Jin Minqing: The Foundational Basis and Internal Tensions in Constructing the Discourse System of Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics
Building a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is an essential task that contemporary Chinese social scientists must fulfill. When contemplating the construction of such a system, we must consider its underlying ideological content, the cultural foundations upon which it is built, the epochal issues it reflects, and whether it possesses robust explanatory power. These questions concern the relationships between discourse and thought, discourse and culture, discourse and the era, and discourse and vitality—all of which are intimately linked to the foundational basis and enduring viability of a discourse system. By correctly navigating these major relationships, we can scientifically construct a complete discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics that reflects the profound internal meaning of new ideas, adapts to the practical requirements of the New Era, embodies the integration and innovation of diverse cultures, and possesses deep explanatory power.
I. Discourse and Thought: Deep Ideological Construction Must Underlie Discourse System Construction
Discourse is the expression of thought, and thought is the core of discourse. Constructing a discourse system devoid of ideological content is, in reality, nothing more than an artificial game of concepts; conversely, thought that lacks the support of a discourse system cannot truly develop.
Behind a complete, new type of discourse system lies a complete and independent ideological construction. Formally speaking, Hegel’s Shorter Logic is a complete discourse system composed of numerous concepts—being, essence, concept, quality, quantity, measure, existence, appearance, reality, subjectivity, objectivity, the Idea, subjective spirit, objective spirit, absolute spirit, and so on. This complete discourse system is simultaneously the philosophical system he established with "Absolute Spirit" as its core. Formally, Marx’s Capital is a complete and brand-new economic discourse system composed of a series of concepts such as commodity, labor, value, use-value, money, capital, and surplus value. This discourse system is simultaneously the theoretical system of political economy established by Marx with the theory of surplus value as its core. Mao Zedong’s On Contradiction is likewise a discourse system composed of concepts like contradiction, the universality of contradiction, the particularity of contradiction, the unity of contradiction, and the struggle of contradiction, which is simultaneously the philosophical system of contradiction theory established by Mao Zedong. This demonstrates that a truly valuable discourse system must be underpinned by a deep and independent ideological construction.
The construction of a new discourse system is, in effect, the process of creating, forming, and developing a new thought. A major revolution in discourse systems is a great revolution or significant innovation in thought. The great revolution Marx achieved in the history of thought was accomplished through a "revolution in terminology." In his preface to Capital, Engels pointed out that in Marx’s construction of political economy theory, "the application of certain terms is different not only from their meaning in everyday life, but also from their meaning in ordinary political economy. But this was unavoidable. Every new outlook of a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of that science." [1] This means that the revolution in political economy achieved by Marx involved a profound transformation of the discourse system and terminology—that is, the establishment of a completely new conceptual and terminological system entirely distinct from that of bourgeois economics. This significant thesis by Engels is naturally not limited to economics; it reveals an important methodological principle of all of Marx’s theoretical innovations: achieving ideological transformation through a revolution in terminology.
Mao Zedong also founded and continuously refined Mao Zedong Thought precisely through the process of proposing a series of important concepts and terms. When discussing the integration of theory with practice, he emphasized: "Only when the Chinese Communists succeed in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, and in applying the teachings of Lenin and Stalin concerning the Chinese revolution, and when, furthermore, they create theories through conscientious research into China's historical and revolutionary realities and use them to meet China's needs, can it be said that they are integrating theory with practice." [2] It was with this spirit of independent theoretical creation that, during the revolutionary war period, he proposed a series of major "identifying concepts" [3] with Chinese characteristics, such as "semi-colonial and semi-feudal society," "New Democracy," seeking truth from facts, the mass line, independence and self-reliance, ideological Party building, and criticism and self-criticism. Around the time of the founding of the People's Republic of China, he creatively proposed further identifying concepts such as the "people’s democratic dictatorship," the "National People’s Congress," "regional ethnic autonomy," "contradictions among the people," and "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend," forming a unique suite of theoretical and institutional innovations. The proposal and enrichment of this series of concepts was simultaneously the process of the formation and development of Mao Zedong Thought.
The latest developments in the Sinicization of Marxism call for a new discourse system for philosophy and social sciences. Today, we have reached another period of major theoretical innovation. A "new thought" marked by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has been established. This necessitates the construction of a discourse system that adapts to and supports this new thought; this is the fundamental point of constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.
On one hand, we already possess significant results in theoretical innovation, providing the ideological basis and core internal meaning for constructing a new discourse system. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s proposal to build a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics was actually carried out simultaneously with the creation of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. In 2016, when General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed the major task of constructing this discourse system at the Seminar on Philosophy and Social Sciences, major innovative ideas had already taken shape. In 2017, the 19th National Congress of the CPC clearly put forward the scientific concept of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, providing a concentrated exposition of its core tenets and basic policies, thereby offering a solid ideological foundation for the discourse system of philosophy and social sciences.
On the other hand, discourse system construction in the fields of philosophy and social sciences has not kept pace with the Party’s theoretical innovations. We have vivid practical experience and major ideological creations, yet our academic theories have not formed a corresponding discourse system. To some extent, we are still following a path of "dependent development": many theories utilize systems and concepts imported from the West rather than forming an independent, autonomous discourse system with Chinese characteristics; or they remain stuck in the theoretical frameworks and discourse systems of the eras of Marx, Lenin, Mao Zedong, or Deng Xiaoping, failing to form a system that carries, supports, and embodies the new thoughts and characteristics of the New Era. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: the capacity and level of China's philosophy and social sciences "in terms of academic propositions, academic thought, academic viewpoints, academic standards, and academic discourse are not yet commensurate with China's comprehensive national power and international status." [4] Furthermore, "In interpreting Chinese practice and constructing Chinese theory, we should have the most significant voice, but in reality, the voice of our philosophy and social sciences in the international arena is still relatively small, leaving us in a situation where we have the truth but cannot express it, or express it but cannot spread it." [5] Based on this situation, General Secretary Xi Jinping particularly emphasized that we must focus on strengthening discourse system construction and accelerate the building of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. We must "be adept at distilling identifying concepts and creating new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that are easily understood and accepted by the international community, thereby guiding the international academic community in conducting research and discussion." [6]
II. Discourse and Culture: Discourse Systems Must Be Built Through the Integration and Innovation of Different Cultural Resources
Any discourse system centered on thought is a product of cultural accumulation and the result of the integration of different cultural variances. Without long-term and profound cultural sedimentation, it is impossible to create a new discourse system. When discussing the construction of China’s discourse system for philosophy and social sciences, we must consider the state of contemporary China's cultural resources and how to transform them into organic components of this construction.
To clarify the cultural structure of contemporary China, we must begin with the cultural transformations since the dawn of the modern era. After the Opium War [7], modern China entered a unique historical period, facing the dual tasks of political rebirth and cultural rebirth.
On one hand, China’s political standing plummeted; traditional political structures could no longer support the progress of the nation. Thus, the question of how to achieve rebirth for the political system and institutions became a major issue. People explored various paths, experiencing failure after failure until, inspired by the October Revolution and guided by Marxism, the Communist Party of China was founded. Under the leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people, through arduous and unremitting struggle, achieved complete victory in the New Democratic Revolution, established the People's Republic of China, and created a brand-new socialist system—realizing the greatest institutional transformation in the history of the Chinese nation. They have since continued to develop the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, achieving great success in political rebirth.
On the other hand, there was the task of endogenous cultural rebirth. Chinese traditional culture, especially feudal ideology, could no longer sustain the historical mission of national rejuvenation. From the Opium War onward, people tried every possible way to splice, graft, or combine traditional ideology with various foreign cultural resources to support national liberation and rejuvenation, yet they failed time and again. The Taiping Rebellion [8] grafted Christianity onto the Chinese concept of a "Great Harmony" (datong) society; the Westernization Group [9] grafted Western technical culture onto Chinese ideology; and Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao of the Reform Movement of 1898 [10] grafted Western utopian socialism and Enlightenment thought onto the "Gongyang" theory of the "Three Ages" [11]—none were successful. After the Revolution of 1911 [12], the newly established democratic republican system struggled under the double pressure of feudal ideology and feudal warlords. In this context, advanced intellectuals represented by Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, and Lu Xun launched the New Culture Movement [13], introducing a series of foreign cultural elements. This gradually formed the landscape of Chinese culture since the May Fourth Movement: a situation where Chinese traditional culture, Marxism, and Western culture coexisted, intertwined, and conflicted, yet a new form of integrated Chinese culture had not yet been realized.
After the establishment of the socialist system, cultural rebirth should have been prioritized and achieved. However, for a long period, the integration of the differences between Marxism and Chinese culture did not proceed as smoothly as imagined or logically deduced. While Marxism held the position of the dominant ideology, the cultural identification of the broad masses with Marxism remained a task to be completed. In certain periods, the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture even fell into a stalemate of mutual exclusion. After the start of Reform and Opening-up, this mutual exclusion was not entirely eliminated and even manifested intensely in certain aspects. With the prevalence of new theories of "Westernization," the three cultures—Marxist, Chinese, and Western—at times disparaged and negated one another. Scholars of traditional culture looked down on Marxism, viewing it as a foreign rather than a Chinese culture; scholars of Marxism, from an ideological perspective, viewed much of traditional culture as "dross" that had to be thoroughly criticized; and those standing on the side of Western culture, on one hand, dismissed Marxism as pure political ideology—a theory of class struggle that was out of step with the times and destructive to social stability—while on the other hand, they viewed Chinese traditional culture as a representative of decay and backwardness that should be replaced by "advanced" Western culture. This three-way confrontation, amidst rapid economic and social development, meant that the organic integration of contemporary Chinese culture did not achieve its intended goals.
Consequently...
Since the May Fourth Movement [14], different cultural forms—Chinese traditional culture, Marxism, and Western culture—have collided under specific historical conditions. This has produced a unique landscape characterized by the differentiation, conflict, and fusion of "Marxist, Chinese, and Western" cultures, which constitutes the basic pattern of contemporary Chinese culture. To construct a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must proceed from this basic cultural pattern. We must analyze the current relationship between these different cultures in China, the extent to which their differentiation and fusion have progressed, and how to achieve their integrated development, so that the rational elements of different cultures can be transformed into organic components of the discourse system.
On this issue, General Secretary Xi Jinping has proposed a clear line of thought: namely, to achieve the integration and innovation of three cultural resources—Marxist, fine traditional Chinese culture, and the positive achievements of foreign philosophy and social sciences. He pointed out: "The realistic form of philosophy and social sciences is the result of the integration and generation of various types of knowledge, ideas, theories, and methods from ancient times to the present"; "We must persist in making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China, integrate various resources, and continuously promote innovation in knowledge, theory, and methodology" [15].
This means that in constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must, first, firmly uphold the guiding position of Marxism, adhere to and develop the basic principles of Marxism, vigorously promote the Sinicization, modernization, and popularization of Marxism, and continuously innovate the products and cultural forms of Sinicized Marxism to form the core content and signature concepts of the field. Second, we must fully excavate and absorb the resources of fine traditional Chinese culture, promote its creative transformation and innovative development, explore the historical and cultural depth of our discipline, and consolidate its profound cultural foundations. Third, we must fully absorb and draw lessons from the positive achievements of foreign philosophy and social sciences, enable them to continuously acquire Chinese forms, truly integrate them into the Chinese cultural system as organic components, and enrich the beneficial nourishment of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Only by managing the differentiation, fusion, integration, and innovation of these three cultural resources can we lay a solid cultural foundation for our discourse system.
III. Discourse and the Era: Discourse Systems are Built Upon a Deep Grasp of Major Epochal Issues
Thought is the crystallization of its time. The thought of an era is "its era grasped in thought" [16]. As the vehicle for thought, discourse must naturally be built upon a grasp of the era. The era presents us with a series of major practical and theoretical questions that must be answered; the answers to these questions form a series of new concepts, which constitutes the epochal foundation for the emergence of new discourse. Constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is a contemporary task; it requires using a new system of concepts to provide academic generalizations, refinements, and answers to the major questions of the New Era.
On the one hand, we must profoundly grasp the essence and stage-specific characteristics of the era in which we live and generalize them using the discourse of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. The era in which humanity currently resides remains the "great historical era" identified by Marxism [17]—that is, the historical era in which the capitalist mode of production dominates the world, while simultaneously being the historical era of transition from capitalism to socialism. The general trend of the "two inevitabilities" [18] in the development of human history has not changed, nor has the basic contradiction of the capitalist mode of production. This basic contradiction inevitably causes global polarization and a severely irrational world political and economic order. However, this great historical era has currently manifested a series of new stage-specific characteristics. Particularly since the 2008 financial crisis, the strength of capitalism represented by the United States has been in obvious decline; contradictions between capitalist countries have become increasingly prominent, and their contradictions with developing countries continue to expand. The power of the broad masses of developing countries striving for peace and development has risen sharply. After long-term development, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era, and the world is in a major historical period of great development, great change, and great adjustment.
Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong all used specific theoretical discourses to make precise generalizations of the characteristics of their respective eras. Regarding the essence and stage-specific characteristics of the current era, China’s philosophy and social science community needs to use Chinese wisdom to conduct deep theoretical analysis and summarize them with the discourse of the New Era. Otherwise, we will either be limited to using the discourse of our ancestors and fall behind the times, or blindly copy foreign (especially Western) discourse and lose our theoretical autonomy—both of which are clearly unreasonable.
On the other hand, we must profoundly grasp the series of major fundamental questions raised by the era and provide answers using the theories of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. The essence and stage-specific characteristics of the current era pose several major epochal questions: What kind of era is humanity in? What is the basic pattern of the world today? What common problems does humanity face, and what is the way out for solving them? These questions can be summarized as "Whither humanity?" After world socialism experienced serious setbacks at the end of the 20th century, can it emerge from its nadir and move toward prosperity and development in the 21st century? Can socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era drive scientific socialism to radiate new and vigorous vitality in the 21st century, demonstrate its own powerful life force, and lead the future development of humanity? These can be summarized as "Whither socialism?" As contemporary China’s development enters a new historical coordinate, what are the profound connotations, principal contradictions, major issues, and historical missions of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era? How can we continue to move toward new glories amidst complex international and domestic situations? These can be summarized as "Whither contemporary China?" As the duration of its governance grows, reform and opening up deepen, and the external environment changes complexly, the tests and risks faced by the Communist Party of China (CPC) are long-term and complex. Can the CPC withstand these tests, always maintain its advanced nature and purity, always stand at the forefront of the times, always remain the pillar of the people, and always remain the strong core of leadership? These can be summarized as "Whither the CPC?"
Firmly upholding the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method, and standing within the historical coordinate of the New Era, General Secretary Xi Jinping has engaged in deep philosophical reflection and provided systematic theoretical answers to these major epochal questions, forming a series of signature concepts and major theoretical judgments containing Chinese wisdom. Regarding contemporary human development, he proposed a new vision of global governance centered on "extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits"; the thought of a community with a shared future for humanity centered on lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness, inclusiveness, cleanliness, and beauty; a new vision of economic globalization directed toward openness, inclusiveness, balance, and win-win results; the diplomatic concept of the "right approach to interests and principles"; a new security concept centered on common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security; the "Belt and Road" Initiative centered on policy coordination, facilities connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration, and people-to-people bonds; a new international situation centered on peaceful cooperation, openness, inclusiveness, mutual learning, and mutual benefit; and a new type of international relations centered on mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation, among others.
Regarding the development of socialism, he proposed that "ideals and convictions are the 'calcium' of the spirit for Communists"; that communism is the theoretical premise and logical basis for socialism with Chinese characteristics; and that "socialism with Chinese characteristics is the dialectical unity of the theoretical logic of scientific socialism and the historical logic of Chinese social development, and is scientific socialism rooted in Chinese soil, reflecting the will of the Chinese people, and adapting to the requirements of the development and progress of China and the times" [19]. He noted that socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era allows scientific socialism to demonstrate even brighter prospects in the 21st century.
Regarding contemporary China’s development, he proposed socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, the principal contradiction in Chinese society in the New Era, the "Four Comprehensives" strategic layout, the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan," the Party’s basic theory, basic line, and basic strategy, and the goal of building a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful.
Regarding the development of the CPC, he proposed the Party’s original aspiration and founding mission; the idea that self-revolution and strictly governing the Party are the distinctive character of the Party; the principle that comprehensively and strictly governing the Party is always "on the road" [20]; the persistence of Party leadership over all work; and the general requirements for Party building in the New Era. These major theoretical judgments and important signature concepts are vital components of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era and represent the highest level of contemporary Chinese theory.
The philosophy and social sciences community must earnestly "study, understand, master, and implement" Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. However, it cannot remain at the level of simple repetition and formalized propaganda. It must continuously enhance its ideological self-awareness and sense of responsibility for theoretical innovation, deepen academic research into these new ideas, and further elevate the rich experience of the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era to a theoretical height, forming new signature concepts and innovative theoretical viewpoints to continuously enrich and substantiate these new ideas.
At the same time, we must also deeply analyze major social trends of thought and respond to them using the discourse of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. With the comprehensive and in-depth advancement of reform and the deep development of economic globalization, domestic ideological culture has become increasingly active. Global ideological cultures are integrating, penetrating, agitatedly interacting, and clashing with one another. Various social trends of thought are bursting forth, leading to a situation in the Chinese ideological sphere where a unified dominant ideology coexists and intertwines with diverse social trends. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "In the current era, social ideas and value orientations are increasingly active... mainstream and non-mainstream coexist, advanced and backward are intertwined... In the field of public opinion, there are roughly 'three zones': red, black, and gray. The red zone is our main battlefield and must be defended; the black zone is mainly negative things—we must dare to 'draw the sword' [21] and greatly compress its territory; the gray zone should be vigorously fought for to transform it into the red zone" [15].
In addition to Marxism as the guiding ideology, there are various social trends of thought. According to different value orientations and cultural directions, these can be divided into several categories: First, those that maintain the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the Party’s leadership, actively promoting the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era and enriching contemporary Chinese Marxism—for example, Marxist research in research institutions and universities. Second, those that simply and superficially repeat the Party’s theories, defend reality without analysis, and crudely suppress critical views targeted at contemporary China, even refusing to allow normal academic discussion—for example, certain scholars who consider themselves "orthodox" and frequently resort to simplistic criticism or labeling other scholars. Third, while maintaining and supporting existing social development, those that soberly, calmly, and limitedly criticize the deficiencies of reality to promote progress—the vast majority of academic research in philosophy and social sciences falls into this category. Fourth, those that adapt to the trend of increasing democratization and diverse mass cultural needs in contemporary Chinese society, involving or avoiding ideological disputes as much as possible—for example, certain popular cultures, internet cultures, and gossip news. Fifth, those that stand on specific political positions or serve hostile forces, seeking to undermine or attack contemporary China’s political system, economic form, and dominant culture to bring about subversive change in China—for example, historical nihilism [22], "universal values," "democratic socialism," "constitutionalism," "civil society theory," and other non-Marxist or anti-Marxist erroneous trends of thought. These major social trends of thought exist objectively, regardless of whether one acknowledges, agrees with, or criticizes them.
Faced with these major social trends of thought...
The circles of philosophy and social sciences certainly cannot evade or ignore [these trends], but must face them squarely and respond. People must always provide answers to major practical and theoretical issues—whether by criticizing or praising them, encouraging or restricting them—they must always adopt a stance. Evasion is an individual choice, but it cannot be the choice of the entire intellectual community. Especially regarding those social trends of thought with obvious errors or even reactionary tendencies, philosophy and social science workers cannot simply "watch from the sidelines" [23] and act as "gentlemen" who "cherish their own feathers" [24].
However, even regarding these major erroneous trends, we cannot merely conduct political critiques. We must carry out profound ideological and theoretical analysis from a scholarly perspective. In particular, we must address the specific discourse and theoretical frameworks of these erroneous trends by proposing targeted discourse systems and theoretical constructions that conform to academic norms. These must serve as the basis for our arguments and critiques, allowing us to seize the initiative and the "discourse power" [25] in ideological debates and academic criticism. Otherwise, our response will only be a "strike back" lacking top-level design and strategic significance, or a counterattack that is politically correct but limited in depth. In this regard, we should learn from the classic Marxist writers. It was precisely by establishing a new worldview that Marx truly and thoroughly criticized and overcame the old philosophy; it was precisely by establishing scientific political economy that he truly and thoroughly criticized bourgeois political economy, especially vulgar economics; and it was precisely by establishing the theory of scientific socialism that he truly and thoroughly criticized various types of petty-bourgeois socialist trends of thought.
IV. Discourse and its Vitality: The Lasting Vitality of a Discourse System Derives from Its Internal Tension
In constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must consider the issues of deep explanatory power and lasting vitality once the system is established. Just as the fundamental driving force for the development and progress of any thing comes from its own internal contradictions, the lasting vitality of a theoretical and discourse system also primarily derives from the internal tension it contains. If a theory or discourse system lacks the internal tension to promote its own development, it will be short-lived and have no future. To this end, when constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must reflect on the internal tension of such a system.
First, we must consider the relationship between the theoretical integrity and the practical orientation of the discourse system. On the one hand, the theories, concepts, and terminology we propose must conform to the laws of development of academic theory and satisfy the requirements of logical self-consistency, contributing to the realization of theoretical rigor and systematicity. This is the inward pursuit of theoretical integrity for theoretical discourse. On the other hand, the theories and concepts we construct must be able to explain and transform the world, influence others, and influence the world, contributing "Chinese wisdom" and "Chinese solutions" [26] to the resolution of major contemporary global issues. This is the outward requirement of practical orientation for theoretical discourse. If the logic of a constructed theory is not self-consistent, then this discourse does not conform to scholarship or theory; if the constructed theory has no influence on the external world, it is also meaningless. These two seemingly contradictory aspects, when organically combined, precisely constitute the internal characteristics and developmental momentum of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.
Second, we must consider the relationship between human universality and national specificity in the discourse system. Scholarship or science has no national borders; truths that truly reflect the objective world possess human universality. However, every constructor [of such systems] is grounded in a specific locality and builds theoretical and discourse systems upon the foundation of a specific country and national culture. Especially in today's era of globalization, how to organically combine the direction of human universality with the foothold of national specificity requires theoretical wisdom. In constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must stand at the height of advancing the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, maintaining the interests of the broadest masses of the Chinese people, and promoting the development of all humanity. We must correctly handle the relationship between universal civilization and institutional requirements, and between national culture and the consensus of all humanity. We must fully embody the practical requirements of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, reflect the laws of the development of human history, the laws of socialist construction, and the laws of the Communist Party's governance. We should fully absorb the excellent traditional culture of the Chinese nation and the outstanding civilizational achievements of all nations in the world, reflecting the common aspirations and ideal pursuits of the Chinese people and the people of the world. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must persist in not forgetting our origins, absorbing the foreign, and facing the future. We must look both inward, conducting in-depth research on major issues concerning the national economy and people’s livelihood, and outward, actively exploring major issues concerning the future and destiny of humanity. We must look both forward, accurately judging the development trends of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and backward, being adept at inheriting and promoting the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture" [27].
Finally, we must consider the relationship between historical openness and the systematic nature of truth in the discourse system. We must consider both the integrity of the discourse system itself and the historical openness of its construction, effectively coordinating the two to form the internal driving force of the discourse and theoretical systems. On the one hand, we must stand at the commanding heights of human knowledge, fully absorbing the latest achievements of the natural sciences, social sciences, and human practice. We must profoundly grasp the objective laws of nature, human society, and human cognition to construct an internally consistent and interconnected discourse system, forming a system of scientific truth with deep explanatory power. On the other hand, we must never construct philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics into a closed system of "final truth." We must always maintain the "advance with the times" nature of the discourse and theoretical systems, following the pace of human civilization and the progress of the era, constantly obtaining new life, and enriching ourselves by creating new discourse and ideas, thereby continuously realizing the "contemporatization" of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.
In short, when constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must properly handle the relationships between theoretical integrity and practical orientation, human universality and national specificity, and the systematic nature of truth and historical openness. We must never emphasize only our own foothold while closing our eyes to the rest of the world—this would be "drawing a circle on the ground to imprison oneself" [28]. Nor should we merely emphasize adherence to a system while forgetting open development—this would be dogmatism. Nor should we only emphasize theoretical integrity while abandoning the transformation of the external world—this would lead to the situation Marx described of merely interpreting the world, or even being unable to explain the world at all.
(Author Profile: Jin Minqing, Vice President and Researcher of the Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.) Source: Journal of the Central Party School of the CPC, 2018, Issue 5 Editor: Hui Hui