Guo Chao: An Analysis of the Connotation of Cultural Subjectivity from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

Culture is the soul of a state and a nation; its self-reliance and self-strengthening are directly related to the self-reliance and self-strengthening of the state and the nation. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the Meeting on Cultural Inheritance and Development: "For any culture to stand firm, go far, and possess leading power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiating power, it must possess its own subjectivity." Since the major proposition of "cultural subjectivity" was formally put forward, the academic community has carried out wide-angled, multi-dimensional, and deep-level research upon it. Some scholars have elucidated the connotation of cultural subjectivity from a philosophical perspective; some have traced the historical process of its construction; some have analyzed its contemporary value from the perspective of Chinese-path modernization; and others have explored paths for its consolidation from the perspective of the "Two Combinations" ^[1]. Looking at the existing research, the understanding of "what cultural subjectivity is" still needs to be expanded and deepened, and there is a relative lack of research specifically discussing its meaning from the perspective of historical materialism. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Our Party has always used the stands, viewpoints, and methods of historical materialism to view the history of the Chinese nation and to inherit and carry forward fine traditional Chinese culture." Scientifically examining cultural subjectivity within the horizon of historical materialism helps us better perceive its inner essence and recognize its various dimensions and forms. Based on historical materialism, and by clarifying the relationships between cultural subjectivity and economic subjectivity, human subjectivity, cultural dominance, and cultural intersubjectivity, this article elucidates the profound meaning of cultural subjectivity from four aspects. It aims to provide a more comprehensive and in-depth answer to the question of "what is cultural subjectivity," thereby providing the prerequisites for further consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation and fulfilling the new cultural mission in the New Era.

I. The Perspective of Material Production: Cultural Subjectivity Rooted in and Reacting upon Economic Subjectivity

The primary task in answering "what is cultural subjectivity" is to clarify the meaning of "culture" within "cultural subjectivity" and to elucidate the relationship between cultural subjectivity and economic subjectivity. Throughout history and across the world, cultural phenomena are ubiquitous and cultural forms are manifold; yet people's understandings of culture remain divided. Generally speaking, there is a distinction between broad and narrow definitions of culture. In the broad sense, all products of labor formed by humans in the process of transforming nature are culture; that is, culture is a complex of material and spiritual achievements created by humanity. In the narrow sense, culture refers specifically to things at the spiritual level formed through human activity, mainly including various forms of social consciousness, customs and habits, linguistic styles, ways of life, modes of thinking, spiritual character, aesthetic tastes, and collective personality. In common parlance, "culture" refers to culture in the narrow sense, and the "culture" in "cultural subjectivity" also belongs to this narrow definition. Of course, narrow and broad culture are not sharply demarcated in real life; culture possesses both spiritual and material attributes. As some scholars have pointed out, "culture is not matter, but culture can have its material carriers; matter is not culture, but matter can serve as a carrier for culture and thus possess cultural connotation." Therefore, we cannot discuss culture in a vacuum divorced from the material. Without material carriers, it is difficult to give concrete form to abstract cultural manifestations, and cultural inheritance and communication would be impossible.

Cultural subjectivity is a concentrated reflection of the state of existence and development of a nation's culture; it is a high-level generalization of cultural self-reliance and autonomy, self-awareness and self-action, and self-confidence and self-strengthening. Marx pointed out: "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." As a spiritual product created by humans in productive practice, culture is constrained by material productive activities and modes of production; the generation and development of any culture can find its roots in material production. The nature of the economic base and the capacity for economic development constitute economic subjectivity. It prominently reflects the autonomy of a state and nation in choosing its economic development path and economic system, its self-control in allocating material means of production and economic resources, and its self-directedness in responding to economic risks and mastering its economic destiny. It emphasizes that economic development is not controlled by others but is independent; not passive but proactive; not stuck in old ways ^[2] but undergoing transformation and upgrading; and not closed off but open to the outside world. The economic autonomy of a state and nation is the prerequisite for cultural self-reliance; economic self-strengthening is the greatest source of confidence for cultural self-confidence; and economic subjectivity is the deep-seated root and determining force of cultural subjectivity.

From the perspective of the decisive role of the economy over culture, cultural subjectivity is also determined by economic subjectivity. This is mainly reflected in two aspects: On the one hand, the state of economic subjectivity determines the state of cultural subjectivity. Economic subjectivity lays the material foundation for the formation, development, and maintenance of cultural subjectivity. A state's material self-reliance is the prerequisite for its spiritual independence; economic "hard power" is the most powerful support for cultural "soft power." Generally speaking, the stronger the economic hard power, the stronger the cultural soft power; the more solid the economic subjectivity, the more solid the cultural subjectivity. "Looking at the basic course of Chinese history over thousands of years, eras of national prosperity were often accompanied by the great development and prosperity of culture, and were also eras where cultural subjectivity was carried forward and even shone brilliantly. Conversely, when national fortunes declined, culture was often in a state of closed conservatism or even stagnation; not only was cultural subjectivity lost, but people's cultural self-confidence also ceased to exist." The reason why ancient China saw scenes of cultural flourishing and could firmly grasp cultural subjectivity for a long time was mainly because the mode of production at the time was relatively advanced and the level of development of the social productive forces was high. After the advent of the modern era, China's material mode of production gradually fell behind the times; the economy suffered repeated exploitation and oppression by invaders, and economic subjectivity was severely impacted and dismantled. This led to culture being eroded and civilization being trampled upon; the Chinese nation once lost its cultural subjectivity. Following the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the increasing level of economic development laid the material foundation for the reshaping and consolidation of the Chinese nation's cultural subjectivity. In the New Era, as China's economy enters the stage of high-quality development, the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation has shown a positive trend of stabilizing and strengthening.

On the other hand, transformations in economic subjectivity determine transformations in cultural subjectivity. Cultural subjectivity is not immutable or fixed once and for all; it changes as economic subjectivity changes. As the wheels of history roll forward, when old relations of production can no longer adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces, new relations of production emerge. Consequently, the ideological superstructure—such as philosophy, morality, law, religion, and art—erected upon the original economic base must inevitably change. As Marx pointed out in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: "With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed." Fundamental changes in the economic base, especially in the ownership relations of the means of production, and major adjustments in the social economic structure, economic system, and economic mechanism trigger not only a grand transformation of economic development, but also a major shift in the mainstream culture of society and a great change in people's ideas and concepts. In essence, changes in economic subjectivity profoundly influence changes in cultural subjectivity.

While historical materialism holds that the economy is the decisive factor in social structure, it is not "economic determinism." In his later years, Engels emphasized: "If somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase." While emphasizing the decisive role of the economy, historical materialism holds that "a given culture (as an ideological form) is a reflection of the politics and economy of a given society, and in turn it exerts a great influence and acts upon the politics and economy of that society." Cultural subjectivity is the reflection of economic subjectivity in ideological form and exerts an active reaction upon economic subjectivity. When cultural subjectivity adapts to the requirements of the development of the productive forces, it can help consolidate the economic base, effectively stimulate economic vitality, and become a positive force for strengthening economic subjectivity; otherwise, it becomes a negative force that weakens economic subjectivity.

The active role of cultural subjectivity on economic subjectivity is mainly manifested in three aspects. First, it guides the direction of development. Cultural subjectivity is the ideological self-reflection of "what flag to fly and what path to take"; the guiding ideology of national development is the most important manifestation of cultural subjectivity. The economic development concepts upheld by a state, the economic development goals it formulates, and the economic development path it chooses must all be based on the guiding ideology of national development as the yardstick. It can be said that the mainstream ideology is the "baton" and "regulator" for constructing economic subjectivity. Second, it builds ideological consensus. A high degree of identification with the national culture, universal adherence to core values, and a shared vision for a better life are important meanings of cultural subjectivity. Based on cultural identity and shared beliefs, different subjects of economic activity can maintain reasonable tension between their economic interests and form a community of economic interests using the common cultural life-form as a hub, thereby finding the "greatest common divisor" ideologically and drawing the "concentric circles" in action. When the national economy faces major risks, shared values and beliefs act like a "cultural anchor," ensuring that economic subjectivity does not lose its direction or strategic resolve amidst the tide of economic globalization. Third, it provides spiritual impetus. Innovation is the primary driver of development. This innovation is inseparable from innovation in production technology and the economic system, but it is also inseparable from innovation in thought and culture—wherein innovation in production technology and the economic system must be preceded by innovation in thought and culture. Cultural innovation provides new ideas and concepts for economic development, guides people to perceive new spaces for economic growth through the emancipation of the mind, and inspires them to use new means to solve new economic problems, providing a steady stream of spiritual impetus for consolidating economic subjectivity. In short, economic subjectivity determines cultural subjectivity, while cultural subjectivity reacts upon economic subjectivity. For a sovereign state, whether it is strengthening economic subjectivity or consolidating cultural subjectivity, the common goal is to defend state power and maintain the long-term governance and stability of the country, the harmony and stability of society, and the peaceful life and work of the people.

Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the cause of the Party and the state has achieved historical achievements and undergone historical changes. The situation in China’s ideological field has undergone a comprehensive and fundamental shift, and consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation faces new opportunities and challenges. From the domestic perspective, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has entered an irreversible historical process. The closer we get to realizing the dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the more we must "enhance the spiritual strength for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" and "highly uphold the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation." From the international perspective, the world’s once-in-a-century great changes are accelerating; the trends of multicultural exchange, integration, and confrontation are becoming more frequent. Cultural and ideological competition between states, especially major powers, is becoming more intense. Western countries are employing more diverse means of "peaceful evolution" against China, and the infiltration of non-Marxist, anti-Marxist, and anti-socialist social trends of thought has become more concealed. In such a contemporary situation, the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation cannot be weakened; it can only be strengthened. The dependence of cultural subjectivity on economic subjectivity determines that further consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation must entail shoring up its material foundation. As China enters a new stage of development, although the elements, structure, means, and impetus of material production have changed, the important position of the material mode of production in the overall development of social history and its important role in cultural subjectivity have not changed. We must assess the situation, strive to cultivate and develop new quality productive forces, build new relations of production compatible with them, promote the high-quality development of China's economy and society, and continuously enhance China's economic hard power. On a more solid, stable, and vital economic foundation, we will continue to consolidate the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation.

II. The Perspective of Living Individuals: Cultural Subjectivity is, in the Final Analysis, Human Subjectivity

Another prerequisite for answering "what is cultural subjectivity" is to clarify the meaning of the "subject" within "cultural subjectivity" and to delineate the relationship between cultural subjectivity and human subjectivity. Within the philosophical horizon, the "subject" refers to humans who possess the capacity for thought and action and who engage in cognitive and practical activities, whereas "objects" (物) are the targets of human cognition and transformation, known as "objects" (客体). That is to say, the subject can only be human and not a thing; subjectivity reflects the attributes of humans rather than things. Culture is the product of human cognition and transformation of the world; it possesses no inherent thought or consciousness of action. Being neither a thinker nor an actor, it cannot be a subject. According to this understanding, the "culture" within "cultural subjectivity" cannot itself be the subject: "'cultural subjectivity' is not the 'subjectivity of culture,' but rather the 'attribute of the cultural subject.'" This "cultural subject" is the human being; therefore, "cultural subjectivity" is in fact not the subjectivity of culture, but the subjectivity of the human being.

The "human" spoken of by historical materialism is the "real human" ^[3], rather than a "presupposed, imagined, or deduced 'abstract human'"; it is "not the human in some fantastic isolation and fixity." Its "essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual; in its reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations." In the view of historical materialism, "real humans" cannot exist in isolation from social relations; they belong to social groups tied together by specific social relations. The essential characteristics of "real humans" dictate that the subject has two forms of existence: the individual subject and the collective subject. Every "real human" is unique; the basic form of the subject's existence is the individual possessing autonomous consciousness, unique personality, and independent character. However, "real humans" are not "atomized individuals" isolated from others; numerous individuals form various groups through the nexus of social relations. In terms of scale, groups vary from small to large, ranging to classes, strata, races, ethnicities, nations, and even the whole of humanity. The "subject" in cultural subjectivity usually refers to the collective subject rather than the individual subject, and this collective subject generally refers to the nation (民族) formed by numerous individuals through generations of shared life. Thus, stated fully, cultural subjectivity refers to national cultural subjectivity. It is not the cultural existence characteristic of a single person, but the common characteristic formed by a collective over long-term cultural life; it is the "collective portrait" of national culture rather than the "individual snapshot" of individual culture. The growth and strengthening of a collective requires a powerful core and the exercise of the "pivotal role" of the "pivotal minority" ^[4]. In grand collectives such as the state and the nation, the governing party is often the core; the leadership of the governing party directly determines the cohesion and centripetal force of the state and the nation. Cultural subjectivity in the context of contemporary China is the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China; the Chinese nation and the Chinese people are the true subjects of cultural subjectivity.

Understanding that cultural subjectivity is essentially human subjectivity can be grasped not only from the perspective of semantic analysis of the "subject" as mentioned above but also from the perspective of the relationship between humans and culture. On one hand, culture is the unique mode of existence for humans. Humans are advanced animals capable of thought and labor; from the very beginning, human thought is deeply influenced by cultural traditions and cultural genes, and human action always takes certain cultural concepts as its guide. "The human essence of nature exists only for social man"; the essential attributes of humans lie in their social rather than natural attributes. In the process of the transition from "natural man" to "social man," culture plays a crucial role, not only extensively influencing the external environment of human socialization but also shaping the human soul and enriching the human spiritual world. Of course, humans do not merely passively receive and adapt to culture; they also actively shape and influence culture. The process of humans transforming culture is in fact the process of humans transforming themselves; the process of humans inheriting culture is the process of humans continuing their spiritual life; the process of humans disseminating culture is the process of human spiritual interaction; and the process of humans innovating culture is the process of humans transcending themselves. It is precisely through cultural reconstruction, interaction, and innovation that the essential powers of humans are fully revealed and their identity as subjects is practically confirmed. Since culture is the mode of human existence, then "cultural subjectivity refers to the manifestation of the human as the subject of cultural existence." On the other hand, humans are the decisive force behind the existence of culture. Culture is not an innate gift of nature but a human creation; any cultural form or product is branded with the human mark and embodies human effort. Humans are the decisive factor in the rise and fall of culture; without human creation, innovation, inheritance, dissemination, and promotion, there would be no generation, continuation, or development of culture. Humans are the creators, disseminators, and promoters of culture, and humans are also the enjoyers and beneficiaries of culture; therefore, "cultural development focuses on the people and settles on the people." Culture serves people, as in the sayings "carrying the Dao through culture" (以文载道), "transmitting the voice through culture" (以文传声), "educating people through culture" (以文育人), and "cultivating people through culture" (以文化人). Once it can no longer fulfill the role of soul-building, education, and cultivation, culture loses the meaning and value of its existence. In short, culture is created by humans, flourishes because of humans, becomes manifest through the cultivation of humans, is enjoyed by humans, and assists humans in becoming fully human. Since the decisive force of cultural existence is the human, then cultural subjectivity essentially manifests as human subjectivity.

From the above analysis, it is clear that the true subject of cultural subjectivity is the "real human," and the whole constituted by the millions upon millions of "real humans" who collectively drive historical development is the masses (人民群众). "As the creators of history, the people are not only the creators of material wealth but also the creators of spiritual wealth." This role as "creators" highlights the subject status of the masses in historical and cultural development; the masses are the fundamental underlying subject of cultural subjectivity. First, the laying of the historical foundations of cultural subjectivity relies on the masses. The long years of industrious labor by the masses have not only laid a solid material foundation for cultural subjectivity but also a thick ideological foundation. Every bit of deep and profound cultural accumulation in a country or nation was accumulated by the masses; every unique cultural gene was inherited by the masses; every continuous cultural bloodline was carried forward by the masses; every colorful cultural form was initiated by the masses; and every precious cultural heritage was created by the masses. These constitute the historical basis, spiritual root, and ideological source of cultural subjectivity. Second, cultural subjectivity relies on the masses to meet real-world challenges. Only by undergoing the baptism of wind and rain and withstanding the test of practice can any culture establish a firm footing and achieve long-term stability amidst the turbulent changes of the cultural era. In responding to major risks and challenges that threaten cultural subjectivity and in eradicating deep-seated "chronic ailments" (顽瘴痼疾) that constrain it, the masses remain the most important and reliable force. Responding to the impact of foreign cultures on indigenous culture requires the masses to maintain a clear cultural consciousness and a high degree of cultural confidence, achieving a state where they are neither blindly xenophobic nor fawning over the foreign. Responding to the conflict between traditional and modern culture requires the masses to abandon the metaphysical thinking of "valuing the ancient and belittling the modern" (厚古薄今) or "valuing the modern and belittling the ancient" (厚今薄古), and to exercise their ingenuity to achieve the creative transformation and innovative development ^[5] of fine traditional culture, thereby deeply rooting the historical foundations of modern culture. Third, the opening of new future horizons for cultural subjectivity relies on the masses. "The vitality of culture lies in innovation and creation." The masses are the direct creators of new culture; many new cultural forms, works, and carriers are pioneered by people from all walks of life. The masses are also the [indirect] creators of new culture; when researchers in the philosophy and social sciences propose new cultural theories, these are theoretical refinements and summaries of the cultural practical experience of the masses. When literary and art workers create new works, they must gain fresh inspiration and draw new nourishment from the cultural life of the masses. The rich, colorful, and fluid cultural life of the masses is always the "source of living water" (源头活水) for cultural innovation and creation, and the ultimate aim of innovating cultural systems and mechanisms lies in continuously increasing the people's sense of cultural gain and happiness.

In the century-long journey of the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people in cultural development, "the masses have always been the main force of cultural creation," and the supportive role of the masses in cultural subjectivity has been fully proven. During the New Democratic Revolution period, "ever since the Chinese people learned Marxism-Leninism, they have moved from being passive to being active in spirit." With this spiritual initiative and cultural awakening, the masses, under the leadership of the Party, broke with the old and established the new, vigorously rebutting and opposing imperialist and feudalist culture, and uniting as one to "establish a new culture for the Chinese nation"—that is, building a national, scientific, and popular New Democratic culture, which raised the curtain on the reconstruction of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the masses, under the leadership of the Party, brought forth the new from the old, following the principle of combining "reform," "destruction," and "construction" to transform the old ideas, old morality, and old habits left over from the old society. They broke through feudal superstition and the blind worship of Western culture, and carried out cultural development under the conditions of the socialist system, promoting the transition from New Democratic culture to socialist culture. Under the guidance of the "Two Serves" (二为) direction and the "Double Hundred" (双百) policy ^[6], and under the regulation of the principles of "making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China," the masses actively transformed Chinese traditional culture, enriched revolutionary culture, and critically absorbed foreign culture, providing abundant cultural resources for the construction of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. During the new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization, the masses, under the leadership of the Party, consolidated the foundation and opened new paths, "developing a noble and colorful cultural life and building a high level of socialist spiritual civilization," extensively participating in the development of culture with Chinese characteristics, and continuously endowing the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation with distinct Chinese characteristics and new connotations of the times. In the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the masses, under the leadership of the Party, uphold the fundamentals and break new ground, deeply advancing the "Two Combinations" ^[7], and collectively building a socialist cultural power. The development of culture with Chinese characteristics has reached new heights, resulting in an unprecedented strengthening of the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. Looking back at the century-long process of reconstructing the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, the Communist Party of China has always been a staunch and powerful leading force, and the masses have always been an incredibly powerful subjective force. It is precisely by giving play to the subjective role of the masses and gathering their strength and wisdom that the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation could successfully achieve its historical leap and modern renewal.

The development of cultural practice never ends, and the construction and maintenance of cultural subjectivity is "always on the road" (永远在路上) ^[8]. Although the achievements of China's cultural development have attracted worldwide attention and its cultural soft power is increasing daily, consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation at a new historical starting point remains a daunting task, and the leading, cohesive, shaping, and radiating power of Chinese culture needs to be enhanced. Fully respecting the subject status of the masses and fully exercising their subjective role is the key to solving these problems. Enhancing the leading power of Chinese culture specifically requires the masses to actively devote themselves to the development of advanced culture and to extensively practice socialist core values in the details of daily life. Enhancing the cohesive power of Chinese culture specifically requires the masses to resolutely uphold the Party's leadership, management, and discourse power over ideological work, to have the courage to break through the shackles of old ideas, to dare to resist the infiltration of harmful trends of thought, and to be adept at promoting the popularization of high-quality culture, working together to build a shared spiritual home. Enhancing the shaping power of Chinese culture specifically requires the masses to innovate cultural forms in connection with the realities of life, to enrich cultural carriers in combination with the characteristics of the times, and to promote the integration of fine culture into social production, daily life, and personal cultivation, so that fine culture can better shape the spiritual character of the nation, the spiritual outlook of society, and the spiritual world of the individual. Enhancing the radiating power of Chinese culture specifically requires the masses to actively participate in humanities exchanges; in equal and friendly cultural interactions and relaxed and pleasant dialogues between civilizations, they should tell China's stories well to overseas publics from different perspectives, and enhance the affinity and attractiveness of cultural dissemination through personal experiences and insights, thereby expanding the radiating range and international influence of the culture of the Chinese nation.

III. The Ideological Perspective: The Core of Cultural Subjectivity Lies in Cultural Dominance

The answer to...

Understanding "what cultural subjectivity is" also requires clarifying the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance. Culture is not a purely natural object; there is no culture in the world that transcends class, nation, or state. Ideological character is a distinct attribute of culture. Cultural subjectivity is an extremely important ideological issue that directly concerns the ideological security of the state. In class societies, order to maintain their rule and the stability of their political power, the ruling classes—in addition to controlling the economic lifelines of the state and employing means of violence to "hard-control" other classes—will utilize ideology as an intellectual tool to implement "soft rule" over members of society. Marx and Engels pointed out: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." For a ruling class to carry out effective ideological governance, consolidating cultural subjectivity is of the highest priority; the universal practice is to do everything possible to establish the culture of its own class as the mainstream culture of society, allowing it to dominate the conceptual superstructure of the entire society. Ideological governance focuses on the problem of the relationship between the "One" and the "Many"—that is, the relationship between the "monistic dominance" of ruling ideas and the "pluralistic coexistence" of non-ruling ideas. Cultural subjectivity does not emphasize the exclusive veneration of a single culture or the replacement and elimination of other cultures with a solitary one; rather, it emphasizes establishing the dominant position of a certain culture while respecting and tolerating others, forming a cultural landscape of "monistic dominance and pluralistic coexistence." From this, it can be seen that cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance are both interconnected and distinct. In terms of connotation, cultural subjectivity is richer, while cultural dominance is inherent within cultural subjectivity. In terms of objective, both serve to maintain ideological security. In terms of focus, cultural subjectivity emphasizes that a specific cultural life-form can maintain autonomy, demonstrate confidence, and move toward self-strengthening ^[9] in the process of interaction, integration, and confrontation with other cultural life-forms; cultural dominance emphasizes that within the same cultural life-form, a certain cultural factor can become the mainstream and "backbone," commanding and guiding the development of other cultural factors. It is far from sufficient to merely observe the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural dominance from a macroscopic or superficial level; one must penetrate the interior of cultural subjectivity to perceive its deep-level connection with cultural dominance.

"So-called cultural subjectivity refers to the ability of a culture, when encountering foreign cultures, to achieve both self-awareness and self-reflection, as well as self-esteem and self-respect, and on this basis produce active adaptability and creativity." Cultural subjectivity reflects the ability of a cultural life-form, amid the impact of foreign cultures, to autonomously choose, position, and develop according to its own traditions and will; it reflects the ability to establish a mainstream culture within a pluralistic cultural pattern, consolidate civilizational consensus, and dominate cultural trends; and it reflects the ability to achieve self-adjustment, self-renewal, and self-transcendence within the surging tide of the times. Cultural consciousness, cultural autonomy, cultural dominance, cultural innovativeness, and cultural transcendence together construct the internal structure of cultural subjectivity, among which cultural dominance occupies the core position, running through the entire process of the formation and development of cultural subjectivity and playing a decisive role in other constitutive elements.

First, cultural dominance determines cultural consciousness. The conscious awareness formed through the cultural subject's self-cognition and self-reflection regarding questions such as where its culture comes from, why it is important, on what basis it stands, what its strengths and weaknesses are, how it should develop, and where it is going—this is cultural consciousness. In short, cultural consciousness mainly refers to "people living in a certain culture having 'self-knowledge' of that culture," which is the cognitive prerequisite for the formation of cultural subjectivity. A high degree of cultural consciousness is inseparable from cultural comparison; it requires both a comparison between diachronic (historical) culture and synchronic (reality-state) culture, as well as a comparison between homogeneous and heterogeneous cultures. The standpoint of cultural comparison should remain consistent with the standpoint of the current mainstream social culture; the evaluation criteria of cultural comparison should fit the criteria advocated by the mainstream culture; the focus of cultural comparison should be on discovering the core variables that affect the dominant position of the mainstream culture; and the purpose of cultural comparison lies in using the past as a mirror for the present ^[10], drawing on the strengths of others to offset one's own weaknesses, and enhancing the leading power of the mainstream culture.

Second, cultural dominance determines cultural autonomy. Cultural autonomy refers to the subject "forming cultural independence and the spiritual independence of the cultural subject through self-selection and self-determination." For a national cultural life-form to maintain control over its own cultural destiny and avoid being eroded or even enslaved by foreign cultures, the most important thing is to establish and consolidate the dominant position of the mainstream culture. "Among ten thousand mountains towering, there must be a main peak" ^[11]; only by strengthening the dominance of the mainstream culture can a national cultural life-form gain a firm foothold amid the fierce collisions of pluralistic cultures, selectively absorb foreign cultures according to its own standards, will, and needs, and explore a path of cultural development suited to itself based on its own cultural traditions and concrete realities.

Third, cultural dominance determines cultural innovativeness. The times are changing and practice is changing; only by advancing with the times and breaking new ground through innovation can culture realize its epochal transformation and vital renewal, thereby providing lasting developmental momentum for cultural subjectivity. Cultural innovativeness reflects the state and capacity of a cultural life-form to conform to the times by injecting new content, creating new forms, expanding new carriers, demonstrating new actions, and seeking new development. The "new" and the "old" are a dialectical unity; cultural innovation is not a complete departure from the past or starting everything from scratch, but rather seeking breakthroughs on the premise of upholding the fundamentals. Regarding the "upholding the fundamentals" of culture, what most needs to be upheld is the dominance of the mainstream culture. Only by guarding this pass can cultural innovation avoid deviating from the correct direction and better lead the era. The most fundamental and critical task of cultural innovation is to inject new vitality and provide new nutrients for the mainstream culture, allowing its dominant power to achieve new elevations.

Fourth, cultural dominance determines cultural transcendence. No culture in the world is perfect, and no culture's development is entirely smooth sailing. The internal transcendence of a cultural life-form manifests as the pursuit of a high degree of spiritual freedom through self-criticism, self-innovation, and self-perfection, moving toward the high-level unity of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty—this is the highest requirement of its subjectivity. Cultural transcendence is reflected both in the transcendence of external challenges and developmental dilemmas, and in the transcendence of the culture itself. "The realization process of cultural transcendence is directly reflected in the transformation of cultural modes." When the mainstream culture is adapted to the state of the economic base, this transformation is achieved by consciously discarding old elements in the cultural system that conflict with the mainstream culture and actively absorbing new elements that complement it. When the mainstream culture is poorly suited to the state of the economic base, this transformation is completed through the cultural life-form's "self-revolution," establishing a new culture that conforms to the direction of historical progress and possesses strong vitality as the mainstream culture, and reshaping cultural values and rebuilding the cultural pattern under its dominance. In summary, cultural dominance is the core of cultural subjectivity; the construction and maintenance of cultural subjectivity are inseparable from the establishment and consolidation of cultural dominance.

In contemporary China, the cultural form that occupies the dominant position and plays the leading role is the culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The "soul-vein" ^[12] of this cultural form is Marxism, its "root-vein" is the fine traditional Chinese culture, its "red gene" is revolutionary culture, and its "backbone" is advanced socialist culture. We must consolidate the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation by shoring up cultural dominance. First, we must uphold the Party's cultural leadership and, under the Party's centralized and unified leadership, properly inherit fine traditional Chinese culture, carry forward revolutionary culture, and develop advanced socialist culture. We must unswervingly follow the path of development for the culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, create new glories for that culture, and build a socialist ideology with strong cohesion and leading power. Second, we must deeply advance the "Second Combination" ^[13], "opening the interface between the soul-vein and the root-vein," integrating the essence of Marxism with the gems of fine traditional Chinese culture. We must "let Marxism become Chinese and fine traditional Chinese culture become modern," creating a new cultural life-form through the deep integration of the "root" and the "soul," and defending the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field through persistence and development. Third, we must promote the socialist core values so they enter the mind, the heart, and the actions of the people. We must use socialist core values to construct mainstream values, strengthen mainstream public opinion, and lead mainstream culture. We must organically integrate socialist core values into every link of social construction, every field of social development, and every aspect of daily life, so that members of society widely identify with and practice these values in a subtle and pervasive manner.

IV. The Perspective of World History: The Interdependence of Cultural Subjectivity and Cultural Intersubjectivity

Answering "what cultural subjectivity is" also requires situating it within world history for investigation, revealing the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity. As an important component of historical materialism, the theory of world history scientifically reveals the objective laws and inevitable trends of human social development. From the perspective of historical materialism, due to the forceful global promotion of the capitalist mode of production, the productive forces of human society as a whole have been elevated, the world market has gradually expanded, and international interactions among people have become increasingly close. Different countries, nations, and regions in the world have increasingly become an interconnected organic whole. Accompanied by the acceleration of the process of world history, "In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature." From the perspective of world history, it is impossible for any nation to construct cultural subjectivity in a vacuum, and it is impossible for any national culture to become strong through self-seclusion. "Cultural subjectivity contains both reflection and identity at the level of the Self, as well as comparison and dialogue between the Self and the Other." Therefore, understanding and handling the relationship between the "cultural Self" and the "cultural Other," and between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity, becomes another important dimension for understanding cultural subjectivity.

Subjectivity is defined based on the relationship between subject and object, reflecting the dominance and agency of the subject in knowing and transforming the object. If only subjectivity is emphasized, it easily forms a "subject-object dichotomy" mindset, leading to tension in the relationship between the two. Intersubjectivity, by contrast, is based on the relationship between subject and subject, reflecting the characteristics of interdependence and mutual influence between different subjects. It is conducive to overcoming the drawbacks of the "subject-object dichotomy" model and better unifying thinking and action. If cultural subjectivity emphasizes the consciousness, autonomy, and self-directed nature of the existence and development of the "cultural Self," then cultural intersubjectivity refers to the state and quality of interdependence, intersection, and symbiotic prosperity between the "cultural Self" and the "cultural Other," reflecting the relationship of the unity of opposites manifested by two or more cultural subjects during communication and interaction. Cultural intersubjectivity includes both the intersubjectivity between different cultures within the same country or nation, and the intersubjectivity between the cultures of different countries and nations; this article analyzes cultural intersubjectivity from the latter perspective.

Cultural subjectivity emphasizes the... [text ends]

"Self-belonging" (shu jixing) and "for-me-ness" (wei woxing) represent the core of cultural subjectivity, while cultural intersubjectivity emphasizes the "coexistence" and "mutual benefit" between the cultures of different nations. Though these two appear incompatible, they are in fact complementary. The relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity is, in the final analysis, the relationship between "cultural independence" and "cultural coexistence," "cultural self-strengthening" and "mutual learning between cultures," and "culture for one's own sake" and "cultural altruism." "Cultural coexistence" is the basic premise of "cultural independence"; "mutual learning between cultures" is the necessary condition for "cultural self-strengthening"; and "cultural altruism" is an important guarantee for "culture for one's own sake." If "cultural coexistence" degenerates into "cultural exclusivity," "cultural self-strengthening" into "cultural arrogance," or "culture for one's own sake" into "cultural solipsism," cultural subjectivity will go astray. Conversely, if one party among cultural subjects submits to or depends on another, cultural intersubjectivity will cease to exist. This means that cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity are interdependent and mutually constraining; in particular, one cannot blindly pursue cultural subjectivity in isolation from cultural intersubjectivity.

However, in human history and real life, there have been many practices that sever the link between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity. From ancient to modern China, Chinese cultural subjectivity underwent a major reversal, falling from a "peak" to a "trough," and its cultural posture shifted from "looking down" to "looking up" ^[14]. A crucial reason for this was that the rulers of the late Qing Dynasty failed to adapt to the trend of world history amidst the "great changes unseen in three thousand years" ^[15], pursuing a policy of isolationism that resulted in cultural backwardness. Consequently, cultural subjectivity was gradually lost during foreign invasions. Regarding this, Marx pointed out: "A giant empire... vegetating in the teeth of the world’s progress... [and] deluding itself with the delusions of Celestial perfection... such an empire was destined at last to be broken to pieces in a mortal conflict" ^[16]. This history teaches us that constructing and maintaining cultural subjectivity must never involve self-closure or self-righteousness; we must persist in cultural openness, expand cultural exchanges, and emphasize cultural reference and learning.

In Western societies, in order to maximize the appreciation of capital, the bourgeoisie does everything possible to "create a world after its own image." Relying on advantages in economy, technology, and military force, they use all means to carry out cultural infiltration, cultural bullying, and cultural colonization on a global scale, making "barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West" ^[17]. For a long time, capitalist countries have heavily promoted theories such as "civilizational superiority," the "clash of civilizations," the "end of history," and "universal values," vigorously pushing cultural hegemonism and cultural colonialism. This has seriously threatened the cultural subjectivity of other nations and greatly damaged the normal order of human cultural exchange. While these practices of Western countries assert their own national cultural subjectivity, they disparage or even dissolve the cultural subjectivity of other nations, betraying the inherent requirements of cultural intersubjectivity. This is clearly not the correct way to handle the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity, and we must maintain high vigilance and profound criticism of it.

Today, the trend of the "transformation of history into world history" has become more pronounced, the historical tide of economic globalization is unstoppable, and the characteristics of cultural diversity are increasingly distinct. Therefore, consolidating cultural subjectivity cannot mean taking the old path of cultural isolation by ignoring cultural intersubjectivity, nor the evil path of cultural bullying by trampling on it. Instead, we must accommodate cultural intersubjectivity and take the new path of cultural openness, mutual learning between cultures, and shared prosperity.

First, we must persist in mutual equality and respect for diversity, promoting the unification of "cultural independence" and "cultural coexistence." Every national culture in the world is a crystallization of human wisdom, possessing unparalleled unique charm and irreplaceable value; all deserve equal "rights to existence" and "rights to development." The "independence" pursued by cultural subjectivity is absolutely not a state where "I exist while you do not" or "I survive while you perish," nor is it about being superior or overbearing. Rather, it is about using "your" strength to assist "my" independence, thereby seeking independence in cultural sovereignty and equality in cultural status. To this end, we must "respect the diversity of civilizations, promote exchange and dialogue, peaceful coexistence, and harmonious symbiosis among different civilizations, and avoid self-centeredness or the disparagement of other civilizations and nations" ^[18]. We must discard "pride and prejudice" in cultural cognition, viewing all national cultures with a "level gaze" and an "appreciative eye." While "appreciating one's own beauty," one must also "appreciate the beauty of others," ultimately realizing a state where "all beauties are shared" ^[19].

Second, we must persist in openness, inclusiveness, and harmonious coexistence, promoting the unification of "cultural self-strengthening" and "mutual learning between cultures." In the forest of the world's national cultures, a flower that admires its own fragrance in isolation—no matter how stunning—cannot escape the fate of withering unnoticed. Conversely, a cluster of flowers that set each other off—no matter how ordinary—will create a "garden full of spring" that inspires awe. No national culture in the world can be perfect, nor can any be entirely without merit; all possess unique strengths. The "self-strengthening" pursued by cultural subjectivity means not only making one's own advantages "stronger" but also learning from the strengths of other cultures to make one's own weaknesses "strong." Therefore, various national cultures should "strengthen mutual exchange, learning, and reference, rather than mutual isolation, exclusion, or replacement," perfecting themselves through inclusiveness and promoting independence and self-strength through mutual learning.

Third, we must persist in maintaining a global vision and win-win cooperation, promoting the unification of "culture for one's own sake" and "cultural altruism." Although the cultural heritage and values of different nations vary greatly, all nations share common values and interests on the path of cultural development. The "for-me" pursued by cultural subjectivity is not "only-me"; it is about balancing the fundamental cultural interests of one's own nation with those of others, striving to maximize common interests. Therefore, consolidating cultural subjectivity must be rooted in the local while caring for the world—"ensuring that one's own civilization is bursting with vitality while creating conditions for the development of other civilizations"—to jointly write a new chapter in the development of human civilization through mutual benefit and win-win results.

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Chinese culture is both historical and contemporary; it is both national and global." To consolidate the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, we must correctly handle the relationship between Chinese culture and the cultures of other countries and nations.

First, we must persist in "letting cultural exchange transcend cultural estrangement, mutual learning transcend cultural conflict, and coexistence transcend cultural superiority." We should tap into the ideological essence of the Chinese cultural treasury—such as "Great Unity under Heaven" (tianxia datong) ^[20], "harmony among all nations" (xiehe wanbang), "valuing harmony" (yihe weigui), and "seeking common ground while reserving differences" (qiutong cunyi)—to contribute Chinese civilizational wisdom toward breaking down civilizational barriers, eliminating civilizational prejudice, resolving "civilizational deficits," and avoiding civilizational confrontation.

Second, we must "more actively and proactively learn from and draw on all outstanding achievements of human civilization," using the "stone" of Western civilization to polish the "jade" of Chinese civilization ^[21]. By adopting the strengths of others and integrating Chinese and Western elements, we can promote the modern transformation of Chinese civilization.

Third, we must "enhance the communication and influence of Chinese civilization." We need to refine the ideological essence, spiritual identifiers, basic concepts, fundamental categories, and core propositions of Chinese culture. We must construct a discourse system and narrative system with Chinese characteristics, style, and flair. We should "strengthen the discourse agenda-setting for Chinese cultural concepts, cultural connotations, and China's national conditions." Through multiple subjects, media, and methods, we must tell the story of Chinese culture well to the outside world, presenting a credible, lovable, and respectable image of China, and enhancing the international communication effectiveness and radiation power of Chinese culture.

Finally, we must "uphold and promote the common values of all humanity" and fully implement the Global Civilization Initiative. We should gather ideological consensus to jointly resolve the peace deficit, development deficit, security deficit, and governance deficit. We must provide spiritual support for jointly opposing terrorism, hegemonism, unilateralism, and protectionism, contributing civilizational strength to the joint building of a community with a shared future for humanity and a better world.

Conclusion

In summary, the "culture" in cultural subjectivity is a conceptual superstructure that is determined by the economic base and in turn reacts upon it. The true "subject" of cultural subjectivity is the human being; cultural subjectivity is essentially the manifestation of human subjectivity in cultural practice. Building cultural subjectivity ultimately depends on the people exerting their historical subjectivity. Cultural subjectivity mainly includes cultural self-awareness, cultural autonomy, cultural leadership, cultural innovativeness, and cultural transcendence, with cultural leadership serving as its core. Cultural subjectivity is closely related to cultural intersubjectivity, which emphasizes mutual connectivity, mutual respect, mutual learning, and shared prosperity.

The four sections discussed above constitute an organically linked and progressively deepening whole, sketching a complete picture of cultural subjectivity. Specifically:

1. The analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and economic subjectivity from the perspective of material production demonstrates the foundation of cultural subjectivity, answering the question of "where it comes from."
2. The analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and human subjectivity from the perspective of "real individuals" demonstrates the subject of cultural subjectivity, answering the questions of "who possesses it" and "who develops it."
3. The analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural leadership from the perspective of ideology demonstrates the core of cultural subjectivity, answering the question of "what its essence is."
4. The analysis of the relationship between cultural subjectivity and cultural intersubjectivity from the perspective of world history demonstrates the field of cultural subjectivity, answering the question of "how it develops."

Together, these four parts reveal that cultural subjectivity is deeply rooted in the practice of material production, created and inherited by the people, established and manifested through the internal defense of cultural leadership (leadership of the mind), and developed and enhanced through external civilizational exchange and mutual learning. In short, cultural subjectivity is the fundamental nature and essential characteristic of cultural existence and development as determined by the mode of material production. It is a holistic reflection of a country's and nation's "cultural self" consciousness, its status of cultural autonomy, its state of cultural self-confidence, and its spirit of cultural self-strengthening. It is the comprehensive manifestation of cultural leading power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiation power.