Zou Guangwen: "The Second Integration": A Methodology for Constructing the Cultural Form of Chinese Modernization
Today, the endeavor to achieve Chinese-path modernization has undoubtedly become the main theme of our era. The great practice of reform and opening up has won China rare development opportunities; under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Chinese people have achieved modernization accomplishments that have attracted worldwide attention. Especially since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, our practice of socialist modernization has continuously opened up new horizons. The proposition of "Chinese-path modernization" put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping is a highly refined summation of the practice of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics that we have undertaken. Chinese-path modernization focuses on the coordinated development of material and spiritual civilizations. While creating enormous material wealth, it also creates a corresponding cultural form. This cultural form is the result of the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly pointed out: "'the Second Integration' allows Marxism to become Chinese, and the fine traditional Chinese culture to become modern, allowing the new culture formed through 'integration' to become the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization." From this, we can see that the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization is created through "the Second Integration." Within this, fine traditional Chinese culture marks the dimension of nationality for the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization and provides a deep foundation of traditional culture; Marxism provides the ideal dimension of modern practice for the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. "The Second Integration" effectively resolves the cultural tension between "tradition" and "modernity" that has existed since modern China, manifesting both the modern characteristics of Marxism and highlighting the inclusiveness and innovativeness of fine traditional Chinese culture, providing methodological guidance for us to construct the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization facing the future.
I. The resolution of the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" by "the Second Integration"
At the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically expounded on the great significance of the "Two Integrations" and emphasized the important status of "the Second Integration." He pointed out that "to open up and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics on the deep foundation of five thousand years of Chinese civilization, the 'must-run path' [1] is to combine the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture. This is a regular understanding [2] we have reached in exploring the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics." "The Second Integration" allows us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture in a broader cultural space, exploring theoretical and institutional innovations facing future Chinese development practices. This important assertion put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping is precisely a scientific judgment made based on China's specific national conditions, especially based on the difficult and tortuous course of China's modernization exploration since modern times.
With the outbreak of the Opium War in 1840, China's doors were opened by "sturdy ships and powerful cannons." China was forcibly dragged into the historical process of globalization and gradually fell into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. This differed greatly from the West, which actively developed capitalist industry and commerce and continuously adjusted the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity" through cultural movements such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, eventually embarking on the path of capitalist modernization. When China was dragged into the modernization process, it lacked the foundation of modern capitalist industry and commerce economically, and lacked mature modern ideological resources culturally. Against this broad background, the Chinese people began to have a sense of national crisis and a sober reflection on the future development path of the nation. In 1842, Wei Yuan first proposed the idea of "learning the superior techniques of the barbarians to control the barbarians." [3] This idea was recognized by some progressive people seeking change at the time and became the ideological bud of the Westernization Movement (洋务运动, Yángwù Yùndòng). Those who identified with this thought formed the Westernizers (洋务派, Yángwùpài), while those who disagreed were called the Diehards (顽固派, Wángùpài). "Toward modern Western culture, the Diehards adopted an attitude of total rejection, advocating the 'distinction between Chinese and barbarians' (夷夏之辨, yí xià zhī biàn), while the Westernizers adopted a relatively open attitude, advocating 'Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for application' (中学为体, 西学为用). 'Chinese substance, Western application' [4] was the principle by which the Westernizers handled the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures, and also the weapon with which they struck back at the attacks of the Diehards." It can be said that it was precisely from the debate over "substance" (tǐ) and "application" (yòng) between the Westernizers and Diehards during the Westernization Movement that the problem of tension between "tradition" and "modernity" gradually became prominent.
At almost the same period as the Westernization Movement, Japan began the Meiji Restoration, a bourgeois reform movement. Through national efforts to learn from Western civilization, "leaving Asia and entering Europe" (datsu-A nyū-ō), developing modern education, improving the intellectual level of the citizenry, and cultivating modern talents, Japan gradually realized the transformation from a traditional society to a modern society, and its national strength grew day by day. The First Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1894, ended in China's complete defeat. This marked the total failure of the Qing government's Westernization Movement, which had lasted over 30 years, and the modernization achievements gained were effectively reduced to nothing. The defeat in the Sino-Japanese War brought a great shock to the proud Qing government and the intellectuals of the time. Consequently, the Reformists (维新派, Wéixīnpài), led by figures such as Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, began to advocate for institutional reform to strengthen the country, hoping to learn from the West in politics, economics, military affairs, and education. This reflected a trend of learning from and aligning with the West as comprehensively as Japan had, but these ideas failed before they could be fully put into practice. From this, it can be seen that through the exploration of the highly nationalized proposition of the relationship between "substance" and "application," the thinkers of that time expressed the basic attitude of the Chinese people to "open their eyes to see the world" and participate in the process of globalization.
As we know, Japan had long learned from China in history, even using this to advance its socio-historical process. However, when the wave of human globalization reached the East, especially when Western powers brought their warships to the doorstep, Japan chose quite resolutely to learn from the very Western powers that were invading it, with almost no agonizing over the "substance/application" problem. Japan’s rapid transformation was inseparable from its historical tradition of being adept at learning from powerful nations, and was also related to Japanese thinkers represented by Fukuzawa Yukichi who vigorously promoted Western civilization. For example, Fukuzawa Yukichi once believed that "even if the countries of the world today are in a state of barbarism or semi-civilization, if they wish to advance their civilization, they must take European civilization as the goal, establish it as the standard for all discourse, and measure the pros and cons of things by this standard." It can be seen that Fukuzawa Yukichi advocated comprehensive learning from the West, believing that only in this way could Japan become a civilized nation. As a famous thinker of modern Japan, his thoughts undoubtedly profoundly influenced Japan's value choices, of which the idea of "leaving Asia and entering Europe" is a typical representative.
Why then could China not learn from the West as comprehensively as Japan, but instead hesitated and wavered in the dilemma of "substance" and "application"? The key to understanding perhaps lies in the fact that China is a country with 5,000 years of continuous civilizational history, and for a long period was even in a leading position in the global civilizational landscape. This long history of civilization determined that China could not, like Japan, abandon its own cultural tradition to learn comprehensively from the West, yet the pressures of reality forced China to seek cultural change. Although the Chinese exhausted all possible combinations of the "substance/application" relationship in an attempt to find the answer to correctly handling the tension between "tradition" and "modernity," they ultimately met with failure. This further triggered reflection among the Chinese people: how exactly should a nation choose so that it can both move toward modernization and maintain its own national identity? Chinese reflection on this issue continued into the early 20th century. The generation of Chinese intellectuals who launched the New Culture Movement [5] witnessed the failures of the Westernization Movement and the Hundred Days' Reform (戊戌变法, Wùxū Biànfǎ), while seeing Japan successfully move toward modernization through the Meiji Restoration. This sense of historical urgency and the humiliation of being oppressed prompted them to resolutely take the path of anti-traditionalism. They even went so far as to raise the rather extreme slogan "Down with Confucius and Sons" (打倒孔家店, dǎdǎo Kǒngjiādiàn). From the speeches of representative figures of the New Culture Movement at the time, such as Chen Duxiu, Hu Shih, Wu Yu, Qian Xuantong, and Lu Xun, we can see this distinct anti-traditional attitude.
The New Culture Movement's choice to thoroughly reject traditional culture, though appearing too absolute from today's perspective, played a positive role in promoting China’s move toward modernization and its acceptance of modern ideas of democracy and science under the historical conditions of the time. Of course, the extreme attitude the New Culture Movement took toward traditional culture also meant it did not resolve the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" well.
The Communist Party of China was founded in 1921, and under its leadership, the Chinese people began the historical practice of exploring modernization. In a sense, the hundred-year history of the Party is a history of the CPC leading the Chinese people to explore, practice modernization, and construct its own modernization theory. The CPC took Marxism as its guiding ideology and the establishment of a socialist modern country—ultimately achieving communism—as its goal. That is to say, although modern Chinese history began in 1840, it was only from 1921 that we truly entered the history of exploring modernization development and constructing our own modernization theory under the leadership of the CPC. In this historical process, Chinese Communists inevitably had to face and answer the question of the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity." To be sure, Chinese Communists have also gone through a arduous process of "spiral ascent" regarding the issue of modernization. For example, the slogan of destroying the "Four Olds" (old culture, old ideas, old customs, old habits) [6] raised during the "Cultural Revolution" was actually an undiscriminating destruction of tradition and a most thorough break with it. However, after we emerged from the tortuous path of the "Cultural Revolution," Chinese Communists, based on their theoretical consciousness of China's national conditions and Marxism, attained a brand-new understanding and interpretation of the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity." This is prominently reflected in the historical process of China's modernization practice since reform and opening up.
The history of the great practice of reform and opening up is, for China, not only a history of internal reform and external opening, but even more so a history of the Chinese nation's modernization practice moving from spontaneity toward consciousness. In his speech at the conference celebrating the 40th anniversary of reform and opening up, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in no uncertain terms: "Reform and opening up was a great awakening of our Party, and it was precisely this great awakening that nurtured our Party's great creations from theory to practice." Reform and opening up not only allowed China truly to integrate into the world in practice, opening a modernization development path suited to China's national conditions, but also inherently contains a redefinition of the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity" in theory. Such a great awakening allowed Chinese Communists to reach an increasingly clear conclusion: that the fruits of human modernization can also grow in the soil of traditional Chinese culture. This conclusion was reached by generations of Chinese Communists under the guidance of Marxist theory, through long-term arduous exploration of the path to Chinese modernization.
At the Second Plenary Session of the 7th CPC Central Committee, Mao Zedong clearly stated that the primary task after winning the Chinese revolution was "to transform China steadily from an agricultural country into an industrial country and build China into a great socialist state." Zhou Enlai first proposed the idea of "Four Modernizations" [7] at the first session of the First National People's Congress, namely, "building powerful modern industry, modern agriculture, modern transport and communications, and modern national defense." It can be seen that the first generation of Party leaders' thinking on China's modernization was a process of continuous development, reflecting the deepening of Chinese Communists' reflection on the issue of China's modernization. Later, [Deng Xiaoping] further summarized this as "Chinese-style modernization" (中国式的现代化, Zhōngguóshì de xiàndàihuà) [8] and emphasized that "Chinese-style modernization must proceed from Chinese characteristics." Deng Xiaoping further promoted the innovation of Chinese modernization theory and practice, emphasizing that "Chinese-style modernization" must proceed from China's characteristics. This actually indicates that China's modernization practice cannot leave China's national conditions or be detached from the soil of national cultural tradition.
In the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has—on the foundation of explorations and practices since the reform and opening up—further advanced and expanded China's modernization practices, clearly delineating the development blueprint for "Chinese-path modernization." The proposal of Chinese-path modernization marks the fact that the Communist Party of China (CPC), leading the Chinese people, has found a modernization path tested by practice and suited to China's national conditions. As the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized: "Only by combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and with China's excellent traditional culture, and by persisting in the application of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, can we correctly answer the major questions posed by the times and by practice." Clearly, adhering to the "Two Combinations" is inseparable from the practice of advancing Chinese-path modernization; that is, the "Two Combinations" have consistently accompanied the historical process of advancing Chinese-path modernization.
The proposal of the "Second Combination" indicates that Chinese Communists, through their practical exploration of modernization, have found a method to overcome the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" faced by ancient China in its movement toward modernization since modern times. They have found a way to resolve the long-standing contradiction facing China as an ancient civilization: the need to realize modernization while simultaneously inheriting its own ethnic traditional culture. Therefore, the "Second Combination" plays a deeper and more fundamental role in advancing the historical practice of Chinese-path modernization. This will effectively enhance the cultural confidence of Chinese-path modernization and solidify its path foundations.
Only in this sense can we profoundly understand the major significance of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s statement that "the 'Second Combination' is another instance of ideological liberation." The long-term backwardness of modern China caused the Chinese people to unconsciously form an "either-or" [9] intellectual mindset—that "tradition" and "modernity" are irreconcilable, and that to achieve modernization, one must oppose tradition and break with it. However, China's modernization practices since the reform and opening up show that we have successfully cultivated the fruits of modernization within the soil of the Chinese nation's traditions. This has granted us a new understanding of the modernization development model, achieving another ideological liberation in a constructive sense. In short, the CPC, guided by Marxism, creatively proposed the "Second Combination" during the practical process of exploring Chinese modernization, thereby successfully overcoming the dualistic binary thinking of "tradition" vs. "modernity" and achieving another ideological liberation. Why, then, is the "Second Combination" able to effectively overcome the tension between "tradition" and "modernity," vigorously advance the developmental practice of Chinese-path modernization, and create the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization? This requires us to further interpret the ideas of modernity contained within the Marxist ideological system.
II. Marxism Marks the Ideal Dimension of Human Modernization Practice
Marxism is the guiding ideology for Chinese Communists to transform the world and realize modernization in the present era, and it contains profound ideas of modernity. A conscious investigation of Marx’s ideas of modernity and their value connotations will help us more profoundly grasp the theoretical content of the "Second Combination." This, in turn, allows us to better advance the construction of the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization under the guidance of the "Second Combination" and better complete the "unfinished project" of modernity. Specifically, Marx's ideas of modernity can be examined from the following three aspects.
First, Marxist theory itself is a theory of modernity; it marks the ideal dimension of human modernization practice.
As we know, Marxist theory was formed and developed within the historical practice of human modernization. The background of Marxist theory's emergence and its value concerns are inseparable from the epochal themes of modernization and modernity. In 19th-century Europe, capitalism had reached a considerable level of development; England, France, and Germany, in particular, had either completed or were undergoing the Industrial Revolution. Marx was at the absolute forefront of the Industrial Revolution; while writing Capital, he lived for a long time in Britain, the first country to complete the Industrial Revolution and thus the most industrially developed. It was precisely because of this first-hand experience that Marx could recognize with greater depth a modernization dominated by the logic of capital, and thus more comprehensively examine and critique capitalism and its ideas of modernity. It can therefore be said that Marxist theory itself is a theory of modernity distinct from the logic of capital.
We can find confirmation of this point in Marx’s texts. For example, in The German Ideology, Marx proposed the theory of universal intercourse, arguing that capitalism opened up world history: "Big industry... created world history for the first time, insofar as it made all civilized nations and every individual member of them dependent for the satisfaction of their wants on the whole world, thus destroying the former natural exclusiveness of separate nations." In his works, Marx also proposed categories and concepts such as "modern society" and "capitalist society." It can be said that these concepts and categories are different representations of the discourse of modernity or the discourse of human modernization practice, manifesting the conscious concern of Marxist theory for the grand narrative of human modernization.
Furthermore, the attitude Marx adopted in his analysis of the logic of capital was one of dual concern, unifying a rational scale with a value scale. This is primarily manifested in two ways. On the one hand, Marx affirmed the historical contribution of capital to the development of human modernization in his texts. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx pointed out: "The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood." "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization." The development of large-scale capitalist industry promoted the global expansion of capital, drawing all nations into the historical process of human modernization. In Marx’s view, capitalism not only made local and national social production impossible, but "as in material, so also in intellectual production," and on the foundation of this intellectual production, the future literary form Marx longed for—namely, "world literature" (Weltliteratur)—would arise. This was the objective historical evaluation Marx gave to capitalism from a rational perspective.
On the other hand, Marx saw the harm that the unfolding of the logic of capital in real life brought to the various nations of the world; he saw the anti-human dimension of capital. Marx pointed out that "Capital comes [into the world] dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." In the process of capital expansion, "capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum." The expansion of capital is dominated by the logic of capital, reducing humans to tools for the valorization of value, thereby inhibiting the comprehensive development of the person. Additionally, Marx strongly condemned the colonial aggression of Western powers against Eastern countries including China and India; for instance, he referred to the Second Opium War launched by Britain and France as "piratical" expansion. [10] This was the indictment Marx leveled against capitalism from the perspective of values.
From the above arguments, we can see that Marxism possesses a strong historical constructiveness. Marx believed that "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Whether it is the historical evaluation of capitalism from a rational perspective or the indictment of capitalism from the perspective of values, Marx’s ideas of modernity run through both. The deconstruction and critique Marx applied to capital represent precisely the ideal dimension of human modernization theory and practice. That is to say, the "is" (shírán) [11] of human modernization has already been presented by the expansion of capital, but the practice of human modernization also has an "ought" (yìngrán) dimension. This "ought" dimension is precisely what attained prominence through Marx’s deconstruction and critique of capital. In this sense, the view that sees Marx as a modernist and the view that sees him as a postmodernist appear to be diametrically opposed, but are in fact not contradictory, because their evaluations of Marx's theory both revolve around the historical logic of modernization and modernity, merely from different angles of interpretation.
Reflecting on modernity and its problems is the core theme of Marx’s theoretical construction. Overall, Marxism affirms that modernization is an irreversible direction for human history, but it simultaneously critiques the social problems brought about by Western modernization practices dominated by the logic of capital. Within this critique, it constructs its own theory of modernity, marking out the ideal dimension of human modernization practice.
Second, Marx’s elucidation of ideas of modernity is characterized by openness and a future-oriented nature; that is, Marx constructed his own ideas of modernity within the value-demand of changing the world.
Openness and a future-oriented nature are prominent features of Marx's ideas of modernity, manifested specifically in two aspects. On the one hand, looking at Marx’s thought itself, he believed that "dialectic, in its figured form, includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary." This undoubtedly highlights the critical character of Marxist theory, and this critical character inherently contains openness and a future-oriented nature. As Engels stated, "Marx's whole manner of perceiving is not a doctrine but a method. It offers not finished dogmas, but points of departure for further investigation and the method for such investigation." Engels' summary of Marx’s thought more clearly points out its characteristics of openness and future-orientation. Indeed, Marxism is not confined to any given form of things; within its affirmation of capitalism’s creation of world history, it simultaneously contains the negation of capitalism’s causation of the one-sided development of man. Therefore, Marxism does not blindly believe that the logic of capital is the universal logic for the manifestation of human modernization. The social forms of human modernization should have multiple possibilities and should develop into more ideal forms—forms that eliminate exploitation and overcome the alienation of human nature—namely, communist society.
On the other hand, Marx's attention to Eastern societies, as well as the modernization practices of various socialist countries in the world after Marx's death, also prove that Marx's ideas of modernity possess openness and a future-oriented nature. When applying historical materialism to the investigation of Eastern societies, Marx saw that the theory of the five social formations [12] had areas where it was not yet adapted to explaining Eastern societies. Therefore, it was necessary to give Eastern societies special attention and study in order to further perfect historical materialism. In fact, in Marx's view, there was no single, authoritative model for the development of human modernization. In his letter to the editorial board of Otechestvennye Zapiski (Notes on the Fatherland), he pointed out that his historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe was not a "historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development" and therefore was not one that "every people is fated to tread, whatever the historical circumstances in which it finds itself." This fully demonstrates that Marx's ideas of modernity are open and future-oriented, requiring us to conduct "concrete analysis of concrete conditions" regarding the path of social development. The subsequent victory of the Russian Revolution and the success of Chinese socialist practice have both proved the correctness of Marx's theoretical views on Eastern societies, as well as the openness and future-oriented nature of Marx's ideas of modernity.
Third, Chinese-path modernization represents the internal transcendence of Marxist ideas of modernity over capitalist ideas of modernity.
In the previous Eurocentric discourse, it was often assumed that capitalism represented the modern social form—that is, that capitalism and modernity were identical. However, the development of human modernization practices to date has fully demonstrated that the combination of capitalism and modernity is merely one mode of presentation for modernity; human practices of modernity contain a value dimension of internal transcendence. It is true that in the era of globalization, any nation in the world moving from tradition toward the future, truly completing the historical leap from traditional agricultural civilization to industrial civilization, must undergo the baptism of modernization. This has been proven by the historical development of countries worldwide. However, in this process of modernization practice, there is not only one path—namely, the path taken by Western developed countries. In fact, many developing countries are currently striving to catch up with modernization, integrating their own national cultural characteristics into their practices, thereby presenting various different models of modernization development. It can be said that Chinese-path modernization is one of the more successful models in the world today. Its successful practice has shattered the myth that "modernization = Westernization," demonstrating that "the internal transcendence of modernity does not lead to a total end, but rather transcends a specific developmental form of modernity, namely 'capitalist modernity,' thereby moving toward a new developmental form, namely 'socialist modernity.'"
It is precisely based on the internal transcendence of Marx’s thought on modernity over capitalist modernity that Chinese Communists proposed the proposition of the "Second Integration." [13] The rational expansion of this proposition’s connotation intends to emphasize: given that Marxism marks the ideal dimension of human modernization theory and practice, the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture will effectively transcend the binary opposition between "tradition" and "modernity." In the historical practice of Chinese-path modernization, it realizes the mutual fit and even fusion between the two, creating the results of the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization. Only in this sense can we say that fine traditional Chinese culture makes Marxism Chinese, while the modernity of Marxism makes fine traditional Chinese culture modern—demonstrating that the "Second Integration" is precisely the important method by which we can overcome the tension between "tradition" and "modernity." Of course, as a theory of modernity, Marxism is not only the logical premise of the "Second Integration" proposition but also the internal theoretical support for the proposition of Chinese-path modernization. Once we understand Marx’s thought on modernity and its characteristics, we understand the profound significance of the "Second Integration" for constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization.
In general, through an examination of the historical background, theoretical connotation, and practical experience of the emergence of Marxism, we have clarified that Marxist theory itself is a theory of modernity. What it marks is the ideal dimension of human modernization development, characterized by openness and a future-oriented nature. At the same time, Marx’s thought on modernity contains an inherent transcendence of capitalist modernity; this transcendent quality has guided China to forge a path of modernization development with Chinese characteristics that differs from Western modernization. On this basis, the openness and future-orientation of Marxism make the "Second Integration" possible, and the integration of Marxism as a theory of modernity with fine traditional Chinese culture successfully overcomes the tension between "tradition" and "modernity." Therefore, in the cultural practice of constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization for the future, we must continue to adhere to the "Second Integration" as methodological guidance, continuously promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization.
III. Constructing the Cultural Form of Chinese-path Modernization through the "Second Integration"
The "Second Integration" overcomes the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" and achieves yet another emancipation of the mind. It is "a profound summary of our Party's historical experience in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and a profound grasp of the laws governing the development of Chinese civilization." Therefore, we must view the "Second Integration" from a methodological height and use it to guide the construction of the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. Specifically, efforts are needed in the following areas:
First, we must consciously base cultural construction on the thinking method of "grasping the two extremes and applying the mean, and upholding the mean to achieve harmony" [14].
Why must we first establish this thinking method when constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization? In fact, since the beginning of the modern era, the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" has always surfaced in our social life. Even in the "culture fever" [15] that has persisted since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, the core problem reflected—whether in official or folk circles—remains how to handle the tension between "tradition" and "modernity." The "Second Integration" is precisely the correct method found by Chinese Communists to balance this tension, embodying a way of thinking that transcends polar opposites. In the view of the philosopher Hegel, thinking in polar opposites is actually a typical form of "understanding" (Verstand), which clings to the one-sidedness and difference of mental determinations; thus, "the struggle of reason consists in the effort to overcome the distinctions which the understanding has fixed." In other words, the prerequisite for realizing the "Second Integration" lies in transforming our mode of thinking—moving away from the "either-or" understanding of tradition and modernity. Furthermore, the Chinese Communists' proposal for the "Two Creatives" [16] of fine traditional Chinese culture—creative transformation and innovative development—also has the transformation of our thinking as its prerequisite. We must see that an "either-or" mode of thinking is detrimental to the healthy development of our practice in building Chinese-path modernization. This practice requires us to cultivate "wisdom for construction" and establish the thinking method of "grasping the two extremes and applying the mean"—being neither too conservative nor too radical—to reach a state of central harmony where heaven and earth move in order and all things grow together without harming one another.
In fact, this "wisdom for construction" has permeated the historical process of Reform and Opening-up and has been proven by its historical achievements. In 1992, during his Southern Tour, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "Not engaging in debate is for the sake of gaining time for action"; "Avoid debate, boldy experiment, and boldly break through." [17] The "Southern Talks" further promoted the emancipation of the mind and the historical process of Reform and Opening-up. A very important reason for this was the wisdom for construction contained in Deng Xiaoping’s idea of "avoiding debate." Hu Jintao, in his speech at the Second Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee, noted: "All comrades in the Party must unify their thinking and understanding, seize opportunities and not lose them, persist in concentrating on construction and single-mindedly seeking development... and remain [unswerving, unflagging, and] not create friction [literally, 'not tossing about']." [18] Hu Jintao’s idea of "not tossing about" (bu zheteng) inherited Deng Xiaoping’s "avoiding debate," emphasizing construction and development; it is likewise an embodiment of the wisdom for construction. As mentioned earlier, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that Reform and Opening-up was a "great awakening" of the Chinese Communists; I believe a prominent expression of this "awakening" is the consistent wisdom for construction upheld by Chinese Communists in the practice of Reform and Opening-up.
Looking to the future, we must continue to uphold this wisdom on the new journey of building Chinese-path modernization. If we remain trapped in the polar-opposite, either-or thinking of the "understanding," it will only delay our pace. Similarly, in constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, we must draw upon the wisdom for construction contained in the "Second Integration."
Second, constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization requires seeking the points of mutual fit between nationality and modernity.
Regarding the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, "Chinese-path" highlights the national dimension of culture, while "modernization" highlights the temporal (modern) dimension. We know that in the philosophy of culture, one of the most fundamental propositions is the relationship between nationality and modernity. In the context of human modernization practice, the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" is precisely the concrete expression of the contradiction between nationality and modernity. Therefore, we must strive to find where they fit together. On the basis of the "Second Integration," we must make Marxism manifest Chinese characteristics more clearly and make fine traditional Chinese culture possess more modern features.
Specifically, on one hand, we must base ourselves on the "root and pulse" (genmai) of fine traditional Chinese culture to further promote the Sinicization of Marxism. At the theoretical level, we must promote the construction of a discourse system for the Sinicization of Marxism. In the early stages of Sinicizing Marxism, Mao Zedong, in the process of leading the revolution and construction, endowed the traditional Chinese phrase "seek truth from facts" (shi shi qiu shi) with Marxist connotation, noting that "'facts' are all things that exist objectively, 'truth' is the internal link of objective things, i.e., their laws, and 'to seek' means we go and study them." In the New Era, whether it is the "community with a shared future for humanity" as a new development of Marx’s idea of community, or the "new form of human civilization" as an innovation of Marx’s theory of civilizational forms, all fully demonstrate the innovative vitality of Sinicized Marxism. Furthermore, theoretical innovation cannot be separated from the development of practice. The proposition of a "moderately prosperous society" (xiaokang shehui) is one of the landmark innovations. When meeting with then-Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira, Deng Xiaoping first proposed building a "xiaokang family," giving this ancient term from the Classic of Poetry (Shijing) a new interpretation. In the New Era, the CPC has led the people to finally finish building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and has embarked on a new journey toward common prosperity. Both "xiaokang" and "common prosperity" are instances where Chinese Communists have fully drawn nourishment from fine traditional Chinese culture to innovate and develop Marxism.
On the other hand, we must use Marxism as the "soul and pulse" (hunmai) to promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture. This is the only way for traditional culture to become modern socialist culture. At the same time, this modern transformation must adapt to the developmental needs of the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Marx profoundly pointed out: "Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc.—real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness [das Bewußtsein] can never be anything else than conscious existence [das bewußte Sein], and the existence of men is their actual life-process." Fine traditional Chinese culture, as a form of "consciousness," is the crystallization of the wisdom of the Chinese nation's practice over thousands of years, produced by real, active people in ancient China, and was likewise constrained by the productive forces and relations of production of that time. Therefore, today, we must base "Two Creatives" on the contemporary practice of Chinese-path modernization.
Clearly, constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization requires finding the mutual fit between nationality and modernity. This is not a simple matter of similar word meanings, but the interconnectedness of spiritual connotations. This can only be manifested in the process of making Marxism possess Chinese characteristics and making traditional culture possess modern features under the guidance of the "Second Integration."
Third, the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization is the cultural atmosphere of the future development of Chinese-path modernization...
Any human practice requires the establishment of value objectives; without a goal, practice lacks direction. Constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization under the guidance of the "second combining" finds its practical purport in promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization. This life-renewal and modern transformation represent the dialectical unity of the national character and the contemporaneous nature of cultural construction in contemporary China. In this sense, the modern transformation of Chinese civilization is the goal to be constructed by the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization—or rather, it is the cultural atmosphere [19] that Chinese-path modernization will present in the future. General Secretary Xi Jinping has explicitly pointed out: "Marxism brought advanced ideological theories to China, activating the genes of Chinese civilization with the light of truth, leading China into the modern world, and promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization." Taking this promotion as a value objective requires clarifying the distinctions and connections between culture and civilization. Specifically, "culture" focuses more on factual judgments, while "civilization" focuses more on value judgments. That is, civilization is the positive value orientation of culture, manifesting a state of human progress and the historical advancement achieved by humanity in its efforts to overcome contradictions between man and nature, man and society, and man and self. Therefore, the goal of promoting the modern transformation of Chinese civilization actually places higher demands on the construction of the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. To achieve this goal, we must both expound the contemporary value of traditional culture and advance the process of the Sinicization of Marxism.
On one hand, we must profoundly grasp the prominent characteristics of Chinese civilization, innovating upon Chinese excellent traditional culture on the basis of inheritance, and consciously expounding its contemporary value. Chinese civilization possesses prominent continuity, innovativeness, unity, inclusiveness, and peacefulness. These five prominent characteristics constitute the foundation for our holistic understanding of Chinese civilization. Continuity requires us to understand the developmental direction of Chinese civilization through the lens of five thousand years of history; innovativeness requires us to understand its mode of development with an attitude of "discarding the old to bring forth the new" [20]; unity requires us to understand its convictions through the lens of "diversity within integrity" [21]; inclusiveness requires us to understand its substance with an attitude of "harmony and coexistence" [22]; and peacefulness requires us to understand its principles with an attitude of "appreciating the beauty of others to achieve shared beauty" [23]. Based on a profound grasp of the developmental laws of Chinese civilization, we must imbue Chinese excellent traditional culture with new substance via the spirit of the times and use its superior qualities to propel the new development of Chinese-path modernization.
On the other hand, we must persist in taking the concrete realities of contemporary China as our starting point and advance the Sinicization of Marxism on the basis of the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Reviewing the path we have traveled, Chinese Communists have developed Marxism that is Sinicized and adapted to the times based on combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China's concrete realities and with Chinese excellent traditional culture. In this sense, Marxism has already become an important force in driving the modern transformation of Chinese civilization. Therefore, facing the future, we must—while persisting in the basic tenets of Marxism—revolve closely around China's concrete national conditions to continuously open up new frontiers for the Sinicized Marxism and develop the Marxism of 21st-century China. It must be emphasized that China's concrete national conditions include both the material dimension—namely the level of development of the productive forces and the relations of production—and the spiritual dimension, namely Chinese cultural traditions. Only by being rooted in the fertile soil of Chinese excellent traditional culture can contemporary Chinese Marxism possess more of a Chinese temperament and style, and be better suited to guiding the developmental practice of contemporary China.
We believe that the modern transformation of Chinese civilization will create a successful paradigm of the "second combining." It is an organic unity of national character and contemporaneous nature, and even more so, the concrete manifestation of the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. Constructing this cultural form under the guidance of the "second combining" means further promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization at a new historical starting point. It means further advancing the creative transformation and innovative development of Chinese excellent traditional culture, and further advancing the Sinicization and adaptation of Marxism to the times, so as to "allow Marxism to become Chinese and Chinese excellent traditional culture to become modern."
In sum, using the "second combining" as the methodology for promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization requires, first, the establishment of a constructive way of thinking characterized by "holding the two extremes and using the mean, and upholding the mean to achieve harmony" [24], while discarding the "either-or" [25] style of intellectual [26] thinking. Second, when constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, we must seek the mutual fit between national character and contemporaneous nature under the guidance of constructive thinking, constantly balancing the tension between "tradition" and "modernity." Finally, we must be clear that the practical purport of constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization is to promote the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization. On this basis, we must continuously promote the Sinicization of Marxism and the modernization of Chinese excellent traditional culture, allowing them to bear new cultural fruits in the practice of Chinese-path modernization.