Sun Xiaoli and Liu Siyu: On the Resolution and Transcendence of the "Dispute over Ancient and Modern, Chinese and Western" by the "Two Combinations"

Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Culture concerns the nation's foundation and its destiny." A modernization lacking the spiritual support of cultural strength is a one-sided modernization. In the historical journey of building a strong country and achieving the great cause of national rejuvenation, cultural construction is an indispensable and vital dimension. How to view and utilize one’s own cultural traditions, and how to view and respond to external cultures, are unavoidable and essential questions in the process of cultural construction. In the cultural and intellectual context of modern China, this issue was known as the "Contention between the Ancient and Modern, the Chinese and Western" ^[1]. It gave rise to three major cultural trends with diametrically opposed views and advocacy: cultural conservatism, cultural liberalism, and cultural radicalism. In June 2023, at the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development, Xi Jinping noted: "After long-term efforts, we are now more equipped than at any time in history to resolve the 'Contention between the Ancient and Modern, the Chinese and Western,' and we have a more urgent need than ever before for cultural achievements that fuse the ancient and modern and integrate the Chinese and Western." As a vital component of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture, the "Two Combinations" ^[2] link the traditional with the modern through the continuity and renewal of civilization, and integrate the indigenous with the foreign through the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. This points toward a scientific path for cultural construction in the New Era, resolving and transcending the "Contention between the Ancient and Modern, the Chinese and Western."

I. The Focus of the "Contention between the Ancient and Modern, the Chinese and Western" in History and Its Deficiencies

Cultural transformation in modern China was triggered by social upheaval. After the defeat in the Opium War, China’s gates were forcibly opened by Western aggressors. China fell from its supreme status as the "Celestial Empire" ^[3] to a backward nation within the world system, and the traditional concept of "Sino-barbarian dichotomy" ^[4] suffered a massive blow. This intense sense of disparity prompted modern intellectuals to begin reflecting on the nation’s future and destiny, initiating the "Contention between the Ancient and Modern, the Chinese and Western" at the cultural level, which became a central subject of cultural discussion.

(A) The Focus of Contentions: The Problem of the Path of Cultural Construction

In modern China, the discussion on how to view cultural tradition versus the present manifested as the "Ancient-Modern Contention," while the discussion on how to view internal versus external culture manifested as the "Chinese-Western Contention." The intertwining of the two formed the "Contention between the Ancient and Modern, the Chinese and Western." The focus of the debate was essentially the path of cultural construction: should cultural construction "return to the ancients" (restoration) or "open the new" based on the present; and should it draw resources from within Chinese civilization or learn from Western civilization to achieve progress? Within this polemic, representative perspectives included cultural conservatism, cultural liberalism, and cultural radicalism.

1. Cultural Conservatism Represented by "Chinese Learning as the Substance, Western Learning for Application"

In the view of representative figures such as Zhang Zhidong, China’s traditional feudal system and the "Three Cardinal Guides and Five Constant Virtues" ^[5] did not need to change and could not be changed; what required innovation were merely "vessels" (instrumental technologies). In his work Exhortation to Study (Quanxue Pian), Zhang Zhidong proposed advocacies such as "Old learning as the substance, new learning for application, so neither is neglected" and "Understanding the essence of Western learning and integrating it with Chinese learning to illuminate stubborn ignorance." He attempted to utilize advanced Western technology to maintain the rule of the late Qing Dynasty. It must be acknowledged that the attempt to integrate China and the West in the theory of "Chinese Substance, Western Application" (Zhongti Xiyong) possessed a certain degree of intellectual liberation. However, it severed "Substance" (ti) from "Application" (yong). The attempt to learn and catch up with world trends at a purely material level without reforming the backward social system was a dead end. The defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War marked the bankruptcy of the Self-Strengthening Movement and signaled the failure of the "Chinese Substance, Western Application" theory.

Faced with this failure, some argued that learning only advanced Western technology was insufficient; to save modern China from national crisis, it was also necessary to learn Western intellectual culture and social systems. Consequently, cultural liberalism, which advocated for "harmonizing Chinese and Western cultures," and cultural radicalism, which advocated for "Total Westernization," emerged.

2. Cultural Liberalism Represented by "Harmonizing Chinese and Western Cultures"

Unlike the "Chinese Substance, Western Application" theory, which advocated learning from the West only at the level of "vessels," cultural liberalism held that "since Western culture has arrived, the essence of Western culture—democracy and freedom—should be allowed to follow fully." Therefore, it advocated for cultural pluralism and emphasized the introduction of Western democratic thought. Its representative figure, Zhang Dongsun, believed that both Chinese and Western cultures had strengths and weaknesses. He advocated for the introduction of Western concepts of democracy and freedom while simultaneously "not advocating opposition to China’s ritual teachings" (lijiao) ^[6]. He argued that cultural construction should "harmonize Chinese and Western cultures." Cultural liberalism advocated for the introduction into China of a modern spirit that reveres democracy and freedom. It should be said that, compared to "Chinese Substance, Western Application," cultural liberalism expanded the content and scope of learning from the West. However, it failed to find a feasible path for truly "harmonizing Chinese and Western cultures." Furthermore, the Western democratic ideas and political systems it introduced suffered from "unsuitability to the soil" (shuitu bufu) ^[7] in China, and were destined to fail to bear fruit.

3. Cultural Radicalism Represented by "Total Westernization"

Regarding the choice between Chinese and Western culture, cultural conservatism and cultural liberalism tended to retain the characteristics of Chinese culture while learning from the West, whereas cultural radicalism leaned toward negating Chinese cultural tradition. Chen Xujing, a representative of the "Total Westernization" theory, declared: "Western culture is better than China’s in every respect—intellectual, artistic, scientific, political, educational, religious, philosophical, and literary." Since China was "inferior in all matters," China’s future cultural construction had to move toward the "path of thorough Westernization." This radical cultural advocacy drew widespread criticism as soon as it was proposed. The most representative critique was the "Manifesto for Cultural Construction on a Chinese Basis," published jointly by ten professors including Wang Xinming in 1935. The Manifesto argued that China "absolutely cannot approve of complete imitation of Britain and America" and "requires cultural construction on a Chinese basis." This triggered the debate between "Total Westernization" and "Chinese-based culture." The "Total Westernization" theory ignored China's social context and viewed its own cultural traditions one-sidedly; thus, its path for cultural construction was also destined to fail.

(B) Common Deficiency: A One-sided Understanding of Culture

The "contention" regarding the ancient, modern, Chinese, and Western was essentially about how to view and utilize the cultural resources of these four dimensions. Although the cultural positions of the various parties were diametrically opposed, their common deficiency lay in a one-sided understanding of the essence of culture and an isolated view of cultural development, failing to find a method for integration in practice. First, on the "Ancient-Modern" issue, they viewed cultural development in isolation, failing to build a bridge connecting cultural tradition, the present, and the future. Among the three theoretical advocacies, cultural conservatism valued its own cultural tradition and attempted to "return to the root"; cultural radicalism critiqued its own cultural tradition and tried to leap directly into the future via Western culture; cultural liberalism exhibited a centrist character. However, the path of cultural conservatism could lead to narrow nationalism and "national essence-ism" (guocuizhuyi) ^[8]; the path of cultural radicalism could lead to a trend of total negation of tradition; and the path of cultural liberalism could lead toward relativism. Second, on the "Chinese-Western" issue, they failed to find a feasible way to integrate Chinese and foreign cultures. Whether it was the "return to the root" of cultural conservatism, the direct leap to the future of cultural radicalism, or the compromise of cultural liberalism, none could achieve a true integration of Chinese and foreign cultures.

In short, cultural conservatives were overly obsessed with the past, adopting cultural tradition one-sidedly without critical examination; cultural radicals criticized cultural tradition indiscriminately and wholesale, advocating for the mechanical copying of Western culture; and cultural liberals attempted to find a middle ground between the two. However, through different routes, all three reached the same end: none found the correct path. At its root, the three aforementioned trends all understood the essence of culture one-sidedly, severing the connection between cultural tradition and the present, and between the internal and the external.

II. The "Two Combinations" as a Transcendence of the Ancient-Modern Debate

From the perspective of intellectual history, Marxism was born in Europe after the Industrial Revolution as a reflection on and critique of the development of capitalism. It remains highly relevant today and falls within the scope of the "modern." On the other hand, Fine Traditional Chinese Culture was born mainly in traditional society during the era of agricultural civilization and falls within the scope of the "ancient." As a core component of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture, the "Two Combinations" have enabled Chinese civilization to achieve the continuity and renewal of its own vitality, linking the traditional, the modern, and the future, thereby transcending the "Ancient-Modern Debate."

(A) Regarding Chinese Civilization as a Continuous Living Body

In today’s "Ancient-Modern Debate," what is being "debated" is the question of how to weigh and choose between ancient and modern cultural resources in current cultural construction. On this issue, the "Two Combinations" embody an understanding of the essence of culture as a "living body," achieving a correct identification of Fine Traditional Chinese Culture and thereby rationally bridging cultural tradition and the present.

1. Understanding the Essence of Culture as a Living Body

The "Two Combinations" regard Chinese civilization as a continuous living body. This understanding itself contains the logic of dialectical materialism—viewing culture based on its own change and development rather than understanding it in an isolated or abstract manner. It marks a new height in the understanding of the essence of culture. To view culture as a living body means that cultural tradition is not dead; the current appearance of culture carries traces of the past, and culture flows through the present toward the future. From this perspective, cultural construction must follow the laws of a cultural living body: just as a life cannot return to the past, cultural development must likewise move forward; just as a life cannot eliminate its past, cultural development must take note of past imprints. This connection between cultural tradition and the present fundamentally transcends the advocacies of cultural conservatism (attempting to return to the past) and cultural radicalism (attempting to negate the past).

Xi Jinping has pointed out: "'Combination' is not a 'patchwork' or a simple 'physical reaction,' but a profound 'chemical reaction' that has created a new, organically unified cultural living body... Marxism brought advanced intellectual theory to China, activated the genes of Chinese civilization with the light of truth, led China into the modern world, and promoted the revitalization and modern transformation of Chinese civilization." Cultural construction should be a process of upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground; it must both respect and inherit historical tradition while daring to continuously explore and create anew upon that traditional foundation. Such cultural construction not only allows us to better understand the past but also helps us clearly position the present while laying a solid foundation for the future. The "new cultural living body"—namely, the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization—is the continuation and renewal of the living body of Chinese civilization and the product of its modern transformation.

2. Correct Identification of Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

History has repeatedly proven that if a nation abandons its own cultural traditions, it is not only impossible for it to develop, but it is also likely to experience a series of historical tragedies. Grounded in contemporary cultural construction, we must neither cling to the "broken and decaying" (baocan shouque) ^[9] like the cultural conservatives nor practice total negation like the cultural radicals. Instead, we should "adhere to treatment with discernment and inheritance with critical assimilation"—that is, distinguishing the dross from the essence of traditional culture, clarifying that Fine Traditional Chinese Culture consists of the essential elements within traditional culture, and actively tapping into its contemporary value. Xi Jinping emphasized that the "ideological concepts, humanistic spirit, and moral norms contained in Fine Traditional Chinese Culture are not only the core of the thoughts and spirit of us Chinese people but also possess important value for solving human problems." Core ideological concepts, the Chinese humanistic spirit, and Chinese traditional virtues are the three perspectives for understanding the contemporary value of Fine Traditional Chinese Culture.

The first is core ideological concepts. In Marx's view, true philosophy is "the product of its own time and its own people, whose most subtle, precious, and invisible essence is concentrated in philosophical ideas." Core ideological concepts are the "essence" formed by a country or a nation in its own era. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "After thousands of years of vicissitudes, what has tightly bound the fifty-six ethnic groups and more than 1.3 billion people of our country together is the extraordinary struggle we have experienced together, the beautiful home we have created together, the national spirit we have nurtured together, and—more importantly—the ideals and beliefs we have consistently upheld together." Over five thousand years of civilization, Chinese civilization has developed political concepts of "Great Unity" (Dayitong) ^[10], open and inclusive cultural ideas, the character of a "superior man" (junzi) ^[11] who seeks the cause of failure within himself, philosophical thoughts of the "unity of knowledge and action" (zhixing heyi) ^[12], and so on. These core ideological concepts constitute the key to "What makes China, China."

Second is the Chinese humanistic spirit. A focus on morality is a salient characteristic of fine traditional Chinese culture. In fine traditional Chinese culture, morality is not merely a criterion for handling interpersonal relations, but also a medium for communicating the relationship between humanity and nature. As Wang Yangming states: "The person of humanity [ren] regards Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body; if even one thing loses its place, it means my humanity is not yet complete." Using "humanity" [ren] to link the "thing" and the "self," thereby communicating with Heaven, Earth, and all things, embodies a humanistic spirit that highlights the uniqueness of Chinese civilization. Within Chinese civilization and its traditions, the original meaning of "culture" [wenhua]—contained in the phrase "observing the human arts [renwen] to transform and complete the world"—emphasizes the humanistic aspect ^[13]. Consequently, many scholars believe that "humanism" embodies the "core spirit of the Chinese cultural tradition." Regarding this, Xi Jinping has emphasized: "We must make good use of these precious resources in fine traditional Chinese culture to strengthen people's power of value judgment and sense of moral responsibility, continuously raising people's moral standards and elevating their moral realm."

Third is traditional Chinese virtues. Bertrand Russell once said: "There is one thing, and only one, which seems to me a genuine danger to China... It is the tendency to think that correct moral qualities are more important than detailed scientific knowledge." As the mainstream of traditional Chinese culture, traditional Confucian doctrine emphasizes morality, with its basic orientation lying in the cultivation and manifestation of moral character. The traditional Chinese virtues—centered on concepts such as practicing benevolence [renai], prioritizing the people [minben], maintaining integrity [shouchengxin], revering justice, valuing harmony, and seeking Great Unity [datong]—are prominent aspects of fine traditional Chinese culture ^[14]. Xi Jinping pointed out that these constitute the "essence of Chinese culture, containing rich ideological and moral resources." He noted that we must "strive to realize the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional Chinese virtues" and "deeply excavate and elaborate upon the contemporary value of fine traditional Chinese culture... making it an important source for nurturing Socialist Core Values."

(2) Renewing the cultural life-form through the "Combination"

Marx pointed out: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." Understanding culture as a "life-form" [shengmingti] implies not severing the tradition from the contemporary, nor separating the past, present, and future. Therefore, the creation of the future of Chinese civilization cannot depart from its inherent foundations; it requires clarity regarding the path the Chinese nation has traveled to extract its essence. On this basis, through the combination with Marxism, fine traditional Chinese culture must complete its transition toward modernity, driving the self-renewal of the Chinese cultural life-form, finding the path forward for the Chinese nation, and creating the future of Chinese civilization.

1. Promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture

From the perspective of the Big View of History ^[15], traditional Chinese culture was born from agrarian civilization and was primarily formed during the period of feudal society; objectively, a certain temporal distance exists between it and modern society. Therefore, to truly bridge the traditional and the modern, one must not only possess a correct understanding of fine traditional Chinese culture but also persist in weeding through the old to bring forth the new, promoting its creative transformation and innovative development. Take the viewpoint of practice as an example: since antiquity, Chinese culture has possessed the characteristic of "statecraft for practical use" [jingshi zhiyong], highly emphasizing "actual practice" [shixing]. The proposition "it is not the knowing that is difficult, but the doing," put forward in the Book of Documents [Shangshu], expresses the view that "doing" is more difficult and important than "knowing." The opening of the Analects states: "To learn and at due times to practice [xi] it, is this not a pleasure?" Here, "practice" [xi] primarily means to trial or exercise, giving this sentence a heavy emphasis on "action." However, practice within the traditional Confucian horizon leans toward moral practice—the self-manifestation of the moral subject within a social environment—and thus lacks the link of production practice directed toward the natural world in the modern sense. Compared to modern Western countries that established modern industrial production systems through the Scientific Revolution, modern China remained in the stage of agrarian civilization for a long period, which was linked to a moralistic mode of thinking. Through the "Two Combinations," the Marxist philosophical view of practice—centered on labor production oriented toward nature—can precisely compensate for the deficiencies in the traditional Chinese cultural view of practice, facilitating the formation of a contemporary, more comprehensive new view of practice.

2. Carrying forward and developing the treasures of Chinese civilization

By bridging the past and present of Chinese civilization and uplifting the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, we must protect, carry forward, and develop the treasures of Chinese civilization that have survived the vicissitudes of time, providing unique perspectives and solutions for resolving the problems of modernity. For example, the ecological concept of "the myriad things as one body" can provide a reference for solving the current global ecological crisis; the economic ethics of "prioritizing righteousness over profit" [zhongyi qingli] can provide a prescription for the chaos occurring under the logic of capital; the viewpoint of practice emphasizing personal action can correct the trend of "empty talk"; and the concept of the "superior man" [junzi] seeking the cause within oneself ^[16] can awaken the moral self-awareness of modern people, and so on.

Naturally, for any life-form to survive, it must persist in moving forward; for any civilization to endure, it must undergo self-renewal. While we value the precious cultural resources handed down from ancient Chinese civilization, this does not mean we intend to return to the past. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "Chinese-path modernization is the 'old state with a new mission' [jiubang xinming] for the Chinese nation, and it will surely drive Chinese civilization to shine with glory once again" ^[17]. Today's cultural construction must complete the renewal of the life-form of Chinese civilization within the development of Chinese-path modernization, thereby transcending the "debate between the ancient and the modern."

III. The Transcendence of the "Debate Between China and the West" through the "Two Combinations"

Marxism has deep ideological roots in Western cultural traditions; in terms of its geographical origin, it belongs to the scope of the "West." Meanwhile, China’s specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture possess the characteristics of the "Chinese" [zhong] in terms of geography. Although Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture belong to different geographical categories and are endowed with different ideological resources, a high degree of "mutual compatibility" [qiehe xing] exists between them, enabling their combination. Through its combination with China's specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture, Marxism has been endowed at a deep level with the characteristics of Chinese civilization, further driving the process of its Sinicization and modernization. Xi Jinping pointed out: "The 'Second Combination' makes Marxism become Chinese and fine traditional Chinese culture become modern, allowing the new culture formed through this 'combination' to become the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization." Through the mutual interpretation of "the ancient and the modern" and the mutual transformation of "China and the West," the "Two Combinations" converge the "indigenous" [benlai] and the "foreign" [wailai] within the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Simultaneously, by upholding the "soul-vein" [hunmai] of Marxism and the "root-vein" [genmai] of fine traditional Chinese culture, the resulting new culture consolidates cultural subjectivity and points toward the transcendence of the "debate between China and the West."

(1) Converging the essence of Chinese and foreign cultures through the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism

Modern thinkers reached a basic consensus on the need to learn from the West; at that time, the "debate between China and the West" essentially turned on what to learn from the West and how to learn it. History has proven that foreign trends of thought cannot play a role without being combined with China's specific realities and converged with Chinese culture. Through long-term theoretical and practical exploration, the Communist Party of China (CPC) found the correct way to converge Chinese and Western cultures through the path of the "Two Combinations." By combining with China's specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture, Marxism—originally a "foreign trend of thought"—has truly acquired a Chinese style and Chinese flavor, becoming Sinicized Marxism. Thus, the essences of Chinese and foreign cultures have been converged.

1. Marxism’s inheritance of and reflection on Western culture

Western civilization is often summarized as "Hebraic-Hellenic civilization," where ancient Greece provided Western civilization with philosophy and reason, and ancient Hebrew provided it with religion and faith. As the primary founder of Marxism, Marx was born into a German Jewish rabbinic family and was influenced in his youth by French Enlightenment philosophy and German Romanticism. As Marx said: "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." Marx grew up under the influence and immersion of this "Hebraic-Hellenic civilization" and was inevitably influenced by Western culture. However, after formally entering the theoretical stage, Marx immediately began a fierce critique of the Greek philosophical tradition since Plato and the Hebrew religious tradition represented by Christianity. Through his revolution in the philosophy of practice and his critique of religion, Marxism drew a clear theoretical line between itself and traditional Western philosophy and Christianity.

Marx's critique of Western civilization was not limited to philosophical and religious critique; it also delved into the realm of economics, performing a systematic dissection of the production realities of capitalist society. It is in this sense that "Marx can be said to be the initiator of the attack on modernity. He criticized the political, social, and cultural principles of modern Europe, pointing out that they originated from the nature of the modern economy—capitalism." Through a critical examination and analysis of capital, Marx revealed the historical fate of capitalism and reached the conclusion of the "Two Inevitabilities": "The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Thus, Marx constructed a higher social form that transcends capitalism.

It can be said that Marxism was born in the West and inherited the rational elements of Western civilization—such as the spirit of reason and humanistic values found in Enlightenment thought—while simultaneously not being limited to the West. It contains a critique of Western philosophical and religious traditions as well as the modernity of capital; it is a reflection on and critique of Western civilization that achieved its own theoretical sublimation, making the theory take on world-historical significance.

2. Driving new developments in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism through the "Combination"

China’s choice of Marxism successfully changed the historical fate of modern China. Chinese Communists have continuously endowed Marxism with new content and driven the historical process of its Sinicization and modernization, thereby integrating the essences of Chinese and foreign cultures. Mao Zedong explicitly proposed that "we must completely and appropriately unify the universal truths of Marxism with the specific practice of the Chinese revolution," which was the historical task of the "First Combination." Chinese Communists united and led the people of all ethnic groups, achieving the glorious victory of the revolutionary struggle and great achievements in economic construction through the "First Combination," enabling China to achieve the great leap from "standing up" to "becoming prosperous" and then to "becoming strong." In this process, Marxism was endowed with a Chinese style and a Chinese flavor.

In the face of new historical conditions, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era further expanded the scope of the "combination" into the cultural realm, initiating a deeper process of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Xi Jinping pointed out: "Fine traditional Chinese culture has replenished the cultural life of Marxism, driven Marxism to continuously achieve new leaps in its Sinicization and modernization, and displayed an increasingly distinct Chinese style and Chinese flavor; Sinicized Marxism has become the essence of the age for Chinese culture and the Chinese spirit." Through its combination with fine traditional Chinese culture, Marxism—born in the West—has become the essence of the age for Chinese culture. The cultural form of Chinese-path modernization formed therein possesses both the "soul-vein" of Marxism and the "root-vein" of fine traditional Chinese culture, opening up a new realm for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.

(2) Consolidating cultural subjectivity and strengthening cultural confidence through the "Combination"

Cultural subjectivity reflects a country's and a nation's conscious awareness of its own culture and its proactive spirit in cultural innovation and creation. The "Two Combinations" consolidate cultural subjectivity, providing a fundamental basis for cultural confidence.

1. Consolidating cultural subjectivity through the "Combination"

The so-called cultural subjectivity refers to the autonomy and consciousness of a subject in cultural activities, including a conscious and rational cognition of one's own culture, upwardly maintaining one's own cultural attributes and positions in national development, and forming a firm self-awareness at the level of cultural meaning. Applied to current cultural construction, this means taking a correct view of fine traditional Chinese culture and firmly holding onto the "root-vein" while introducing the "soul-vein" of Marxism. The "Two Combinations" are by no means a simple or mechanical assembly; rather, they require a deep insight into the true essence of Marxism and the quintessence of fine traditional Chinese culture. Xi Jinping pointed out: "Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture have different sources, but a high degree of mutual compatibility exists between them." This high degree of mutual compatibility determines that fine traditional Chinese culture, after its combination with Marxism, will inevitably retain its own essence.

It must be noted that as the world’s various nations progressed through their respective historical evolutions, they formed their own unique characteristics. After human history entered the stage of world history ^[18] and frequent interactions between civilizations began, people’s initial focus was often on the differences between nations; this was an inevitable process. However, difference is not equivalent to opposition. Since ancient times, Chinese civilization has possessed a prominent inclusiveness; it does not blindly reject foreign cultures and manifests an open cultural breadth of mind. For example, historically, Buddhism was introduced to China from ancient India, took root and sprouted on Chinese soil, and integrated with Chinese civilization to derive the “Six Schools and Seven Sects” ^[19] (liùjiā qīzōng) characterized by Chinese cultural features. Similarly, Marxism entered China and ultimately bore the fruitful results of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. History proves that integration has not led to the loss of Chinese cultural subjectivity; on the contrary, it has consolidated it.

2. Strengthening Cultural Confidence through Integration

Excellent traditional Chinese culture and Marxism belong to different geographical categories. At the same time, modern history has proven that only Marxism could save old China from being impoverished and weak. Does this imply the potential emergence of a cultural inferiority complex? The answer is no; the “Two Combinations” ^[20] precisely dispel such a complex. Through integration, the modern factors inherent in Marxism have impelled excellent traditional Chinese culture to complete its modern development, radiating a vitality that allows it to advance with the times. Through integration, the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization simultaneously possesses Marxism—as a scientific theory and the essence of human civilization—and excellent traditional Chinese culture, which reflects China’s specific conditions. It is precisely based on this point that strengthening cultural confidence has a more solid foundation.

Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Having cultural subjectivity means having a firm cultural self, providing the fundamental support for cultural confidence.” Looking back, the history of the past century in the modern era has fully proven that Marxism has not failed China, and China has not failed Marxism. Marxism helped China emerge from an impoverished and weak semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. Looking toward the future, on the new historical journey, by further integrating Marxism with excellent traditional Chinese culture, we will surely create a cultural form of Chinese-path modernization that combines the essence of both Chinese and Western civilizations and the quintessence of both ancient and modern cultures.

Conclusion

The “debate between the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the Western” ^[21] arose in modern China, involving the fields of culture, economy, science and technology, and society. With the founding of New China, we were able to shake off the cultural inferiority complex and the status of being a mere “apprentice,” embarking on a new course of cultural construction. Through long-term efforts, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era, opening a new stage in which we understand the essence of culture and explore new paths for cultural construction from a broader perspective and a more substantial foundation. By regarding the essence of culture as a living organism, the cultural subjectivity constructed and continuously consolidated in this sense transcends the traditional theoretical perspectives of the “debate between the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the Western.” The “Two Combinations” promote the renewal of Chinese civilization’s life and its modern development, becoming the fundamental path for promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, creating the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, and resolving the “debate between the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the Western.”