Xu Guomin and Shi Yutong: The Consolidation, Development, and Principles of Chinese Cultural Subjectivity

Xi Jinping pointed out at the Meeting on Cultural Inheritance and Development: "For any culture to stand firm and go far, and to possess influence, cohesive power, formative power, and reach, it must have its own subjectivity. The Communist Party of China has always attached great importance to culture. In the New Era, we have added cultural confidence to the 'Confidence in the Four'—confidence in our path, theory, and system. Cultural confidence comes from our cultural subjectivity." This profoundly elucidates the importance of cultural subjectivity in cultural inheritance and development and its relationship with cultural confidence and the cause of socialist modernization. Cultural subjectivity is the bedrock of cultural confidence; it provides strong spiritual motivation and intellectual support for building a great modern socialist country. Looking back at history, from the "debate over substance and utility" during the Self-Strengthening Movement ^[1] period to the proposal of "constructing Chinese cultural subjectivity" today, the academic community has put forward a series of different views, such as "Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for utility," "Western learning as substance, Chinese learning for utility," and "wholesale Westernization." However, many scholars' understanding of cultural subjectivity has not escaped the constraints of binary opposition or differentiation thinking, viewing cultural subjectivity as a static essence and attempting to seek an immutable cultural form. In reality, Chinese cultural subjectivity cannot be separated from the great practice of building a strong country and national rejuvenation. It has been sustained and developed through the great journey of national rejuvenation, and its philosophical foundation is the "Theory of Combination" and the "Theory of Synthetic Innovation." Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people have created a development miracle rare in world history over a century of struggle, making the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation an irreversible trend. "Through long-term efforts, we are better positioned than in any previous era to resolve the 'dispute between the ancient and the modern, the East and the West,' and we have a more urgent need than any previous era for a body of cultural achievements that fuse the ancient and modern and bridge the East and West." In light of this, this article attempts to explore the consolidation, development, and guiding principles of Chinese cultural subjectivity from the perspective of the Theory of Synthetic Innovation, aiming to deepen the understanding of the issue of consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity.

I. The Debate over Chinese Cultural Subjectivity and a Preliminary Exploration of Its Resolution

Chinese culture, like the Chinese nation, is a holistic concept. Before the Opium War, as a unified multi-ethnic country, China gradually formed a "one-main, multi-element" Chinese cultural tradition dominated by Confucianism while other cultural thoughts flourished together through long-term exchange, interaction, and integration among various ethnic groups. From the rise of the Hundred Schools of Thought in the Pre-Qin period to Qin Shihuang's "burning of books and burying of scholars"; from Dong Zhongshu's proposal to "dismiss the hundred schools and revere only Confucianism" in the Western Han period to the rise of Neo-Taoism (Xuanxue), the introduction of Buddhism, and the flourishing of Taoism during the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties; from the "harmonization of the three teachings" (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism) in the Sui and Tang periods to the integration of multi-element cultures during the Song, Liao, Jin, Yuan, and Ming periods; from the rise of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism to the inheritance and development of the School of Principle (Cheng-Zhu) and the School of Mind (Lu-Wang)—especially the selection of scholars through the "Four Books and Five Classics" and the "eight-legged essay" in the imperial examination system during the Ming and Qing dynasties—one can observe that although Confucianism long occupied the dominant ideological position in feudal society, other cultural thoughts also flourished, forming a multi-element cultural development trend led by Confucianism. In this historical process, Chinese culture embodied both a "cultural subjectivity" that underwent continuous inheritance and innovation, and an inclusiveness and openness toward integration and development with the cultures of other nations. The reason Chinese culture has endured for thousands of years is that it generally adapted to the needs of coordinating relationships between humans and nature, and among people, within an agrarian society. Since the dawn of the modern era, the rapid development of capitalist modernization and its colonial invasion of China shattered the closed and self-isolated state of Chinese feudal society, creating a situation where the country was "passively beaten," leaving the nation humiliated, the people suffering, and the civilization tarnished. How to realize modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation? Faced with this "Question of China," countless people with lofty ideals carried out unremitting exploration and indomitable struggle. Along with struggles in the fields of ideology and culture, and during the process of exchange, integration, and confrontation between Eastern and Western cultural thoughts, the questions arose: how to respond to the "ancient-modern / East-West" dispute brought by the impact of foreign culture on Chinese culture, and how to consolidate and develop Chinese cultural subjectivity?

Only after the Opium War did the Chinese people truly begin reflecting on issues such as cultural confidence and cultural subjectivity from the perspective of modernization needs. As early as 1842, Wei Yuan put forward the idea of "learning the superior techniques of the barbarians to control them." This can be called the source of modern China's study of advanced Western science and technology. From the 1860s to the 1890s, a group of early reformist thinkers used the theory of "Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for utility" (Zhongti Xiyong) ^[2] to guide the Self-Strengthening Movement aimed at seeking national power and wealth. Feng Guifen pointed out: "If we take China's ethical codes and teachings as the foundation (ben) and supplement them with the techniques of various nations for wealth and power, would that not be the best of the best?" This was the initial articulation of "Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for utility," advocating for the proper handling of the relationship between Chinese and Western learning within a primary-secondary framework of "foundation" and "supplement." Later, Zheng Guanying noted: "Taken together, Chinese learning is the root and Western learning is the branches. Take Chinese learning as the principal and Western learning as the auxiliary." Building on this, Shen Yugui published "Strategies for Saving the Times" in the Globe Magazine (Wan Guo Gong Bao), explicitly proposing the proposition of "Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for utility." Zhang Zhidong, in his Exhortation to Study (Quan Xue Pian), pointed out that "Chinese learning is inner learning, Western learning is outer learning; Chinese learning governs the mind and body, Western learning deals with worldly affairs," comprehensively expounding the "Zhongti Xiyong" idea. It can be said that the "Zhongti Xiyong" theory during the Self-Strengthening Movement was mainly elaborated through the cultural stratification of moral ethics versus science and technology. This had a certain positive significance in promoting social reform, as people began to think about countermeasures under the severe challenges and impacts faced by cultural subjectivity.

The failure of the Jiawu War (First Sino-Japanese War) further proved that simply "learning about implements" from the West could not save China. To this end, the bourgeois Reformists represented by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao proposed reforming the political and educational systems and developing agriculture, industry, and commerce, advocating for learning from the West. Kang Youwei refuted the Self-Strengtheners for not starting from the so-called "root" and criticized the die-hards who clung to the idea that "the laws of the ancestors must not be changed." He proposed implementing a Western-style constitutional monarchy, advocating for starting with political system reform and realizing the fusion of Chinese and Western cultures through "seeking reform under the guise of antiquity" (tuogu gaizhi) ^[3]. Yan Fu launched a sharp critique of the "Zhongti Xiyong" theory, believing that Chinese and Western cultures possessed fundamental differences and were irreconcilable compromises. He pointed out that "substance" (ti) and "utility" (yong) refer to a single entity: whatever substance an entity has, it will have a corresponding utility. "Therefore, Chinese learning has its own substance and utility, and Western learning has its own substance and utility. Separate, they stand side-by-side; combined, they both perish." To this end, he advocated grasping the fundamental lifeblood of Western learning: "discarding the false and honoring the true" in academia, and "subordinating the private to the public" in penal administration and governance, emphasizing the combination of the "virtuous aspects" of modern Western philosophy and traditional Chinese philosophy. This combination was not only reflected in "implements" (technology) but also in ethical-political systems and ideology/culture. From this, we can see that the Reformists recognized the relationship between culture and politics, economy, education, and technology, identified the fundamental issue of political system reform, and attempted to consider culture within the overall layout of national and state development.

With the failure of the Hundred Days' Reform (Wuxu Reform) and the signing of the Boxer Protocol (Xinchou Treaty), the crisis of the Chinese nation further deepened. Facing the question of where China should go, Sun Yat-sen proposed the ideal goal of the "Three People's Principles" to overthrow the feudal autocratic monarchy and establish a bourgeois republic. On the issue of the dispute between Chinese and Western culture, he advocated looking at China from the perspective of the world's development process, arguing that learning from the West was to achieve a status of "catching up from behind" and surpassing other countries. However, the results of the 1911 Revolution proved that incomplete anti-imperialist and anti-feudal movements could not work in China. Neither the earlier "Zhongti Xiyong" theory nor learning from the West to establish a democratic republican system could lead China toward modernization. After the Reform and Opening-up, in the process of learning from the West, scholars such as Li Shu and Li Zehou further proposed the "Western learning as substance, Chinese learning for utility" (Xiti Zhongyong) theory. Li Zehou argued that if we acknowledge that modern large-scale industry and technology are the "substance" (ti) and "essence" of modern society, "then the theoretical form of self-consciousness or 'substance consciousness' (or 'psychological substance') growing on this 'substance'—namely the 'learning' that produces, maintains, and promotes the existence of this 'substance'—should be the 'principal,' the 'foundation,' and the 'substance.'" Although Li Zehou explicitly stated that "modernization" is not equal to "Westernization," he viewed the development of "modern large-scale industry and technology" as the "substance," thus necessitating the "learning" that produces, maintains, and promotes this substance as the "foundation."

In reality, regarding Chinese cultural subjectivity, the essence is the question of how to realize national rejuvenation and modernization. From the perspective of modernization, the modernization we seek to achieve is different from the type in Western countries built on "atomic individualism" and the logic of capital. Instead, it is the continuation and inheritance of the humanistic spirit, innovative spirit, inclusive spirit, harmony-in-diversity (he-he) ^[4] spirit, and the core collectivist values contained within Chinese civilization. After the failure of the 1911 Revolution, advanced intellectuals represented by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao deeply realized the importance of ideological emancipation. They held high the banners of "Mr. Science" and "Mr. Democracy," criticizing the trend of honoring Confucius and restoring antiquity as well as feudal ethical codes, while advocating for a literary revolution and academic freedom. In response to the public opinion trend emphasizing "theories" on paper—especially the "danger" brought by various socialist schools of thought—Hu Shih pointed out in his 1919 article "Study More Problems, Talk Less of 'Isms'": "It is extremely easy to talk grandly about 'isms'; even a cat or dog can do it." He noted that the greatest danger of an "ism" is that it makes people feel satisfied, so they no longer bother to research solutions for specific problems. Subsequently, Li Dazhao published "More on Problems and Isms" to refute this: "The solution to a social problem must rely on a common movement of the majority of people in society. Thus, if we want to solve a problem, we should try to make it a common problem for the majority. To make a social problem a common problem for the majority, we should first provide the majority of people who can solve various social problems with a common ideal or 'ism' toward which they can strive." In fact, the fundamental issue involved in the debate between Li Dazhao and Hu Shih was whether an "ism" was needed to consolidate hearts and minds for a united struggle, and if so, what kind. In November 1920, Mao Zedong pointed out in a reply to Luo Zhanglong that the resolution of the Hunan problem and the combination of the New People's Study Society (Xinmin Xuehui) must have a clear "ism." "I do not favor a solution that lacks an 'ism' and treats only the symptoms (treating the head for a headache and the foot for a sore foot)." "I think our society must not suddenly become a gathering of people or a combination based on emotion; it is better to become a combination based on an 'ism.' An 'ism' is like a flag; once the flag is raised, everyone has something to look toward and knows what to follow." With the spread of Marxism in China and the founding of the Communist Party of China, China began the practical journey of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture mutually reinforcing each other. On one hand, the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture were guided by Marxism; on the other hand, Marxism's ability to take root, sprout, flower, and bear fruit on Chinese soil was inseparable from the nourishment of fine traditional Chinese culture.

In...

Amidst the debates over "Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for application" and "Western learning as the substance, Chinese learning for application," Zhang Shenfu proposed in 1932 the idea of "integrating the three currents of Russell, Ilyich, and Zhongni" ^[5] ("Russell" referring to Bertrand Russell, "Ilyich" to Lenin, and "Zhongni" to Confucius). Subsequently, Zhang Dainian expressed agreement with this "integration of the three currents" and proposed the concept of "comprehensive innovation," forming the "Theory of Cultural Comprehensive Innovation." Zhang Dainian believed that the theory of Eastern cultural superiority contained archaist tendencies, while the theory of "total Westernization" possessed tendencies toward national and historical nihilism. Although these two value propositions held opposing views, their way of thinking in handling problems was similar—both viewed cultural development in an isolated and one-sided manner. He argued that as culture undergoes transformation and development, it must promote the excellent elements of the old culture while breaking free from constraints, daring to innovate, and actively reforming the old culture to create a new one. He pointed out: "Culture is based on the development of productive forces and social relations; when productive forces develop into a new form and social relations change, culture must inevitably change." The essence of the old culture can be preserved in a new form or developed through renewal rather than vanishing completely; the proper handling of cultural issues requires the application of dialectical materialism. Zhang Dainian further proposed: "A new path for future philosophy shall be the synthesis of the materialist, the idealist, and the analytical into one." This represents a path for innovating Chinese philosophy by synthesizing Chinese philosophy, Western philosophy, and Marxist philosophy. "This new cultural system, under the guidance of Marxist-Leninist principles, uses socialist values to synthesize the strengths of Chinese and Western cultures to innovate Chinese culture." He emphasized that innovation based on synthesis is the law governing the development of thought and culture. In the early 21st century, Fang Keli developed the theory of comprehensive innovation by proposing "Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, and Western learning for application." His interpretation of this tripartite cultural framework of "soul, substance, and application" holds even more significant progressive meaning, as it deepened the path of comprehensive innovation through analytical synthesis. Overall, the "Theory of Cultural Comprehensive Innovation" emphasizes the construction of a pluralistic cultural framework, transcending the limitations of recognizing a singular cultural subjectivity. It provided a brand-new choice to escape the debate between "the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the Western," offering a possible direction for achieving the great prosperity and development of Chinese culture. However, there remains significant room for the "Theory of Cultural Comprehensive Innovation" to evolve, particularly regarding the further clarification of the status and function of Marxism, fine traditional Chinese culture, and excellent Western culture within this "cultural complex."

II. The Consolidation and Development of Chinese Cultural Subjectivity

Cultural construction is closely linked to the developmental direction and future prospects of the nation-state. For over a century, the Communist Party of China has chosen Marxism, continuously advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. From the developmental requirements of Chinese-path modernization, it has reshaped cultural subjectivity, which has been shaped and developed in a more vibrant manner through practice.

The consolidation and development of Chinese cultural subjectivity is unified with the resolution of national practical problems. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the task facing the Party and the people was how to overthrow the oppression of the "three great mountains" ^[6] and strive for national independence; this was the primary question that had to be answered to consolidate and develop cultural subjectivity. At this stage, starting from reality, the CPC combined Marxism with China’s specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture, leading the people to creatively carve out a path of encircling the cities from the countryside and seizing political power through armed struggle, transforming a passive situation into one of seizing the initiative and following our own revolutionary path. Revolutionary culture served as the ideological preparation before the revolution and a powerful weapon during it; without revolutionary theory and a revolutionary cultural movement, the practical process of the revolution could not proceed smoothly. Mao Zedong always emphasized the importance of cultural construction during the Chinese Revolution. In On Practice and On Contradiction, he profoundly explained the principle of combining Marxism with China’s specific realities, opposing dogmatism and empiricism.

In 1938, Mao Zedong proposed the important proposition of the "Sinicization of Marxism," emphasizing the use of a concrete rather than an abstract and empty Marxism to guide Chinese practice. In On New Democracy, he further deepened the understanding of cultural construction during the revolutionary stage, pointing out that the question of where China was going must rely on objective practice. We aimed to build a New China and construct a new culture for the Chinese nation in the cultural sphere, eradicating the old culture that served the old politics and economy, "to change a China that is occupied by an old culture and is therefore ignorant and backward into a China that is occupied by a new culture and is therefore civilized and advanced." This new culture was to be based on new politics and a new economy: "The so-called new culture of the Chinese nation is the culture of New Democracy." The New Democratic Revolution aimed to win a pro-proletarian-led, anti-imperialist, and anti-feudal democratic revolution and subsequently transition to socialism. New Democratic culture was an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal culture of the masses led by the proletariat. The Seventh National Congress of the CPC officially established Mao Zedong Thought as the Party’s guiding ideology and wrote it into the Party Constitution. This meant establishing the theoretical results of combining Marxism with China’s specific realities as the Party's guiding ideology, marking the Party's further ideological maturity. This guaranteed the CPC’s cultural leadership and allowed the Chinese people to move from being passive to active in spirit, achieving the first historical leap in the Sinicization of Marxism. It can be said that as Mao Zedong Thought guided the Chinese revolution toward victory, it gradually became the dominant ideology within the Chinese cultural complex. From then on, the connotation of Chinese cultural subjectivity was further expanded.

During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the task facing the Party and the people was to resolve the issues left over from the New Democratic Revolution, realize the transition from New Democracy to socialism, and carry out socialist modernization. Facing the confrontation between the "two camps" of capitalism and socialism and a domestic situation where everything was waiting to be rebuilt, the CPC persisted in promoting the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture. It elucidated the General Line for the Transition Period ^[7] and proposed the goals and tasks for building a "modernized scientific culture." During this period, Mao Zedong proposed a "second combination" of Marxism and China's specific realities and creatively put forward the policy of "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend" ^[8], which became the guide for action in socialist cultural construction. Mao Zedong emphasized: "Literary and artistic works [and scientific research] should follow the policy of 'letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend.' This policy will not weaken the leading position of Marxism in the ideological sphere but will, on the contrary, strengthen it." He further pointed out: "Whether within the Party or in the ideological and literary circles, what is primary and dominant must strive to be 'fragrant flowers,' to be Marxism. 'Poisonous weeds'—non-Marxist and anti-Marxist things—can only occupy a subordinate position." "We must learn, together with the masses, to carefully distinguish between fragrant flowers and poisonous weeds and use correct methods to struggle against the poisonous weeds." At the same time, Mao Zedong proposed the literary and artistic policy of "making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China," emphasizing the critical inheritance of traditional culture and the active learning of rational elements from world culture to promote the prosperity and development of socialist culture. These ideas further established the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field while clarifying the necessity and rationality of the existence of other cultural thoughts, thereby making the issue of Chinese cultural subjectivity clearer. However, during the "Cultural Revolution," an erroneous line of "taking class struggle as the key link" was formed in theory and practice, and the cause of socialist modernization suffered serious setbacks.

During the new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization, the primary task facing the Party and the people was to continue exploring the socialist path, to liberate and develop productive forces, and to realize the rapid development of the cause of modernization. To correct the errors of the "Cultural Revolution," Chinese Communists, with Comrade Deng Xiaoping as their chief representative, resolutely criticized the erroneous policy of the "Two Whatevers" ^[9], proposed that "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth," and carried out the work of "setting things right" (拨乱反正) in the ideological sphere, persisting in liberating the mind and seeking truth from facts. In the process of promoting theoretical and practical innovation, the theoretical achievements of Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development were formed. However, cultural construction during this period was still affected by various external factors. The drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union dealt a heavy blow to the development of world socialism. Scholars in Western countries frequently put forward assertions such as the "End of History," "China's collapse," and the "China threat" to disparage China. Proposals like "total Westernization" also exerted a certain influence in domestic ideological circles. In this process, the CPC persisted in and developed socialism with Chinese characteristics and continuously promoted the construction of Chinese cultural subjectivity. Deng Xiaoping proposed promoting the development of socialist spiritual civilization, emphasizing that material civilization and spiritual civilization must be "grasped with both hands, and both hands must be firm." He proposed that "science and technology are the primary productive forces," highlighting the important status of developing technology and education in the modernization process. Jiang Zemin proposed building a "culture with Chinese characteristics," emphasizing that the CPC always represents the orientation of the development of advanced culture and must vigorously develop socialist culture. He pointed out that "strengthening socialist ideological and moral construction is an important part and central link in developing advanced culture," and that we must inherit and carry forward all excellent cultures to build an advanced socialist culture. Hu Jintao emphasized building a socialist harmonious society, continuously liberating and developing cultural productive forces, improving the country’s cultural soft power, and striving toward the goal of building a socialist cultural power. The Sixth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee pointed out: "The socialist core value system is the soul of the nation, the essence of advanced socialist culture, and determines the developmental direction of socialism with Chinese characteristics." During this period, the dominant ideology within the Chinese cultural complex was further developed.

Since the beginning of the New Era, the primary task facing the Party and the people has been to build a great modern socialist country and achieve the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, starting from the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan," has attached great importance to the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, steadily advancing toward the goal of a cultural power, with socialist cultural undertakings and industries continuously flourishing. General Secretary Xi Jinping officially proposed the concept of "cultural subjectivity" at the Seminar on Cultural Inheritance and Development. During this period, Chinese cultural subjectivity has been further enriched and developed in both theory and practice. On the one hand, the development of Chinese cultural subjectivity needs to be based on the overall strategy of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the world's "unseen changes in a century" ^[10]. It must use historical initiative to enhance cultural confidence and the reach of Chinese culture, building a Chinese discourse system and international communication system to tell China's stories well and make China's voice heard. On the other hand, Chinese cultural subjectivity is rooted in the great practice of the Chinese nation. It continuously opens up new frontiers in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, promotes the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and assumes the mission of cultural development in the New Era by adhering to the "Two Combinations." ^[11] It can be said that Chinese cultural subjectivity has been further consolidated and developed through the great practice of the people leading toward the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation under the leadership of the CPC over the past century. It is closely related to the process of national rejuvenation and Chinese-path modernization and is the continuation and development of fine traditional Chinese culture in the New Era.

History has proven that Chinese cultural subjectivity is rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture and has nurtured and created a glorious Chinese civilization. From the perspective of modernization, Chinese cultural subjectivity has been further shaped and developed in the practice of the CPC leading the Chinese people through revolution, construction, and reform. It has nurtured and created a new form of human advancement and is the cultural foundation for realizing Chinese-path modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In fact, Chinese cultural subjectivity possesses both the Marxist "soul-vein" and the fine traditional Chinese cultural "root-vein." It is the cultural crystallization of the continuous promotion of the "Two Combinations." It is a "cultural complex" established on the basis of persisting in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, inheriting revolutionary culture, developing advanced socialist culture, and drawing on and absorbing all excellent civilizational achievements of humanity. This "cultural complex" is dynamically developing and will continue to evolve alongside the process of Chinese-path modernization.

First, in terms of cultural thinking, this "cultural complex" realizes the unification of dialectical thinking and analytical thinking. For a long time, fine traditional Chinese culture has focused on dialectical and holistic thinking, while Western culture has focused on analytical thinking. These two ways of thinking have their own advantages and characteristics. How to unify these two ways of thinking is the key to consolidating Chinese cultural subjectivity. This...

The "cultural complex" views the similarities and differences between ancient and modern, and Chinese and Western cultures, through a rational and dialectical lens. It adheres to the fundamental guidance of Marxism, promotes the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and actively integrates with multiple cultures—including fine traditional Chinese culture and the outstanding achievements of world civilizations. By grasping systemic thinking and dialectically analyzing diverse cultures, it persists in critical absorption and making things "serve China" ^[12], advancing cultural development through continuous comprehensive innovation and imbuing the new cultural lifeform with vigor and vitality.

Second, in terms of values, this "cultural complex" achieves a concrete and historical unity between collectivism and individualism. How to properly handle the relationship between individual interests and collective interests is a historical problem of global proportions. Capitalist societies built on the foundation of individualist values easily lead to the proliferation of extreme individualism. Conversely, within the "Great Unification" ^[13] tradition of Chinese culture, it is easy for a few to use the name of "collectivism" to actually protect the interests of a minority privileged class or stratum. In the generation and development of the subjectivity of Chinese culture, the Communist Party of China (CPC)—through the overall design of the fundamental systems of the Party and the state and the construction of institutional mechanisms—has concretely and historically unified collectivism and individualism within the practical process of building a powerful modern socialist country and achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. This approach manages to both consider the overall situation and satisfy individual needs, dissolving the extreme individualism found in Western capitalist modernization, scientifically grasping the development and balance between collectivism and individualism, and unifying them to serve socialist modernization.

Third, in terms of cultural forms, this "cultural complex" achieves the unity of "monistic" guidance and "diversified" development. Here, the "One" of Marxism is the core and the mainstream. History and practice have repeatedly proven that without this "One," there would be no CPC, no New China, no Chinese-path modernization, and no great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The CPC has always adhered to the fundamental system of Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological sphere. At the same time, because the multi-faceted functions of culture determine that the concrete forms through which it promotes social development and satisfies the needs of the masses are diverse, it must provide spiritual motivation for achieving Chinese-path modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, while also providing intellectual support for coordinating the relationships between individuals, between individuals and society, and between humanity and nature. Without "diversified" development, there is no "monistic" guidance; without "monistic" guidance, "diversified" development loses its direction and soul. Precisely because of culture’s stratification and diversity, it can cater to diversified cultural needs and enhance cultural vitality through the common development of "monistic" guidance and "diversity."

III. Guiding Principles for the Subjectivity of Chinese Culture

History tells us that the subjectivity of Chinese culture is a "one-dominant, multi-element" (一主多元) "cultural complex" continuously generated by the Chinese nation and the Chinese people in the long-term practice of production and social interaction. Within this "cultural complex," the core issue remains handling the relationship between the "three elements": China (tradition), the West, and Marxism. To this end, it is necessary to further summarize the historical experience of the CPC in consolidating and developing the subjectivity of Chinese culture over the past century, and to further reveal the basic protocols for handling the relationship between these three elements, in hopes of better consolidating and developing the subjectivity of Chinese culture during the practical process of comprehensively building a powerful modern socialist country and achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Regarding the present day, the guiding position and dominant role of Marxism within the Chinese cultural complex are unshakable; this is a fundamental principle for consolidating and developing the subjectivity of Chinese culture in practice. The Report to the 20th CPC National Congress pointed out: "Our Party's possession of the guidance of scientific Marxist theory is the fundamental basis for our firm faith and belief and our grasp of historical initiative." Since the beginning of the modern era, in the process of promoting the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture, the CPC has produced Sinicized and modernized Marxism. This has enriched the theoretical treasury of Marxism and laid a solid ideological foundation for consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture, further expanding its developmental space. In its inheritance and development, the subjectivity of Chinese culture has formed a "one-dominant, multi-element" pattern, where the "one dominant" refers to Marxism. That Marxism can occupy a dominant position is both a choice of history and a choice of the people, possessed of historical necessity. It is precisely under the guidance of Marxism that the CPC has led the Chinese people to achieve one great victory after another in the processes of revolution, construction, and reform, and that socialist modernization has achieved immense developmental successes. Marxism has thoroughly changed the future and destiny of Chinese social development since the New Democratic Revolution ^[14]. Therefore, always adhering to the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere is the fundamental principle to be followed in further consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture in practice.

Reviewing history, after Marxism and various Western social trends of thought entered China, the development of Chinese culture faced the question of how to handle the relationship between ideological and cultural resources such as "the Chinese, the Western, and the Marxist." Adhering to the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere was established during this very process. On one hand, Chinese, Western, and Marxist thought and culture are not entirely mutually exclusive; they possess many "points of integration" (结合点) within the process of exchange, integration, and confrontation. Under the premise of adhering to the guiding position of Marxism, we must fully absorb the intellectual essence of fine traditional Chinese culture and outstanding Western culture, deeply elucidate their contemporary value, promote the innovation of the Chinese cultural complex, and achieve balanced and coordinated development between the Chinese, the Western, and the Marxist. On the other hand, it must be fully recognized that the intellectual achievements formed during the process of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism have long since merged into the subjective development of Chinese culture, becoming an indispensable and core part of consolidating its subjectivity. With its scientific worldview and methodology, Marxism has stood the test of history and practice, providing theoretical guidance for advancing Chinese-path modernization and achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Facing the future, we need to handle various problems encountered in the process of modernization; the resolution of these problems cannot be separated from the guidance of Marxism.

Fine traditional Chinese culture is the "roots and veins" (根脉) of the "cultural complex"; it represents the unique spiritual identity of the Chinese nation and is the concrete manifestation of the developmental achievements and fundamental creativity of Chinese civilization. Therefore, promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture is the most basic principle that must be followed in practice to consolidate and develop the subjectivity of Chinese culture. History tells us: "The major proposition of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism itself determines that we must never abandon the 'soul-vein' (魂脉) of Marxism, nor the 'root-vein' (根脉) of fine traditional Chinese culture." Only by promoting the organic integration of the "soul-vein" and the "root-vein" can we further consolidate and develop the subjectivity of Chinese culture, ensuring the Chinese nation possesses a firm "self" in a cultural sense and providing cultural support for the cause of socialist modernization. Facing the future, constructing the "one-dominant, multi-element" pattern of the Chinese cultural complex requires adhering to the "Two Combinations," especially the "Second Combination," to achieve the mutual penetration of the "soul-vein" and the "root-vein." If adhering to the fundamental guiding position of Marxism provides the direction and motivation for Chinese-path modernization, then adhering to the "Second Combination" and the diversified development of Chinese culture provides the cultural soil for coordination and balance. Only by achieving the dialectical unity and mutual reinforcement of motivation and balance can we promote the healthy and orderly development of Chinese-path modernization.

Facing the future, in the process of promoting the "Second Combination," we must: First, distinguish between the essence and the dross of traditional Chinese culture. Mao Zedong pointed out: "To clear away the developmental process of ancient culture, to weed out its feudal dross and absorb its democratic essence, is a necessary condition for developing a new national culture and improving national self-confidence." Second, proceeding from the temporal demands of Chinese-path modernization, we must grasp the scientific connotations and intellectual essence of fine traditional Chinese culture, transforming and developing its value propositions so they exhibit new meanings in the New Era. For example, the Confucian "Benevolence, Righteousness, Propriety, Wisdom, and Trustworthiness" (仁义礼智信), as core values of traditional culture, still hold significant value for modern social development. In the process of modernization, these must be further transformed into discourse expressions suitable for socialism with Chinese characteristics, providing value interpretations for the New Era. Third, we must systematically excavate the values where fine traditional Chinese culture and socialism coincide, further inheriting and developing the "genes" of fine traditional Chinese culture to build a solid ideological foundation for the subjectivity of Chinese culture.

Materialist dialectics holds that "tradition" can only be called such if it is required by actual development within practice. The mutual achievement of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture has activated the contemporary value of tradition and fortified the cultural foundation of Chinese-path modernization. The developmental achievements of Chinese-path modernization are not only the result of combining Marxism with China’s specific realities, but also the developmental outcome of the precious spiritual wealth found in inheriting fine traditional Chinese culture and continuing the Chinese civilization; they were created in the process of consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture. The "Second Combination" has activated the modern vitality of fine traditional Chinese culture, and Marxism has increasingly become an indispensable part of Chinese cultural development, merging into the lifeform that is Chinese culture. Therefore, a nation's culture must both connect with the traditions left by history and advance with the times in practice. The "Second Combination" is a grasp of the laws of Chinese cultural development, highlighting the modern value of fine traditional Chinese culture.

The subjectivity of Chinese culture is characterized by openness and inclusiveness; absorbing and drawing on all outstanding cultural achievements created by humanity is an important principle that must be followed in practice. In consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture, we need not only to handle the "Second Combination" but also to draw on and absorb the rational components and positive factors of Western culture on the basis of a thorough critique of its cultural value positions. The subjectivity of Chinese culture was itself continuously generated and consolidated amidst the exchange of diverse thoughts and cultures. Only by absorbing and drawing on the outstanding cultural achievements of all countries can we enhance the creativity and influence of Chinese culture, further promoting its move toward the world, promoting its global dissemination, and imbuing the development of Chinese cultural subjectivity with world-historical significance. In this process, it is necessary to explicitly oppose "Western-centrism" and "Western superiority," which is the prerequisite for treating the various ideological elements of Western culture dialectically. Under the premise of an objective examination and rational critique of Western culture, we must draw on and absorb its rational components and positive factors, encouraging them to become important cultural resources for consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture.

Broadly speaking, correctly handling the relationship between the "three elements"—Marxism, fine traditional Chinese culture, and Western culture—and constructing the "one-dominant, multi-element" pattern of the Chinese cultural complex is the core of consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture. The Chinese cultural complex must adhere to Marxist guiding ideology while deepening the "Second Combination." On the basis of deeply excavating the important intellectual resources of fine traditional Chinese culture, it must promote its creative transformation and innovative development, while critiquing and drawing on Western culture to enrich the internal and external dimensions of Chinese cultural subjectivity. At the same time, the various constituent elements within the Chinese cultural complex are interconnected in their development. The "one dominant" of Marxism and the "multi-elements" of fine traditional Chinese culture and the rational components of Western culture must all serve the practice of Chinese-path modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The consolidation and development of the subjectivity of Chinese culture must always serve the cause of socialist construction, leading healthy development in all fields during the process of promoting cultural prosperity and providing spiritual strength for national rejuvenation.

In summary, fine traditional Chinese culture is a "cultural complex" of the integrated development of multiple cultures such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. This "cultural complex" was formed on the basis of production practices during the long agrarian age; it adapted to the economic and social conditions of that time and created the brilliant Chinese civilization. Since the beginning of the modern era, particularly accompanying the development of capitalism, fine traditional Chinese culture—built on an agricultural mode of production—experienced a lack of momentum or even a temporary absence in addressing issues such as how to promote scientific and technological development and activate social creativity. This led to a situation where it was unsuited to the requirements of modernization. It was precisely during this process that Marxism and various Western trends of thought entered China, breaking the fixed mindsets (思维定势) brought about by the original "cultural complex," and thus there was...

The emergence of the debate between "the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the Western" ^[15] raises the question of how to properly handle the relationship between Chinese culture, Western thought, and Marxism within a new "cultural synthesis." Marxism has injected fresh blood into the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, pointing the way toward national rejuvenation and modernization. It serves as the "soul-conduit" ^[16] of this new "cultural synthesis," while fine traditional Chinese culture constitutes its "root-conduit" ^[17]. The "Second Combination" ^[18] has achieved the mutual fulfillment of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture.

(Author affiliation: School of Marxism, East China University of Science and Technology) Source: Ideological and Theoretical Education, Issue 8, 2025 Web Editor: Jingmu