Ding Liqun: The Basic Logic of the Cultural Theory of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era
The establishment of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture has further perfected the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. Conducting in-depth research into Xi Jinping Thought on Culture and elucidating its profound connotations is a major task for contemporary research in the philosophy of culture. Xi Jinping Thought on Culture touches upon all aspects of cultural theory and practice, comprehensively demonstrating the fundamental logic of socialist cultural theory with Chinese characteristics in the New Era; it constitutes a complete conceptual system. The "general problem" [1] of this conceptual system is the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture; revolving around this general problem are a series of interconnected derivative problems. Within this framework, the resolution of the general problem also prefigures the answers to the derivative problems.
I. Culture and Cultural Tradition: A "Future-Oriented" View of Cultural Tradition
When confronting the issue of the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, one must first answer what culture is and what cultural tradition is.
Culture is a phenomenon unique to human society, categorized into broad and narrow senses. In the broad sense, culture includes human sensations, perceptions, concepts, thoughts, and all creations reached by labor practice. At the Meeting on Cultural Inheritance and Development held on June 2, 2023, Xi Jinping pointed out: "The Chinese nation, with the spirit of 'if you can innovate for one day, innovate every day, and keep innovating day after day,' [2] has continuously created its own material, spiritual, and political civilizations, standing among the nations of the world as the most prosperous and powerful civilization for a long historical period." The sum of the "material, spiritual, and political civilizations" mentioned here is what is called culture in the broad sense. Broad-sense culture is actually the sum total of human creations, which constitutes the "human world" as described by Marx and Engels. In the narrow sense, culture refers to spiritual culture, taking forms such as literature, art, and ideological concepts. According to the understanding of the British cultural anthropologist Edward Tylor, culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. It can be roughly divided into three levels—psychological, conceptual, and ideological—the core of which is various types of knowledge as spiritual products; this clearly refers to culture in the narrow sense. When Xi Jinping Thought on Culture employs the concept of "culture," except in specific contexts—such as the aforementioned sum of "material, spiritual, and political civilizations" meaning culture in the broad sense—in most cases, it refers to culture in the narrow sense, specifically spiritual culture.
"Traditional culture" and "cultural tradition" are a pair of interconnected concepts: traditional culture constitutes the basic content of cultural tradition. In general understanding, "traditional culture" tends toward representing cultural tradition in a static sense, while "cultural tradition" is the "fluid" state or historical form of traditional culture, tending toward a dynamic representation. In certain contexts, the two can be used synonymously. Regarding the nature of cultural tradition, two distinct viewpoints generally exist. One view sees cultural tradition as something given and stagnant—that is, cultural tradition is the solidified, stable residue inherited through long historical accumulation of a specific culture, a cultural relic or cultural "mummy" of a past history. The other view regards cultural tradition as a ceaselessly regenerating organic life-form, a constantly growing vital existence.
The former view adheres to a physical conception of time and is "past-oriented." Among the three dimensions of historical time, it defines cultural tradition within the "past": so-called cultural tradition is a given existence already "passed" by history, while the "present" and "future" should be poured into the molds of the "past," becoming copies of past history to be reproduced indefinitely. This turns the "present" and "future" into empty temporal forms devoid of new content, whose value of existence lies merely in carrying the stale "past." On this basis, such an understanding solidifies tradition and concentrates its primary energy on determining so-called "traditional spiritual characteristics." This is a form of cultural fundamentalism that inevitably leads to cultural isolationism. Its fatal flaw is that it completely denies the possibility of creative transformation and innovative development of cultural tradition in an ontological sense.
The latter view of cultural tradition, however, adheres to a humanistic conception of time which, unlike the physical conception, is "future-oriented." This view holds that cultural tradition is not, as commonly perceived, a stagnant and solidified historical record or cultural "mummy" existing in the "past." On the contrary, it views cultural tradition as a unity of "completed culture" and "uncompleted culture." Within the three dimensions of historical time, it takes the "future" as its orientation, the "present" as the source of its problems, and the "past" as its foundation. Under such a conceptual framework, the "present (reality)" and "future (ideal)" significance of cultural tradition can be fully excavated; the "past," "present," and "future" do not become empty physical time-slots, but rather the process of generation and enrichment of an organic life-form. As Xi Jinping pointed out at the Seminar on Philosophy and Social Sciences on May 17, 2016, we must "both look forward to accurately judge the development trends of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and look backward to be adept at inheriting and promoting the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture." To "look forward" is to envision the "future" and be "future-oriented"; to "look backward" is to take the "past" as the foundation. Cultural tradition understood in this way is a process that enables fine traditional Chinese culture to achieve creative transformation and innovative development that "innovates day after day, and keeps innovating day after day."
Undoubtedly, the latter view is the correct understanding of cultural tradition. Under this perspective, cultural tradition manifests as a successive relationship of transformation between the "cultural essence" (本体, běntǐ) and "cultural variants" (变体, biàntǐ). According to Gadamer’s hermeneutics, the process of interpreting cultural tradition is a process of "fusion of horizons" between the interpreting subject and the historical inheritance, from which cultural variants emerge in contrast to the cultural essence. In every era where cultural tradition grows and circulates, there exists one or more interpretive texts of that tradition—that is, cultural variants. These continuous cultural variants are, in essence, the continued development of the cultural essence itself within the current era. It is precisely the successive transformation of the essence and the variants that dissolves the fixed structure of cultural tradition: the variants of the tradition constantly change the appearance and connotation of the essence, causing the tradition to exist in a process of constant dissolution and reconstruction, thereby achieving "vitalization." Understanding fine traditional Chinese culture as an active life-form and a continuous process of growth constitutes the ontological foundation for its creative transformation and innovative development.
II. Creative Transformation and Innovative Development of Fine Traditional Chinese Culture
On the basis of a correct understanding of culture and cultural tradition, we can more profoundly understand and grasp the issue of the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture.
The revival of fine traditional Chinese culture is coordinated by "reality" and oriented toward the "future." That is to say, this revival is not a "fetish for antiquity" characterized by "transmitting but not creating, believing in and loving the ancients" (Analects: Shu Er) [3], but is aimed at the future, dedicated to solving the real-world problems we face. A significant "cultural lag" has formed between the original forms of fine traditional Chinese culture and the present era. This has caused it to appear strained when facing challenges from foreign cultures; it can neither successfully resist the impact of foreign cultures nor be directly used as the ideological and cultural foundation for socialism with Chinese characteristics. To eliminate this "cultural lag" and make fine traditional Chinese culture truly modern, we must ensure its revival is not a fundamentalist one, but rather realizes creative transformation and innovative development.
On one hand, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture means dissolving the feudal elements within its concepts, propositions, and theories to realize a shift in the "cultural paradigm." The term "cultural paradigm" here refers to the concept Alasdair MacIntyre developed by adapting Thomas Kuhn’s "scientific paradigm" for the cultural sphere, also referred to as "tradition" or "community." A cultural paradigm undergoes three stages in its development: the establishment of tradition, the crisis of tradition, and the reconstruction of tradition. However, unlike Kuhn’s emphasis on the non-continuity of the historical logic of paradigm shifts, MacIntyre emphasizes the continuity of the historical logic of a tradition or community. That is to say, within the crisis of a cultural tradition, that tradition may use another vital cultural tradition to reconstruct a new cognitive framework and theoretical system to resolve the crisis, thereby continuing to endure. MacIntyre’s view of cultural tradition has certain heuristic value for understanding the life-renewal and modern transformation of fine traditional Chinese culture. The paradigm shift of fine traditional Chinese culture is not a complete rupture with cultural tradition or a wholesale negation of traditional culture; rather, it is the injection of new vitality into traditional culture to promote its rebirth and remolding.
On the other hand, promoting creative transformation and innovative development means conducting a holistic "modern reconstruction" of fine traditional Chinese culture under the guidance of Marxism, within the context of global modernization, and with the goal of advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization. "Innovative development" indicates the direction of "creative transformation"—that is, this transformation is neither the fundamentalist revival sought by cultural conservatives, nor the quasi-fundamentalist revival of New Confucians who take Confucian philosophy as the "core" (宗, zōng) while integrating foreign thoughts. Instead, it uses the "light of truth" from Marxism to activate the genes of fine traditional Chinese culture, enabling it to leap from the traditional to the modern and develop a modern form: socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. This process is one of mutual interpretation and integration between the basic principles of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture. It uses advanced Marxist ideological theory to stimulate the exuberant vigor and vitality of fine traditional Chinese culture, enabling it to successfully respond to and solve the era-defining problems we currently face. Simultaneously, it enriches the cultural life of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, promoting the continuous realization of new leaps in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and the creation of a new form of human civilization.
In research on this issue, two ideological tendencies merit attention. The first tendency is to mechanically compare or simply equate certain Marxist propositions and theories with certain concepts and thoughts from fine traditional Chinese culture. For example, mechanically comparing the "Great Unity" (datong) [4] society longed for in fine traditional Chinese culture with the communist ideal of Marxism, or simply equating the "people as the foundation" (minben) [5] thought in fine traditional Chinese culture with the CPC’s value of "putting the people first," assuming they are identical and interchangeable. This so-called "interchangeability" essentially treats Marxism as the cultural ideology of a feudal society; this is completely baseless and absolutely unacceptable. In reality, they possess only formal similarities while being fundamentally different in substance. The combination of the basic principles of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture "is not a 'platter' of disparate parts, nor a simple 'physical reaction,' but a profound 'chemical reaction' that creates a new, organically unified cultural life-form." It "makes Marxism Chinese, makes fine traditional Chinese culture modern, and makes the new culture formed through this 'combination' the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization." For fine traditional Chinese culture, the advanced ideological theory of Marxism is the most important stimulus; only under its guidance can fine traditional Chinese culture radiate new life-vitality in the new historical period.
The second tendency is to overlook the excellent components of Western culture. Xi Jinping emphasized: "We must be adept at integrating resources from the past and present, China and abroad, especially taking hold of three types of resources," namely: Marxist resources, resources of fine traditional Chinese culture, and resources of foreign philosophy and social sciences. Western culture is an important component of foreign philosophy and social sciences and constitutes a key background element that we must face in advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization. Western modernization was the first relatively mature model in the process of world modernization and briefly became the goal pursued by developing countries. In fact, Chinese-path modernization has, from the outset, aimed to overcome the various defects of Western modernization and reconstruct the basic standards and ideal forms of modernization. Therefore, as the cultural ideology of Western modernization, Western culture is also an important resource that requires critical assimilation in order to promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture and to develop the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization.
III. Cultural Subjectivity: Cultural Innovation and Cultural Practice
The creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese overdue culture embodies the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation and constitutes a great cultural practice based upon it. "For any culture to stand firm, travel far, and possess leading power, cohesive power, shaping power, and radiant power, it must have its own subjectivity. The Communist Party of China has always attached importance to culture; in the New Era, we have added cultural confidence to our confidence in our path, theory, and system. Cultural confidence comes from our cultural subjectivity."
Cultural subjectivity actually originates from human subjectivity. From a philosophical perspective, human subjectivity is the ascent of human self-consciousness from a state of being "in-itself" (自在, zìzài) to a state of being "for-itself" (自为, zìwéi), thereby reaching a level of self-awareness [6]. It manifests as consciousness of freedom, autonomy, and initiative, as well as creative practical activities governed by this consciousness. Culture is the mode of human existence; human subjectivity naturally expresses itself within culture, forming cultural subjectivity. What is called cultural subjectivity is the self-conscious understanding and reflection on the culture to which an individual belongs, alongside creative cultural practice; it manifests as the self-conscious innovation and continuous growth of cultural traditions. One might say that cultural subjectivity inherently contains the implication of cultural practice.
The concept of "cultural practice" was derived by the British Marxist Raymond Williams from Marx's concept of "social practice." He equated society with culture, viewing culture as a concept possessing social totality, and termed cultural practice "an indissoluble whole practice." Cultural practice mainly includes three forms.
First, in the sense of social continuity, cultural practice comprises social production and reproduction activities. Williams called this a "productive social force" because what it truly seeks to do is "go beyond limiting formulas to restore the whole social material process, and specifically of cultural production as social material process."
Second, regarding the relationship between culture and the basic contradictions of society, cultural practice is the process by which cultural ideology overcomes these basic contradictions. Williams pointed out that in all massive transformations of the superstructure, people can become conscious of the basic social contradictions—namely the conflict between the productive forces and relations of production—and consciously utilize law, politics, religion, art, and philosophy to overcome them. This process constitutes political and cultural practice.
Third, from the standpoint of cultural politics, the specific mechanism of cultural practice is the struggle for cultural hegemony. Williams believed that "intention" is the manifestation of the ruling class's subjectivity in cultural practice. Seeking cultural hegemony is actually a cultural practice containing "intention." It emphasizes the class distinctions of cultural dominance—referring to a dynamic cultural structure composed of dominant culture, residual culture, and emergent culture—and maintains a balance of "resistance" and "incorporation" among these three, transcending a static state of culture. Simultaneously, it remains more covertly hidden within political and economic systems, transcending relatively formally regulated and clearly articulated class ideologies.
The introduction of the concept of "cultural practice" is of great significance. It echoes the momentous change of our current era in which the role of culture is increasingly prominent, and it summarizes an important form of contemporary human practice. For the issues discussed in this article, the concept of "cultural practice" can be extracted and used to interpret the subjective connotation of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Cultural subjectivity without cultural practice is merely an empty subjectivity, much like the empty self-consciousness of idealism. So-called cultural practice is the production and reproduction of a cultural tradition possessing totality; it is the reconstruction of culture under the governance of cultural ideological leadership [7], and it naturally includes the counter-action of the cultural superstructure upon the economic base. In this sense, the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture is a great cultural practice. This understanding is consistent with Marxism.
Establishing cultural subjectivity is of vital significance. "With cultural subjectivity, we have a firm 'self' in the cultural sense, and cultural confidence has a fundamental reliance. The Communist Party of China gains a powerful cultural force to lead the times, the Chinese nation and people gain a solid cultural foundation for national identity, and Chinese civilization gains distinct cultural characteristics for exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations in the world."
With cultural subjectivity, cultural confidence gains a fundamental reliance. Cultural confidence is neither cultural arrogance nor blind faith in culture; neither can lead to cultural innovation, but only to the stagnation of cultural development. Cultural arrogance and blind faith are causally linked: blind faith is the cause, and arrogance is the effect. Both are built on irrational emotions regarding fine traditional Chinese culture. By contrast, cultural confidence is the subjectivity of a specific culture confirming that this culture possesses vigorous vitality based on a rational cognition of its own culture—that is, it possesses the profound power to successfully respond to and resolve the problems of its time. With cultural subjectivity, the cultural subject can maintain a proactive stance and positive practice when encountering foreign cultures, new environments, and new problems. Through promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional culture under new historical conditions, it can radiate new vigor and vitality.
With cultural subjectivity, the cultural identity of the Chinese nation can truly take shape. Cultural identity is of great significance as it is the foundation of ethnic and national identity. Classified by the object of identification, cultural identity can be divided into identity with one's own culture and identity with the cultures of other countries and nations. What is discussed here is the identity with one's own culture. Cultural identity is formed through long-term life within a cultural community, centering on the affirmative internalizing of the community's basic values, and further producing a comprehensive endorsement of the community's mode of production, spiritual life, habits, and beliefs. It must be emphasized that cultural tradition is not merely a completed existence from the past; due to the innovative activities of cultural subjects, it is actually in a state of constant change and growth. Therefore, forming cultural identity does not require the cultural subject to maintain absolute unity with cultural tradition at all times, but rather to maintain a dialectical unity. Within this dialectical unity, the cultural subject is the driver of the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional culture; under the subject's impetus, the relationship between the cultural subject and cultural tradition undergoes a recurring cycle from unity to difference, and then back to unity. Equating identity with immutability denies the space for the cultural subject to reflect upon and critique cultural tradition, denies the possibility of the tradition's growth, and thus denies cultural subjectivity. Only by preserving a certain rational space for the development of traditional culture—making creative transformation and innovative development possible—can cultural subjectivity truly be manifested and genuine cultural identity be formed.
With cultural subjectivity, genuine exchange and mutual learning among civilizations can occur. Civilizational exchange and mutual learning are important driving forces for the continuous development of civilizations, which is particularly evident in the era of globalization. Cultural exchange is essentially an exchange between cultural subjects, involving issues of "intersubjectivity" and "interculturality." Western philosophers have studied "intersubjectivity" extensively, emphasizing that it should be a reciprocal subjectivity—that is, forming an equal relationship of mutual subjects in human interaction, while forming a "co-presence" of a shared subject through communication. When this "intersubjective" relationship is reflected in cultural issues, it becomes "interculturality." In the problem of interculturality, there is likewise no "subject-object" relationship, but rather an "intersubjective" relationship. Cultural exchange is a process of mutual learning and mutual appreciation between two or more cultural subjects; it will overcome cultural hegemonism and cultural colonialism, creating an equal dialogue based on the principle of communicative rationality. As Xi Jinping pointed out in his keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations on May 15, 2019: "Exchange and mutual learning among civilizations should be reciprocal and equal, diverse and multi-directional, not forced or coerced, nor single or one-way. We should break down the barriers to cultural exchange with a broad mind that embraces all rivers [8], and absorb the nutrients of other civilizations with an attitude of inclusiveness."
With cultural subjectivity, we can create a new form of civilization. The "new form of civilization" is defined in opposition to the old capitalist civilization. If we calculate from the 16th century, capitalist civilization has lasted for more than 400 years. During these four centuries, both the progressiveness and the defects of capitalist civilization have been fully revealed, thus subjected to profound reflection and critique both within developed capitalist countries and throughout the broad range of developing nations. People increasingly recognize that the expansion of the "logic of capital"—centered on instrumental rationality and utilitarian principles upheld by capitalist civilization—has caused serious harm to human society. There is now an urgent need to create a new form of civilization to replace it. In this process, the cultural subjectivity of many developing countries has begun to awaken, and modernization has moved from a unitary model of "catching up with the West" toward a pluralistic model. Since the beginning of the modern era, Chinese intellectuals have reflected on traditional Chinese culture and the question of China's path amidst the conflict between "the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the Western." It was not until the exploration and practice of Chinese-path modernization after the founding of the People's Republic of China that we found the correct path: the path of transcending the old capitalist civilization and creating a new form of human civilization. Regarding this, Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must strengthen the excavation and elucidation of fine traditional Chinese culture, making the most basic cultural genes of the Chinese nation compatible with contemporary culture and coordinated with modern society, and promoting the cultural spirit that spans time and space, transcends national borders, possesses eternal charm, and has contemporary value. We must promote the creative transformation and innovative development of Chinese civilization, activate its vitality, and let Chinese civilization provide the correct spiritual guidance for humanity alongside the colorful civilizations created by the peoples of all nations."
IV. Culture and Civilization: Reconstructing Modernity and the New Form of Civilization
The original meaning of the word "culture" in Latin refers to the tilling of the soil and the cultivation of plants, emphasizing the separation of man from nature caused by human transformation of nature. In a broad sense, culture refers to all human activities and their results, including material, institutional, and spiritual dimensions. Culture is the foundation of civilization. The root of the word "civilization" relates to "cities" and "citizens," originating from the urban life that appeared when culture reached a certain level of development. Civilization represents the state of progress of humans, society, and the state. If culture is contrasted with nature, then civilization is contrasted with barbarism. Civilization is the advanced state and positive outcome of culture. In modern social life, the cultural subject has developed from a state of being "in-itself" to "for-itself," and thus possesses the conditions to conduct conscious, totalizing cultural practices. Reflections upon and critiques of civilizational forms, as well as the creation of new forms of civilization, all belong to this kind of conscious, totalizing cultural practice. This naturally includes various modern critical trends popular in the West, such as the Frankfurt School, contemporary cultural studies, and various postmodernist trends. However, that which combines this intellectual critique with a positive, realistic practical activity is undoubtedly the expansion of Chinese-path modernization and the building of a community with a shared future for humanity. Within this, Chinese-path modernization, rooted in the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, provides a reference model for the creation of a new form of civilization; the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity, proceeding from the relationship between the national and the global nature of civilization, builds a world-historical stage for constructing a new type of civilizational relationship.
The global movement of modernization has undergone a process from unitarism to pluralism. Western modernization was the initial form of modernization and possessed a certain "paradigmatic" quality. The universalization and promotion of this modernization formed the "catch-up" model of modernization for developing countries. However, because the inherent defects of Western modernization triggered universal social crises and simultaneous conflicts between the traditional and the modern, the result was often the interruption of the modernization process in developing countries. This promoted the disintegration of the unitary Western concept of modernization and the exploration of pluralistic modernization paths by developing countries—though the latter might contain an undercurrent of cultural relativism due to an overemphasis on the particularity of their own modernization. Chinese-path modernization will reconstruct the ideal form of modernization, transcending the absolutism of Western modernization and the relativism of certain developing countries' modernizations, providing Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for world modernization.
Chinese-path modernization views modernization as a great social revolution. Unlike Western modernization, it does not view modernization and social development merely as economic processes dominated by the logic of capital, or as processes of the continuous improvement of labor productivity and the infinite expansion of capital. Rather, it manifests as the comprehensive development of material, spiritual, political, social, and ecological civilizations. Its essence is the modernization of the human being—that is, the free and well-rounded development of the individual. It is permeated by a complete rationality that encompasses both instrumental and value rationality, fundamentally distinguishing it from Western modernization, which centers on instrumental rationality, utilitarianism, and "calculative-ism." It follows a new path of industrialization that transcends the traditional industrial path: namely, a green and sustainable path of industrialization. In terms of management philosophy and models, it emphasizes the unity of fairness and efficiency based on a modern, refined division of labor. This actually reflects a new developmental philosophy distinct from Western development theory. It overcomes various crises caused by the extreme opposition between man and nature, man and man, and man and society triggered by the Western modernization path and the capitalist civilizational form. It is a thorough rewriting, re-authoring, and transcendence of Western modern civilization as it has existed for centuries.
Western modernization is intertwined with capitalist globalization. More precisely, capitalist globalization is one of the fundamental attributes of Western modernization. Therefore, transcending Western modernization on a global scale necessarily requires replacing capitalist globalization—centered on Western "universal values"—with a community with a shared future for humanity that consolidates the common values of all mankind. In doing so, it builds a world-historical stage for creating a new form of human civilization.
The core issue in promoting the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity is to correctly grasp the relationship between the particular civilizations of various countries and nations and a shared global civilization, thereby reconstructing the common values of all mankind. Prior to the modern era, the so-called "worldliness" of civilizations was not a problem, and thus the relationship between the national character and the world-historical character of a civilization did not exist. The Age of Discovery beginning in the 15th century raised the curtain on capitalist globalization and deepened people's awareness of the civilizational differences between various countries and nations. As globalization intensified, a violent conflict emerged between the traditional cultures of developing countries and the modern culture of developed Western capitalist countries. Taking modernization as an opportunity, developed Western capitalist countries forcibly promoted so-called "universal values" to assimilate the national cultures of developing nations. In response, the broad masses of developing countries emphasized the particularity of their own cultural traditions to resist Western cultural colonialism. In this process, people gradually realized that the negative logic of opposition between cultural homogenization and heterogenization must be broken. A positive, constructive logic must be established, the core of which is the creation of new norms of interaction based on the common values of all mankind as the basic guide to resolve various global problems. That is to say, we must dissolve the false universality represented by Western "universal values" established in previous globalizing processes and reconstruct a true universality. This universality encompasses the interests and needs of all countries and nations in the world and serves as a new value bond sustaining globalization. The concept of a community with a shared future for humanity emerged in response to these times.
The common values of all mankind advocated and maintained by the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity differ from Western "universal values." It breaks through the narrowness and abstraction of "universal values" and represents the unity of universality and particularity—the "common good" of the cultures of all countries and nations. Promoting the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity around these common values provides a brand-new alternative for establishing new, equal international relations based on communicative rationality, dissolving the old international relations characterized by "center-semi-periphery-periphery" [9] or "center-dependency" [10]. Promoting the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity will also form a new cultural experience. Since Marshall McLuhan proposed the concept of the "global village," people have become accustomed to understanding this concept in the sense of the shrinking of global geographical space. In fact, within the explanatory framework of a community with a shared future for humanity, the "global village" concept possesses not only a spatial meaning but also an internal experiental quality, providing people with a different kind of value support and psychological anchor. This value support and psychological anchor no longer find their final destination merely in the national community, but are able to transcend the national community and find their destination in the community with a shared future for humanity. Correspondingly, it will no longer cause people to feel a sense of alienation or a "law of the jungle" regarding the world, but rather a warm "sense of home."
Evidently, advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization and promoting the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity together constitute a beneficial reflection on and critique of capitalist modernity. They reconstruct the basic principles of modernity and do not stop at the purely theoretical level. Instead, they combine theory with practice, striving to create a brand-new form of civilization that the world anticipates within the historic undertaking of building a strong country and achieving national rejuvenation.