体性的失落让中国人的文化自信跌落谷底，文化焦虑与文化自卑一度蔓延，如何重新建构、夯实与巩固文化主体性成为不得不面临的问题。习近平总书记指出：“文化自信就来自我们的文化主体性。这一主体性是中国共产党带领中国人民在中国大地上建立起来的。”中国共产党承担起巩固中华文化主体性的历史使命，以高度的文化自觉带领中国人民不断重塑与巩固中华文化主体性。

1. Dialectical Selection and Rejection: Clarifying the “Subject” of Cultural Innovation

1.辩证取舍：理清文化创新之“主体”

During the May Fourth Movement, the call to “Down with the Confucian shop” [20]20 “Down with the Confucian shop” (打倒孔家店) was a slogan of the May Fourth Movement, calling for the rejection of Confucianism as the dominant ideology. had a profound impact, thoroughly shaking the authoritative status of traditional culture. How to treat traditional culture, and whether to take traditional culture as the “subject” for cultural innovation and development, were questions the Chinese nation inevitably faced. Different parties and groups held different attitudes. The “Westernization faction,” based on the theoretical understanding that “modernization equals Westernization,” completely abandoned Chinese culture as the “subject.” The “culturalist faction” demanded construction based on a “Chinese cultural standard,” advocating the “restoration of inherent culture,” and believed that “since the illness of the past came from violating Confucian teachings, the illness of today can be cured precisely by practicing Confucian teachings.” [21]21 This is a paraphrase of a position associated with the “culturalist faction” (文化本位派) of the 1930s, such as in the “Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-based Culture” (1935). The Kuomintang, for its part, sought to restore China’s “inherent morality,” advocating the veneration of Confucius and the study of the classics, restoring sacrifices to Confucius, extensively repairing Confucian temples, and giving preferential treatment to the descendants of the sage. It stipulated that “national language textbooks must take the Four Books and Five Classics as important teaching materials,” [22]22 The Four Books and Five Classics (四书五经) are the canonical texts of Confucianism. and primary schools in Hunan, Guangdong, and other places carried out activities such as reading the classics.

“五四运动”中，“打倒孔家店”影响深远，彻底动摇了传统文化的权威地位，如何对待传统文化，是否以传统文化为“主体”进行文化创新发展是中华民族必然面临的问题。不同党派、团体持有不同态度。“西化派”在“现代化=西方化”的理论认识基础上，完全抛弃中华文化这一“主体”；“文化本位派”要求立足“中国本位文化”进行建设，提倡“恢复固有文化”，认为“过去的病症既是由于违反儒家的教义而来，今日的病症，正可以实践儒家的教义以图矫救”。国民党则要恢复中国“固有道德”，提倡尊孔读经、恢复祀孔、大修孔庙、优待圣裔，“国文教科书，必须以四书五经为重要教材”，湖南、广东等地的小学开展读经活动等。

Standing on the Marxist position, the Communist Party of China inherited and developed the Marxist correct attitude toward traditional culture, employing dialectics to re-examine traditional Chinese culture and affirming the indispensable presence of traditional culture. Marx pointed out: “Men make their own history… under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” [23]23 This is a standard translation of a passage from Marx’s *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*. Marx advocated developing new culture on the basis of existing history and culture, according to the conditions of reality. The Chinese Communists comprehensively, systematically, historically, and dialectically examined traditional Chinese culture, gradually realizing that traditional culture is an indispensable presence for carrying out cultural construction and reconstructing cultural subjectivity. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the Chinese Communists carried out cultural construction in the Soviet Areas, Yan’an, and elsewhere, establishing the basic direction of dialectically analyzing traditional Chinese culture to establish the “subject.” “The Chinese Communists are the most outstanding inheritors of all the finest traditions of our nation’s culture, thought, and morality, regarding all these fine traditions as something intimately connected with their own flesh and blood, and will continue to develop and enhance them.” [24]24 This is a paraphrase of a statement from the 1938 Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC, where Mao Zedong emphasized the Party’s role as inheritor of China’s cultural traditions. Zhang Wentian, at the First Congress of the Cultural Circles of the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, emphasized that the new cultural construction of the Chinese nation should place “the national” in the first position. [25]25 Zhang Wentian (1900–1976) was a senior leader of the CPC. The congress was held in 1940. However, not all national culture was the “subject” of innovative development. Ai Siqi pointed out: “We do not need the simple anti-feudalism of before the May Fourth Movement… we need the useful essence of feudal culture, but we must also unhesitatingly reject the poisonous dregs.” [26]26 Ai Siqi (1910–1966) was a Marxist philosopher and a leading CPC intellectual. Mao Zedong further proposed the standard for judging the “superiority and inferiority” of traditional Chinese culture, namely, feudal “dross” and democratic “essence.” [27]27 This refers to Mao Zedong’s formulation in his 1940 essay “On New Democracy.” During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the Communist Party of China strengthened the inheritance and development of national culture, proposing to “use modern science and culture to sort out our country’s excellent cultural heritage,” [28]28 This is a paraphrase of a policy statement from the early years of the People’s Republic of China. analyzing, discriminating, and selecting culture with contemporary value. It opposed both uncritical, wholesale acceptance (“national-essence-ism”) and “wholesale Westernization,” clearly stating that in dealing with cultural heritage, one must “carefully select, protect, and develop all its beneficial components, while honestly criticizing its errors and shortcomings.” [29]29 This is a paraphrase of a statement from the 1956 “Report on the Work of the Government” by Zhou Enlai. During this period, while conducting political and class analysis of traditional Chinese culture, the Chinese Communists also analyzed it from multiple dimensions such as scientificity and affinity to the people. For example, they advocated sorting out cultural heritage with “modern scientific viewpoints,” and held that traditional culture with affinity to the people should be absorbed into socialist culture. During the period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, the method of treating tradition dialectically and historically was continued: “affirm what should be affirmed in a matter-of-fact way, and negate what should be negated… draw a clear line between the democratic essence and the feudal dross in cultural heritage.” [30]30 This is a paraphrase of a statement from the 1981 “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China.” The Chinese Communist Party adjusted its cultural policy and principles, proposing the eight-character principle of “studying, absorbing, assimilating, and developing” cultural heritage. [31]31 This eight-character principle (钻研、吸收、融化、发展) was articulated in the 1980s as part of the CPC’s cultural policy. At the same time, it emphasized that modernization “requires inheriting and carrying forward the excellent cultural traditions of the Chinese nation,” [32]32 This is a paraphrase of a statement from the 1990s, reflecting the official line on cultural construction. further consolidating and reinforcing the “subject” nature of culture in practice.

中国共产党站在马克思主义立场上，继承和发展马克思主义对待传统文化的正确态度，运用辩证法重新审视中华传统文化，肯定传统文化不可或缺的在场性。马克思指出：“人们自己创造自己的历史……是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造。”马克思主张在既有的历史、文化基础上根据现实条件发展新的文化。中国共产党人全面、系统、历史、辩证地审视中华传统文化，逐渐意识到中华传统文化是进行文化建设、重构文化主体性不可或缺的存在。新民主主义革命时期，中国共产党人在苏区、延安等地开展文化建设，确立了辩证分析中华传统文化以确立“主体”的基本方向，“中国共产党人是我们民族一切文化、思想、道德的最优秀传统的继承者，把这一切优秀传统看成和自己血肉相连的东西，而且将继续加以发扬光大”。张闻天在陕甘宁边区文化界第一次代表大会上，强调中华民族的新文化建设应该把“民族的”放在首位。然而，并不是所有的民族文化都是创新发展的“主体”，艾思奇指出，“我们不需要五四以前那样单纯的反封建”，“我们还需要封建文化中有用的精粹，但我们也要毫无顾惜地排斥有毒的渣滓”。毛泽东更是提出了评判中华传统文化“优劣”的标准，即封建性的“糟粕”，民主性的“精华”。社会主义革命和建设时期，中国共产党加强对民族文化的继承与发展，提出“利用现代的科学文化来整理我国优秀的文化遗产”，分析、甄别、选择有当代价值的文化。既反对不加批判、全盘接受的“国粹主义”，又反对“全盘西化”，明确提出辩证对待文化遗产“要细心地选择、保护和发展它的一切有益成分，同时要老老实实地批判它的错误和缺点”。该时期，中国共产党对中华传统文化进行政治与阶级分析的同时，从科学性、人民性等多个维度加以分析，比如主张用“现代科学观点”整理文化遗产，具有人民性的传统文化理应被社会主义文化吸收等。改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，辩证、历史地对待传统的方法得以延续，“实事求是地肯定应当肯定的东西，否定应当否定的东西。……划清文化遗产中民主性精华同封建性糟粕的界限”。中国共产党调整文化政策方针，提出了对待文化遗产“钻研、吸收、融化、发展”的八字原则。同时，强调现代化建设“需要继承和发扬中华民族优秀文化传统”，在实践中进一步夯实与巩固文化“主体”性。

2. Choosing the Good and Following It: Acculturating the “Other” to Manifest Subjectivity

2.择善而从：涵化“他者”以彰显主体性

The strength or weakness of cultural subjectivity is mainly manifested in the relationship with the culture of the "other," that is, whether the cultural subject can effectively resist the impact, erosion, and infiltration of the "other" culture, and acculturate the "other" culture to promote its own innovative development. In dealing with foreign cultures, since modern times there have been those who advocate wholesale Westernization without discrimination, "one hundred percent complete Westernization." After reform and opening up, the proposition of "complete Westernization" resurfaced, with some proposing to integrate into the Western blue civilization, which is clearly a complete abandonment of cultural subjectivity. The Communist Party of China advocates a dialectical approach to foreign cultures, actively absorbing the excellent elements of foreign cultures while ensuring they are "used for my purposes," achieving its own innovative development.

文化主体性的强弱主要表现在与“他者”文化的关系方面，也就是文化主体能否有效抵抗“他者”文化的冲击、侵蚀、渗透，涵化“他者”文化以推动自身创新发展。对待外来文化，近代以来就存在不加辨析予以接受的全盘西化派，“百分之一百的全盘西化”。改革开放后，“全盘西化”的主张沉渣泛起，有人提出要融入西方的蓝色文明，这显然是对文化主体性的彻底放弃。中国共产党主张辩证对待外来文化，既主动吸收外来文化的优秀元素，又要“为我所用”，实现自身的创新发展。

During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the Communist Party of China established a correct attitude toward the culture of the "other," opposing cultural hegemony, advocating cultural diversity, and achieving cultural innovation in the dialectical treatment of foreign cultures. In the 1920s, Chinese Communists refuted the Awakening Lion School's [33]33 The Awakening Lion School (醒狮派) was a nationalist political group active in China during the 1920s, known for its advocacy of cultural nationalism and opposition to both Western imperialism and communist internationalism. view of "overthrowing native culture," opposing cultural determinism and cultural hegemony. Yun Daiying believed that foreign cultures should be treated with neither arrogance nor servility: "We should not determine a nation's fate by its culture, so that we will neither willingly submit out of admiration for another's culture (like those Americanized students), nor arrogantly claim the right to arbitrarily trample and carve up others out of contempt for their culture." The Communist Party of China advocated differentiated treatment based on the different nature and purpose of cultures. On the one hand, it resisted foreign cultures aimed at aggression and colonization, explicitly proposing to "abolish all cultural institutions of imperialism in China." On the other hand, it consciously absorbed and drew on beneficial elements from foreign cultures. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, Chinese Communists further affirmed that foreign cultures have "strengths" and emphasized achieving innovation in Chinese culture through absorption and reference: "Accepting the strengths of foreign countries will give our own things a leap forward." During this period, the Communist Party of China had already realized that the power of cultural construction and leadership must always be kept in its own hands, and that foreign cultures should be screened, stripped, and selectively absorbed based on the actual needs of Chinese cultural construction, opposing mechanical copying and indiscriminate imitation. Zhou Enlai pointed out that learning from foreign things "is all for today's creation, and they must all be dissolved into our creations." In September 1964, Mao Zedong issued the instruction on "making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China." [34]34 "Making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China" (古为今用、洋为中用) is a slogan formulated by Mao Zedong in 1964, guiding the selective use of traditional Chinese culture and foreign cultures for socialist construction. During the new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization, regarding Western culture that had once been labeled as capitalist, Chinese Communists further identified and distinguished it, affirming the value of "excellent cultural achievements," such as "we not only do not oppose, but must learn from all advanced science and technology, scientific management experience, and excellent cultural achievements of the West," "need to learn and absorb the excellent civilizational achievements created by the people of all countries, including those under the capitalist system," and "draw on the excellent civilizational achievements of all countries in the world." However, with the massive influx of Western philosophical and social science achievements into China, the phenomenon of "worshipping foreign things and fawning on foreign countries" also emerged domestically. In response to this issue, the Communist Party of China advocated enhancing the "subject" consciousness of Chinese culture. On the one hand, it advocated the diversity of modernization paths and cultural development, correcting the mistaken belief that only Western culture can promote modernization. Cultural development should respect the cultural traditions of all countries, "acknowledging the differences in cultural traditions, social systems, values, and development paths of all countries." On the other hand, it clarified the principle of "taking ourselves as the mainstay and using foreign things for our purposes" in dealing with foreign cultures, advocating the integration and acculturation of foreign cultures with Chinese culture as the subject, "carrying out various forms of foreign cultural exchanges, extensively learning from the strengths of the cultures of all countries, and showcasing the achievements of China's cultural construction to the world."

新民主主义革命时期，中国共产党树立了正确对待“他者”文化的态度，反对文化霸权，主张文化多样性，在辩证对待外来文化的过程中实现文化创新。20世纪20年代，中国共产党人反驳了醒狮派“推翻本国文化”的观点，反对文化决定论，反对文化霸权。恽代英认为，应该不卑不亢地对待外来文化，“我们不应拿一国的文化来决定他的命运，这样才不至于因羡慕人家的文化而自甘屈服（如一般美国化的学生），亦不至于因鄙夷人家的文化而公然自认有任意蹂躏宰割的权利”。中国共产党主张根据文化不同的性质、目的区隔化对待。一方面，抵制以侵略与殖民为目的的外来文化，明确提出要“取消帝国主义在华的一切文化机关”。另一方面，自觉吸收与借鉴外来文化中的有益成分。社会主义革命和建设时期，中国共产党人进一步肯定外来文化存在“长处”，并强调要在吸收借鉴中实现中华文化的创新，“我们接受外国的长处，会使我们自己的东西有一个跃进”。这一时期，中国共产党已经意识到要将文化建设权、领导权始终掌握在自己手里，应以中国文化建设之实际需要为着力点对外来文化进行筛选、剥离，有针对性地吸收，反对食洋不化、照搬照抄。周恩来指出，学习外国的东西“都是为了今天的创造，都要把它们溶化在我们的创作中”。1964年9月，毛泽东作了关于“古为今用、洋为中用”的批示。改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，对于一度被贴上资本主义标签的西方文化，中国共产党人进一步进行辨认与区分，肯定“优秀文化成果”的价值，如“对西方的一切先进科学技术、科学管理经验和优秀文化成果，我们不仅不反对，而且要学习”，“需要学习和吸收世界各国人民包括在资本主义制度下创造的优秀文明成果”，“借鉴世界各国的优秀文明成果”。但是，随着西方的哲学社会科学成果等大量涌入中国，国内也一度出现了“崇洋媚外”的现象。针对这一问题，中国共产党主张提升中华文化的“主体”意识。一方面，主张现代化道路、文化发展具有多样性，纠正只有西方文化才能推动现代化的错误认知。文化的发展应该尊重各国文化传统，“承认各国文化传统、社会制度、价值观念、发展道路的差异”。另一方面，明确了对待外来文化“以我为主、为我所用”的原则，主张以中华文化为主体对外来文化进行统合与涵化，“开展多种形式的对外文化交流，博采各国文化之长，向世界展示中国文化建设的成就”。

3. Innovation and Creation: Shaping New Culture to Consolidate Subjectivity

3.革新创造：塑造新文化以巩固主体性

Cultural subjectivity is ultimately embodied in the dynamic undertaking of cultural innovation, which requires answering the question of "how to carry out cultural innovation." On this issue, the Kuomintang once proposed "philosophy of vitalism" and "philosophy of action," attempting to extract certain spirits and ideas from traditional Chinese culture and form a new cultural order through "returning to tradition." However, they mainly selected and copied, without achieving substantive transformation and innovation. They even attacked Marxist dialectics, materialism, and class struggle theory, claiming these were products of European society, "only suitable for Europe," "imported goods" that "have nothing to do with the Chinese nation." In contrast, the Communist Party of China insists on taking Marxism as its guide, continuously exploring how to use Marxism to promote the modernization of traditional Chinese culture, constantly consolidating and reshaping Chinese cultural subjectivity in the "integration," and enhancing cultural consciousness and confidence.

文化主体性最终体现为能动地开展文化创新，需要回答“如何进行文化创新”的问题。对此问题，国民党曾提出“唯生哲学”“力行哲学”等，企图从中华传统文化中提取若干精神与思想，通过“复归传统”形成新的文化秩序。不过，他们主要是择选与照搬，并没有实现对其实质意义上的改造与创新。他们甚至攻击马克思主义辩证法、唯物论、阶级斗争学说等，认为这些是欧洲社会的产物，是“仅仅适合于欧洲”的“舶来品”，“与中华民族没有关系”。与之不同，中国共产党坚持以马克思主义为指导，不断探索如何运用马克思主义推动中华传统文化现代化，在“结合”中不断巩固与重塑中华文化主体性，增强文化自觉与自信。

During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the Communist Party of China initially clarified the basic direction of "integrating" Marxism with Chinese culture to promote cultural innovation. The Communist Party of China continuously used Marxist theory to examine and organize Chinese cultural resources, endowing them with contemporary significance and promoting the modernization of Chinese culture. On the one hand, Chinese Communists insisted on using Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to excavate and organize classical works, re-examining the value of traditional Chinese culture. During the Yan'an period, the Communist Party of China organized and analyzed the pre-Qin philosophers and Chinese history, achieving a sublation of traditional Chinese philosophy. Guo Moruo examined the *Book of Changes* from a dialectical materialist perspective, believing it "derived a dialectical worldview from the observation of nature"; Lü Zhenyu believed that Mo Di invented "democracy" two thousand years ago, which was "great" and "still has its positive progressive factors today." On the other hand, integrating Marxist theory with Chinese culture formed a Sinicized Marxist theory, inheriting and developing Chinese culture and endowing it with new vitality. In *On Practice* and *On Contradiction*, Mao Zedong used Marxism to transform, inherit, and develop Chinese philosophy, forming a Sinicized Marxist epistemology and dialectics. In 1943, the Central Committee of the CPC pointed out: "It is necessary to further deeply integrate Marxism-Leninism, this revolutionary science, with the practice of the Chinese revolution, Chinese history, and Chinese culture." Of course, one of the main manifestations of cultural subjectivity is the ability to create new culture. The integration of Marxism with Chinese culture not only endowed Chinese culture with modernity but also formed a new cultural form, namely the "national, scientific, and mass" New Democratic culture. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the Communist Party of China was committed to the goal of building a "socialist national new culture" through "integration." This period continued the approach of both affirming and transcending, promoting the innovative development of Chinese culture from the previous period. During the new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization, the Communist Party of China emphasized using Marxism to innovate "excellent national traditional culture": "We should cherish, protect, and excavate the excellent cultural heritage of the Chinese nation, and on the basis of inheritance, make creations and progress." Concepts such as "moderate prosperity" (小康), "harmony" (和谐), and "outlook on honor and disgrace" (荣辱观) were all achieved through the creative transformation and innovative development of existing concepts and ideas from excellent traditional Chinese culture in the process of "integration." During this period, the Communist Party of China continuously explored cultural forms suitable for the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, building an advanced socialist culture. These new cultures formed in different periods witnessed the process of the Communist Party of China consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity.

新民主主义革命时期，中国共产党初步明晰了马克思主义与中华文化“相结合”推动文化创新的基本方向。中国共产党不断运用马克思主义理论审视、整理中华文化资源并赋予其时代意涵，推动中华文化现代化。一方面，中国共产党人坚持运用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法挖掘、整理经典著作，重新审视中华传统文化的价值。延安时期，中国共产党对先秦诸子学说、中国历史等进行整理与辨析，实现对中国传统哲学的扬弃。郭沫若从唯物辩证角度审视《易经》，认为它“从自然的观察所得出来的一个辩证的宇宙观”；吕振羽认为墨翟在两千年前就发明了“民主主义”是“伟大的”，“在今日，也还有其积极的进步因素”。另一方面，将马克思主义理论与中华文化“结合”形成中国化马克思主义理论，继承与发展中华文化，赋予其新的生命力。毛泽东在《实践论》《矛盾论》中运用马克思主义改造、继承与发展中国哲学，形成了中国化的马克思主义认识论与辩证法。1943年，中共中央指出：“要使得马克思列宁主义这一革命科学更进一步地和中国革命实践、中国历史、中国文化深相结合起来。”当然，文化主体性最主要的表征之一就是能够创造出新文化。马克思主义与中华文化相结合，不仅赋予了中华文化现代性，而且形成了新的文化形态，即“民族的科学的大众的”新民主主义文化。社会主义革命和建设时期，中国共产党在“结合”中致力于建设“社会主义的民族的新文化”的目标。该时期延续了上一时期既肯定又超越、推动中华文化创新发展的方式。改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，中国共产党强调用马克思主义创新“民族优秀传统文化”，“我们应该珍惜、保护和发掘中华民族的优秀文化遗产，并在继承的基础上，有所创造，有所前进”。“小康”“和谐”“荣辱观”等都是在“结合”中实现对中华优秀传统文化既有概念、观念的创造性转化和创新性发展。该时期中国共产党不断探索适合中国特色社会主义实践的文化形态，建设社会主义先进文化。这些不同时期形成的新文化见证了中国共产党巩固中华文化主体性的过程。

III. The Strengthening and Development of Chinese Cultural Subjectivity

三、中华文化主体性的强化与发扬

Since entering the New Era, China has achieved great successes in various fields such as the economy and society, and the consolidation of Chinese cultural subjectivity has entered a new stage of systematization and theorization. Previously, the main issue was how to consolidate a cultural subjectivity that was difficult to maintain amid the vicissitudes of modern times; since the New Era, the main issue has been how to manifest cultural subjectivity, enhance the international influence of Chinese culture, and provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for the common problems faced by all countries in the process of modernization.

进入新时代以来，中国在经济、社会等各领域取得了巨大成就，巩固中华文化主体性进入了体系化、理论化的新阶段。之前主要是如何让近代以来风雨飘摇中难以维系的文化主体性得以巩固，新时代以来则主要解决如何彰显文化主体性，提升中华文化的国际影响力，为现代化过程中各国普遍存在的问题提供中国智慧、中国方案。

1. Deepening "Self" Cognition: Consolidating Chinese Cultural Subjectivity from the Relational Dimension

1.深化“自我”认知：从关系维度巩固中华文化主体性

Previously, discussions of traditional Chinese culture still focused on the preliminary questions of whether it should become a "subject" and whether it could adapt to modernization. On the basis of affirming Chinese cultural subjectivity, the Communist Party of China has deepened its understanding of "self" culture from multiple dimensions.

之前，对于中华传统文化仍集中于是否应该成为“主体”、能否适应现代化的前提性讨论，在肯认中华文化主体性的基础上，中国共产党从多个维度深化对“自我”文化的认识。

Before the New Era, Chinese intellectuals were perplexed and divided over how to view the relationship between modernization and fine traditional Chinese culture. In February 2014, at the 13th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "During the Cultural Revolution, our country's traditional culture was subjected to comprehensive criticism, and its negative effects have not been completely eliminated to this day. Even today, people still have great differences over our country's traditional culture." [35]35 “The rise of the East and the fall of the West” (东升西降) is a Chinese analytical term describing the relative shift in global power from the West to the East, particularly China. In the 1980s, an "anti-tradition" trend of thought emerged in Chinese society, and how to treat traditional culture still required further in-depth exploration from the perspectives of the value of traditional culture and the relationship between modernization and traditional culture.

新时代以前，中国知识分子对于如何看待现代化与中华优秀传统文化的关系问题存在困惑与分歧。2014年2月，习近平总书记在主持十八届中共中央政治局第十三次集体学习时的讲话中指出：“‘文化大革命’时期，我国传统文化遭到了全面批判，其消极影响至今没有完全消除。即使今天，人们对我国传统文化仍然存在很大分歧。”20世纪80年代中国社会出现了“反传统”思潮，对于如何对待传统文化仍需要进一步从传统文化的价值、现代化与传统文化之间的关系等方面深入探究。

In order to eliminate vague understandings of traditional culture, Chinese Communists have deepened their cognition of traditional culture from multiple dimensions and consolidated Chinese cultural subjectivity. First, from a historical height, they have continued the Chinese cultural lineage and consolidated the subject position of Chinese culture. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes understanding China "from the continuity of its long and unbroken history," a thesis that reveals the important role of Chinese culture in shaping "China." At the same time, on various occasions, Xi Jinping has called for "continuing to

为了消除对传统文化的模糊认识，中国共产党人从多维度深化对传统文化的认知，巩固中华文化主体性。一是从历史高度赓续中华文脉，夯实中华文化的主体地位。习近平总书记强调“从源远流长的历史连续性”来理解中国，这一论断揭示了中华文化塑造“中国”的重要作用。同时，习近平总书记在不同场合提出要“把世界上唯一没有中断的文明继续传承下去”。从“文化自信”的开局破题到“中华优秀传统文化传承发展工程”的布局落子，诸种改革举措既不断夯实了中华传统文化在当代文化体系中的主体性，又强化了大众的文化身份认同。二是从价值维度审视中华文化，清理和挖掘传统文化资源。赓续历史文脉并不意味着代际重复，“继往”亦需要特定的评价标准、资源体系和方法。进入新时代以来，“人民群众日用而不觉”这一表述明确了人民群众在评判文化价值中的主体地位，“把跨越时空、超越国度、富有永恒魅力、具有当代价值的优秀文化精神弘扬起来”则确立了从价值维度来评价、鉴别、取舍传统文化的新标准，“有鉴别的对待、有扬弃的继承”厘定了继承发展传统文化的基本态度，“创造性转化、创新性发展”则明确了继承发展传统文化的路径方法。基本态度、鉴别标准、路径方法等继承与发展中华优秀传统文化的策略，完善了以往“去其糟粕、取其精华”的方针。三是从实践效度明晰传统文化与中国式现代化之间的正向关联。现代化方案的选择离不开对本土文化、历史传统等因素的考量。习近平总书记指出，中国式现代化“是从中华大地长出来的现代化，不是照搬照抄其他国家的现代化；是文明更新的结果。”可以说，“以中华文化为主体”正是对现代化实践场域的具体空间指认，是对现代化发展规律的自觉遵循。同时，这种“文化主体性”并非封闭的自我指涉，而是在中国式现代化实践的检验下决定文化评价的标准与文化创新的方向。总而言之，中华文化主体性并非是对中华传统文化的简单怀旧，而是指涉马克思主义中国化时代化的文化生命体，主体性正是在同中国式现代化实践的有机互动中得以确证和深化的。

2. Breaking Free from the Shackles of the “West”: Elevating the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture in Solving the Problems of Modernity

2.摆脱“西方”羁绊：在解决现代性问题中高扬中华文化主体性

“Any adherence to cultural subjectivity requires a culture to manifest its own unique style and manner within the forest of world civilizations.” Before the New Era, the Chinese Communists had already formed an attitude of critically drawing on and learning from “other” cultures. Since entering the New Era, the Chinese Communists have shifted their approach to foreign cultures from how to absorb and draw on the outstanding cultural achievements of the West to how to enhance the global influence of Chinese culture and provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for the universal and common problems of modernization.

“任何文化主体性的坚守，都需要通过自我性在世界文明之林中彰显自身独有的风格与气派。”新时代以前，中国共产党人已经形成了批判借鉴地对待“他者”文化的态度。进入新时代以来，中国共产党人在对待外来文化方面已从以往如何汲取与借鉴西方优秀文化成果转换为如何提升中华文化世界影响力，为现代化中的普遍、共性问题提供中国智慧、中国方案。

The subjectivity of Western culture originated from the rise of “self-consciousness” after the Renaissance. It is manifested in the fact that, as subjects, human beings began to know themselves, affirm themselves, and pursue themselves, focusing on depicting the world picture from a human perspective, and subjectivity was elevated to an unprecedented height. Western countries have continuously constructed a cultural subjectivity centered on material superiority or with “material-centrism” as its basic element, forming “Eurocentrism,” which later evolved into “Western-centrism.” At the cultural level, “Western-centrism” manifests as the theory of Western cultural centrality, emphasizing the universality and superiority of Western values and institutions in world history. While shaping its own culture into a model to be emulated, the West views other cultures from a condescending perspective, treating them as objects or anomalies.

西方文化主体性源于文艺复兴后“自我意识”的崛起，表现在人作为主体开始认识自我、肯定自我、追求自我，注重从人的视角描绘世界图景，主体性被提升到前所未有的高度。西方国家不断建构起以物质优势为核心或以“物质中心主义”为基本要素的文化主体性，形成了“欧洲中心主义”，之后又演化为“西方中心主义”。“西方中心主义”在文化层面表现为西方文化中心论，强调西方价值观、制度在世界历史中的普遍性和优越性。西方在将自身文化打造成可效仿的样本同时，以俯瞰的姿态看待其他文化，将其视为客体或异类。

However, this monolithic subjectivity, built on the foundation of “material-centrism,” has been in constant “decline” amid the changes in the world pattern characterized by “the rise of the East and the fall of the West.” [35]35 “The rise of the East and the fall of the West” (东升西降) is a Chinese analytical term describing the relative shift in global power from the West to the East, particularly China. The international system and world pattern dominated by the West are undergoing profound changes, with emerging markets and developing countries represented by China rising day by day. The monism and hegemony of the theory of Western cultural centrality have encountered unprecedented challenges, and its “arrogance” [36]36 “Arrogance” (佞妄) is a strong pejorative term implying both flattery and delusion, used here to characterize Western cultural centrality’s dismissive attitude toward other cultures. toward the national cultures of various countries has been called into question. First, the theory of Western cultural centrality, which advocates monism and centralism, has gradually lost its market, while multiculturalism has gradually gained recognition. Cultural development is not linear or evolutionary but composite; no culture possesses an inherent commensurability. Western cultural centralism easily leads to cultural conflict, breeding the danger of losing national self-identity and cultural certainty. In their modernization practices, various countries have also gradually affirmed the unique value of their local cultures in terms of self-identity and national rejuvenation. The harmonious coexistence and mutual appreciation of the “self” culture and the “other” culture is an important trend in cultural development. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes that “the civilization of every country and nation is unique” and that evaluating civilizations “should not be premised on exclusively esteeming one civilization or disparaging another.” [37]37 Xi Jinping, speech at the UNESCO Headquarters, March 27, 2014. Second, it provides Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for solving the universal and common problems existing in modernization. “Chinese culture is both historical and contemporary, both national and global.” [38]38 Xi Jinping, speech at the opening ceremony of the 10th National Congress of the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles and the 9th National Congress of the Chinese Writers Association, November 30, 2016. The rise of the Four Asian Tigers and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation have led many Western scholars to pay attention to Chinese culture and acknowledge the fact that “Confucianism” is conducive to modernization. It is noteworthy that Western modernization has witnessed problems such as strained interpersonal relations, value nihilism, spiritual emptiness, and fragmented meaning. Chinese culture, with Confucianism as its mainstream, is committed to the inner transcendence of moral selfhood, forming a super-utilitarian ethical system centered on “benevolence (仁)” and “ritual propriety (礼).” Among these, the way of finding spiritual anchorage and fulfilling one’s destiny [39]39 “Finding spiritual anchorage and fulfilling one’s destiny” (安身立命之道) is a Confucian concept referring to the way of settling the body and establishing one’s life purpose, often through moral self-cultivation. represented by “the joy of Confucius and Yan Hui” [40]40 “The joy of Confucius and Yan Hui” (孔颜乐处) refers to a classical Confucian ideal: the spiritual contentment of Confucius and his disciple Yan Hui despite material poverty, symbolizing the transcendence of material conditions through moral and spiritual cultivation. helps to solve the spiritual value problems emerging in contemporary Western society, providing a reflective framework for addressing the universal problems of modernization development faced globally. Within this framework, the value stance rooted in the “principle of benevolence” is a counterbalance to “material-centrism”; the behavioral norms centered on “the spirit of benevolence and a sense of responsibility” correct the absence of a “sense of order”; and the solutions centered on “collaborative community, cooperative politics, and a kingly way world” [41]41 “Kingly way world” (王道世界) is a Confucian political ideal of a world governed by virtuous, benevolent rule (王道, kingly way) rather than by force or coercion (霸道, hegemonic way). provide “Chinese wisdom” for resolving international conflicts. Since entering the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has made great efforts to promote the overseas dissemination of Chinese culture, telling China’s story well to the world, and “accelerating the enhancement of the international influence of Chinese discourse, so that the whole world can hear and clearly understand China’s voice.” [42]42 Xi Jinping, speech at the National Conference on Propaganda and Ideological Work, August 19, 2013. By constructing an external communication matrix, the discursive power of Chinese culture has been enhanced in responding to the difficulties of world modernization development, and the subjectivity of Chinese culture has been elevated in civilized dialogue and exchange.

然而，这种建立在“物质中心主义”基础上的一元化的主体性，在“东升西降”的世界格局变革中不断“衰落”。由西方主导的国际体系与世界格局发生深刻变化，以中国为代表的新兴市场和发展中国家日渐崛起。西方文化中心论的一元性、统摄性遭到前所未有的冲击，其对各国民族文化的“佞妄”受到质疑。一是主张一元化、中心化的西方文化中心论逐渐失去市场，多元文化论逐渐获得认同。文化的发展并不是线性、进化式的，而是复合式的，任何文化都不具有与生俱来的通约性。西方文化中心主义容易导致文化冲突，滋生民族自我与文化确定性标记丧失的危险。而各国在现代化实践中亦逐渐肯定本土文化在自我认同、民族振兴方面的独特价值。“自我”文化与“他者”文化的美美与共是文化发展的重要趋势。习近平总书记强调，“每一个国家和民族的文明都是独特的”，评价文明“不应该以独尊某一种文明或者贬损某一种文明为前提”。二是为解决现代化中存在的普遍、共性问题提供中国智慧、中国方案。“中华文化既是历史的也是当代的，既是民族的也是世界的。”亚洲四小龙的崛起、中华民族的复兴让不少西方学者关注中华文化，承认“儒教”有利于现代化的事实。值得注意的是，西方现代化中出现了人与人关系紧张、价值虚无化、精神空虚化和意义碎片化等问题。以儒家为主流的中华文化致力于道德自我的内在超越，形成以“仁”“礼”为核心的超功利性伦理体系。其中，“孔颜乐处”所表征的安身立命之道，有助于解决当代西方社会出现的精神价值问题，为解决全球普遍面临的现代化发展问题提供了反思性框架。在这一框架内，以“仁爱原则”为根基的价值立场是对“物质中心主义”的反拨，以“仁爱精神、责任意识”为核心的行为规范是对“秩序意识”缺位的纠偏，以“协同社群、合作政治、王道世界”为核心的解决方案则为解决国际冲突提供“中国智慧”。进入新时代以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央着力促进中华文化海外传播，向全世界讲好中国故事，“加快提升中国话语的国际影响力，让全世界都能听到并听清中国声音”。通过构建对外传播矩阵，中华文化的话语权在回应世界现代化发展难题中得以提升，中华文化主体性在文明对话交流中得以高扬。

3. The “Two Integrations”: Innovating the Methods and Means of Strengthening Cultural Subjectivity

3.“两个结合”：创新了强化文化主体性的方式方法

If the 19th century saw Chinese culture subjected to the scrutiny and critique of Western modernity under “external shock,” passively undergoing a transformation toward cultural modernization, then since entering the New Era, the subjectivity of Chinese culture has been continuously elevated and enhanced, shifting from passivity to initiative, consciously and actively carrying out an “internal transformation,” and undertaking the construction and exploration of new cultural forms.

如果说19世纪中华文化在“外在冲击”下被西方现代性审视与批判，被动地进行文化现代化转换，而进入新时代以来，中华文化主体性不断高扬与提升，从被动转化为主动，自觉、主动地进行“内在转换”，开展文化新形态的建构与探索。

The relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture has long been one of the hot topics in academic circles. During the May Fourth Movement period, there once emerged a perception of “mutual conflict and mutual simple negation.” After reform and opening up, the academic community formed views such as the “opposition thesis” and the “coexistence thesis.” The “opposition thesis” advocated “setting Marxism and the study of national heritage (国学) in opposition to each other,” and there also existed doubts about whether socialist culture and “national heritage” were compatible, with some “not ruling out the possibility that certain people, using the dubious concept of ‘national heritage,’ aim to exclude the new socialist culture from Chinese culture.” [43]43 The term “national heritage” (国学, guoxue) refers to the study of traditional Chinese classics, philosophy, and history, often associated with a conservative cultural revivalism. The “coexistence thesis,” on the other hand, proposed that China needs Confucius and Dong Zhongshu, [44]44 Dong Zhongshu (c. 179–104 BCE) was a Han dynasty philosopher who promoted Confucianism as the state ideology. and needs to reconstruct a new system of Chinese philosophy that stands alongside Marxism. With the advancement of research, these two views have gradually waned, but currents of exclusive veneration of antiquity, restoration of antiquity, and worship of antiquity still emerge from time to time, giving rise to views that separate Marxism from Chinese culture. How to correctly handle the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture is an issue that urgently needs clarification. The proposal of the “Two Integrations” has, first, thoroughly cleared away previous vague, simplistic, and rigid understandings of the relationship between Chinese culture and modernization, and between China, the West, and Marxism. The “Two Integrations” have liberated people from previous rigid and erroneous understandings, deepened conscious identification with the “integration” of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture, and achieved a broad and deep cultural awakening. Second, “the First Integration” has anchored the direction for the consolidation and strengthening of cultural subjectivity. The subjectivity of Chinese culture is not a purely speculative construction; it faced a crisis under the impact of the expansion of Western modernity, and it must inevitably be reshaped in the process of Chinese-path modernization. The innovation and creation of cultural subjective initiative and consciousness are based on responding to and solving the problems of modernity. The direction of innovation for the cultural subject cannot be separated from observing and grasping China’s actual conditions. Only a culture that meets China’s actual needs and aligns with the development direction of Chinese-path modernization can truly manifest its own value and gain genuine vitality. Third, “the Second Integration” is an important method for consolidating and strengthening the subjectivity of Chinese culture. The consolidation of Chinese cultural subjectivity also lies in the inheritance and promotion of the essential essence and ideological genes of traditional culture. In the past, “the Second Integration” existed in a non-explicit form within the lines, principles, and policies of the Communist Party of China. The proposal of “the Second Integration” transforms the development and innovation of Chinese culture under the dimension of integration from a recessive, spontaneous, and auxiliary existence into an autonomous, conscious, and explicit methodological awareness. In summary, the “Two Integrations” have promoted the formation of a new cultural life entity. Fine traditional Chinese culture, in the process of integrating with the basic principles of Marxism, achieves a modern transformation, providing spiritual motivation and value support for Chinese-path modernization.

马克思主义与中华传统文化的关系一直是学界关注的热点问题之一。“五四运动”时期曾一度出现“互相冲突，互相简单否定”的认知，改革开放后学界形成了“对立说”“并存说”等。“对立说”主张“把马克思主义与国学研究对立起来”，也存在着社会主义文化与“国学”之间是否相融的质疑，“不排除有人企图以‘国学’这一可疑的概念，来达到摒社会主义新文化于中国文化之外的目的”。“并存说”则提出中国需要孔夫子、董仲舒，需要重构与马克思主义并列的中国哲学新体系。随着研究的推进，这两种观点日渐式微，但唯古、复古、崇古的思潮仍时有涌现，出现将马克思主义与中华文化割裂的观点。如何正确处理马克思主义与中华传统文化的关系是迫切需要澄明的问题。“两个结合”的提出，一是彻底廓清了以往对中华文化与现代化、中西马关系模糊、单一化、僵化的认知。“两个结合”使人们从以往僵化、错误的认知中解放出来，深化了对马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化“相结合”的自觉认同，实现了广泛而深层次的文化觉醒。二是“第一个结合”为文化主体性的巩固与强化锚定了方向。中华文化主体性不是一种纯思辨的建构，它在西方现代化扩张的冲击下产生危机，也必然在中国式现代化进程中得以重塑。文化主体能动性、自觉性的革新与创造建立在对现代性问题的回应与解答上。文化主体的创新方向离不开对中国实际的观照与把握，只有符合中国实际需要、契合中国式现代化发展方向的文化才能真正彰显自身价值，获得真正的生命力。三是“第二个结合”是巩固与强化中华文化主体性的重要方法。中华文化主体性的巩固还在于对传统文化精髓要义与思想基因的传承与弘扬。以往“第二个结合”以一种非显性化的方式存在于中国共产党的路线方针政策之中，“第二个结合”的提出将以往结合维度下发展与创新中华文化从一种隐性自在、自发的辅助性存在，转化为一种自主、自觉的显性方法论自觉。总之，“两个结合”推动了新的文化生命体的形成，中华优秀传统文化在与马克思主义基本原理相结合的过程中实现现代化转换，为中国式现代化提供精神动力与价值支撑。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, East China Normal University)

（作者系华东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