Han Qingxiang: On the Relative Distinction Between Culture and Civilization and Its Great Significance
Since the inception of cultural studies in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, the field has occupied a powerful discursive high ground in international academia. In the era of economic globalization, the study of civilization has become a commanding height for which academic communities across all nations compete. "In today's world, the word 'civilization' is heard incessantly. It appears frequently on various occasions." Particularly since Xi Jinping proposed major propositions such as "creating a new form of human advancement" [1] and the "prominent characteristics of Chinese civilization," the Chinese academic community has consciously sought to academically clarify the relative distinctions between culture and civilization. However, due to the great difficulty involved, these relative distinctions remain a complex "enigma" to this day, and neither domestic nor foreign academic circles have truly clarified the relative differences between the two. Therefore, an exploratory and in-depth investigation into the relative distinctions between culture and civilization—from the perspective of philosophical and academic methodology—is a major task facing the Chinese academic community. It carries significant directional importance for understanding the essential connotations of culture and civilization respectively, for deepening research and achieving theoretical breakthroughs, for grasping the issues of Sino-Western culture and civilization, for clearing the various mists surrounding these problems, and for comprehending the new form of human advancement.
I. The Necessity of Clarifying the Relative Distinction Between Culture and Civilization Philosophically
The French language was the first to see the appearance of the word "civilisation," which then spread rapidly from France to Europe, followed closely by the popularity of the word "culture." The concept of civilization rose during the Enlightenment; "the noun 'civilization' is a new word of the Enlightenment era." In 1756, the term appeared in Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau’s book L'Ami des hommes. Both culture and civilization are complex concepts that are difficult to grasp. The British scholar Terry Eagleton notes at the beginning of Culture that "culture" is said to be one of the two or three most complex words in the English language. In fact, in multiple languages such as Chinese, German, and French, in United Nations reports and documents written in various languages, and in relevant works published in China, culture and civilization are pervasive concepts with highly inconsistent meanings that are often used interchangeably. Bruce Mazlish pointed out that "civilization" as a word with a specific meaning and its widespread dissemination as a concept did not exist before the Enlightenment. It is undeniable that the current usage of the concepts of culture and civilization at home and abroad is quite chaotic.
In his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Professor Huntington of Harvard University analyzed the concept of civilization, yet in the end, he failed to relatively distinguish culture from civilization, instead using them as essentially identical concepts. In The Empire of Civilization, Bowden provided a detailed linguistic, hermeneutic, and historical investigation of the concept of civilization, its origins, connotations, and significance, but offered no clear definition or exact explanation of the concept itself. Regarding the issue of the concept of civilization, he noted one trend: the explicit avoidance of the concept. As Schafer pointed out, "Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have all learned to avoid the word 'civilization' and analyze all problems with reference to 'culture'." Another trend treats civilization as a "catch-all," burdening the concept with too much meaning and considering it all-encompassing. Numerous social analyses are folded into the category of civilization to the point that it lacks any specific meaning. From the perspective of world history rather than etymology, the avoidance of "civilization" stems in a certain sense from its counterposition to "barbarism," given that the West has committed certain barbaric acts. Following the establishment of the "barbarism-civilization" binary interpretive framework and the proposal of "Western-centrism," the second trend emerged: some Western scholars sought to use "civilization" to obscure their own barbarism, labeling everything as civilization. Huntington believed the concept of civilization was proposed by late-18th-century French thinkers in contrast to the "state of nature" (barbarism). Vertically, ancient Greek civilization gave birth to ancient Roman civilization, which birthed Christian civilization, which in turn birthed the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which finally birthed industrial civilization and European civilization. Some European scholars believed civilization belonged only to Europe, and that nations and peoples outside Europe were either barbaric or uncivilized. Reviewing other related works, while some scholars have sought to clarify the relative distinction between culture and civilization in an inspired way, their arguments remain difficult to find convincing for the time being. After reviewing a large number of works on culture and civilization, I found that although everyone talks about them, no one has clearly and vividly articulated the relative distinction in full. Bruce Mazlish’s Civilization and Its Contents specifically studies the connotation of civilization, yet it fails to provide a clear and complete interpretation of that connotation.
Related research shows that there are over 200 definitions of "culture." According to the account by American anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, there were only six new definitions of "culture" in the field of anthropology during the first two decades of the 20th century. Between 1920 and 1951, cultural studies reached a peak, and as many as 164 definitions of culture suddenly emerged in American anthropology. Kroeber and Kluckhohn argued that these definitions could be roughly categorized into six types: descriptive, historical, normative, psychological, structural, and genetic.
Bruce Mazlish pointed out that because "the meanings of these two words are constantly changing," distinguishing the connotations of culture and civilization "has become particularly difficult, making one hesitate to act." Precisely because the distinction is hard to clarify, some do not advocate for separating them. Edward Burnett Tylor was the first in anthropology to define "culture" in the modern sense. In his book Primitive Culture, he considered culture and civilization to be nearly synonymous and thus "consciously applied both as the same concept." In 1830 at the University of Berlin, Hegel used the concepts of culture and civilization interchangeably. Freud generally opposed distinguishing the two: "I do not care to distinguish between culture and civilization." "Indeed, for a long time, these two words [culture and civilization—Author's note] were synonyms."
Some scholars emphasize the need to distinguish between culture and civilization. This was first proposed by scholars including Thomas Mann. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, some German sociologists attempted to categorize "civilization" and "culture" as two aspects of "culture" in a general sense. Most German scholars, or the "German School," held that a distinction should be made. All scholars of culture, when focusing on this distinction, frequently mention the "German School." Fernand Braudel also emphasized: "Eventually, people began to feel the necessity of distinguishing between them." But as for how exactly to distinguish them, people still have not fully figured it out.
Since Xi Jinping proposed major propositions such as "creating a new form of human advancement" and the "prominent characteristics of Chinese civilization," it has become necessary to first clarify the relative distinction between "civilization" and "culture." Otherwise, one cannot find the precise direction for defining the construction of a new form of human advancement. When Xi Jinping speaks of culture and civilization, he makes a relative distinction in his phrasing. He explicitly pointed out: "The Chinese nation has a history of human presence spanning a million years, a cultural history of ten thousand years, and a civilization history of over five thousand years." [2] He has repeatedly emphasized that different nations and civilizations are colorful and each has its own strengths; there is no soul of superiority or inferiority, only differences in characteristics. He also noted that Chinese-path modernization is the result of the renewal of civilization, not the product of a civilizational rupture; Chinese-path modernization is an endogenous modernization originating from Chinese civilization, possessing deep cultural accumulation and a consistent cultural core. These relevant and important discourses provide guiding significance for our understanding of the relationship between culture and civilization. Based on Xi Jinping's important discourses, the urgent task is to clarify the relative distinction between the concepts of civilization and culture.
Both culture and civilization are relational concepts; their essential connotations must be understood within their mutual distinction. One can explore their relative differences from the perspectives of archaeology, ethnology, anthropology, and linguistics, or from the perspectives of history and cultural anthropology.
This article attempts to academically explore the relative distinction between culture and civilization. In doing so, one must first determine the direction and methodology to avoid directional or methodological errors. Philosophy is the living soul of civilization and its guardian; it is committed to lifting all factors of historical progressive value out of the blurred reality and bringing them forth from a state of concealment, thereby leading civilizational progress. Therefore, it is first necessary to understand and grasp the essential connotation of civilization from a philosophical direction and methodology and to establish a scientific view of civilization. This is the prerequisite for understanding and grasping the relative distinction between culture and civilization. Only in this way can the relative distinction be truly and thoroughly clarified. Consequently, this article focuses on the philosophical and academic sense to exploratorily investigate the essential connotation of civilization and its relative distinction from culture, striving to open a new path for understanding and grasping their relationship.
Understanding and grasping civilization from the perspective of philosophical direction and methodology means, in a general and fundamental sense, starting with the theme of the development and progress of human beings ourselves and the development and progress of society. Because there are different interpretations of what constitutes "development and progress" for humans and society, two different views of civilization exist.
The first view relatively emphasizes interpreting civilization as a descriptive concept based on "factual judgment," holding that civilization is fact. It describes the facts of the development and progress of human beings and human society themselves. Development and progress are the processes of self-transcendence, self-perfection, self-development, and self-advancement undertaken by all of humanity, nations, ethnic groups, and individuals to change their current situation and move forward. It possesses diversity, inclusiveness, mutual learning, equality, and universality; it is a "plural" and diverse civilization. The "value judgment" of civilization should be built upon the foundation of "civilizational facts." Its philosophical foundation is a worldview of "unity in diversity," "equality between subjects," and "inclusiveness and universality."
The second view relatively emphasizes interpreting civilization merely as a so-called normative concept based on "value judgment," holding that civilization is value. It emphasizes that all of humanity, nations, and ethnic groups should follow a fixed, so-called "single path" toward a fixed, so-called "ideal goal of absolute goodness and beauty characterized by identity." "Noble nations" with a sense of civilizational superiority stand at the commanding heights of human civilizational development; they possess the discourse power to explain how the world operates and how human history progresses, and they believe they should civilize "barbaric, ignorant, and non-civilized peoples" through enlightenment. This is a "civilizing" process in which so-called "superior" nations and states judge and change so-called "non-civilized states and nations." Such a civilization is monistic, judgmental, negative, transformative, and dominant; it is a so-called universal civilization with a standard of identity—a "singular" monistic civilization. This interpretation of civilization is ideological in nature and contains "Western-centrism"—or rather, its underlying logic is "Western-centrism." Its philosophical foundation is the philosophical paradigm of "subject-object dualistic opposition" or "subject dominating object" and a linear view of history. According to this view of civilization, it is believed that civilization belongs only to Europe, and other countries and nations outside Europe are in a "state of ignorance and barbarism."
These two views of civilization have many essential differences: The first is a pluralistic view of civilization, emphasizing civilizational diversity and mutual learning; the second is a singular view, emphasizing civilizational monism and the conflict of civilizations. The former focuses on "self-progress," while the latter focuses on "civilizing the other." The former belongs to "altruism," while the latter belongs to "egoism." The former is "inclusive," while the latter is "exclusive." The former emphasizes "equality," while the latter emphasizes "dominance." The former focuses on "pro-benefit for all," while the latter focuses on "single-win" (zero-sum) outcomes. The former can promote the development and progress of the entire nation, the people, and the human being, while the latter comes at the cost of sacrificing the other. The former builds "value judgment" on the foundation of "objective facts" and is a civilization based on objective reality; the latter alienates "value judgment" from "objective facts" and speaks of civilization while distanced from fact. The philosophical foundation of the former is a "diverse view of history," while the philosophical root of the latter is a "linear view of history."
Clearly, to understand and grasp the essential connotation of civilization and its relative distinction from culture, we must center on the theme of the development and progress of both the human being and society. This must manifest and highlight the "pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty," [3] and take a stand on a pluralistic view of civilizations while breaking away from a singular view of civilization. Thus, the essential connotation of civilization can be briefly stated as: the "altruistic" positive fruits deposited during the evolutionary process of cultural development that embody the "pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty" and contribute to the progress of humanity, society, and the human being (human nature). It is the "goodness of culture."
II. The Relative Distinction Between Culture and Civilization from a Philosophical Perspective
Based on the aforementioned understanding of the concept of civilization from a philosophical, holistic, and fundamental level, we need to clarify the relative distinction between culture and civilization by centering on the development and progress of the human being and society, grounding ourselves in a pluralistic view of civilizations, and manifesting the "pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty."
1. Relatively Different Orientations
Culture is oriented toward "humanization" (renhua) and relatively emphasizes "externalization"; civilization is oriented toward "transforming the person" (huaren) and relatively emphasizes "internalization."
Culture and civilization share a commonality in their focus on wen (the "civil/literary/patterned"), but from an etymological sense, the primary difference lies in the distinction between hua ("transformation/-ization") and ming ("brightness/enlightenment"). Culture (wenhua) is defined in contrast to "primitive nature" that has not been externalized through human activity. It speaks to the "humanization" of nature—the humanistic process. it is the objectifying activity, the objectifying process, and the results of the internal essential powers of the human being; that is, it refers to "transforming and completing all under heaven through human culture" (renwen huacheng tianxia). [4] It is oriented toward the "transformation of nature" as distinct from "primordiality." In this regard, it defines the trajectory of the meaning of culture. Melville J. Herskovits proposed in Cultural Anthropology that "culture is the total body of belief, behavior, knowledge, sanctions, values, and goals that mark the way of life of any people... culture is the man-made part of the environment." Kroeber and Kluckhohn argued that culture consists of achievements embodied in artifacts. Barth viewed culture as the process of human action upon natural matter. Qu Qiubai [5] believed that culture is "everything 'done' by humanity." Huang Shengzhang also held that "culture is the various material or spiritual manifestations created by human processing and transformation of nature through labor." The understandings of culture held by Herskovits, Kroeber, Kluckhohn, Barth, Qu Qiubai, and Huang Shengzhang all possess the sense of "humanization." That is to say, all results of the objectifying activities of human internal essential powers can, in fact, be collectively termed culture.
"Humanization" and "externalization" are identical in essence; culture emphasizes "externalization." Externalization refers to the process and fruits of human activity; it is the externalization and objectification of the internal essential powers of the human being. It primarily acts upon and shapes the external world outside of the person. "Culture" relatively manifests as the process and results of the objectifying activity of human internal essential powers from the inside out, embodied as "humanity's mastery over external objects and things," with a relative emphasis on "externalizing into objects." Culture, first of all, transforms the person through wen, making the individual a "knowledgeable person" who masters cultural knowledge and science and technology, providing the foundational and prerequisite preparation for their socialization. Then, it uses wen to transform objects, applying the mastered knowledge and technology to transform nature, society, and humanity, making the individual a "practical person" engaged in objectifying activities.
Civilization (wenming), however, is defined in contrast to the uncultivated "animal state," "barbarism," and "wickedness." It speaks to the "developmental progress" (moving Toward ming or "brightness") of humanity as it transcends its "animal state," "barbarism," and "wickedness" to "pursue truth, goodness, and beauty." It emphasizes a process of human development and progress that both conforms to the laws of historical development and focuses on "transforming objects for goodness" and "transforming people for goodness." It is distinct from "barbarity." In its etymological and primordial sense, the concept of civilization is not directly aimed at all "humanizing" activities and their fruits, but rather refers to the "enlightenment" (ming) proposed in opposition to barbarism and wickedness. It is oriented toward the edification and discipline of "human nature" or the "human being itself"—that is, "transforming the person." Fernand Braudel pointed out that "in its new sense, civilization generally refers to a state opposed to a state of barbarism," and its modern meaning is the "process of entering a civilized state." Modern Western thought sought to move away from the barbarism of Medieval feudal autocracy’s suppression of human nature toward civilization; thus the concept of civilization was proposed, though the objects described by the concept of culture appeared much earlier than those described by the concept of civilization. The same is true for China. Xi Jinping has pointed out that Chinese culture spans ten thousand years, while Chinese civilization spans five thousand years. [6] When Chinese people use the concept of civilization, it is frequently used in the sense of the progress of the human being—transforming objects for goodness and transforming people for goodness—referring to the positive or affirmative aspects within culture. Barth viewed civilization as the process and factors of humanity's own progress. Huang Shengzhang also believed: "Civilization is a social stage where culture has developed to a certain height, thereby breaking away from the state of barbarism."
"Transforming the person" and "internalization" are identical in essence; civilization relatively emphasizes "internalization." Internalization refers to the process of a person's cognition, evaluation, and acceptance of externalized or objectified fruits. This process primarily acts upon the internal spiritual world of the person, focusing on the shaping of that internal world. In other words, civilization draws positive and beneficial outcomes from culture to shape the human being and their internal spiritual world, making them a civilized person who plays a positive role in the development and progress of society. A civilized person focuses on using the positive results of culture to cultivate their mind and character (xiuxin yangxing), shaping themselves and their internal spiritual capacities to perform actions beneficial to the progress of humanity, the country, society, and the self. Therefore, civilization emphasizes the process of activity from the outside in and its positive results, manifesting as "the mastery of the person over themselves," emphasizing "internalization into a human being." A "cultured person" (a person of learning) is not necessarily a civilized person, nor necessarily someone beneficial to social and human progress. Some people possessed of cultural knowledge and technology may, for selfish interests, do things harmful to the country, society, and the people—this is the "evil of culture." Thus, it is necessary to further shape "cultured persons" into "civilized persons."
In short, culture is the externalization and objectification of human internal essential powers into results, which can be "material" (such as food culture, wine culture, clothing culture, architectural culture, etc.) or "spiritual" (such as ideological culture), and can be "good" or "bad." Civilization uses the positive and beneficial fruits of culture to shape the human being and their internal spiritual world, emphasizing the cultivation of the mind and character, refining human nature and disposition, and shaping the human being. Civilization and culture are not merely as Mr. Qian Mu [7] described: "Civilization tilts toward the external and the material; culture tilts toward the internal and the spiritual." Both culture and civilization have the connotation and function of "transforming the person"; the difference is that culture directly transforms the person into a "knowledgeable person" and a "person of internal essential power," whereas civilization transforms the person into a "civilized person"—one who possesses "the power of goodness" (i.e., a good human nature and disposition) and is a "person whose virtue moves all under heaven." "Culture" is embodied as "man's mastery over external nature," while "civilization" is embodied as "man's mastery over his own internal spiritual world." American scholars such as Lester Ward, Albion Small, and Barth also believed that "culture" manifests as "man's mastery over nature," while civilization manifests as "man's mastery over himself."
2. Relatively Different Forms
Culture presents as a "mode of existence," relatively emphasizing "is-ness" and "factual cognition"; civilization presents as a "state of progress," relatively emphasizing "virtue" and "value evaluation." In other words, culture points toward an existential mode in a factual sense, while civilization points toward a state of progress in a value sense. Once we perform a value evaluation on "culture" as a mode of existence regarding whether it is conducive to "progress," it involves the category of "civilization" and becomes an object explored by that category.
Culture expresses a "mode of existence" presented by all fruits stemming from human activity; it is an "existence" in a factual sense, and this existence manifests in different "modes." For example, dining styles in the East and West differ: Westerners mostly use knives and forks, while Chinese people use chopsticks. This is a difference in culinary culture; one cannot say which is civilized and which is not. The West emphasizes "targeted therapy" for patients using chemical drugs, while Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) emphasizes "holistic treatment" using natural substances. These are different medical cultures. Westerners relatively emphasize the separation of powers, while Chinese people relatively emphasize systemic wholeness and "Great Unity" (Dayitong). [8] These are different political cultures. The West relatively advocates for the subject-object dualism, while China relatively emphasizes "harmony without uniformity" (he er bu tong). [9] These are differences in philosophical culture.
Civilization, conversely, is the "image" presented by the mode of existence of a country, nation, or people; it is the "state of progress" of their development. Today's Western civilization promotes opposition, conflict, and even violence and war, leading to zero-sum games, winner-takes-all outcomes, fields of corpses, and human suffering—presenting an image of "barbarism." Chinese civilization promotes "harmony among all nations," "assisting the whole world," "Great Harmony" (Datong), [10] a community with a shared future, and "everyone appreciating the beauty of others." [11] It presents a civilized image of "the world belongs to the public," each appreciating their own beauty, peaceful development, win-win cooperation, inclusive benefits, and happy tranquility.
3. Relatively Different Emphasis
Different cultures possess certain commonalities, but relatively speaking, they emphasize difference; civilizations have regional and characteristic differences, but relatively speaking, they emphasize unity.
Culture is primarily a concept based on nationality and regionality. It relatively stresses the national self, national characteristics, national differences, and national identity, embodying a "national self-consciousness." It emphasizes regional differences in modes of existence, lifestyles, and ways of thinking. It relatively values tradition and its modern significance, focusing on differences and boundaries. The European culture, Western culture, Chinese culture, and Indian culture that people often speak of are examples of this. Thomas Sowell pointed out that there are many differences between various cultures, one of which is the difference in scope. Of course, they also differ in certain characteristics.
Civilization also presents regional and national characteristics and uniqueness, but from the perspective of the development and progress of all humanity, it places greater emphasis on the unity, integration, and mutual learning between nations. It focuses on the world significance possessed by national or regional civilizations. It transcends the national self and boundaries, valuing the progress of human nature and integrative unity. In a certain sense, the agricultural civilization, industrial civilization, and ecological civilization we speak of are such examples. Huntington pointed out that "civilization is the greatest 'we'" and "civilizations have no clear boundaries."
In essence, the concept of culture leans toward national differences and specific group identities/national self-identities, while the concept of civilization, to a certain extent, focuses on transcending these differences. Norbert Elias noted that culture emphasizes national differences and specific group identities, whereas the concept of civilization ignores these differences to varying degrees. Bruce Mazlish also pointed out that "culture tends toward specific local factors," while civilization has "universal sentiments."
4. Relatively Different Nature and Function
Culture is distinguished by being "advanced" or "backward," while civilizations are mostly distinguished by "regional characteristics."
Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Every civilization has its shortcomings. There is no perfect civilization in the world, nor is there a civilization that is devoid of any merit." However, "civilizations do not differ in terms of being superior or inferior; they only differ in characteristics and regionality." Nietzsche pointed out in The Antichrist that civilization "is nothing more than spiritual discipline and self-restraint"; "on the contrary, culture can be closely associated with social decadence." Huang Shengzhang also believed that culture can contain dross, while civilization can only consist of the essence. Archaeological evidence proves that various types of culture already existed in the age of barbarism, but they cannot all be called "civilization." Civilization is higher than culture and is a manifestation of synthesized excellence. No matter how important a culture of a certain period or region is, it cannot always represent or be called a civilization. The long-standing, deep-rooted spiritual foundation of a society is its civilization, not just its culture. This indicates that there are advanced cultures as well as backward ones. Advanced cultures promote the progress of humanity, the country, the nation, society, and the human being, while backward cultures hinder such progress.
Civilization, by contrast, refers to the altruistic and positive fruits precipitated during the evolutionary process of cultural development that embody "seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and valuing beauty" and contribute to the progress of humanity, nations, ethnicities, society, and individuals themselves. It represents the advanced aspect of culture or advanced culture itself (such as fine traditional Chinese culture) and is suitable for common use by all of humanity. It possesses only distinct characteristics and regional differences, not hierarchies of superiority or inferiority. In other words, in a radical and ontological sense, civilization describes the objective facts of altruistic development and progress whereby humanity "transforms objects into goodness" (huà wù wéi shàn), "transforms people into goodness" (huà rén wéi shàn), and "allows virtue to prevail throughout the world." Anthropologists often view civilization as the positive results brought to humanity by social progress. Fukuzawa Yukichi [12] also believed that civilization means "raising humanity to a noble realm," representing the "gradual improvement of human social interaction," the "tranquility of the person and the progress of the spirit," and the "progress of the people’s virtue and intellect."
Certain elements of opposition, conflict, violence, and war contained within contemporary Western culture have led human society into a dangerous predicament and plunged the world into turmoil. The origins of the First and Second World Wars were primarily in the West. Regional conflicts in West Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine military conflict, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are primarily rooted in the United States, as is the root of the conflict currently being provoked in the Taiwan Strait. This Western culture contains within it "evil." Fukuzawa Yukichi once remarked: "Thousands of years from now, people will surely lament the barbarism of European civilization." Chinese culture advocates for "harmony among all nations" (xié hé wàn bāng), "benefitting the whole world" (jiān jì tiān xià), "Great Unity" (shì jiè dà tóng), and "appreciating the beauty of others alongside one's own" (měi měi yǔ gòng) [13]. This is an excellent culture conducive to promoting global peaceful development, win-win cooperation, and inclusive benefits. Voltaire [14] pointed out that the history of human civilization began with China. Civilization is a form of restraint, self-control, and regulation of the evil in human nature. The methods of this restraint and regulation differ, and thus civilizations have distinct characteristics and regional differences, but no hierarchy of high and low. As long as something belongs to civilization—whether ancient or modern, Chinese or foreign—it is an altruistic positive result that contributes to the progress of humanity, nations, ethnicities, society, and individuals. It is the altruistic aspect of various forms of progress, such as social progress, that embodies the human pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty.
Wen Yang [15] pointed out: "Will civilizations conflict because of hierarchies? Or will they learn from each other based on equality? This can be called the question of our era and the question of the world." If one insists on the "high or low" status of civilizations, conflict will arise; if one insists on the "equality" of civilizations, mutual learning will surely follow. It is in the above sense regarding the question of which is higher that most scholars believe civilization is the result of culture developing to a certain stage, and therefore civilization is higher than culture.
5. Differences in Relative Associations Culture is often associated with the categories of "edification" (jiào huà), cultural knowledge, science and technology, capability, and "doing things" (zuò shì). Civilization is often linked to "upbringing" (jiào yǎng), behavioral literacy, morality, and "being a person" (zuò rén). Cultural categories contain "civilizational" factors; this factor is the "goodness of culture."
When we speak of culture, what first appears is the cultural knowledge and science and technology people have mastered through "edification." For example, when speaking of a person’s "cultural level" (wén huà shuǐ píng), it usually refers to their level of mastery over cultural knowledge and science and technology. However, cultural level and civilizational level are not equivalent. High cultural level does not strictly equal a high civilizational level; there even exist situations where one uses knowledge and technology to commit evil. Here lies the question of how to transform and elevate cultural knowledge and science and technology into civilizational literacy. "Edification," "cultural knowledge," "science and technology," "capability," and "doing things" are the common hallmark categories used when discussing culture.
Civilization concerns the moral ethics, upbringing, and behavioral literacy of people within a society. Civilization is a form of social upbringing presented through morality and the rule of law, rules and systems, behavioral norms, and inner conscience. This is what Engels meant when he pointed out that "civilization is a practice, a social quality" (which can also be understood as "upbringing"—Author's Note). In a society where everyone’s speech and behavior feel elegant, their conduct feels noble, social interactions feel comfortable, and participation in social causes feels beneficial—where every person engages in altruistic individual and social activities based on the five constant virtues (benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness) and the virtues of being gentle, kind, respectful, thrifty, and yielding [16]—that is a civilized society. If a person possessing cultural knowledge and science and technology litters or spits in public places, they are not a civilized person. In the Chinese language, the term "civilization" (wén míng) appeared early in the I Ching (Book of Changes). The "Dayu" chapter of the I Ching says: "Its virtue is robust and civilized." The "Canon of Shun" in the Book of Documents also says: "Deep, wise, accomplished, and civilized; mild, respectful, and sincere." "Ethical morality," "upbringing," "cultivating the mind and nature," "heart-nature" (xīn xìng), "virtue-nature" (dé xìng), "virtue prevailing throughout the world," "good governance" (shàn zhì), "democratic rule of law," and "fairness and justice" are the hallmark categories commonly used to discuss civilization. Here, civilization is essentially related to ethics and morality. When culture is purified and elevated through "ethics," "morality," and "virtue-nature," it becomes civilization. If there is a distinction between the two, civilization is primarily defined against barbaric behavior, while ethics and morality are primarily focused on the ethico-moral relations between people; the latter is a form of the former.
6. Differences in Relative Philosophical Foundations The philosophical foundation of culture is primarily epistemology, while the philosophical foundation of civilization is primarily the philosophy of virtue. Discussing the respective philosophical foundations of culture and civilization is a quite complex and difficult issue; it is currently hard to provide an extremely precise answer that is universally accepted. Here, I can only attempt a preliminary exploration and analysis.
Culture relatively emphasizes "humanized objects" or "humanizing into objects" within the framework of the relationship between humans and things. It relatively focuses on the knowledge and capabilities humans acquire to control natural forces to satisfy human needs, focuses on doing things "for the self," focuses on externalization into objects, and adheres to the "scale of the object." Its logic primarily moves from the subject toward the object, from the inside out. As previously mentioned, culture is primarily manifested as "human dominance over nature," which is mostly carried out through knowledge systems and science and technology. "Rationality," "knowledge," "technique," "science and technology," and "social wealth" are its common hallmark categories. Although it also carries the meaning of "transforming people," its "transformation" primarily refers to "transforming people into knowledgeable people." This "transformation" has both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect is transforming people toward goodness by converting culture into civilization; in this sense, it becomes a category of civilization. Furthermore, culture primarily answers the epistemological question of "what is it?"
The philosophical foundation of civilization is primarily the philosophy of virtue. (1) Civilization relatively emphasizes "transforming objects into goodness" and "transforming people into goodness" within the framework of the relationship between people—that is, the positive results of making a person truly human (from a natural person to a social person, and then to a civilized person with a sound personality). (2) Civilization is a form of human "enlightened" self-confirmation, self-restraint, self-perfection, and self-progress. (3) Civilization focuses on the rules, systems, ethical norms, and inner conscience required to mediate relationships between people. It relatively emphasizes "altruism" and is a relational model of mutual benefit between people. (4) Culture emphasizes the primordial "transformation" through knowledge, while civilization emphasizes the "clarification" (míng) of culture—that is, "clarifying great virtue" (míng dà dé) [17] and placing restraints and limits on the "evil" within human nature and culture. Aristotle said that the good life is the end or purpose of civilization, and virtue is the key to achieving a good and happy life. Huntington believed that civilization transforms toward good, while non-civilization transforms toward evil. Fukuzawa Yukichi also pointed out that civilization is the progress of virtue and intellect, raising humanity to a noble realm. Civilization, in the final analysis, is the victory of the goodness of human nature over the barbarism of human nature. Its essence is the spiritual pursuit of "seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and valuing beauty" that transcends survival needs, and the fruits thereof. (5) Civilization relatively emphasizes internalizing into humans and transforming people to "be human" (zuò rén); it emphasizes being endogenous to humans, transforming people toward goodness, and allowing virtue to prevail throughout the world. It adheres to the "scale of the human." Its logic primarily moves from the object toward the subject, from the outside in. Because "man is the measure of all things," and it is only when all things exist for the sake of man that they have meaning, "man" is the coordinate for understanding all objects and things related to humanity. Civilization exists for the development and progress of all humanity and individuals themselves; it needs to use "man" as the coordinate or be reduced to the starting point of "man" to understand civilization in its original sense. Philosophically, the highest and most core "ontological" pursuit of man as man is "seeking truth, pursuing goodness, and valuing beauty." This pursuit has primordial significance for understanding civilization. Thus, civilization is the unceasing pursuit and accumulated positive results of humanity, society, the state, and the nation toward the realm of ultimate truth, goodness, and beauty. This is the progress of human nature, virtue, and heart-nature—the enlightenment of human ignorance (truth), the regulation of human barbarism (goodness), and the edification of the ugliness of human nature (beauty). (6) "Virtue-nature," "virtue prevailing throughout the world," "good governance," "ethics and morality," "democratic rule of law," and "fairness and justice" are its common hallmark categories. It also has "humanized" factors, but these are the altruistic positive results contained within humanization due to the progress of human nature. (7) Civilization is manifested as "humanity’s dominance over itself." It primarily answers the question of whether something is "good or not" for people and humanity. The question of "good or not" is essentially a question of "virtue."
In short, culture is not entirely equivalent to civilization, and civilization is not entirely equivalent to culture. Culture contains civilization but is not all civilization; civilization contains culture but is not equivalent to all culture. Civilization is the "goodness of culture"—the progressive aspect of cultural achievements that is beneficial to the progress of human nature and the development of individuals, and which is "altruistic" in transforming people toward "goodness." Culture is the prerequisite for civilization, and civilization is the sublimation of culture. Civilization originates from culture but is higher than culture. The transcendence of culture and its sublimation into "altruistic progress" and the "seeking of truth, pursuit of goodness, and valuation of beauty" is civilization.
III. Clarifying the "Deceptive Scheme" of Today's Western Mainstream in Equating Culture with Civilization and Its Significance One of the aims of clarifying the relative difference between culture and civilization philosophically is to unravel the "deceptive scheme" (diào guǐ zhī jì) of today’s Western mainstream that equates cultural identity with civilization, to break the "Western-centrism" (Western-centrism), and to further clarify the epochal value and global significance of Chinese civilization and the new form of human civilization.
First, contemporary Western modernization cannot fundamentally create a new form of human civilization. Contemporary Western modernization takes "Western-centrism" as its core pillar and underlying logic; it cannot produce a new form of human civilization. We must never deny the historical contribution of Western modernization to the progress of human civilization. However, ever since "Western-centrism" was proposed and established, and ever since Western culture alienated into "imperial culture," contemporary Western modernization has been unable to create a new form of human civilization.
Regarding its goals, contemporary Western modernization pursues the appreciation of capital and the maintenance of a secure position as the world hegemon. Western modernization with this goal can only endogenously produce so-called "capital civilization"; it cannot produce a new form of human civilization.
Regarding its road, path, and method, the Western mainstream believes that the Western path of modernization is the only road to achieving modernization. Its essence is to advocate for the Western modernization road or so-called Western civilization—not a road for all countries to achieve modernization, nor is it "human civilization." It cannot create a new form of human civilization.
Regarding its subjects and drivers, contemporary Western modernization has not truly viewed the masses of the people as the subject, driver, and end of historical development. It pays more attention to the power of capital and the role of a minority of elites. Such modernization cannot create a new form of human civilization.
Regarding its nature and standpoint, contemporary Western modernization stands on the side of capital and capitalists, primarily realizing the desires of capitalists and a small number of capital interest groups. It does not stand firmly on the people's standpoint, grasp the people's aspirations, respect the people's creativity, or pool the people's wisdom. Such modernization cannot create a new form of human civilization.
Regarding its outlook on civilization, the West relies on a civil society where individual interests are paramount. Its so-called civilization is a civilization in the singular—it is "my" civilization, a civilization "for me." It cannot create a new form of human civilization.
From the perspective of ethnology and anthropology, the West views the white race as the most civilized, advanced, and excellent people in the world. They are the "subject," while the peoples of the non-Western world are the "object," belonging to the ignorant, barbaric, and uncivilized races. The subject must rule the object. This kind of racial superiority can only derive a so-called "imperial" civilization; it cannot endogenously produce a new form of human civilization.
Regarding its outlook on social operation, the West’s general view of social operation is Social Darwinism. It believes that the laws of "evolution through competition" and "survival of the fittest" are universally applicable governance rules for human society, and that these laws can be fully implemented in all fields of society and throughout the process of secularization. This Social Darwinism cannot derive a new form of human civilization. What it endogenously produces is merely a so-called "minority civilization" where the development of one part comes at the cost of the development of another; it is not human civilization.
From the perspective of evaluative criteria, "Western-centrism" emphasizes that reason possesses qualities of essence, logic, identity, uniqueness, universality, supremacy, eternity, absoluteness, subjectivity, and negativity. Reason is the highest criterion; everything must be brought before the tribunal of reason for judgment. It holds that Western countries can establish "world standards" with the supreme power to control the globe based on reason, and that these standards should be used to measure other countries and nations. The West is seen as the incarnation of this "omnipotent reason." This can only endogenously produce a so-called Western civilization characterized by dominance and hegemony; it cannot produce a new form of human civilization.
Regarding colonial expansion, the Western mainstream believes that Western civilization is the most advanced in the world, while non-Western countries and nations are either benighted, barbaric, or uncivilized. The Western world thus believes it must exercise a "civilizing mission" mandated by God, one means of which is colonial expansion. Since the beginning of the modern era, the West has habitually used the coercive discourse of the "civilized vs. barbaric" binary [18] to justify its "civilization," a logic containing genes of barbarism that run counter to civilization, human civilization, and the new form of human civilization.
From the perspective of philosophical foundations, the philosophical basis of contemporary Western modernization is the "philosophy of the One" or the "subject-object dualism" inherent in Western metaphysics. From Ancient Greek philosophy to German Classical Philosophy, there has been a persistent search for a metaphysical "substance" as the ultimate source and highest authority of the objective material world. This substance is viewed as the supreme "One" or the "Subject," possessing absolute supremacy and subjectivity. It is the most authoritative "ruler" over the "Many" or the "Object," the absolute "ultimate existence" governing the real world. The relationship between the One and the Many, or Subject and Object, is a dualistic opposition where the former dominates and rules the latter. This philosophy serves to demonstrate the validity of "Western-centrism," endogenously producing opposition, conflict, violence, and war rather than a new form of human civilization.
Second, the history dominated by the U.S.-led West is, in a certain sense, a history of colonial expansion—a history that has led the entire world into opposition, conflict, violence, and war, rather than a history of promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity. The origins of World War I and World War II were primarily in the West. The root causes of regional conflicts and local wars in Western Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East also lie primarily with the U.S.-led West, as do the ultimate roots of the Russia-Ukraine military conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The U.S.-led West has caused constant global conflict and war, resulting in fields of corpses and countless people displaced and homeless. This is the "barbarism" and the "evil" of contemporary Western culture; in essence, it has already drifted far from human civilization.
Third, civilization is essentially related to the restraint, tempering, and regulation of the evils of human nature; it is directed against barbarism. To obscure the barbarism inherent in contemporary Western modernization and "Western-centrism," some Western scholars often cloak culture in the guise of civilization. In reality, whatever corresponds to barbarism should be described by the concept of civilization; whatever relates to "humanization" [19] or "externalization" [20] but deviates from civilization can generally be described as backward culture and cannot be categorized as civilization. We do not deny that Western culture contains civilized aspects conducive to human progress, social progress, and the progress of the individual; indeed, we must learn from and draw on these civilized aspects. For instance, Western artistic architecture—majestic, magnificent, and beautiful after hundreds or thousands of years—Western libraries with their grand and brilliant presence, and Western universities that are elegant and conspicuous can all be described and interpreted through the lens of civilization, with the exception of those structures built upon the blood and sacrificed lives of countless people. We must reveal the "deceptive stratagem" [21] of the West: treating what belongs to "culture" as "civilization"—that is, equating culture with civilization.
In fact, in many respects, the West often commits barbaric acts in the name of civilization and provides legal justifications for its various behaviors. In response, we must clarify and "demystify" this "in the name of civilization." The West’s destruction of the natural environment for the development of heavy industry and its colonial expansion are not industrial civilization, but merely industrial culture. The West’s creation of opposition and conflict between countries, regions, and nations in the name of liberty, democracy, and human rights is not human civilization, but a deviation of Western culture from human civilization. The West’s dumping of vast amounts of industrial waste into other countries is not ecological civilization, but the Western culture of benefiting oneself at the expense of others. The West’s use of high-tech, precision military weapons to cause violence and war between states and nations is not technological civilization, but a culture of war. While the West’s respect for the individual rights of its own citizens belongs to the realm of civilization, the deaths of people in other countries it causes belong to the realm of barbarism. Will Durant once compared civilization to a winding stream, noting that it is occasionally stained blood-red by slaughter, theft, noise, and other attention-grabbing acts; meanwhile, on the banks, people are quietly building houses, procreating, raising children, singing songs, writing poetry, and even engaging in the art of sculpture. In Durant's interpretation of the civilization narrative, those things happening on the "riverbanks" are more consistent with the trajectory of relations between civilizations, while continuous oppression and slaughter only make the stream murkier. The West equating culture with civilization is a "deceptive stratagem" in the history of human culture and civilization. Conversely, some of our fellow Chinese equating civilization with culture is a "delusion" in that same history. We must clarify the delusions of these two scenarios—equating culture with civilization and vice versa—and analyze and clear away the global myth intentionally created by some Western scholars who confuse the two.
Fourth, some Western scholars promote "Western-centrism," and the West often performs barbaric acts in the name of civilization; one of their methods is to represent culture as civilization. The internal logic of this "deceptive stratagem" is as follows: Initially, people did not consciously distinguish between culture and civilization, often using the two interchangeably, lacking cognitive and theoretical self-awareness. Later, people made some preliminary distinctions, considering culture to refer primarily to "humanization" (relative to primitive nature) and civilization to refer to "transforming the person" [22] (relative to "barbarism"), yet they still lacked high theoretical clarity and self-awareness. After the 17th century, with the opening of global maritime routes and the rise of industry and commerce, some European scholars emphasized "national self-consciousness," proactively using the "civilized-barbaric" binary to distinguish European society and the European race from other nations. They viewed European society and the European race as civilized and other nations as barbaric peoples in need of enlightenment [23]. This formed "Eurocentrism," which later expanded into "Western-centrism," possessing a high degree of cognitive, theoretical, and practical self-awareness. (Some scholars have pointed out that "European expansion was one factor in the background of the rise of the concept of civilization"; "After the concept of civilization emerged in the 18th century, racial theory found a host and a place to settle"; "Europeans viewed the relationship between themselves and 'the Other' through the imagery of racial superiority; if one concept occupied a special position in this imagery, it was civilization"; "Civilization originated from the European sense of superiority," expressing a Western self-consciousness or even a state consciousness. This sense of superiority could take the form of either benevolence or malicious colonization.) To establish and maintain "Western-centrism," the Western mainstream relied on the concept of civilization as opposed to barbarism to emphasize a singular, monistic civilization. They believed civilization belonged only to the West, calling everything they did (including its barbaric aspects) "civilization," while countries and nations outside the West were either barbaric or uncivilized. Thus, the West could exercise its "civilizing mission" as the will of God. Since the proposal of "Western-centrism" and the alienation of Western culture into an "imperial culture," it has contained barbaric genes. In the historical process of exercising its "civilizing mission," it has committed many barbaric acts because its philosophical foundation is "subject-object dualism." Since civilization is directed against barbarism, to obscure this barbarism and maintain "Western-centrism," the Western mainstream has more proactively employed this "deceptive stratagem"—equating culture with civilization to use civilization as a cover for barbarism. Some Western scholars intentionally confused the two, presenting culture as civilization; the essence of this was to maintain "Western-centrism" and hide their barbaric conduct. The shift of the core meaning of civilization from "indeterminate" to "determinate" was due to the emergence of "Western-centrism." The vigorous defense of "Western-centrism" is the underlying logic of the Western mainstream's "deceptive stratagem." In A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee replaced the concept of "culture," which Oswald Spengler used repeatedly in The Decline of the West, with the concept of "civilization." Samuel Huntington did the same. Within Western mainstream trends, the distinction between culture and civilization is very unclear, or the two are even swapped arbitrarily at any time; this abuse is extremely serious. Some experts and scholars deliberately confuse the two even while knowing exactly that they differ. Truly clarifying the internal logic of this "deceptive stratagem" helps us dispel the fog surrounding the issues of culture and civilization.
Fifth, Chinese civilization is civilization in the truest sense. Voltaire believed that the history of human civilization began with China and that China was Europe’s intellectual mentor. He also emphasized that the Confucian theory of the "innate goodness of human nature" [24] was essentially different from the Christian theory of "original sin." It is the "innate goodness" of humanity that enables them, beyond "loving God," to "love their country, parents, wives, and children with deep affection." He argued that no maxims or dogmas of Western nations could compare to this "pure morality." Confucius frequently spoke of benevolence and righteousness (renyi); if people were to practice such morality, they would not attack one another. He also cited the missionary Louis Le Comte, saying: "While China followed the purest moral lessons, Europe was sinking into error and corruption." Consequently, he loudly called for France to be "completely Sinicized," advocating that every Frenchman should take "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" as his motto. Furthermore, Diderot and Helvétius believed China was the only country in the world to integrate politics and morality. They argued that Chinese rulers understood that for a country to prosper, it must rely on morality, and that Chinese doctrine deserved to be a model for all nations. Holbach also proclaimed that if France wished to prosper, it must replace Christian morality with Confucian morality. However, what we need to reflect upon is that some of our own people often describe what was originally "civilized" as merely "cultural."
Sixth, clarifying the relative distinction between culture and civilization is of vital directional significance for deepening the study of both, achieving theoretical breakthroughs, dismantling "Western-centrism," and understanding and grasping the new form of human civilization. First, we must return to the essence of culture and civilization. Equating culture with civilization essentially exaggerates Western culture, while equating civilization with culture easily leads to a misreading of Chinese civilization. The urgent task is to return to their respective essences, bringing to light the "evil" within Western culture and highlighting the "goodness" of Chinese civilization, so that people can recognize the true faces of both. For example, writing systems, cities, and states belong primarily to the category of "culture" rather than "civilization," because some states have already manifested a certain "evil of the state." Here, we should consciously and clearly identify the essence of the abuse of the concept of civilization by "Western-centrism"—that is, it treats civilization merely as an ideology, assuming a "racial superiority" rooted in national self-consciousness to suppress other countries and nations, hiding its barbaric acts and ultimately moving toward the opposite of civilization. Bruce Mazlish pointed out: "Some expressions of dualistic opposition are indispensable. Excluding and disparaging 'the Other' is a basic psychological mechanism used to highlight one's own prominence. Civilization is a way (a means) to achieve this end." To overturn such a view of civilization and reconstruct the first kind of civilization we discussed, we must speak of civilization in the sense of humanity's progressive "pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty," in the sense of the construction of human nature, mind-nature, and moral nature, and in the "altruistic" sense of "virtue moving the world" [25].
Next, it is necessary to concern ourselves with the respective orientations of culture and civilization. The orientation of culture lies in humanization, externalization, and their products; it focuses relatively on the "exterior" and "objects," on human dominance over the external world, and on the construction of "achievements" in the world outside of man. In contrast, the orientation of civilization lies in the transformation of people (huaren [26]), internalization, and their products; it focuses relatively on the "inner heart" and "becoming human" (cheng-ren [27]), emphasizing the construction of "virtue" or "mind-nature" (xinxing [28]) within the internal emotional, psychological, spiritual, and mental worlds of human beings. When we speak of constructing the internal emotional, psychological, spiritual, and mental worlds of man himself, we should consciously realize that this is the primary task of civilizational construction. This is evident from the historical evolution of the connotation of civilization. Initially, civilization was defined by "cities, organizations, systems, norms, and spirit"; subsequently, civilization was explained within the framework of the "barbarism-civilization" dichotomy, holding that civilization is directed against barbarism and embodies a national self-consciousness possessing a "sense of superiority." Following this, civilization was defined based on the underlying logic of "Western-centrism," emphasizing that civilization belongs only to the West, and countries or nations outside the West are either barbaric or uncivilized. Today, more and more experts and scholars—especially Chinese scholars—are consciously bidding farewell to "Western-centrism." Grounded in human society or socialized humanity, they understand and grasp civilization from a broader and more beautiful vision of the future. They believe that civilization manifests the process of humanity's internal "pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty" and its positive results; it displays the common progress of "altruism" in various human relationships and its positive results; it demonstrates the process of human self-development and social development and its positive results; and it focuses on the construction of "virtue" and "mind-nature" in the internal emotional, psychological, spiritual, and mental worlds of man and their positive results. In short, civilization essentially speaks of "virtue traveling throughout the world" (dexing tianxia [29]). This is the evolution of the connotation of civilization from the perspective of historical development. As Bruce Mazlish pointed out: "When we define civilization, we must first treat it as a historical phenomenon rather than as an abstract form to which we then forcibly assign substance."
Thirdly, the issues of culture and civilization should be discussed in relative terms; they cannot be treated "broadly," "vaguely," or "confusedly." We must avoid describing cultural issues as civilizational issues and vice versa. Regarding civilization, China is relatively earlier than the West because civilization mainly involves ethics and morality, the transformation of objects into goodness, the transformation of people into goodness, and virtue traveling throughout the world. As previously mentioned, Voltaire explicitly pointed out that the history of human civilization began with China, whereas Ancient Greek philosophy—as the source of so-called Western civilization—spoke more about the ontology and knowledge of things. Regarding culture, the West has relatively more abundant achievements because culture mainly involves cultural knowledge, science and technology, and innovative capacity. The "Source-Tracing of Civilization" [30] can begin with archaeology, but it can also begin with philosophy—by clarifying the relative differences between culture and civilization. It is necessary to focus not only on the "historical length" of civilization but also on its "historical height," "historical breadth," and "historical temperature." This represents a new path for the Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization.
Finally, through the analysis and study of the relative differences between culture and civilization, we can reveal a "law of construction," namely the "law of construction from the outside in." Generally speaking, the various types of construction that people focus on mostly follow the logic of "exterior first, interior later." Historically, China's response to Western modernization has followed the historical logic of physical objects-institutions-culture, and from external imitation to internal subjectivity. Physical objects belong to the category of "external world construction" outside of man and have a strong character of external imitation; the "goodness" within culture belongs to civilization, which marks the beginning of entering the "subjectivity" construction of man's inner spiritual world. Xi Jinping's statement that "the essence of modernization is the modernization of people" essentially means that while Chinese-path modernization focuses on the modernization of objects, institutions, and national governance, it must, in the New Era, focus more essentially on the modernization of the inner spiritual world of "people." From a realistic perspective, at the beginning of Reform and Opening-up in 1978, our country focused relatively on the accumulation of material wealth and the construction of the material world outside of man. As socialism with Chinese characteristics entered the New Era, our country focused relatively on institutional construction and the modernization of national governance, and subsequently further emphasized the construction of a cultural powerhouse. We began to move toward the depths of the internal emotional, psychological, spiritual, and mental worlds of man himself, focusing on establishing, consolidating, and exalting the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. Looking toward the future, the construction of the material world for all humanity has achieved fruitful results, but today the greatest difficulty is that serious problems, difficult to heal for the time being, have emerged in the internal emotional, psychological, spiritual, and mental worlds of man himself. The greatest inspiration this law gives us is that, as a matter of urgency, the construction of the entire world should and must focus on "internal" and "heart" construction; this is the correct path for humanity toward a bright future. One of the goals and orientations of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture is to commit to the construction of the internal emotional, psychological, spiritual, and mental worlds of man himself and his subjectivity. This is essentially a recognition of laws, and it will inevitably promote innovation based on these laws.