Li Shuangtao: Critique of the Paradigm of Civilizational Stance and the Construction of Modern Chinese Civilization
General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized that, standing at a new historical starting point, building a modern Chinese civilization is "our new cultural mission in the New Era." How are we to build a modern Chinese civilization? The concept of "modern Chinese civilization" involves two key terms: "the Chinese nation" (中华民族) and "modern civilization." Consequently, this involves the dispute between "China" and "the West," as well as "the ancient" and "the modern." Centering on the "dispute between the ancient and the modern" and the "debate between China and the West" regarding forms of civilization, four distinct civilizational stances have emerged: the traditionalist stance, the modernist stance, the China-centrist stance, and the Western-centrist stance. Each of these four stances emphasizes a particular aspect of what kind of civilizational outlook should be upheld. Regarding the construction of a modern Chinese civilization, it is a "cultural form of Chinese-path modernization" formed on the basis of transcending the "dispute between the ancient and the modern" and the "debate between China and the West." This civilizational form both represents the Marxist civilizational stance and highlights the civilizational stance of Chinese-path modernization.
I. The Focal Points of Contention: The "Dispute Between the Ancient and the Modern" and the "Debate Between China and the West"
The "dispute between the ancient and the modern" and the "debate between China and the West" regarding civilization are issues that have reappeared in new guises and been repeatedly raised ever since the May Fourth Movement [1]. From these debates, four viewpoints concerning civilizational stances have taken shape.
First, the traditionalist civilizational stance. In the contest between tradition and modernity, traditionalism holds that tradition is superior to modernity. Especially when encountering problems and difficulties during the development of modernization, people—whether consciously or unconsciously—revert to tradition, attempting to seek solutions from it. On one hand, "tradition" itself interferes with the "modern." Regarding the role of "tradition" in social life, Marx provided a very penetrating exposition; he argued that we "suffer not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development" [2]. Suffering from the "development of capitalist production" is easy to understand. Marx dedicated his life to a critique of the capitalist system, which caused human "alienation" and led to the separation of "human existence"จาก "human essence" within the working class. However, suffering from the "incompleteness of capitalist production" lies in the intrusion of "tradition" upon the "modern." This constitutes Marx’s critique and reflection on "traditionalism," through which he explained that only by fully developing capitalism can one break free from "tradition." "Tradition" itself exerts an influence on the "modern"; even worse, some fail to differentiate within tradition and instead amplify its role, believing everything "traditional" is good, which leads to extreme archaism (复古主义). On the other hand, when people oppose "tradition" excessively or in the extreme, it triggers reflection and prompts others to defend "tradition." After the May Fourth Movement, as modern elements such as Western "democracy" and "science" were extolled, traditional civilization was thoroughly struck down. This fierce anti-traditionalist approach by the modernists moved toward civilizational nihilism; from worshiping the modern, they moved toward modernism and even total Westernization. This simplistic and crude way of treating traditional civilization also provoked reflection, leading people to re-evaluate its value in response to the extreme anti-traditionalist outlook.
Second, the modernist civilizational stance. In weighing tradition against modernity, modernism holds that the modern is superior to the traditional. Since modernization became the value orientation of social life, the "modern" has possessed a natural discursive advantage. The value of the "modern" lies in transcending and replacing the "traditional." In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx also pointed out that the aim of the communist revolution is not only to break with traditional property relations but also to break with traditional ideas. In the process of historical progress, accompanied by the advancement of productive forces and the transformation of the relations of production, a succession of social formations has appeared in human society. Based on his study of Western European history, Marx proposed the "five-stage theory" of human social development. Civilization, as part of the superstructure, evolves continuously along with the "evolution of the economic formation of society." During this evolution, civilizational forms are created that adapt to and complement the "economic formation of society." As these economic formations progress, civilizational forms also undergo a process of advancement from lower to higher levels. Based on this, in the modernist view, the "modern" is superior to the "traditional"; "tradition" signifies backwardness, autocracy, and ignorance, and should be thoroughly scrutinized, reflected upon, criticized, or even discarded.
Third, the China-centrist civilizational stance. Academic circles currently place great emphasis on the study of the "China path" and "China experience." It is widely believed that Western theories and civilizations are academic refinements and spiritual expressions based on Western experience and are not necessarily applicable to China. On this basis, there is an emphasis on the dependence of China’s civilizational form on the China experience. The value of this research orientation is beyond doubt. We cannot "trim" Chinese practice to fit Western theories or civilizational forms. Chinese scholarship and culture should indeed achieve an interaction between Chinese theory and indigenous Chinese practice, using theoretical research to drive practical exploration, and refining Chinese theories from that exploration to serve as basic principles for studying Chinese issues. However, Chinese-path modernization "shares features common to the modernization of all countries." We must not reach another extreme—namely, "China-centrism"—by overemphasizing or extremely highlighting the "particularity" of Chinese practice, or even denying the "common features" shared by the China path. The construction of a modern Chinese civilization should "continuously pursue exchange and mutual learning between civilizations."
Fourth, the Western-centrist civilizational stance. In ancient societies, human history consisted of regional and national histories. Moving from the Middle Ages to the modern era, human society shifted from fragmentation toward a whole; this was the process of moving from national history into world history. As history transformed into world history, interactions between various nations and states (including material, trade, civilizational, and linguistic exchanges) became increasingly frequent and deep. Before the formation of world history, interactions between nations were minimal, as they existed in a state of self-sufficiency and seclusion. Once world history took shape, these interactions deepened, giving rise to East-West comparisons. After 1500, Western society was the first to enter a modern society characterized by political democracy, economic freedom, ideological pluralism, rational thinking, industrial production, and secular life. Western society held advantages over Eastern society in political, economic, cultural, and social aspects. Simply put, modern civilization first appeared in a Western form. In the process wherein "the East became subordinate to the West," a trend of "Western-centrism" also emerged.
The intersection of the "dispute between the ancient and the modern" and the "debate between China and the West" constitutes four attitudes regarding civilizational stances. In a general sense, we must transcend these two disputes and, on that basis, construct a new civilizational stance.
II. The Traditionalist Civilizational Stance
The traditionalist civilizational stance equates civilization with traditional civilization, with history, or even with historical events, figures, traditions, or architecture. How should we understand this stance?
First, civilization is determined by the economic base. Ultimately, civilization is determined by the economy; it is built upon a certain economic base and predicated on the level of development of the productive forces and the nature of the relations of production. Civilization is the spiritual expression of material relations—it is material and economic relations expressed in the form of ideas. Therefore, as soft power, the strength of civilization comes from economic hard power. A country's economic strength determines the strength of its civilizational form. Only when a country is economically powerful can its civilization have a foundation for confidence; if economic strength is weak, it is difficult for a civilization to be self-confident. Undeniably, civilization has a great relationship with historical tradition, but it is ultimately determined by the current level of economic development and the state of the social system. The material force that is dominant is also the "dominant spiritual force." Within a single country, such as a capitalist state, the bourgeoisie owns the means of production and controls the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of all social resources; they also control the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of that society's civilization. The civilization produced serves to uphold the legitimacy of the capitalist system. In a socialist country, the people master the means of production and also hold the power of discourse over civilization. In terms of international comparison, the competition of different countries' civilizational strength depends on the competition of their economic strength. A country with a long history and many historical sites and cultural landscapes will find it difficult to have a voice on the international stage, let alone claim great civilizational strength, if its comprehensive national power—with economic strength at its core—is not strong. If a country is in a primitive, backward state of poverty, the people living in that cultural state must first solve the problem of survival; it is difficult for them to create a rich spiritual life or a brilliant civilization. Economic poverty brings civilizational poverty.
Second, civilization is the product of human praxis (实践活动). Human praxis creates material products and also creates civilizational forms. In the initial stages of human society, the creation of material products and spiritual products was the same process. With the improvement of the level of productive forces, a group of people moved away from material labor to specialize in mental labor; thus, "ideologists" (意识形态家) appeared. This was the result of the improvement of productive forces and the division of labor within the ruling class. These people were dedicated to ideological production: "Inside this class, one part appears as the thinkers of the class" [3]. Once these "ideologists" specialized in mental labor appeared, civilizational elements such as theory, law, morality, religion, and ideology took on an independent appearance. At this point, an "ideological illusion" (意识错觉) emerged: "consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice" [4]. This led to the "self-definition" of civilization, where civilization is seen as being produced through "real imagination" and can become "pure" by departing from "reality," "real practice," "real things," and the "world." In fact, civilization is "a direct product of the material activity of men." Therefore, confidence in the civilization of one’s own country and nation is confidence in the praxis of that country and nation’s people. Human productive praxis is the essence of civilization; civilization is "nothing but the process of man’s coming-to-be through his own labor." Without human praxis, there would be no "world history," and no civilizational form accompanying it. Civilizational forms are manifested in the productive labor practice of the masses and its results. It is evident that the civilizational form of contemporary China stems from the enormous achievements since the Reform and Opening-up. Since Reform and Opening-up, we have created the twin miracles of rapid economic development and long-term social stability, which have opened up broad prospects for the construction of a modern Chinese civilization.
III. The Modernist Civilizational Stance
The modernist civilizational stance considers traditional civilization to be mostly "dross" (糟粕), thereby ignoring its value. This view holds that only the civilizational forms arising from modernization are worth pursuing and valuing. An extreme modernist outlook views traditional civilization as "old civilization" (bad civilization). While it emphasizes the dependence of civilization on political and economic conditions, one cannot move toward modernism just because of the emphasis on the economic base of civilization, or even use the modern to negate the traditional.
First, civilization possesses continuity (传承性). Western modernization was endogenous; for the West, modernization meant enlightenment, emerging from the ignorance and backwardness of the Middle Ages toward light and advancement, leaving theology for the secular. In contrast, China’s modernization was passive. Traditional China was a hyper-stable agrarian country. During a feudal society that lasted over two thousand years, Chinese society formed a complete set of institutions and traditions concerning politics, economy, and society, as well as a civilizational form based on this hyper-stable structure. Modernization means "transforming" (-化) into the modern—that is, moving from the traditional to the modern. After modernization, society moves toward the embrace and worship of modernity. However, after modernization, society does not completely break with tradition. Social development possesses continuity; tradition persists in people’s lives, modes of production, customs, ways of thinking, and character traits in the form of historical inertia. People always long to "make their own history" as they please, but tradition, as a "condition directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past," interferes with their creation. Tradition is not "the conditions chosen by themselves," but rather the limiting conditions under which people create history, constraining the "arbitrariness" of their historical creation. One can say that modernization is the activation, creative transformation, and innovative development of tradition; modernization will not, and cannot, develop in isolation from tradition.
Once formed, civilizations indeed possess a degree of relative independence and stability; over thousands of years of development, the Chinese nation has formed certain civilizational concepts possessing eternal value. In its historical development, Chinese civilization has both "change" (bian) and "constancy" (chang). "Change" refers to the transformative and stage-based nature of civilizational development, while "constancy" refers to its inheritance and continuity. "Constancy" refers to those principles, rules, ideals, or concepts within Chinese civilization that are consistent throughout, consistently upheld, unchanging, and possess fundamental, eternal, and universal significance. Professor Li Cunshan understands "valuing morality, taking the people as the foundation, the spirit of benevolence and love, the way of loyalty and forbearance [5], and a harmonious society" as the "constancy" of Chinese civilization. These civilizational concepts were formed thousands of years ago, yet even today, they continue to provide inspiration for our production and daily life. Of course, when we discuss the contemporary value of traditional civilization, we are not saying this value is innate, nor that traditional civilization carries contemporary value automatically. The contemporary value of Chinese civilization was endowed by the century of struggle of the Communist Party of China (CPC); it was gradually formed and manifested during the journey in which the CPC led the Chinese people to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. That is to say, without the "real life-process" [6] and "the activities" of the CPC, the contemporary value of traditional civilization could not be manifested; at most, it would remain an "implicit" value. "Chinese-path modernization endows Chinese civilization with modern strength."
Secondly, civilization must face the future. How does the CPC activate the modern significance of traditional civilization? Modern Chinese civilization is a socialist form of civilization. Therefore, modern Chinese civilization—as a discourse of the CPC—is inseparable from the ideals and beliefs upheld by the Party. The CPC "makes full use of the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture to explore theoretical and institutional innovations oriented toward the future." The supreme ideal of the CPC is the realization of communism. As an important constituent part of the social structure, civilization must also undertake this responsibility. Historical materialism holds that the development of human society follows certain laws, the core of which is the law of the replacement of social formations based on the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production. "All collisions in history have their origin... in the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse." [7] As the level of productive forces rises, universal intercourse advances, and the relations of production become more "civilized," human social formations will undergo replacement, eventually entering a communist society characterized by the free development of every individual. The free development of each individual is an inevitable conclusion of historical materialism and the ideal pursued by modern Chinese civilization. Civilization must be conducive to the realization of the free development of every individual. Civilizational development must serve the enhancement of human autonomy and freedom; this is the civilizational standpoint of historical materialism. We must use the Marxist view of civilization to guide the construction of modern Chinese civilization. In contrast, the idealist view of civilization judges civilizations using abstract standards (such as liberty, equality, and fraternity), believing that any civilization conducive to realizing democracy, liberty, and fraternity is a "good" civilization. Civilization indeed has its own inherent laws of development, and we acknowledge their existence, but we cannot infinitely amplify the independence of these laws or separate civilization from the people who produce it. If we move away from the "ruling class" and "their producers" who create civilization, we drift toward "civilizational determinism" or "civilizational centrism," using abstract democracy, liberty, and fraternity to judge forms of civilization.
IV. The Civilizational Standpoint of Sino-centrism
In building modern Chinese civilization, we must adhere to a China-centered standpoint. However, we must not let our emphasis on the Chinese center lead to another extreme: "Sino-centrism." The civilizational standpoint of "Sino-centrism" believes that five thousand years of Chinese culture contains everything, and that China can achieve national rejuvenation without learning from the West. Adhering to this standpoint might lead to the rejection of beneficial elements within Western culture, or even the belief that Western civilization is utterly worthless and offers nothing to be drawn upon. In fact, criticizing the civilizational standpoint of "Western-centrism" is not contradictory to learning from Western civilization.
First, constructing modern Chinese civilization is not equivalent to adhering to "Sino-centrism." The civilizational standpoint of Sino-centrism (China-centrism) is a projection of an "ego-centric" mentality onto the issue of civilization. From the perspective of social Darwinism, every individual, group, and race seeks an environment most conducive to their own survival and may therefore become ego-centric. However, this is not a healthy mentality. Sino-centrism is not the same as patriotism. As Professor Tang Shiping pointed out, "Our criticism of Sino-centrism is not a call to abandon the defense of national interests; on the contrary, we believe that severe Sino-centrism inevitably leads to dysfunction in national diplomatic behavior, thereby harming China's national interests." Historically, the "Sino-centric" mentality can be traced back to the concept of Tianxia-ism (All-under-Heaven [8]) in ancient China. In feudal society, China remained at an advanced global level for a long period, and Chinese people consistently used the concepts of "China" and the "Four Barbarians" (Siyi [9]) to construct a "China-centered" cognitive map of the world. Within the vision of Tianxia-ism, "the Chinese believed that among all nations, only China was worthy of admiration. Regarding the greatness of the state, political systems, and academic reputation, they viewed other peoples not only as barbarians but as irrational animals. In their eyes, no other kings, dynasties, or civilizations in the world were worth boasting about." John King Fairbank held a similar view, using the concept of "The Chinese World Order" to summarize Tianxia-ism. He believed that Tianxia-ism was the application by the Chinese of principles reflecting domestic political and social order to foreign relations, carrying a distinct flavor of Sino-centrism and Chinese exceptionalism—a hierarchical and unequal international order. By the late Qing Dynasty, Tianxia-ism went bankrupt under the massive impact of Western powers. Tianxia-ism categorized civilizations into different grades, believing there were distinctions of high and low, noble and base, or superior and inferior, which greatly hindered equal exchange between Chinese civilization and other civilizations of the world. "Western-centrism" should be criticized, but we cannot move toward "Sino-centrism" simply because we criticize "Western-centrism."
Looking back at history, Chinese civilization has continued for thousands of years. In its millennia-long evolution, it was never static but always insisted on not forgetting its origins while absorbing external influences. Researching Chinese civilization must "take China as the center"; we cannot mechanically or indiscriminately transpose foreign things to China without studying China's specific characteristics. However, we cannot let the emphasis on the Chinese center in our research standpoint lead to "Sino-centrism," nor is the criticism of "Western-centrism" intended to establish "Sino-centrism." If the purpose and reason for criticizing "Western-centrism" is merely to establish "Sino-centrism," it remains a "centrist" way of thinking—a "center-periphery" or "backward-advanced" framework that fails to treat different civilizations on an equal level. Civilizational forms all stem from practice and specific problems: Western modernization practices and problems produced the Western form of modern civilization, while Chinese modernization practices and problems produce the Chinese form of modern civilization. In his Talks at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art, Mao Zedong refuted the view that treats the works of the ancients or foreigners as the "source," arguing instead that they are the "stream"—things created by the ancients and foreigners from the raw materials of the people's lives in their own time and place. Marx took "real individuals," "their activity," and "their material conditions of life" as the premises of his conception of history. Therefore, we must study the civilizational forms built upon these "real premises" starting from "real individuals," their "activity," and their "material conditions of life." We cannot use a civilizational form based on Western "real premises" to criticize a civilizational form based on Eastern "real premises."
Second, constructing modern Chinese civilization must be based on "exchange and mutual learning." Civilizational forms emerge through comparison and exchange; in a state of closure, there can only be arrogance and isolation—the creation of a new form of civilization would be impossible. Civilizational forms are the spiritual expression of human modes of existence; differences in modes of existence across different regions and countries have created the diversity of civilizational forms. Each civilizational form is shaped within a specific natural environment, historical context, and historical tradition. The differences between civilizational forms reflect differences in the ways people produce and live across different countries, regions, and eras. The civilizational forms created by different nations in different historical periods each have their own merits, together constituting a pluralistic human civilization. It is precisely because of the diversity of civilizational forms that exchange and mutual learning have value, and human life becomes richer through such exchange. The history of human survival and development is a history of the exchange of human civilizations; civilizational exchange has become a basic feature of human development. In this process, the "intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations" has replaced the "old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency." [10] This is true for material production and equally so for spiritual production: "The spiritual creations of individual nations become common property." Regarding Chinese civilization, it is undeniable that after 1500, facing the "West," China as the "East" manifested a degree of national isolationism, attempting to resist the erosion of traditional society by advanced civilization through a closed-door policy; during this period, Chinese civilization showed a side of self-satisfaction and stagnation. At the same time, however, we must see that the mainstream of Chinese civilization is inclusive and "all-embracing" (hainabaichuan [11]). From the five-thousand-year history of the Chinese nation, one finds that for most of the time, the Chinese nation was open and inclusive. Since the Qin and Han Dynasties, Chinese civilization and foreign civilizations have consistently influenced each other—for example, the culture of the Western Regions profoundly influenced dynasties such as the Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Tang, and Song. It was only in the last few centuries of the modern era that a side of stagnation and self-satisfaction began to appear. Thus, while the Chinese civilizational tradition has undergone stages of stagnation, it also has stages of openness and inclusivity; more importantly, the mainstream has been the side of openness and inclusivity. General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that Chinese culture possesses an "open mind for the absorption and inclusion of world civilizations."
V. The Civilizational Standpoint of Western-centrism
The reflection of "Western-centrism" in the issue of civilization is the adherence to a Western-centric civilizational standpoint. This standpoint understands Western civilization (including its associated political systems, thoughts, concepts, and development paths) as the universal and sole model for the development of human society. It generalizes, eternalizes, and fixes this model, using it to tailor, measure, and judge other civilizations. It believes that any civilization that does not conform to Western civilizational standards is a "backward" civilization that should be transformed, with the direction of transformation being Western civilization.
First, constructing modern Chinese civilization requires criticizing "Western-centric" ideas. The civilizational standpoint of Western-centrism is essentially a metaphysical standpoint and a logocentric view of civilization. An "ism" is ultimately a product of human practical activity; it is a "conscious existence" historically created by humans through material production and universal intercourse, expressed through theorized and systematized concepts, discourses, propositions, and judgments. During the process of modernization, Western Europe created a system containing political institutions, economic models, values, and ideologies, and turned this into an "ism"—this is the capitalist civilizational form. Along with the globalization of capital and the development of the world market, capitalist countries, by virtue of their "first-mover" advantage, have generalized, eternalized, and fixed theories, concepts, discourses, and civilizations based on Western experience. They use these to tailor, measure, and judge the development models of non-Western societies. This mode of thinking also contains the ideological and value biases of the West. For example, "modernization" should properly be an abstraction and generalization of the modernization practices of all countries and regions in the world. "Modernization" does not have only one model—"Western modernization." "Modernization" is not equal to "Western modernization." We cannot equate the two or use "Western modernization" as the standard for "modernization." "Western modernization" is merely a "particularity" of modernization—one type of modernization—and not the "general" or "only" form of it. As Marx said, an "apple" is a "fruit," but one cannot take "apple" as the standard and conclude that a "pear" is not a "fruit." "Chinese modernization" is another "particularity" of modernization suited to China's national conditions. Understanding "Western modernization," which is merely a particularity, as "modernization in general" and using it to measure "Chinese modernization" reflects the discourse hegemony of the West.
Marx conducted a profound analysis of the generative process behind the "Western-centric" civilizational stance. On one hand, "Western-centrism" aligns with the objectives of capitalist production. Marx argued that the capitalist production process is "production based on capital," where valorization is the essential characteristic of capital. In the process of capital expansion, capitalism transforms all production and production in all locales into "capitalist production," opening up the "world market" and driving the development of capitalist globalization. During the valorization of capital, an antagonistic relationship of "capital-labor" is produced, establishing the principle that "capital exploits labor." This results in wealth polarization and class opposition, generates the basic contradictions of capitalism, and expands these contradictions to a global scale. This leads to imbalanced and uncoordinated development in the global sphere and the contradiction between East and West—namely, that "the East is subordinated to the West." At the same time, material production dominates and constrains the production of social relations and ideology: "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity... of men." "Production based on capital" must necessarily produce the political systems, developmental models, values, and ideologies—that is, the civilizational form—that serve its own interests. On the other hand, "Western-centrism" aligns with Western academic tradition. Ultimately, "Western-centrism" is a form of logocentrism [12]. The fundamental value pursuit of traditional Western philosophy takes the grasping of epistemic certainty as its consistent philosophical interest. The paradigm of logocentric thinking runs through Western philosophy starting from Plato; as Whitehead remarked, the entire history of Western philosophy is but a series of footnotes to Plato. Consequently, vivid, living, and real history was reduced by him to highly speculative logic. The civilizational stance of this philosophy is to "logocentristize" the political systems, developmental models, thinking paradigms, values, and ideologies extracted and refined from the specific experiences of the West. It generalizes, absolutizes, and eternalizes Western civilization—a specific subset of humanity—as a metaphysics of civilization, depicting one particular form of human civilization as the orthodox and only legitimate form.
Secondly, building a modern Chinese civilization requires a critique of the commodification of civilization. In the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858 (the Grundrisse), Marx proposed the "three-stage theory" of human social development. He argued that human society sequentially undergoes three stages: "personal dependence," "objective dependence," and "free individuality." The civilizational forms accompanying these three social formations each possess distinct characteristics: during the period of "personal dependence," civilization serves power; during "objective dependence," civilization serves capital; and during "free individuality," civilization serves the free individuality of human beings.
In the era dominated by capital, capitalist civilization serves capital, acts as a tool for capital valorization, and defends the capitalist system. In Marx's view, civilizational forms are the conceptual expressions of human practical activities. If a civilizational form merely "explains what exists," it becomes a simple apology for the "existing," descending into an ideology detached from "reality," because "explaining what exists" is "recognizing what exists." For Marx, the significance of all propositions in Marxism—as practical materialism—lies in revolutionizing the existing world. Western Marxism, using Marxist philosophy as an analytical tool, specifically addressed the question of the transcendence of civilization. In the stage of late capitalism, beyond absolute political control and the constraints of economic consumerism, the ruling class also manipulates people's psychology, will, and consciousness through civilization. Yet civilization, as the conscience of society, possesses the function of transcending and critiquing social reality; the value of civilization lies in its resistance to, negation of, transcendence of, and critique of current life. The civilizational form is a heterogenous force and a force from "the other shore" (bi'an) [13] within current life, transcending "what exists." Civilization reflects people’s yearning for a better life and their pursuit of a world on the other shore. The value of civilization lies in using the world of the other shore to scrutinize and critique the world of "this shore" (ci'an), thereby realizing the renewal of human civilization and the iteration of human social life. The significance of civilization's existence is not to "recognize what exists" or to beautify "what exists," but to construct a utopian world that is different from and guides the existing reality—framing and sketching a beautiful world worth pursuing for the subject, and stimulating the subject's consciousness of resistance and lofty ideals. Since it is a transcendence of "what exists," civilization and current life are separated; it is purely of the other shore, "distinct from and dissociated from any 'everyday' phenomena we might observe." Capitalist civilization affirms "what exists" and maintains the established social order of capitalism. Under the influence of capitalist civilization, the masses gradually lose the capacity and taste for negating, resisting, and transcending the existing world. Thus, capitalist civilization becomes a false ideology justifying the irrationality of the capitalist system, dissolving the boundaries between life on this shore and the other shore, between the elegant and the vulgar, and between high-end taste and low-level interests, discarding the isolation, critique, reflection, and scrutiny that civilization should exercise over the existing.
VI. The Correct Stance for Building a Modern Chinese Civilization
Building a modern Chinese civilization requires responding to the four aforementioned civilizational stances: respecting the past without being biased toward the ancient, respecting the modern without blindly worshipping it, and learning from the West without total Westernization—centering on China without veering into extreme Sinocentrism. This is also the civilizational stance of Chinese-path modernization.
First, building a modern Chinese civilization requires achieving a fusion of the advantages of the ancient and the modern. From a civilizational perspective, Marxism is a new civilization, one created on the basis of transcending the dualistic opposition between tradition and modernity. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx criticized various erroneous trends of socialism and communism; the error of "feudal socialism," for instance, lay in its failure to understand "the march of modern history." This trend attempted to critique the present from the standpoint of the past (tradition), moving toward a traditionalist stance on civilizational construction. Of course, one cannot go to the other extreme—modernism. In Marx’s view, "the modern" similarly requires scrutiny and reflection. In his late letters on historical materialism, Engels pointed out the relative independence of ideology. In the final analysis, ideology is determined by the economic base, yet one cannot deny that ideology "has an independent historical development." Tradition (manifested as traditional culture, old ideologies, law determined by the economic base, etc.) likewise possesses "independent historical development." One cannot view tradition and modernity "undialectically as rigidly opposed poles, completely forgetting their interaction." The "interaction" between tradition and modernity is mainly reflected in how to achieve complementary advantages. The process of building a modern Chinese civilization requires realizing this complementarity between tradition and modernity; "Chinese civilization endows Chinese-path modernization with profound cultural depth." For example, diligence is a characteristic of the Chinese people and a Chinese tradition, but this tradition did not manifest its due power during the era of agricultural civilization. Because production efficiency was low in traditional agricultural civilization, no matter how intensive the cultivation, the harvest remained limited. Upon entering modernization, the Chinese tradition of diligence manifested immense energy; industrial production can break through the constraints of natural conditions, allowing wealth to achieve explosive growth. The traditional trait of diligence and the modern trait of industrial production breaking natural constraints have achieved mutual complementarity—this is the fusion of tradition and modernity.
Second, building a modern Chinese civilization requires achieving complementary advantages between China and the West. Civilization "is a matter of practice." Building a modern Chinese civilization must be grounded in the practice of the Chinese nation. In The Holy Family, Marx pointed out that we can only arrive at the concept of "fruit" on the basis of real, concrete fruits like apples and pears; we cannot have the abstract concept of "fruit" first and then apply it to concrete apples and pears, "creating real, natural things out of the unreal intellectual essence of 'fruit'." Building a modern Chinese civilization cannot use "the West" to negate "China," nor can it use "China" to negate "the West." One of the laws of human historical development is the transition from regional history to world history. In Marx's view, the error of Germany at the start of its modernization was that it was "not the contemporary of the present age." In the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right," Marx pointed out the influence of Germany's heavy historical tradition on its modernization; the core issue of the German path to modernization was the "incompleteness of the modern state." While Britain and France had already initiated their modernization processes, Germany exhibited an "anachronism." Therefore, we must both be grounded in Chinese practice and learn from and absorb Western practice, achieving mutual complementarity and integrated development.
Third, building a modern Chinese civilization must avoid the "stacking of defects" between tradition and modernity, and between China and the West. Tradition and modernity, and China and the West, each have their advantages and their defects. Chinese culture contains both excellent components and dross; socialist trends include both scientific socialism and various erroneous forms of socialism; Western capitalist culture includes both parts representing the outstanding achievements of human civilization and parts that are decadent and declining. Building a modern Chinese civilization requires fusing the civilizational characteristics of "fine traditional Chinese culture," the civilizational traits of the "advanced nature of scientific socialism," and "all outstanding achievements of human civilization." We must avoid the entanglement of the dross of Chinese culture, erroneous socialist trends, and the decadent parts of Western capitalist culture.
Human civilization is the conceptual expression of human practice and real life; modern Chinese civilization is the conceptual expression of the historical and contemporary practice of the Chinese nation. Only by transcending the debates between the ancient and the modern and between China and the West, and by avoiding the stacking of defects, can we find the correct stance for building a modern Chinese civilization.
(The author is currently an Associate Professor at the School of Marxism and Deputy Director of the Institute of 21st Century Marxism at the Central Party School of the CPC (National Academy of Governance).)