Huang Jing, Bao Jin: Methodological Consciousness: The Construction of the Narrative System of Chinese Modernization from the Perspective of Marx's Narrative Method
The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee proposed to “accelerate the construction of a Chinese discourse and narrative system, and comprehensively enhance the effectiveness of international communication.” As a new path for the development of modernization, Chinese-path modernization urgently requires a clear explanation of the Chinese path, the clearing away of cognitive mists, and the enhancement of cognitive identification, thereby constructing a narrative system that integrates Chinese and foreign perspectives. For a long time, a major issue troubling the Chinese narrative has been: how can China’s independent narrative system reach the world? The construction of a narrative system depends on the structural support of narrative methods; the choice of method fundamentally influences the representation of content and the style of interpretation. Currently, the academic community has focused on normative research into the theoretical, practical, and value dimensions of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, achieving a series of fruitful results. However, research concerning the methodology of the narrative system remains relatively weak. The method of narration (叙述方法) is the scientific method Marx formed for interpreting research results during the process of refining the logical structure, content expression, and terminology shifts of his theories. It is precisely the application of the method of narration that allowed the profound and abstruse theories in monumental works such as Capital to be recognized by the global working class and become a powerful theoretical weapon. In this sense, Marx’s method of narration is an essential method for establishing a Chinese-path modernization narrative system that is logically self-consistent, value-integrated, and rich in content, showcasing the profound connotations and value significance of Chinese-path modernization to the people of the world. Using Marx’s method of narration as a guide to construct the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization is both an important path to “strengthen the construction of international communication capacity and comprehensively enhance the effectiveness of international communication,” and an inevitable requirement for breaking the methodological monopoly of Western narrative methodology over the construction of the Chinese-path modernization narrative system, thereby deepening methodological consciousness (方法自觉) [1] regarding this system.
I. Literature Review and Research Questions
Viewed from the torrent of history, the rise of a major power is inevitably accompanied by the domestic construction and international dissemination of its discourse and narrative systems. The National Conference on Public Communications and Culture in 2013 pointed out the need to “guide people to recognize contemporary China and view the outside world more comprehensively and objectively.” The report of the 19th CPC National Congress in 2017 proposed to “advance international communication capacity building, tell China’s stories well, and present a true, multi-dimensional, and panoramic view of China.” The report of the 20th CPC National Congress in 2022 emphasized “accelerating the construction of Chinese discourse and narrative systems.” The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee in 2024 listed “constructing Chinese discourse and narrative systems” as an important part of deepening the reform of cultural systems and mechanisms. Based on the expansive vision and strategic thinking of the “Two Overalls” (两个大局) [2], the Party and the state have pointed out the urgency and importance of constructing a narrative system; deepening a narrative system that matches modernization practices is an inherent requirement for advancing Chinese-path modernization.
Chinese-path modernization has long been a focal point of sustained attention in domestic academic circles, and research into its narrative system is gradually becoming an academic growth point within the field of Chinese-path modernization studies. Reflecting on existing research, one finds that in discussing the possibility of constructing a narrative system for Chinese-path modernization, the academic community has mainly focused on the epochal significance, logical thinking, developmental trajectory, value goals, and implementation paths of the narrative, while paying less attention to the specific ways, methods, and experiences of its construction. Among the few methodological studies, emphasis is placed on exploring the constructive roles of historical dialectics, realistic abstraction, systematic comparison, and emotional regulation in the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization. There are also analyses of borrowings from other disciplines such as textual studies, communication studies, hermeneutics, and phenomenology; furthermore, when tracing the theoretical origins of these methods, there is a tendency to look toward Western narratology theories from figures like Michel Foucault, Tzvetan Todorov, and Mieke Bal. At the concrete level of methodological application, it is emphasized that the discourse of Chinese-path modernization needs to focus on comparative interpretation, highlighting “Chinese characteristics” through mutual verification between China and the West, and choosing appropriate discourse forms based on the target audience to achieve a synergy between political, academic, and everyday discourse. To enhance the penetration and communicative power of the Chinese-path modernization narrative, the innovation, popularization, massification, and modernization of discourse expression must be achieved. Particular attention should be paid to using digital technology to innovate the means of disseminating holistic discourse, pursuing a multi-modal approach that combines text and imagery.
Overall, research on the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization in domestic academia rarely involves an analysis of the method of narration and its application. There is a tendency to replace the method of narration with research methods, or to emphasize mainstream Western narrative methods while neglecting Marxist and autonomous Chinese methods of narration. Consequently, it is necessary to systematically summarize the basic experience of Marxist discourse narratives and form narrative system methods with Chinese characteristics to enhance methodological consciousness in constructing the Chinese-path modernization narrative system. Judging from the methods clarified and used by Marx in his textual narratives, his unique method of narration is an important way to construct a systematic and complete edifice of thought and to decode scientific theory for the global proletariat. When analyzing the method of narration in Capital, Lenin once praised it highly: “Such must also be the method of presentation (and study) of dialectics in general.” In this sense, the potential value of Marx’s method of narration for constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization remains to be deeply explored. In this regard, the questions that urgently need answering are: Why does the method of narration possess such powerful narrative construction capabilities? From the perspective of the method of narration, what dilemmas does the current construction of the narrative system for Chinese-path modernization face? More importantly, how can we use the method of narration as a guide to construct a systematic and perfected narrative system for Chinese-path modernization? Based on these questions, this article will attempt to extend and explore theoretical and practical solutions to exit the narrative dilemma of Chinese-path modernization from the basic stipulations of Marx’s method of narration, providing a methodological reference for constructing a systematic and perfected narrative system and offering different entry points for further promoting research on the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization.
II. Establishing the Method of Narrative: Basic Stipulations of Marx’s Method of Narration
“Narrative” (xùshì) and its cognate “narration” (xùshù) both derive from the Latin word narrare, meaning to tell, relate, and speak. However, there are clear boundaries in their functional connotations: “narrative” leans toward the discursive symbols and textual carriers that are narrated, while “narration” emphasizes the interpretive act of producing and creating narrative texts. In this regard, for a subject to process and transform experiences, events, and actions into a logical and coherent narrative system, the support of a scientific method of narration is required; a text becomes a text only on the basis of using a method of narration. For a long time, there has often been a potential “misjudgment” in the construction of narrative systems—namely, ignoring the dialectical relationship between research methods and methods of narration, and suspending the role of the method of narration in the systematic construction of the narrative. Marx’s exposition on the method of narration and its relationship with the research method clarified the value, function, and formal stipulations of the method of narration, providing guidance for leading narrative systems toward greater depth.
(1) The Value Stipulation of the Method of Narration: The Concrete Reproduction of Abstract Stipulations
Research methods and methods of narration are a pair of complementary and inseparable methods in Marxist methodology. The logical endpoint of research is the logical starting point of narration; the method of narration is precisely the key link for the conceptual (观念地) presentation of the “life of the material” formed by the research method. In the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Volume I of Capital, Marx emphasized the importance of the method of narration while distinguishing it from the research method: “Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a-priori construction.” That is to say, the research method is the method of occupying a large amount of realistic material and analyzing its internal connections through the “power of abstraction,” while the “life of the material” obtained by the research method can only be expanded from abstract stipulations into a holistic understanding and presented as an objectified form—through concepts, categories, and chapter structures—with the help of the method of narration. Marx always maintained a rigorous attitude toward the use of research and narration methods: “Whatever shortcomings they may have, the merit of my writings is that they are an artistic whole, and that can only be attained by my method of never having them printed until they lie before me as a whole.” He also pointedly noted that [Karl] Grün’s textbook-style compilation method was not suitable for a “work with a dialectical structure.” Although the method of narration appears as a continuation of the research method, this does not mean it is in a passive state. In the process of conceiving the overall narrative structure of Capital, Marx successively proposed the “five-part structure plan,” the “six-volume structure plan,” and the “four-volume structure,” aiming to present the theoretical system of political economy scientifically and completely. The continuous augmentation and refinement of the overall structure and detailed content highlight the importance of the method of narration. From the specific content involved, the method of narration contains multiple stipulations such as content expression, logical structure, revolutions in terminology, and revision and translation. Marx's repeated deliberation and revision of expressions, his detailed analysis and explanation of theoretical attacks, and his careful scrutiny and transformation of terminology provide important inspiration for constructing a dialectical narrative system that organically unifies theoretical cores with realistic practices.
(2) The Functional Stipulations of the Method of Narration: Ontological Representation and Cognitive Aggregation
On the narrative chain, the method of narration links the “actual movement” at one end with the narrative audience at the other; thus, in the process of application, it carries the dual functions of representing the narrative ontology and promoting cognitive aggregation. Looking at the narrative process of any issue, the “actual movement” formed through the abstract power of the research method must be processed and integrated by the method of narration to present a textual carrier with complete expression, rigorous logic, and full meaning to the reader, so that the reader can form an understanding and recognition of the narrative ontology. It can be seen that the method of narration, as an important intermediary linking the narrative object and the narrative audience, directly concerns the dual aspects of whether the narrative ontology can be given a reasonable expression and whether the textual carrier can be accepted and recognized by the reader. At the level of the narrative object, Marx emphasized that the method of narration must be adopted according to the characteristics of the object: “Our method of narration naturally depends on the nature of the object itself.” Taking Volume I of Capital as an example, the intellectual logic (知性逻辑) used by classical bourgeois political economists in narrating value theory caused them to view value as a fixed, mechanical, and isolated economic phenomenon, ignoring the logical connections behind value during the narrative process. In contrast, the narrative method Marx adopted when analyzing value theory revealed a dialectical meaning, thereby scientifically and rigorously discovering the value-form that makes value exchange-value through the analysis of commodities. At the level of the narrative audience, readers can only encounter and understand the research method through the sequence of narration; therefore, Marx emphasized that the method of narration must include the cognitive state of the narrative audience as a measurement standard. When Marx founded the first newspaper specifically for the proletariat, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, in 1848, he narrated political programs by publishing instructional articles and revolutionary poetry and literature, which greatly “inspired the proletarian masses.” Furthermore, to ensure that Capital could be “quickly understood over a wide range,” Marx continuously explained, supplemented, and revised it according to the knowledge reserves and logical thinking of the readers, so that this profound and difficult theory of political economy could be made “as popular as possible” and grasped by the broad working class. Thus, only by constructing a discourse and narrative system that fits the readers' value preferences, cognitive levels, and acceptance capabilities can the “horizon of the audience” and the “horizon of the narrative” achieve fusion. The dual functions carried by Marx’s method of narration make it deeply embedded in the narrative chain and an indispensable part of the narrative process.
(3) The Formal Stipulation of the Method of Narration: “Realistic Historical Narration”
On the basis of criticizing the narrative form of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Marx distinguished between...
“Historical narration of ideas” versus “historical narration of reality”—Marx regarded the latter as the rational form of the method of presentation. Influenced by rationalism, the dominant ideology of early modern Western thought, the Western socio-historical sphere in which Marx lived was rife with the proliferation of the “historical narration of ideas.” Faced with the rationalism spawned by Descartes’ cogito, ergo sum, all things “must justify their existence before the court of reason or give up the existence of the right.” Under these theoretical circumstances, some Western thinkers embedded rational principles into historical narratives, attempting to develop historical research starting from rational concepts to defend the historical eternity of reason. Hegel pushed the idealist narrative to its peak; the dialectical presentation in The Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic depicted world history as the result of the continuous externalization of the Absolute Spirit. World history manifested fundamentally as the “cunning of reason.” Marx noted, “Hegel often gives a real presentation, encompassing the thing itself, within the speculative presentation. This real presentation within the speculative description leads the reader to pass off the speculative description as real and the real description as speculative.” Marx was profoundly aware that this mode of presentation was essentially only a movement of phrases and did not involve the practical activities of the real world, and thus lacked any real capacity to transform the world. Consequently, Marx advocated building dialectics on the basis of the real existence of human beings, realizing the integration of dialectical theory with real practice. Specifically, one must start from the “most stubborn facts”—namely, the material practice of real individuals—and grasp the totality of social relations and the dialectical nature of human existence through the historical narration of reality. “It does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice, and accordingly it does not search for a category in every period, but always stands on the ground of real history.” The real and dialectical attributes elucidated by Marx's method of presentation are fundamentally different from traditional Western narrative paradigms. They contain Marx's critical reflections on the practical application of dialectics and narrative methods on the foundation of the historical materialist conception of history, constituting the essential attribute of Marx's method of presentation.
III. Scrutinizing the Narrative of Modernization: Multiple Challenges to the Narrative System of Chinese-path Modernization
At the historical convergence where the “two overall situations” [3] interact, the narrative of Chinese-path modernization—rooted in a century of practice—faces increasingly difficult and complex tasks in external narration and international communication. Providing a comprehensive and three-dimensional image of Chinese-path modernization depends on constructing a narrative system that both fits the requirements of indigenous modernization and can integrate into the broader pattern of international communication. Scrutinizing reality based on the fundamental requirements of the method of presentation, one finds that the construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization encounters problems including a lack of narrative depth, the hegemony of the Western modernization narrative paradigm, and barriers in narrative discourse. These cause the localized “China story” to struggle in transforming into a global and systemic “international narrative,” thereby hindering Chinese-path modernization from going global.
(1) Lack of narrative depth: The absence of a “rising from the abstract to the concrete” narrative in Chinese-path modernization
“Chinese-path modernization” is a high-level distillation of the “real materials” of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) century of practice; it solidly embodies the process of conceptual abstraction and structuring from the “concrete to the abstract.” Marx emphasized that “language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me personally.” From “modernization” to “Chinese-path modernization,” the innovation and transformation of the concept conceal a unique discourse consciousness formed on the basis of modernization practice. The awakening of this consciousness allows China’s modernization practice to be transformed through “the power of abstraction” into categories, concepts, and theories of modernization saturated with rich Chinese elements. Looking back at China's early explorations of modernization, one finds that the marginality and limitations of the subjects of modernization practice caused modernization to often point toward Westernization and capitalist modernization. In the debate between “indigenous culture” and “wholesale Westernization,” Chen Xu-jing emphasized in The Outlet for Chinese Culture that for China to move from a traditional agricultural society to a modern industrial society, it must wholesale accept Western culture to transform Chinese culture. With the introduction of Marxism—which possesses a theoretical vision of modernization—into China, the modernization consciousness of the Chinese people gradually awakened, and their judgment regarding the nature and content of modernization discourse also underwent a shift. From the “industrialization and agricultural modernization [4] of China” proposed by the CPC around the victory of the Chinese Revolution, to the “three modernizations” and “four modernizations” [5] during the period of socialist construction, to the “Chinese-style modernization” [6] at the beginning of the new period of socialist modernization, and finally to the successful expansion of Chinese-path modernization in the New Era, the CPC has—in the process of advancing modernization with “Chinese characteristics”—extracted the real experience of the Chinese path to modernization with independent discourse capacity, forming the historical category of “Chinese-path modernization.”
Regarding the systematic interpretation of discourse narratives, Chinese-path modernization suffers from a lack of “rising from the abstract to the concrete.” If the study of the discourse of Chinese-path modernization is the “work of transformation of the rich sensory material, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, to create a system of concepts and theories,” then the narration of the discourse of Chinese-path modernization is the inverse of this process. It arrives from “a chaotic conception of the whole” at “a rich totality of many determinations and relations” on the basis of established discourse. Currently, the construction of the discourse and narrative system of Chinese-path modernization has already achieved a series of fruitful results. The academic community has conducted in-depth research on the scientific connotation, essential characteristics, and historical significance of Chinese-path modernization, and has carried out comprehensive explorations from multiple dimensions—including philosophy, economics, anthropology, political science, and history—providing important materials for the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization. However, many difficulties remain regarding how most narratives can achieve a concrete understanding and holistic grasp of Chinese-path modernization by combining dialectical logic with real history. First, the “intelligible” explanation of the concepts, categories, and theories of Chinese-path modernization lags behind China’s modernization practice. This is manifested prominently in the fact that the narration of Chinese-path modernization is confined to the abstract determinations of individual elements, ignoring the endogenous drivers, developmental stages, and formative movements that link these elements, thereby obscuring the internal connection between Chinese-path modernization and world modernization. This leaves a gap in confirming the necessity of Chinese-path modernization as a construction plan for a new modernity. Second, the Western modern narrative system has long constrained the narrative of Chinese-path modernization. Supported by the power of capital, the Western modernization narrative influences and restricts world modernization practice. Nesting the practice of Chinese-path modernization within Western concepts, discourses, and frameworks not only lacks a summary of indigenous modernization experience but also flattens the Chinese characteristics of the narrative system. Third, the political and academic aspects of the discourse of Chinese-path modernization have not yet fully merged. There is a “two skins” [7] problem between the political discourse and academic discourse of Chinese-path modernization—that is, political discourse pursues breadth while lacking depth, and academic results struggle to directly supply the needs of political discourse. “Separated from political discourse, academic discourse would lose its direction, finding it difficult to form discourse power or have a practical impact on practice; separated from academic discourse, political discourse might become simple and hollow slogans.”
(2) Divergent narrative paradigms: The nesting of the Chinese-path modernization narrative ontology by a monistic narrative
Western countries were the first to embark on their own paths to modernization and their global expansion, thereby forming a monistic and unilinear modernization narrative and attempting to hegemonically nest it onto the modernization practices of other countries. A modernization narrative is a holistic expression of a specific stage of modernization. By virtue of technological innovation, external expansion, and capital accumulation, Western countries were the first to open the path to modernization, using their own modernization practice to define the “meta-model” of modernization. This model of modernization was summarized by Western academia to become classical modernization theory, constructing a unified modernization narrative paradigm based on the values, institutional models, and developmental paths of Western modernization. As Foucault pointed out, discourse is “linked to the effects of power which it induces and which extend it.” The Western modernization narrative is inseparable from the power of capital; the endogenous drive of capital impels the Western modernization narrative to continuously break through regional, ethnic, and national boundaries, attempting to erase the heterogeneous characteristics of other countries’ modernization practices and graft this identical modernization narrative indiscriminately onto the practices of other countries. For instance, Weber believed that “so-called progress toward capitalism is the only measure of economic modernization,” while China’s Confucian ethics hindered the rise of capitalism. Similarly, Michael Latham [8] pointed out that “American modernization theorists continued the Enlightenment’s explanation of Western superiority, inheriting that imperialist tone which believed it was necessary for the selfless and benevolent West to provide material aid and moral tutelage to nations lacking ‘advancedness’ to guide their progress.” In essence, the mixture of defensiveness and superiority makes the Western modernization narrative paradigm an abstract form that strips away the “matter” of modernization experience, as if any modernization practice could be placed within this “universally applicable” narrative coordinate.
Marx emphasized that “the dialectical form of presentation is only correct when it knows its own limits.” How a narration unfolds depends on the nature of the “narrative ontology.” Based on its unique modernization practice, Chinese-path modernization has formed a “new narrative” different from the monistic narrative of Western modernization. The difference in narrative paradigms causes the West to break through narrative boundaries in order to compete for narrative hegemony, intensifying the suppression of the Chinese-path modernization narrative. As a modernization model based on China's reality and characterized by “independent development,” Chinese-path modernization possesses a “human-centered core” with human modernization at its center, plus the premises of nationality and indigeneity. This clearly cannot be mechanically incorporated into the narrative paradigm of Western modernization for explanation. The real-world examples of the ills of Western modernization and the open shaking of the “authority” of the Western modernization narrative mean that Chinese-path modernization will inevitably face attacks in the field of discourse narrative. First is the fabrication of defamatory discourse. In response to the great achievements of Chinese-path modernization, Western countries continuously use “economic coercion,” “authoritarianism,” and “neo-colonialism” to reconstruct terms that stigmatize, demonize, and pejoratize Chinese-path modernization, misleading the world's perception and judgment of its developmental logic to defend capitalist legitimacy. Second is the conduct of opinion warfare through discourse infiltration. Influencing the cognitive, value, and belief systems of other countries through indirect cultural infiltration and subtle value output is a common tactic of Western countries. To weaken recognition of Chinese-path modernization at home and abroad, Western countries on one hand infiltrate its modernization logic into the economic, political, and cultural spheres, and on the other hand exploit information gaps to spread false narratives and malicious information about Chinese-path modernization to other countries. Third is the competition for the digital field of discourse struggle. With the arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the virtual field constructed by digital technologies such as big data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence has become a new battlefield for ideological struggle. Leveraging their dominant control over core digital technologies, Western developed countries attempt to shape a hegemonized modernization discourse space—that is, seizing and monopolizing the right of expression in the digital field and using intelligent algorithms to manipulate the “visibility” of Chinese discourse in digital spaces, thereby squeezing the expressive space for the discourse of Chinese-path modernization.
(3) Narrative discourse barriers: Cognitive divergence among readers of the Chinese-path modernization narrative
An important goal of constructing a narrative system is to break through inherent “siloed” barriers, allowing the narrative system to form a relationship of equal dialogue with the modernization narratives of other countries in the field of international communication, and to be understood and recognized by audiences worldwide beyond national boundaries. However, the particularity of the path of Chinese-path modernization, combined with the ideological encirclement by Western countries, means that a cognitive gap still exists between China’s indigenous discourse and the modernization discourse of the “other,” making it difficult to achieve the status prescribed by Marx’s method of presentation—being understood and accepted by the broad readership. On one hand, this gap is manifested in overseas scholars measuring and interpreting the development model of Chinese-path modernization based on the fundamental premise of the superiority of Western modernity. In recent years, foreign academia has closely followed the construction model and developmental effectiveness of Chinese-path modernization, conducting scholarly research on how the Chinese path differs from the Western path in light of the historical achievements of China's modernization practice. Although some Western scholars have projected a modernization perspective onto the Chinese path, they still inevitably interpret its basic concepts and historical practice from a “Western-centric” and “impact-response” perspective. For instance, Marius Meinhof studies the application value of Western modernization through the study of the developmental model of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizing the advanced nature of the Western model. Furthermore, some distort the fundamental nature of the Chinese path as...
"Chinese-style state capitalism." On the other hand, this estrangement manifests as a lack of discourse cognition among the Western public rooted in the practice of Chinese modernization; their understanding of Chinese-path modernization is not only "insufficiently deep" but also prone to becoming "biased." Whenever we read a narrative, we tend to organize and interpret it based on "certain codes and languages." The cultural distance between China and the West inevitably results in differences between their respective cognitive codes, thereby creating the "problem of incomplete possibility" in the translation of the narrative of Chinese-path modernization to the West. At the same time, mainstream Western media tends to portray a "hardline image" of China, frequently using derogatory terms such as "hardline" and "defiant" in related reports. This has caused the Western public's negative attitude toward the narrative of Chinese-path modernization to persist and even increase while remaining at a high level.
In fact, judging from the actual state of the current external narrative practice of Chinese-path modernization, many obstacles remain in dissolving the cognitive estrangement that people in other countries have toward the discourse of Chinese-path modernization. Regarding the primary content of narrative discourse, the narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization is dominated by a national "self-shaping" [9] discourse, emphasizing the dimension of the particularity of the "Chinese solution" to global problems, while neglecting to explain the dimension of the universality of the "global solution" to Chinese problems from the perspective of Western cognitive logic. This leads Western countries to interpret the narrative of Chinese-path modernization as an existence diametrically opposed to Western experience, making it difficult to escape the predicament of ideological attacks. Regarding the interaction between narrative discourse and international narratives, there is an obvious "political propaganda orientation" in the process of external narrative-building for Chinese-path modernization. There is a tendency to adopt one-dimensional, grand narrative methods for self-promotion and information transmission, without full consideration for the integration of "self-narrative" and "other-narrative," or the establishment of a logic that connects indigenous discourse with global narratives. This results in the formation of "antagonistic" and "reactionary" psychological states among foreign publics toward the Chinese narrative. Regarding the form of discourse narrative, utilizing digital intelligence technology to enhance narrative soft power and seizing discourse leadership in digital space has become a common opportunity and challenge for all countries’ external narratives. Western technological hegemony in the field of digital intelligence has caused the modernization narrative unfolded by China in digital space to be restricted by Western technical norms. Only by actively formulating technical governance norms that conform to Chinese values can China effectively rely on digital intelligence technology to expand the communication forms of its narrative discourse on Chinese-path modernization and achieve dialogue with the modernization discourses of others. In short, the cognitive partition of the narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization has weakened the initiative in constructing the narrative system and reduced the density of the external communication of the discourse and narrative system.
IV. How the Narrative System is Possible: Insights from Marx’s Method of Presentation for Constructing the Narrative System of Chinese-path Modernization
Constructing a narrative system for Chinese-path modernization is an urgent task for advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization. If a systematic, complete, and rigorous narrative system is an indispensable key link for increasing domestic and international identification with Chinese-path modernization, then a scientific method of presentation—as the key factor influencing "what nature," "from what perspective," and "toward what purpose" the narrative system is constructed—occupies the core of this "key link." Facing the multiple dilemmas currently encountered in the construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, Marx’s method of presentation provides us with many insights for clarifying the purpose, stipulation, and form of the narrative, and for moving beyond the problem of "narrating for the sake of narration." To this end, we urgently need to maintain a high degree of methodological consciousness and take Marx’s method of presentation as a scientific guide to construct a narrative foundation that unifies the method of inquiry and the method of presentation, adhere to a narrative discourse based on a revolution in terminology and reader awareness, and follow the form of "actual historical narration" to create a narrative system of Chinese-path modernization that reflects the characteristics of the era and possesses Chinese features.
(1) The Narrative Foundation of Chinese-path Modernization: Achieving the Dialectical Unity of the Method of Inquiry and the Method of Presentation
In Marx's view, although the method of inquiry and the method of presentation have clear formal boundaries and distinct levels, they are functionally complementary and coupled with one another. After the method of inquiry processes reality's materials through the power of abstraction to arrive at "the actual movement," it is objectively necessary to rely on the method of presentation to concretely reproduce its general stipulations. This allows the narrative audience to achieve a value link with the research results, thereby activating the narrative’s practical vitality. The unfolding of the narrative also requires, as a basic prerequisite, the use of the method of inquiry to grasp the essential stipulations of the narrative object, thereby obtaining the source of the narrative content. It can be said that without the expression of research results by the method of presentation, it is difficult for readers to recognize and understand those results; conversely, without the process of researching the "actual movement" of things, narration can only degenerate into empty words.
The dialectical unity of the method of presentation and the method of inquiry is the foundation for constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization. On the one hand, systematic research into Chinese-path modernization is the crucial prerequisite for profoundly grasping its essential stipulations and forming a theoretical discourse. One reason why the Western narrative of modernization has been able to seize discourse hegemony over modernization is that it has formed a relatively complete theoretical discourse and knowledge system. Paul Cohen pointed out in Intellectual Interaction Between China and the West in the Late 20th Century that for a long time, the basic model of knowledge flow between China and the West has been Westerners understanding China while Chinese people focus on learning from the West. When the asymmetry of knowledge flow between China and the West becomes solidified, Chinese-path modernization not only finds it difficult to escape the state of knowledge dependence but also faces the risk of its narrative system being displaced by the West. Therefore, facing the organic theoretical whole that is Chinese-path modernization, we must uphold a high degree of theoretical consciousness to carry out scholarly research. In "appropriating the material in detail"—that is, the vivid experience of the practice of Chinese-path modernization—we must extract original concepts, categories, and theories; thoroughly demonstrate the important connotations and basic characteristics of Chinese-path modernization; summarize and synthesize the Chinese characteristics and global commonalities of Chinese-path modernization as well as their relationship; and explore the original contributions of Chinese-path modernization to the process of socialist modernization. Only in this way can the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization obtain a source for speech, interpretation, and communication.
On the other hand, the systematic presentation of Chinese-path modernization is an indispensable link for theoretical results to be understood and identified with by the people of the world. In the overall narrative of the first volume of Capital, Marx starts from the "cell" of bourgeois society—the commodity—and constructs a narrative path of "rising from the abstract to the concrete" from commodity to money and then to capital, profoundly presenting the important results of the study of political economy: the origin and essence of capital. The concept of Chinese-path modernization is a scientific distillation of the practical experience of China's advancement of modernization; the "life of the material" is manifested through "new categories." However, the construction of the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization must not stop at the summary of concepts and categories. It must follow the "correct path" of "rising from the abstract to the concrete," grasp the internal logical levels of the theory, present a conceptual system of the movement of categories, and conceive the formal structure of the arrangement and layout. This will transform Chinese-path modernization into a narrative discourse that the people of various countries can clearly understand and grasp, thereby breaking the state of "aphasia" and "voicelessness" in the narrative of Chinese-path modernization and fully presenting its unique value meaning. Therefore, one cannot leave the method of inquiry to one-sidedly construct a narrative system, which would cause the narrative system to diverge from the essential stipulations of Chinese-path modernization; nor can one ignore the method of presentation that is coupled with the method of inquiry, which would make research results impossible for readers to understand and identify with. To construct a high-quality narrative system for Chinese-path modernization, we must advance scholarly research and systematic narration of Chinese-path modernization through the simultaneous interaction of the method of presentation and the method of inquiry.
(2) The Narrative Discourse of Chinese-path Modernization: Adhering to the Revolution in Terminology and Reader Awareness
Marx attached great importance to the perfection of narrative discourse, which is directly reflected in his revolution in terminology and his reader awareness. Engels mentioned in the preface to the English edition of Capital that "every new aspect of a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of that science." Judging from the innovative concepts involved in Capital, the two-fold nature of labor, surplus value, and wages all demonstrate the ideological power of the Marxist revolution in terminology. Behind the revolution in terminology lies Marx’s profound insight into the development laws and historical destiny of capitalism: "A theory which views modern capitalist production as a mere passing stage in the economic history of mankind, must make use of terms different from those habitual to authors who look upon that form of production as imperishable and final." At the same time, in order to allow scientific categories, terms, and theories to "be understood quickly over a wide area," Marx and Engels took care to account for the actual situation, thinking characteristics, and reading habits of readers as much as possible, constantly explaining, supplementing, and clarifying theoretical discourse in terms of translation, citation, and expression. From this, the importance of reader awareness in narration can be seen.
Chinese-path modernization is neither a "simple continuation of the template of our country's history and culture," nor a direct application of the concepts and theories of classical authors, and even less a simple appropriation of Western modernization categories; it is a revolution in terminology for modernization theory by socialist China. Since the start of reform and opening up, the Chinese theoretical community, by transforming original concepts and creating new ones, has proposed important concepts such as the "socialist market economy," "core socialist values," the "new development philosophy," "a new form of human civilization," and "new quality productive forces." This has not only achieved the goal of advancing the narrative system with the times but has also profoundly influenced China's modernization process. To construct a narrative system for Chinese-path modernization, we must continue to promote the revolution in terminology on the basis of promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, distilling and creating new concepts, categories, and expressions that can be recognized by the world, and heightening the theoretical level and ideological depth of the narrative system along the path of "terminology-to-system."
At the same time, to build a narrative system that bridges China and the world, the narrative of Chinese-path modernization must uphold reader awareness, fully consider the state of discourse reception among domestic and foreign audiences, and actively seek to establish a discourse generation mechanism that connects and dialogues with the international context. In the dimension of narrative content, the dialectical relationship between universality and particularity must be properly handled. In their study of the international workers' movement, Marx and Engels both realistically considered the specific conditions of the workers' movement in various countries and profoundly realized that whether in England or the United States, "the same economic laws are at work, so that the results, although not in every respect the same, are still of the same nature." This insight into universality and particularity allowed the narrative of communist theory to be identified with by the working class of all countries. The narrative discourse of Chinese-path modernization must proceed from particularity to highlight the Chinese characteristics that combine the "roots" and the "soul" [10], but also stand on the universal and common characteristics of various cultures to construct an international narrative system that is "grounded in China, inclusive of mutual learning." In the dimension of narrative discourse, a high degree of "reader awareness" must be established, "using methods that international audiences enjoy seeing and hearing, so that Chinese discourse exhibits 'global relatability' [11] and Chinese ideas embody a 'global flavor.'" Engels once stated that he would read the first volume of Capital again from the perspective of the reader in order to write a more targeted review of the book that would attract more reader attention; this highlights the important connection between the reader and text interpretation. The narrative of Chinese-path modernization must, on the basis of fully considering the discourse reception of Western audiences, adjust and improve the expression, rhetoric, citation, translation, and presentation forms of the discourse, making good use of emotional links and psychological empathy strategies to achieve the dialectical unity of popularized explanation and segmented expression. This will allow Chinese discourse to be "re-contextualized" in an international context to achieve deep interaction between the reader and the narrative of Chinese-path modernization. Even if readers inevitably form a "horizon of seeing" with private prejudices due to subjective factors such as their own experience, emotions, beliefs, and ways of thinking, the modernization narrative, through reflection on the reader's interpretative background, can achieve cognitive communication with the reader to the greatest extent possible. Only through an adaptive and common narrative path can we tell China's story well, spread China's voice, and demonstrate the spiritual power behind it on a global scale.
(3) The Narrative Form of Chinese-path Modernization: Taking "Actual Historical Narration" as the Logical Guideline
As Marx clearly distinguished...
On the basis of "the historical narrative of ideas" and "the historical narrative of reality," Marx emphasized the importance of the narrative method of historical materialism. In Marx's view, the "historical narrative of ideas" is real history "metaphysically disguised"; it wanders circuitously through concepts and categories, deviating from a materialist and dialectical, logical and historical presentation of real history. Conversely, the "historical narrative of reality" dispels the fog of conceptual appearance. By grounding itself in real history and flexibly applying narrative methods according to the fundamental nature of the object being described, it profoundly reveals and presents the essence and laws of real history.
By comparing this with the rational form of the narrative method, the construction of the narrative system for Chinese-path modernization should proceed from an investigation of real history, grasping the history of modernizing development logically while elucidating the logic of modernizing development historically. In his letter to Annenkov [12], Marx criticized Proudhon's idealist narrative for ignoring and distorting the real social structure, pointing out that what subjective narrative yields is merely "the order found in an exceptionally disordered mind." It must be recognized that today, some historical narratives concerning modernization still retain traces of the "historical narrative of ideas." Under narrative orientations driven by "ontological and epistemological choices with distinct ideologies or even specific political implications," some countries either fail to correctly evaluate non-capitalist modernization narratives, or they construct pragmatic modernization narratives based on the tailoring, distortion, and fabrication of history. Such narratives, which run counter to social history and lose their grounding in reality, will eventually vanish of their own accord in the course of historical development. In contrast, the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization is not a subjective stacking and self-deduction of concepts, but a theoretical system that takes long-term historical struggle as its source of living water. Only by shaping a narrative mode that is realistic, historical, and dialectical can we grasp the holistic logic of Chinese-path modernization within the framework of historical practice, and thereby comprehensively explain its core essentials, scientific connotations, and world-historical significance.
First, we must dissolve the nesting of Chinese-path modernization within the Western modernization narrative. The concepts and theories formed by Western modernization are fundamentally established on the basis of Western modernization practices; they are theories of a localized practice of human civilization and possess a one-sided and subjective character. Once these established theories and conclusions are enshrined as infallible [13], the uniqueness of Chinese-path modernization will be narrowed or even dissolved, and the historical and realistic dimensions of the Chinese-path modernization narrative will be flattened.
Second, in the process of constructing the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization, one must not fall into the rut [14] of blindly creating narrative concepts for Chinese-path modernization, obsessing over the creation of world-shaking phrases or seeking speculative relations between concepts. The myth of concepts will obscure the realistic foundation behind Chinese-path modernization. It is necessary to see the historical and social realities referenced behind the changes. Only by delving into the practice of Chinese-path modernization under the grand narrative of world history can we grasp the general and particular laws of the construction of Chinese-path modernization, understand its internal developmental logic, and subsequently construct a narrative system that is logically self-consistent and validated by practice.
Third, the narrative system of Chinese-path modernization must use a Big Victory of History [15] to seize the main thread of history and grasp its historical evolution and practical requirements. A Big History view is the contemporary manifestation of Marx's "historical narrative of reality." Only within the depth of human history, and by examining the modernization path of modern China through a historical outlook that connects the past, the reality, and the future, can we scientifically grasp and narrate the historical practice of modernization, the universality and particularity of Chinese-path modernization, and the world-historical significance of Chinese-path modernization.