Zou Guangwen: The Methodology of the "Second Integration" in Constructing the Cultural Form of Chinese Modernization
Today, striving to achieve Chinese-path modernization has undoubtedly become the main theme of our era. The great practice of reform and opening up allowed China to win a rare opportunity for development; under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Chinese people have achieved world-renowned success in modernization. Especially since the 18th National Congress [1], 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 socialist modernization practice with Chinese characteristics that we have undertaken. Chinese-path modernization focuses on the coordinated development of material and spiritual civilizations. While creating immense 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' [2] allows Marxism to become Chinese and the fine traditional Chinese culture to become modern, and allows the new culture formed through this '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 this cultural form. The "second integration" effectively resolves the cultural tension between "tradition" and "modernity" that has existed since China's modern era. it both highlights the modern characteristics of Marxism and foregrounds the inclusivity 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 "Second Integration" as a Resolution to the Tension Between "Tradition" and "Modernity"
At the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically expounded the great significance of the "two integrations" [3] and emphasized the important status of the "second integration." He pointed out: "To open up and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics on the deep foundation of more than 5,000 years of Chinese civilization, the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture is the path we must take. This is a regular understanding we have gained in our exploration of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics." The "second integration" allows us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture within a broader cultural space, exploring theoretical and institutional innovations for China's future developmental practice. This important thesis put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping is a scientific judgment based precisely on China’s specific national conditions, especially the difficult and tortuous course of China’s modernization exploration since the beginning of the modern era [4].
With the outbreak of the Opium War in 1840, China’s gates were forced open by "sturdy ships and powerful cannons" [5]; China was forcibly dragged into the historical process of globalization and gradually fell into the state of 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 ideological resources for modernization culturally. Against this broad background, the Chinese people began to develop a sense of national crisis and to reflect soberly on the nation's future developmental path. In 1842, Wei Yuan first proposed the idea of "learning the superior techniques of the barbarians to control the barbarians" (shiyi changji yi zhiyi). This idea was recognized by some progressive individuals seeking change at the time, becoming the ideological germ of the Westernization Movement (Yangwu Yundong) [6]. Those who identified with this thought formed the Westernization Faction (Yangwupai), while those who disagreed were called the Diehards (Wangupai). "Regarding modern Western culture, the Diehards took a stance of total rejection, advocating for the 'distinction between barbarians and the Huaxia' (yi xia zhi bian); the Westernization Faction took a relatively open stance, advocating for 'Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for application' (zhongxue wei ti, xixue wei yong). 'Chinese essence and Western application' (Zhong-Ti Xi-Yong) was the principle of the Westernization Faction for handling the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures, and also the weapon they used to hit back at the attacks from the Diehards." It can be said that it was precisely from the debate over "Essence" (Ti) and "Application" (Yong) between the Westernization Faction and the 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 Western civilization, "leaving Asia and entering Europe" (Datsu-A Nyu-O), developing modern education, improving the knowledge 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 daily. The First Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1894, ended in China's total defeat. This marked the complete failure of the Qing government's 30-year Westernizing efforts, and the modernization achievements that had been gained turned to naught. 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 (Weixin-pai), led by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, began to advocate for reform to strengthen the country, hoping to learn from the West in politics, economy, military, and education. This reflected a trend of learning from and aligning with the West as comprehensively as Japan had done. However, these ideas failed before they could be fully put into practice. From this, we can see that by exploring the highly nationalistic proposition of the relationship between "Essence" and "Application," the thinkers of that time expressed the fundamental attitude of the Chinese people in "opening their eyes to see the world" and participating in the process of globalization.
We know that Japan historically learned from China over a long period, even using this to advance its social-historical process. However, when the wave of global human modernization reached the East—especially when the Western powers sailed their warships to the doorstep—Japan very resolutely chose to learn from the Western powers that had invaded it, with almost no agonizing over the "Essence" and "Application" issue. Japan's rapid transformation was inseparable from its historical tradition of being adept at learning from powerful nations, and was also related to the vigorous promotion of Western civilization by Japanese thinkers represented by Fukuzawa Yukichi. For example, Fukuzawa Yukichi once believed that "Currently, all nations in the world, even those in a state of barbarism or semi-civilization, if they wish to advance their own civilization, must take European civilization as the goal, establish it as the standard for all discourse, and use this standard to measure the advantages and disadvantages of things." It is clear that Fukuzawa Yukichi advocated for 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 ideas 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 remained hesitant and wavering in the dilemma of "Essence" and "Application"? The key to understanding this may lie in the fact that China is a country with 5,000 years of continuous civilizational history, and for a long period it even occupied a leading position in the global civilizational structure. This long history of civilization determined that it was impossible for China, like Japan, to abandon its own cultural tradition and learn comprehensively from the West; however, the pressure of reality forced China to seek cultural change. Although the Chinese exhausted all possible combinations of the "Essence" and "Application" relationship in an attempt to find the answer to correctly handling the tension between "tradition" and "modernity," they eventually all met with failure. This further triggered reflection among the Chinese people: how can a nation choose so as to both move toward modernization and maintain its own national identity? This reflection continued into the early 20th century. The generation of Chinese intellectuals who launched the New Culture Movement [7] had witnessed the failure of the Westernization Movement and the Hundred Days' Reform [8], and had also seen Japan successfully modernize through the Meiji Restoration. This sense of urgency of the times, as well as the sense of humiliation from being oppressed, prompted them to resolutely take the path of anti-traditionalism. They even put forward the rather extreme slogan "Down with Confucius and Sons" (dadao Kongjiadian). One can see this stark anti-traditional attitude in the statements of representative figures of the New Culture Movement such as Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, Wu Yu, Qian Xuantong, and Lu Xun.
The choice of the New Culture Movement to thoroughly reject traditional culture, though appearing too absolute from a contemporary perspective, played a positive role in promoting China's movement toward modernization and its acceptance of the modern ideas of democracy and science under the historical conditions of that 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" very well.
In 1921, the CPC was founded. Under the leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people began the historical practice of exploring modernization. In a sense, the century-long history of the Party's founding is a history of the CPC leading the Chinese people to explore and practice modernization and construct its own theory of modernization. The CPC takes Marxism as its guiding ideology and the establishment of a modern socialist country and the ultimate realization of communism as its goal. That is, although modern Chinese history began in 1840, it was only from 1921 that we truly entered the history in which the CPC leads the Chinese people to explore modernization and construct a theory of modernization. In this process of historical practice, Chinese Communists inevitably had to face and answer the question of the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity." Admittedly, on the issue of modernization, Chinese Communists also underwent an arduous process of exploration that moved in a self-transcending spiral. For example, the slogan of destroying the "Four Olds" (old culture, old ideas, old customs, and old habits) put forward during the Cultural Revolution actually constituted an indiscriminate destruction of tradition and the most thorough break with it. However, after we walked out of the tortuous path of the "Cultural Revolution," Chinese Communists, based on theoretical self-awareness of China’s national conditions and Marxism, gained a brand-new understanding and interpretation of the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity." This is prominently reflected in the historical practice of China’s modernization since reform and opening up.
The history of the great practice of reform and opening up is not only a history of internal reform and external opening for China, but more importantly, a history in which the modernization practice of the Chinese nation moved from spontaneity to self-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 is a great awakening of our Party, and it is precisely this great awakening that gave birth to the great creations of our Party from theory to practice." Reform and opening up not only allowed China to truly integrate into the world and open up a path of modernization suitable for China’s national conditions in practice, but also inherently included a redefinition of the relationship between "tradition" and "modernity" in theory. This kind of great awakening allowed Chinese Communists to reach an increasingly clear conclusion: 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 a long and arduous exploration of China’s path to modernization.
At the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh CPC Central Committee, Mao Zedong clearly stated that the primary task after winning the Chinese revolution was to "steadily transform China from an agricultural country into an industrial country and build China into a great socialist state." Zhou Enlai first proposed the idea of the "Four Modernizations" at the first session of the First National People's Congress, namely, "building a powerful and modern industry, modern agriculture, modern transport, and modern national defense." It can be seen that the first generation of leaders' thinking on China's modernization was a process of continuous development, reflecting the deepening of Chinese Communists' thinking on the issue of modernization. On the basis of inheriting the "Four Modernizations" [9], Deng Xiaoping further developed modernization theory, pointing out: "Our concept is different from that of the West. For the time being, I will use a new term called 'Chinese-style four modernizations'." Later, he further summarized it as "Chinese-style modernization" [10] and emphasized that "Chinese-style modernization must proceed from China's characteristics." Deng Xiaoping further promoted the innovation of China's modernization theory and practice and placed special emphasis on the fact that "Chinese-style modernization" must proceed from China's characteristics, which actually indicated that China's modernization practice cannot leave China's national conditions or be separated from the soil of national cultural traditions.
In the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, building upon the foundations of exploration and practice since the Reform and Opening-up, has further advanced and expanded China's practice of modernization, clearly delineating the development blueprint for "Chinese-path modernization." The proposal of "Chinese-path modernization" marks that the Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the Chinese people in finding a path to modernization that has been tested by practice and suits China’s national conditions. As the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized, "Only by integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with its fine traditional culture, and only 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, upholding the "Two Integrations" is inseparable from the practice of advancing Chinese-path modernization—that is, the "Two Integrations" have consistently accompanied the historical process of advancing Chinese-path modernization. Furthermore, the proposal of the "Second Integration" indicates that Chinese Communists have, in their practical exploration of modernization, found a method to overcome the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" faced by ancient China in its journey toward modernization since the beginning of the modern era [11]; they have found a method to resolve the long-standing contradiction facing China as an ancient civilization that must both realize modernization and inherit its own national traditional culture. Therefore, the "Second Integration" plays a deeper and more fundamental role in advancing the historical practice of Chinese-path modernization, which will effectively enhance the cultural self-confidence of Chinese-path modernization and fortify its path-based foundation.
Only in this sense can we profoundly understand the major significance of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s statement that "the 'Second Integration' is another liberation of the mind." The long-term backwardness of modern China caused the Chinese people to unconsciously form a zero-sum, intellectualized [12] mindset—the idea that "tradition" and "modernity" are mutually exclusive, and that to achieve modernization one must be anti-traditional and must make a clean break with tradition. However, the practice of China's modernization since the Reform and Opening-up demonstrates that we have successfully cultivated the fruits of modernization within the soil of the Chinese nation's tradition. This has allowed us to gain a new understanding of the developmental models of modernization and has achieved another liberation of the mind in a constructive sense. In short, the CPC, guided by Marxism, has creatively proposed the "Second Integration" in its practical exploration of China's modernization, thereby successfully overcoming the dualistic opposition between "tradition" and "modernity" and achieving another liberation of the mind. Why, then, is the "Second Integration" able to effectively overcome the tension between "tradition" and "modernity," powerfully advance the practical development of Chinese-path modernization, and create the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization? This requires us to further elucidate the thoughts on modernity contained within the Marxist ideological system.
II. Marxism Signifies the Ideal Dimension of Human Modernization Practice
Marxism is the guiding ideology through which contemporary Chinese Communists transform the world and realize modernization, and it contains profound thoughts on modernity. Consciously examining Marx's thoughts on modernity and their value implications will help us more deeply grasp the theoretical content of the "Second Integration," thereby allowing us to better advance the construction of the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization under its guidance and better complete the "unfinished project" [13] of modernity. Specifically, Marx's thoughts on modernity can be examined from the following three aspects.
First, Marxist theory is itself a theory of modernity, signifying the ideal dimension of human modernization practice.
As we know, Marxist theory was formed and developed within the historical practice of human modernization. Neither the background of its emergence nor its core value concerns can be separated from the themes of the age: modernization and modernity. In 19th-century Europe, capitalism had already developed to a considerable degree; in particular, countries like Britain, France, and Germany had completed or were undergoing the Industrial Revolution. Marx placed himself at the very forefront of the Industrial Revolution; while writing Capital, he lived for a long time in Britain, the country that first completed the Industrial Revolution and was the most industrially developed. It was precisely because of such firsthand experience that Marx could more deeply understand a modernization dominated by the logic of capital, and thus more comprehensively scrutinize and critique capitalism and its ideas of modernity. It can therefore be said that Marxist theory is itself a theory of modernity that is distinct from the logic of capital. We can find confirmation of this in Marx's texts. For example, in The German Ideology, Marx proposed the theory of universal social intercourse [14], arguing that capitalism opened up world history: "Large-scale 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, and as it swept away the former natural isolation of separate nations." In his works, Marx also proposed categories such as "modern society" and "capitalist society"; one could say these categories are different representations of the discourse of modernity or the discourse of human modernization practice, demonstrating Marxist theory's conscious concern for the grand narrative of human modernization.
Furthermore, the attitude Marx took in his analysis of the logic of capital was one of dual concern, unifying the scale of rationality with the scale of values. This is reflected, on the one hand, in Marx’s affirmation in his texts of capital’s historical contribution to the development of human modernization. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx points 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 capitalist large-scale industry promoted the global expansion of capital, drawing all nations into the historical process of human modernization. In Marx's view, capitalism made not only local and national social production impossible, but also "intellectual production." On the basis of this intellectual production, the future literary form Marx looked forward to—"world literature"—would emerge. This is 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 all nations of the world, and he saw the anti-human dimension of capital. Marx pointed out, "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 self-expansion [15] of value, thereby inhibiting the all-around development of the person. Furthermore, Marx strongly condemned the colonial aggression of Western powers against Eastern countries, including China and India, referring to the Second Opium War launched by Britain and France as "piratical-like expansion." This is the indictment Marx leveled against capitalism from a value perspective.
From the arguments above, 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 a value perspective, Marx's thoughts on modernity run through both. Marx’s deconstruction and critique of capital specifically represent the ideal dimension of the theory and practice of human modernization. That is to say, the "is" (actuality) of human modernization has already been presented through the expansion of capital, but the practice of human modernization also has an "ought" (ideal) dimension, which is precisely what Marx highlights through his deconstruction and critique of capital. In this sense, the view of Marx as a modernist and the view of him as a postmodernist may seem diametrically opposed, but they are not actually contradictory, as both evaluations of Marxist theory revolve around the historical logic of modernization and modernity—they simply interpret it from different angles. Reflecting on modernity and its problems is the core theme of Marx's ideological construction. Overall, Marxism affirms that modernization is the irreversible direction of human history, but simultaneously critiques the social problems brought about by the Western practice of modernization dominated by the logic of capital. Through this critique, it constructs its own theory of modernity, signifying the ideal dimension of human modernization practice.
Second, Marx’s elucidation of thoughts on modernity is characterized by openness and a future-oriented nature; that is, Marx constructed his own thoughts on modernity within the value-driven pursuit of changing the world.
Openness and a future-oriented nature are prominent features of Marx's thoughts on modernity, manifested specifically in two aspects. On the one hand, from the perspective of Marx’s thought itself, Marx argued that "dialectics 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 way of thinking is not so much a doctrine as a method. It provides not finished dogmas, but starting points for further investigation and the method for such investigation." Engels’ summary of Marx’s thought even more clearly points out its open and future-oriented characteristics. Indeed, Marxism does not cling to any given form of things; within its affirmation of capitalism’s creation of world history, it simultaneously includes a negation of the one-sided development of the person caused by capitalism. 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 socialist countries around the world after Marx's death, also prove that Marx's thoughts on 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 [16] within historical materialism was somewhat inadequate for explaining Eastern societies; thus, Eastern societies required special attention and research in order to further refine historical materialism. In reality, in Marx's view, there was no single, authoritative [17] model for the development of human modernization. In his "Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski," he pointed out that his historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe was not a "historico-philosophical theory of the marche générale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself." This fully demonstrates that Marx's thoughts on modernity possess openness and a future-oriented nature, 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 China's socialist practice have both proven the correctness of Marx's theoretical views on Eastern societies and the openness and future-oriented nature of his thoughts on modernity.
Third, Chinese-path modernization represents the internal transcendence of Marxist thoughts on modernity over capitalist thoughts on modernity.
In previous Eurocentric discourses, it was often assumed that capitalism represented the social form of modernization—that is, that capitalism and modernity were identical. However, the development of human modernization practices to the present day has fully demonstrated that the combination of capitalism and modernity is merely one way in which modernity manifests; human modernization practices contain an inherent value dimension of self-transcendence. To be sure, in the era of globalization, any nation in the world moving from tradition toward the future and truly completing the historic leap from traditional agricultural civilization to industrial civilization must inevitably 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 currently striving to catch up with modernization have integrated their own national cultural characteristics during their modernization practices, thereby presenting various distinct models of 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 its total termination, but rather transcends a specific form of modern development—'capitalist modernity'—to move toward a new form: 'socialist modernity.'"
It is precisely based on the internal transcendence of Marx’s thoughts on modernity over those of capitalist modernity that Chinese communists proposed the proposition of the "Second Combination." The rational unfolding of this proposition’s connotation intends to emphasize: given that Marxism marks the ideal dimension of human modernization theory and practice, the combination 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 achieves a mutual fit and even a fusion between the two, creating the results of the renewal of Chinese civilization and its modern transformation. 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." This demonstrates that the "Second Combination" is precisely the important method by which we can overcome the tension between "tradition" and "modernity." Of course, Marxism, as a theory of modernity, is not only the logical premise of the "Second Combination" but also the internal theoretical support for the proposition of Chinese-path modernization. Once we understand Marx’s thoughts on modernity and their characteristics, we understand the significance of the "Second Combination" for constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization.
In general, through an examination of the historical background, theoretical connotations, and practical experiences of the emergence of Marxism, we have clarified that Marxist theory is itself a theory of modernity. It marks the ideal dimension of human modernization development and possesses characteristics of openness and future-orientation. At the same time, Marx’s thoughts on modernity contain an inherent transcendence of capitalist modernity; this transcendent quality has guided China to forge a modernization path with Chinese characteristics that differs from Western modernization. On this basis, the openness and future-orientation of Marxism make the "Second Combination" possible, and the combination 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 Combination" as our methodological guide, constantly promoting the renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization.
III. Constructing the Cultural Form of Chinese-path Modernization through the "Second Combination"
The "Second Combination" overcomes the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" and achieves another liberation of the mind [18]. 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 Combination" 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 use the thinking method of "grasping the two ends and using the middle, upholding the center to achieve harmony" to focus on cultural construction.
Why must we first establish the thinking method of "grasping the two ends and using the middle, upholding the center to achieve harmony" [19] 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" [20] that has persisted since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, the core issue reflected by both official and civil circles remains how to handle the tension between the two. The "Second Combination" is precisely the correct method found by Chinese communists to balance this tension, embodying a way of thinking that transcends polar opposites through "grasping the two ends and using the middle." In the view of the philosopher Hegel, thinking in polar opposites is a typical form of "understanding" (Verstand), which clings to the one-sidedness and differences of mental definitions; thus, "the struggle of reason consists in the effort to overcome the distinctions maintained by the understanding." That is to say, the premise for realizing the "Second Combination" lies in transforming our mode of thinking—moving away from the "either-or" intellectual framework regarding "tradition" and "modernity." Furthermore, when Chinese communists proposed the "Two Creativities" [21] of fine traditional Chinese culture—namely, creative transformation and innovative development—the premise was also to transform our mode of thinking. We must see that the "either-or" mindset is detrimental to the healthy development of Chinese-path modernization. The practice of Chinese-path modernization requires us to cultivate "constructive wisdom" and establish this method of thinking—being neither too conservative nor too radical—to reach a state of "Neutral-Harmony" (zhonghe) where heaven and earth move in harmony and all things grow together without conflict.
In fact, this constructive wisdom has run through the historical process of Reform and Opening-up and has been proven by its historic achievements. During his 1992 Southern Tour, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "Avoid dispute—that is for the sake of gaining time to act"; "Do not argue; try things out boldly and forge ahead boldly." The "Southern Talks" further promoted the liberation of the mind and the process of Reform and Opening-up; a very important reason for this was the constructive wisdom contained in Deng Xiaoping’s idea of "avoiding dispute" (bu zhenglun). In his speech at the second plenary session of the 17th CPC Central Committee, Hu Jintao pointed out: "All comrades of the Party must unify their thinking... persist in focusing one-mindedly on construction and seeking development... and be unwavering, unflagging, and avoid making trouble (bu zheteng) [22], moving steadfastly toward the established goals." Hu Jintao’s idea of "avoiding making trouble" inherited Deng Xiaoping’s idea of "avoiding dispute," highlighting the emphasis on construction and development; it is actually a manifestation of constructive wisdom. As mentioned earlier, General Secretary Xi Jinping noted that Reform and Opening-up was a "great awakening" for Chinese communists. I believe a prominent manifestation of this "awakening" is the consistent constructive wisdom upheld by Chinese communists in the practice of Reform and Opening-up.
Looking to the future, as we embark on the new journey of building Chinese-path modernization, we must continue to uphold this constructive wisdom and constantly improve China’s level of modernization. If we are trapped in the "either-or" framework of polar opposites, it will only stall our pace. Similarly, in constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, we must draw upon the constructive wisdom inherent in the "Second Combination" and guide our cultural practice with the method of "grasping the two ends and using the middle."
Second, constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization requires finding the points of mutual fit between nationality and modernity.
Regarding the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, "Chinese-path" highlights the dimension of cultural nationality, while "modernization" highlights the dimension of cultural modernity (or "epochal character"). We know that as a relatively independent form of philosophy, one of the most basic propositions of cultural philosophy is the relationship between nationality and modernity. In the context of human modernization practice, the tension between "tradition" and "modernity" is the specific expression of the contradiction between nationality and modernity. Therefore, when constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, we must strive to find the points where the two fit together. In this sense, this construction is inseparable from the guidance of the "Second Combination"; we must, on the basis of the "Second Combination," make Marxism more demonstrative of Chinese characteristics and make fine traditional Chinese culture more demonstrative of the characteristics of the times.
Specifically, on one hand, we must rely on fine traditional Chinese culture as our "root and pulse" (genmai) to further promote the Sinicization of Marxism, and at the theoretical level, promote the construction of a discourse system for Marxism in China. In the early stages of Sinicizing Marxism, Mao Zedong, in the process of leading the Party and the people through revolution and construction, endowed the traditional Chinese phrase "seek truth from facts" (shishi qiushi) with Marxist connotations. Mao pointed out: "'Facts' are all things that exist objectively; 'truth' is the internal link of objective things, i.e., their laws; and 'seek' is for us to study." In the New Era, whether it is the new development of Marx’s idea of community by the "community with a shared future for humanity," or the innovation of Marx’s theory of civilizations by the "new form of human advancement," both fully demonstrate the innovative vitality of Sinicized Marxism. Furthermore, theoretical innovation is inseparable from practical development; constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization is inseparable from the historical practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The proposition of the "moderately prosperous society" (xiaokang shehui) is one of the landmark innovations in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. When meeting with the then-Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira, Deng Xiaoping first proposed that China should build a "xiaokang home," allowing this ancient term from the Book of Songs to receive a new interpretation in the new period. In the New Era, the CPC led the Chinese people through hardships to finally complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects and embarked on a new journey toward common prosperity. Both "moderately prosperous society" and "common prosperity" are instances of Sinicized innovation and development of Marxism by Chinese communists, drawing nourishment from fine traditional Chinese culture during the process of socialist construction.
On the other hand, we must also use Marxism as our "soul and pulse" (hunmai) to promote the "Two Creativities" of fine traditional Chinese culture. For fine traditional Chinese culture to achieve modernization, it must undergo creative transformation and innovative development; this is the only path for it to become a 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 can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process." (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525). As a form of "consciousness," fine traditional Chinese culture is the crystallization of the wisdom of the Chinese nation’s practices over millennia, produced by "real, active men" in ancient China; it was likewise constrained by the productive forces and relations of production of that time. Therefore, in contemporary China, when carrying out the "Two Creativities," we must base our efforts on the contemporary practice of Chinese-path modernization, transforming fine traditional Chinese culture into a culture that adapts to the development of Chinese-path modernization and meets the people’s spiritual and cultural needs.
Clearly, constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization requires finding the points of mutual fit between nationality and modernity. This fit can only be highlighted through the practical processes of Sinicizing Marxism and modernizing fine traditional Chinese culture. "Mutual fit" is not a simple proximity of word meanings, but a mutual resonance of spiritual connotations. This can only be manifested under the guidance of the "Second Combination," in the process of making Marxism possess Chinese characteristics and making fine traditional Chinese culture possess the characteristics of the times.
Third, the renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization constitutes the "cultural atmosphere" (wenhua qixiang) for 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 purpose in promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization. This renewal and transformation represent the dialectical unity of the national character and the spirit of the age in the cultural construction of 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 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." Using this renewal and transformation as a value objective requires clarity regarding the distinction and connection 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 through human 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 sets higher requirements for constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. To achieve this goal, we must both elucidate 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 Chinese excellent traditional culture on the basis of inheritance, and consciously elucidating its contemporary value. Chinese civilization possesses the prominent characteristics of continuity, innovativeness, unity, inclusiveness, and peacefulness [24]. These five characteristics form the basis 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 an attitude of "discarding the old to bring forth the new" [25] regarding its developmental mode; unity requires an attitude of "diversity within integration" [26] regarding its convictions; inclusiveness requires an attitude of "harmonious coexistence" [27] regarding its connotations; and peacefulness requires an attitude of "shared beauty" [28] regarding its principles. Based on a profound grasp of the laws governing the development of Chinese civilization, we must imbue Chinese excellent traditional culture with new substance through the spirit of the age, using its outstanding qualities to advance 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, advancing the Sinicization of Marxism on the foundation of the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Reviewing the path we have traversed, Chinese Communists have developed a Sinicized and modernized Marxism by combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s concrete realities and with Chinese excellent traditional culture. In this sense, Marxism has already become a vital force in driving the modern transformation of Chinese civilization. Therefore, looking toward the future, we must further open up new realms for the Sinicization of Marxism and develop 21st-century Chinese Marxism, based on upholding basic Marxist principles and closely centering on China’s concrete national conditions. 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 the Chinese cultural tradition. Only by taking root in the fertile soil of Chinese excellent traditional culture can contemporary Chinese Marxism possess a greater Chinese character, a Chinese 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 for the "second combining," representing an organic unity of national character and the spirit of the age, and more importantly, the concrete manifestation of the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. Constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization under the guidance of the "second combining" means further promoting the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization from a new historical starting point. It means further advancing the "creative transformation and innovative development" [29] of Chinese excellent traditional culture and the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, so as to "allow Marxism to become Chinese, and Chinese excellent traditional culture to become modern."
In summary, taking 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 based on "grasping the two extremes and applying the mean, and upholding the center to achieve harmony" [30], while rejecting the "either-or" intellectualized mode of thinking. Second, when constructing the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, we must seek the mutual fit between national character and the spirit of the age under the guidance of this constructive thinking, constantly balancing the tension between "tradition" and "modernity." Finally, we must clarify that the practical purpose 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 advance 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.