Yu Heping: The Interpretive System and Basic Logic of the History of Chinese-style Modernization

The study of the history of Chinese-path modernization constitutes a brand-new mission and direction for the study of both Chinese and world history. The history of Chinese-path modernization is undoubtedly a history of modernization centered on the "Chinese-path." It is not a generalized history of modernization, but rather a new form of modernization history, much like its carrier—Chinese-path modernization itself. Existing research on Chinese modernization, both domestic and foreign, has not lacked attention to the characteristics of Chinese modernization, and has even occasionally used terms such as "the Chinese road," "the Chinese model," or "Chinese-style." However, in terms of purpose and connotation, these were primarily used to denote national and regional spatial characteristics—the "Chinese-ness" of it—which is to say, the path and conditions of the diffusion and implementation of Western modernization within China. They did not represent the holistic, special, and nascent "formational" characteristics denoted by "Chinese-path modernization." Therefore, the history of Chinese-path modernization must necessarily possess its own unique interpretive system—namely, a basic thread that reveals the formation process of this new form of modernization, as well as the incubation and formation paths of the special forms it contains. This interpretive system and formation process have already been given a programmatic explanation in Xi Jinping's discourse on Chinese-path modernization, from which at least the following basic concepts can be understood.

I. The Interpretive System of the History of Chinese-Path Modernization

The study of any form of history requires the adoption of a corresponding interpretive system based on the characteristics of the object of study, so as to facilitate more practical exposition, explanation, and evaluation. The same must be true for the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization. Based on the theoretical givens of the existing concept of Chinese-path modernization, the interpretive system for studying its history should undergo three shifts compared to previous interpretive systems used in ordinary modernization history research.

First, the primary line of interpretation should shift from the previous emphasis on the exogenous, late-developing, and Westernizing nature of the emergence and development of Chinese modernization to an emphasis on its endogenous, original, and Sinicized nature. Previous research on ordinary Chinese modernization history was basically a conductive and benchmarking interpretation using Western early-developing modern countries as the frame of reference. This interpretive system explained China's modernization—especially early modernization prior to 1949—either from the perspective of modernization stimulated by external shocks (exogenous modernization); from the perspective of modernization occurring after the Western early-developing countries (late-developing modernization); or from the perspective of modernization that imitated Western countries (Westernizing modernization). While these interpretive systems certainly have their uses for the study of ordinary world modernization history, they are entirely unsuitable for the study of the specific history of Chinese-path modernization. Because "Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that continues an ancient civilization" and is "a modernization that has grown from the soil of China," it is a self-generated and spontaneous modernization—that is, an endogenous and original modernization. If one relies solely on exogeneity and late-development for interpretation, it is clearly illogical and inconsistent with historical facts. In modern China, there were two main orientations in the exploration of the modernization road: one was Westernization, and the other was Sinicization ^[1]. The latter explored the road of Chinese-path modernization and gradually became the mainstream. Although there was an increasing amount of reference to and absorption of advanced foreign civilizations, such as the West, in the modern exploration of the Chinese-path modernization road, these were all strategies for utilizing external resources, including the utilization of Western elements such as ideas, institutions, technology, and capital. For certain elements, especially ideological and institutional ones, they were often transformed and reconstructed during actual adoption according to China's traditional culture and actual conditions—that is, Sinicization—such as the practices of "Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for application" ^[2], "making foreign things serve China," and "combining the indigenous and the foreign." Through the fusion of China and the outside world, these practices transformed foreign things into new Chinese things and traditional Chinese things into modern Chinese things, thereby producing varying degrees of efficacy. Therefore, the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization must focus on explaining its endogeneity, originality, and Sinicized nature, as well as its effectiveness. Even if the actual effects were not always positive or significant, one should still conduct an investigation and analysis based on seeking truth from facts and summarize historical experiences and lessons. One must not, as in the past, simply dismiss the utilization of Western elements as colonial, "worshipping things foreign and fawning on the outside world" ^[3], or "humiliating the nation and forfeiting its sovereignty" ^[4]; nor should the transformation and reconstruction of Western elements and their results be generalized as distorted, deformed, grafted, "neither Chinese nor Western," or "neither fish nor fowl," and subsequently smeared, belittled, or negated.

Second, the theme of interpretation should shift from the previous focus on the realization of modernization indicators to a focus on the attributes and characteristics of Chinese-path modernization. Previous research on ordinary modernization history primarily proceeded from the global commonalities of modernization, examining changes in modernization indicators across political, economic, cultural, and social dimensions—such as democratization, industrialization, urbanization, technologization, education rates, and the natural quality of the population—to explain the progressive process and degree of modernization achieved. Although some Chinese scholars previously proposed three new issues initially touching upon the "Chinese-path" in modernization history research—advocating that, beyond modernization indicators, research was needed on how the modernization road shifted from capitalism to Soviet-style socialism and then to socialism with Chinese characteristics, as well as the role of institutional changes like revolution and reform in driving these shifts; that beyond "Westernization," research was needed on the issue of national independence in striving for autonomous development and international mutual benefit, as well as the decisive role of opposing foreign aggression and oppression; and that beyond the opposition between tradition and modernity, research was needed on the internal changes of traditional factors and their potential adaptability to modernization—nonetheless, the focus of these three new issues lay mainly in the objective performance, social environment, and certain influences on the realization of modernization indicators within China's modernization process, rather than in the internal meaning of "Chinese-path" or, even less so, the "new form." These issues from previous research—indicator realization, road transition, nationalization, and potential adaptability—are, of course, still needed for the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization, but the research cannot be limited to them. Because Chinese-path modernization, in addition to the global connotations of modernization such as industrialization, democratization, urbanization, and scientification, possesses more important attributes and characteristics that mark it as "Chinese-path." Regarding its attributes, there are primarily five: first, in terms of political nature, it is a modernization created and led by the Communist Party of China; second, in terms of social nature, it is a modernization of socialism with Chinese characteristics; third, in terms of functional nature, it is a modernization that promotes the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; fourth, in terms of purpose, it is a "people-centered" modernization; and fifth, in terms of civilizational nature, it is a modernization that constitutes a new form of human civilization. Regarding its characteristics, there are primarily five: the modernization of a huge population, the modernization of common prosperity for all, the modernization of material and cultural-ethical advancement, the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature, and the modernization of peaceful development. These five attributes and five characteristics constitute the essence and core of Chinese-path modernization, as well as its prescriptive nature. Therefore, the history of Chinese-path modernization must take the explanation of the significance, origins, and roles of these internal qualities, as well as their integrity, necessity, inevitability, particularity, and rationality, as its central thread. Among these five attributes and five characteristics, except for the first three attributes which are exclusive to China, the remaining seven are both the core content of Chinese-path modernization and the constituent elements of a new form of human civilization; they should possess a common significance for human modernization. Therefore, the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization also needs to explain the internal relationship between Chinese-path modernization and world modernization, so as to reveal that both possess "commonality" and "particularity"—that Chinese-path modernization is both a road for China and a utility for the world.

Third, the interpretation should shift from a one-way and one-sided comparative interpretation based on the standard of Western modernization models to a two-way and holistic comparative interpretation based on the standard of actual social efficacy. Previous research on ordinary Chinese modernization history, whether comprehensive or thematic, adopted the method of Sino-foreign comparison for interpretation and evaluation to varying degrees. The practice often involved using the modernization model of the West or a specific Western country as the comparative standard, most frequently using Britain, the United States, or Japan. This comparative research often proceeded from a "Western-centric" mindset, making one-way and one-sided comparisons between China and the West. Although it identified some differences between Chinese and foreign modernization, its primary or even sole purpose was more often to seek and prove China's anti-modernity and backwardness. It held that whatever met Western standards was authentic, correct, and successful, while whatever did not was false, incorrect, incomplete, useless, inefficient, or a failure. It even suggested that the primary reason for various failures in modern China's exploration of modernization was the inability to fully emulate Western institutions and models. Other studies conducted localized and isolated comparisons of specific periods, aspects, or regions between China and the West, leading to one-sided or anomalous conclusions. The study of the history of Chinese-path modernization certainly needs to conduct comparative Sino-foreign research, but the intent of the comparison differs from before; it is to demonstrate the uniqueness and advanced nature of the "Chinese-path" and "new form" of Chinese-path modernization. First, one can no longer use the Western model as an absolute standard for one-way comparison; instead, a two-way comparison should be conducted based on the standard of actual efficacy. That is, not only comparing China to the West but also comparing the West to China, revealing through two-way comparison the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of each, as well as their internal causes. Second, one must avoid localized and isolated comparisons and focus on holistic and comprehensive comparisons—that is, examining and evaluating the localized objects of comparison within a global vision. Third, this comparison of efficacy is not merely a comparison of economic efficiency or GDP; more importantly, it is a comparison of social efficacy, livelihood efficacy, and political efficacy. This reveals that on the road of humanity toward modernization, Chinese-path modernization not only has a new side but also a better side. This comparison is not only a shift in methodology but also a confirmation of facts. Because Chinese-path modernization has been verified through theoretical and practical exploration by China—the world's most populous country—since modern times, especially since reform and opening up and the 18th CPC National Congress, it is the modernization road that has proven most effective, most capable of strengthening the nation, and most able to benefit the people so far. It is also a modernization road that can benefit the world.

II. The Basic Thread of the History of Chinese-Path Modernization

The so-called basic thread of the history of Chinese-path modernization is the formation process of this new form of human civilization. The theory and practice of Chinese-path modernization were formally proposed and established by General Secretary Xi Jinping at the 20th CPC National Congress in 2022. This marked the formal formation and the beginning of the comprehensive implementation of the theoretical concept of Chinese-path modernization. It was also the turning point at which the process of Chinese modernization transitioned from "comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society" to "embarking on a new journey to comprehensively build a modern socialist country" using Chinese-path modernization. Although the preceding process of Chinese modernization already involved the inheritance of excellent traditional cultural genes within the connotation of Chinese-path modernization, as well as a gradually conscious and increasingly complete exploration, it had not yet entered the era of Chinese-path modernization, but was merely in the process of incubation. Therefore, the history of Chinese-path modernization differs from the general history of the development and experience of things—moving from birth to growth, from small to large—in that it is primarily a history of formation and creation from nothing to something. The study of the history of Chinese-path modernization explains this process of formation and creation, which can be divided into the following five main stages.

The first is the stage of root inheritance. This stage covers the entire ancient period and extends into the modern period. It primarily studies the root relationship and inheritance process between fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that continues an ancient civilization"; "Chinese-path modernization endows Chinese civilization with modern power, while Chinese civilization endows Chinese-path modernization with profound depth"; "If there were no 5,000 years of Chinese civilization... how could we have the successful road of socialism with Chinese characteristics that we have today?" These assertions indicate that the roots of Chinese-path modernization lie in the 5,000-year continuity of Chinese civilization and in fine traditional Chinese culture. The relationship between the two is one of mutual integration, interdependence, and mutual facilitation. This determines that explaining the internal relationship between fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization should be the "root-seeking" topic and the starting topic for the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization.

It is important to note that stating the roots of Chinese-path modernization lie in fine traditional Chinese culture is not equivalent to saying that all fine traditional culture serves as its root, nor is it equivalent to suggesting that traditional culture is itself the starting point of Chinese-path modernization. What constitutes "fine traditional Chinese culture" can be defined differently across various eras and perspectives; the fine traditional Chinese culture that serves as the root of Chinese-path modernization should be defined and excavated starting from the ideals and requirements of the New Era. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized when discussing the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture: "The prerequisite for 'integration' is mutual compatibility. 'Integration' is not a forced patching together." The same applies to seeking the roots of Chinese-path modernization within fine traditional Chinese culture: there must be "compatibility" (qíhè) rather than "patching together" (còuhe). This requires us to interpret fine traditional Chinese culture specifically through the lens of the characteristics of Chinese-path modernization to discover the inherent "compatibility" therein. Although fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization were generated in different eras and belong to different social formations, they are highly compatible in many concepts and aspirations. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress pointed out that fine traditional Chinese culture contains "elements such as holding the whole world in common ^[5], regarding the people as the foundation of the state, governing by virtue, discarding the old in favor of the new, appointing the worthy and capable, achieving harmony between humanity and nature, ceaseless self-improvement, embracing the world with great virtue, fostering honesty and harmony, and being friendly to neighbors. These are important manifestations of the cosmology, outlook on the world (Tianxia), social outlook, and moral outlook accumulated by the Chinese people in their long-term production and life, and they are highly compatible with the values and propositions of scientific socialism." Within these elements lie numerous points of compatibility with the connotation of Chinese-path modernization. Correspondingly, there are other elements of fine traditional Chinese culture that align with Chinese-path modernization, such as the yearning for a "Great Unity" (Datong) ^[6] and a "prosperous and peaceful age" (Taiping Shengshi), and an adherence to the ideals of "cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world" ^[7], as well as the sense of responsibility for the rise and fall of the nation. This compatibility represents an inner link between fine traditional Chinese culture and Chinese-path modernization, but it is not synonymous with modernity itself. Rather, it means that the aspirations for a better life and the imagined paths to achieve them contained in the tradition resonate with the fundamental goal of people-centeredness and the implementation paths of Chinese-path modernization. Furthermore, since these traditions have been passed down for generations and are deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, they demonstrate that Chinese-path modernization embodies the people's ancient yearning for a better life. Consequently, it enjoys deep popular support and is rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture.

Of course, the sources of Chinese-path modernization are not limited to fine traditional Chinese culture; they also include Marxism and other civilizations of humanity. Regarding this, General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out: "Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, embodies the advanced nature of scientific socialism, and draws on and absorbs all the outstanding achievements of human civilization." In addition to identifying the three main sources, this statement clarifies their different meanings and structural relationships: fine traditional Chinese culture is the root and defines the "Chinese-path" aspect; the other two serve as functions and supplements, defining the "modernization" attribute and representing the results of their integration with fine traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, explaining the relationship between these three is a key issue in research on the origins of Chinese-path modernization and a vital link in the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization, as it concerns its "Chineseness," rationality, and scientific nature.

Second is the stage of "spontaneous exploration" (zizai tanso). This stage primarily covers the modern period ^[8] prior to the founding of the Communist Party of China, though it remains relevant thereafter. It mainly involves researching the ideas and actions of people with lofty ideals ^[9] that carried some significance for Chinese-path modernization after the start of China's early modernization—what might be called "Chinese-path modernization thoughts and actions without a conscious awareness of Chinese-path modernization." General Secretary Xi Jinping has also discussed this, noting: "Realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has been the shared dream of the Chinese people since the beginning of modern times. Innumerable people with lofty ideals sought this goal through bitter explorations and various attempts, but all ended in failure. The heavy responsibility of exploring the path of China's modernization fell historically upon the shoulders of the Communist Party of China." This means that the "realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" sought by modern patriots and the "path of Chinese modernization" subsequently explored by the CPC are part of the same lineage and share the same purpose. In this sense, the patriots of the modern era were the initial explorers of the path of Chinese-path modernization; their "various attempts" represented the "shared dream" of the Chinese people. Revealing the pioneering, shared, experimental, and ultimately doomed characteristics of these efforts, as well as their significance and role, should be the primary task of research for this stage.

The explorations of these patriots consisted of two paths: one was a fundamentally Westernized path, and the other was a path combining China and the West. Both, however, shared the goal of strengthening the country and enriching the people, motivated by national rejuvenation. Those who chose the path of combining China and the West, in particular, integrated traditional culture's pursuit of a beautiful society with Western modern civilization. They not only endowed traditional culture with modern concepts but also put them into practice, making them the first generation of pathfinders for Chinese-path modernization. Their attempts also created some unprecedented, uniquely Chinese political, economic, and social ideas and models. Although the practical effects of these attempts varied, their methodology of combining the ancient and the modern, as well as the Chinese and the Western, deserves affirmation, and the lessons of their successes and failures are worth summarizing and learning from.

Third is the stage of advancing from "spontaneous exploration" to "self-conscious exploration" (ziwei tanso). This stage spans from the founding of the CPC to 1979, when Deng小平 proposed "Chinese-type modernization." It mainly focuses on how, following the successive failures of the modern patriots, the "heavy responsibility of exploring the path of China's modernization fell historically upon the shoulders of the Communist Party of China"—that is, the progression of the CPC after taking up the mantle. During this stage, with 1949 as the boundary, the status of the CPC underwent a fundamental change from a revolutionary party and one of many explorers to the governing party and the sole leader of the path to modernization. However, the understanding of the path of Chinese-path modernization did not yet undergo a significant shift; beyond the implementation of common prosperity, few other characteristics of Chinese-path modernization were addressed. Although the goals of transforming an agrarian country into an industrial one and carrying out the "Four Modernizations" ^[10] were proposed around the time of the founding of the People's Republic, they lacked "Chinese-path" characteristics and were essentially phased implementation plans for the universal characteristics of world modernization within China.

The status and role of this stage lie in the gradual shift from the spontaneous exploration of the previous stage to self-conscious exploration—moving from scattered, pluralistic, and incidental exploration to a organized, unified, and intentional exploration led by the CPC. The most important achievements of this stage include: the identification of CPC leadership and the socialist path as the two fundamental attributes of Chinese-path modernization; assistance given to Sun Yat-sen in formulating and persisting with the "regulation of capital" and "land to the tiller" policies (which were intended to promote common prosperity); and the development of an economic system centered on public ownership with the coexistence of multiple ownership forms, beginning in the revolutionary base areas. All of these laid the foundation for the final formation of the path of Chinese-path modernization.

Fourth is the stage of intensifying self-conscious exploration. This stage runs from Deng Xiaoping’s 1979 proposal of "Chinese-type modernization" ^[11] to the 18th CPC National Congress. Research focuses on the inner meaning and practical path of the "Chinese-type modernization" proposed by Deng. From 1979 onward, Deng mentioned "Chinese-type modernization" many times. On March 21, 1979, while meeting a delegation from the Great Britain-China Centre, he pointed out for the first time that our concept of modernization "is different from that of the West" and should be called "the four Chinese-type modernizations." Two days later, at a meeting of the Political Bureau, he noted: "In talking with foreigners, I have used a new term: Chinese-type modernization." On March 30, at a theoretical work meeting, he proposed: "In the past, to carry out the democratic revolution, we had to suit Chinese conditions... Now, to carry out construction, we must also suit Chinese conditions and blaze a path of Chinese-type modernization." He added, "To realize the four modernizations in China, we must see at least two important characteristics: one is a weak foundation... the second is a large population and limited arable land... Chinese-type modernization must proceed from Chinese characteristics." In December 1979, during a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ōhira, Deng stated: "The four modernizations we want to achieve are the four Chinese-type modernizations. Our concept of the four modernizations is not like yours, but is a 'family of moderate prosperity' (xiaokang zhijia)." He specifically emphasized: "By the end of this century, China's four modernizations... will reach the level of the relatively affluent countries in the Third World... it still requires great effort. Even if we reach that level, compared to the West, we will still be backward. So, I can only say that China will still be in a state of moderate prosperity (xiaokang) ^[12] at that time."

Based on this series of speeches, the meaning of "Chinese-type modernization" as proposed by Deng Xiaoping was, first, a continuation of the "Four Modernizations"; second, an emphasis that the construction of the "Four Modernizations" must be built upon the national conditions of a weak foundation, large population, and limited arable land; and third, an indication that the phased achievements of modernization China hoped to reach by the end of the 20th century would be "still backward" compared to the West, hence he termed it xiaokang. Based on this "Chinese-type" understanding, he proposed a development strategy of letting some regions and some people get rich first, then having those who got rich first help others, gradually achieving common prosperity. At the same time, he emphasized two existing attributes of Chinese-path modernization: "we must adhere to the socialist road" and "we must adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party of China." In 1982, at the 12th CPC National Congress, Deng also proposed the new concept of "socialism with Chinese characteristics," making these two attributes even clearer. There is both a lineage and a distinction between the "Chinese-type modernization" of Deng Xiaoping and the "Chinese-path modernization" proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping.

Fifth is the stage of formation and comprehensive implementation. This stage began after the 18th CPC National Congress and continues through the present and into the future. It mainly researches the theoretical formation of the complete form of "Chinese-path modernization," its practical implementation, and the great achievements attained. General Secretary Xi Jinping has provided systematic expressions of the progress of this stage. In the report to the 19th CPC National Congress in 2017, he said: "We must not only complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects and achieve the first centenary goal, but also build on this momentum to embark on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country and march toward the second centenary goal." At the second plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in 2021, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Our Party has led the people not only in creating the two miracles of rapid economic development and long-term social stability, which are rare in the world, but also in successfully blazing the path of Chinese-path modernization and creating a new form of human civilization." In 2022, at a seminar for provincial and ministerial-level officials, he noted: "On the basis of long-term exploration and practice since the founding of New China, and especially since the start of reform and opening up, and following theoretical and practical innovations and breakthroughs since the 18th National Congress, we have successfully promoted and expanded Chinese-path modernization." In the report to the 20th CPC National Congress the same year, he stated: "From this day forward, the central task of the Communist Party of China will be to lead the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in a concerted effort to realize the Second Centenary Goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through Chinese-path modernization." From this, we can see that since the 18th National Congress proposed "completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects," the scope of modernization construction has expanded to all aspects of society, greatly breaking through the fields of the original Four Modernizations and allowing the exploration of "Chinese-path modernization" to unfold on a much broader scale. The complete concept of Chinese-path modernization began to gradually take shape during the practice of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects after the 18th National Congress, was formally proposed at the Centenary of the Party, and was fully defined and prioritized at the 20th National Congress, marking the beginning of a brand-new era for Chinese-path modernization.

During this stage, the theoretical concept of Chinese-path modernization was fully formed, its practical implementation was comprehensively unfolded, and its construction achievements have been magnificent. A series of new strategies and models have been created, such as targeted poverty alleviation, common prosperity, the Belt and Road Initiative, regional coordination, high-quality development, as well as the "Two Mountains" theory ^[13], new agricultural theory, new-type industrialization, and new quality productive forces. All of this fully demonstrates that Chinese-path modernization, rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, is not only advanced, rational, and scientific but also feasible, stable, and successful in China.

Conclusion

The formation of Chinese-path modernization possesses deep historical roots. On June 2, 2023, while inspecting the Chinese Academy of History, General Secretary Xi Jinping stated: "I hope you will inherit fine traditions, unite and mobilize historical researchers across the nation, and continuously improve the level of research to contribute more wisdom and strength from Chinese historiography to the construction of Chinese-path modernization." This issued a call to the Chinese Academy of History and the national historiographical community to study Chinese-path modernization from a historical perspective. It also proposed a new task and direction for Chinese historical research—the history of Chinese-path modernization—to reveal the experiences and lessons of its practical exploratory process and to excavate the wisdom contained therein that can be transformed and utilized.

Understanding the deep relationship between Chinese-path modernization and the fine traditional Chinese culture is the most critical and innovative topic in the history of Chinese-path modernization. It is also the weakest aspect of previous research on the history of Chinese modernization; therefore, greater efforts must be made. At the same time, beyond theoretical-logical analysis, the study of the history of Chinese-path modernization requires specific examination of intellectual inheritance and practical processes. The focus should be on interpreting the potential for modernity within the internal principles of the fine traditional Chinese culture and identifying the convergence points between the traditional and the modern. This serves to facilitate better creative transformation and innovative development ^[14], thereby revealing the profound significance inherent in the formation of Chinese-path modernization: turning profound concepts from fine traditional Chinese culture into science, turning aspirations into reality, and applying ancient thought to contemporary use ^[15].

Taking the history of Chinese-path modernization as a main thread of Chinese historical research will inevitably help to further exert the function of historiography in serving contemporary reality. It will further strengthen cultural confidence, further the understanding of the inevitability and certainty of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, further the understanding of the "Two Combinations" ^[16] and the necessity and correctness of the CPC’s wise and great leadership, and further reveal the internal academic rationality and scientific nature of the ideology of Chinese-path modernization.

(Author Biography: Yu Heping is currently a Distinguished Professor at Central China Normal University, a Distinguished Professor at Ningbo University College of Science and Technology, and a Distinguished Doctoral Supervisor at Macau University of Science and Technology. He is an expert in the Subject Evaluation Group of the National Social Science Fund, a selection panel expert for the "Three Ministries" National Young Top-notch Talent program, and an evaluation expert for the Ministry of Education's social science research projects and achievement awards. He serves as the President of the Regional Culture Research Committee and the Corporate Culture Committee of the Chinese Modern Culture Society.)

Source: Journal of Central China Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), Issue 2, 2025. Online Editor: Jing Mu