Qiu Gengtian: On Relational Civilization and Its Position in the New Form of Human Civilization
"Civilization is a matter of practice." Treading upon the "wind-and-fire wheels" [1] of productive practice, humanity bid farewell to the age of barbarism and crossed the threshold into civilized society. The term "civilization" in its modern sense appeared in mid-to-late 19th-century France. According to Huntington, the concept of civilization was proposed by late 18th-century French scholars in contrast to a "state of savagery." Although there are no fewer than 100 definitions of civilization in academia, since the concept's inception, humanity has in fact constructed a relatively stable conceptual framework based on a "civilization-barbarism" dichotomy; that is, civilization expresses a state of "enlightenment" and "progress" corresponding to "barbarism." This progressiveness is manifested not only in the fields of material production and spiritual culture but also in the realm of human relations—especially social relations—taking the form of relational civilization or the civilization of social relations. Relational civilization is a major achievement of human social progress, an organic component of human civilization, and a new form of civilization that requires high attention and active pursuit as we create a new form of human civilization. So, what is relational civilization? Why should it be established? What position does relational civilization occupy in the new form of human civilization? How shall we create it? We will provide preliminary answers to such questions under the guidance of the Marxist view of civilization and Xi Jinping Thought on Culture, in order to earnestly advance the construction and development of human relational civilization from both theoretical and practical perspectives.
I. Two "Down-to-Earth" Problems Facing Human Civilization
Since entering civilized society thousands of years ago, humanity has been laboriously advancing the construction of civilization. Developing to the present day, although a "form of holistic civilization" has emerged—comprising material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations—and remarkable achievements have been made, we also face increasingly serious problems. "Today, we also live in a world of contradictions. On one hand, material wealth continues to accumulate, scientific and technological progress changes with each passing day, and human civilization has developed to its highest level in history. On the other hand, regional conflicts occur frequently; global challenges such as terrorism and refugee waves arise one after another; and poverty, unemployment, and the widening income gap are increasing. The world faces rising uncertainty." Many of the "uncertainty" dilemmas facing contemporary human civilization are reified into two major development problems: the problem of insufficient development and the problem of discordant development. In January 2017, President Xi Jinping pointed out in his keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting: "The world economy has been in the doldrums for a long time, and the problems of the gap between rich and poor and the North-South gap have become more prominent." Taken together, these problems mean that global growth momentum is insufficient to meet the basic needs of some people, and global development is unbalanced, making it difficult to meet people's expectations for a better life.
The so-called "insufficiency" refers to the fact that development has difficulty reaching the level of satisfying the basic needs of everyone in terms of quantity and quality. In our "tiny globe," [2] there are still a considerable number of people who lack adequate food and clothing and whose livelihoods are difficult. They "have no shelter from the wind and rain, suffer from hunger, have no way to seek help, and are plagued by illness." The so-called "discord" refers to the phenomenon—from the standpoint of humanity—where human relations have become unbalanced and disharmonious during development due to conflicts of interest and improper means. "The wealth owned by the richest one percent of the global population exceeds the sum of the wealth of the remaining 99 percent. Inequality in income distribution and imbalances in development space are worrying. More than 700 million people in the world still live in extreme poverty. For many families, having a warm home, sufficient food, and a stable job is still a luxury. This is the greatest challenge facing the world today and an important cause of social unrest in some countries." The "discord" of development is mainly manifested in three aspects: first, the discord in person-to-person relations, including discord between individuals, between the individual and society, between nations, and between contemporary and future generations; second, the discord in the person-nature relation [3], of which increasingly serious ecological and environmental problems are a specific manifestation; third, the discord between the relationship of man’s material existence and spiritual existence. Survival hardships in reality or the tension and distortion of person-to-person relations have caused spiritual and psychological dissatisfaction and discomfort, leading to a deformed and painful state of existence and causing many people to suffer from spiritual and psychological problems.
The problem of insufficient development reveals that our existing construction of civilization has not yet been carried out solidly and sufficiently, and needs to be further resolved by increasing the construction of material, spiritual, and social civilizations. How then will the problem of discordant development be solved? This requires us to propose the concept of relational civilization and seek to solve the problem of discordant development through its construction.
II. What is Relational Civilization?
"There is only one trend in today's world, and that is peace, development, cooperation, and win-win results. History and reality have both proved that those who follow the trend prosper, while those who go against it perish." Based on the general trend of historical development and existing practical problems, it can be said that the concept of relational civilization is ready to emerge, and its creation is most timely. Relational civilization refers to the positive results achieved by people in the practical process of creating and improving human relations (human relations include social relations but are not equal to them; their extension is broader than social relations). In other words, relational civilization refers to the excellent state of coordination, balance, and harmony displayed by human relations through practical governance, which corresponds to the state of imbalance, tension, opposition, and even mutual harm in human relations. The proposal and formation of relational civilization mark the extension and expansion of human civilization into the realm of human relations, and the collective leap of human relations—especially social relations—toward the realm of civilization. From the perspective of content and structure, relational civilization includes the following specific aspects: first, the movement of a series of basic human relations from tension and opposition toward coordination and harmony, including the improvement or enhancement of the person-nature relationship, the person-to-person relationship, and the relationship between man’s material and spiritual existence—all of which are practical achievements of relational civilization; second, a series of positive theoretical results formed or achieved in the practical process of improving and optimizing human relations, such as the systemic concept, the idea of sustainable development, the concept of symbiosis, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity, the concept of a life community of man and nature, the "Two Mountains" theory [4], and so on. These theoretical achievements provide worldview and methodological guidance for the proposal and construction of relational civilization and, in a sense, belong to the theoretical achievements of relational civilization; third, the establishment and perfection of a series of social norms and mechanisms for maintaining and improving human relations, such as the principle of integrity, the principle of mutual assistance, the principle of collectivism, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and the "three-together" principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. These can be seen as the institutional achievements of relational civilization.
The concept of "relational civilization" embodies two logical dimensions: the civilization-ization of relations and the mutual learning-ization of civilizations. The so-called civilization-ization of relations means using civilized concepts, principles, requirements, and methods to coordinate and balance various human relations, so that positive changes conducive to the survival of generations and sustainable development occur, or to seek the civilization-ized transformation and development of human relations and achieve corresponding positive results. The so-called mutual learning-ization of civilizations refers to a situation where the civilizations of different subjects present exchange, integration, and common development on the basis of mutual respect and equal treatment. If the civilization-ization of relations is directed at human relations themselves, then the mutual learning-ization of civilizations is directed at the already existing civilizations of different subjects. The normalization or mutual learning-ization of civilizational relations follows the laws governing the development of human civilization and is the key to ensuring its healthy and smooth development. General Secretary Xi Jinping has published a series of important expositions on the exchange and mutual learning of human civilizations, which are our basic observance for grasping the mutual learning-ization of civilizations or the normalization of civilizational relations. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Civilizations become colorful through exchange and rich through mutual learning. Any civilization, no matter which country or nation's social soil it is produced in, is fluid and open. This is an important law for the dissemination and development of civilization." Precisely because there exists the "law of exchange and mutual learning" for the dissemination and development of civilization, "we must respect the diversity of civilizations and promote dialogue, peaceful coexistence, and harmonious symbiosis among different civilizations, rather than being conceited and disparaging other civilizations and nations. Human history tells us that the attempt to establish a unified world of a single civilization is only an impractical fantasy." To adhere to the dimension of mutual learning-ization of civilizations, we must oppose such ideas as the theory of civilizational superiority, the theory of the clash of civilizations, and the theory of civilizational centrism.
The proposal of "relational civilization" has a sufficient realistic basis; more crucially, the construction of the "relational civilization" paradigm has extremely important regulative significance for people's social interactions and their "dealings" with nature. According to the realistic basis for the generation of relational civilization and its methodological guiding function, we can divide relational civilization into two types: "is-ness" (actual) relational civilization and "ought-ness" (normative) relational civilization. So-called actual relational civilization is an objective revelation of the positive results achieved or major progress made by people in handling and optimizing human relations at present; these positive results actually constitute the realistic basis for the proposal of relational civilization or are manifestations of its realization. In October 2015, President Xi Jinping pointed out in a speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet at London's Guildhall that in today's world, openness, inclusiveness, diversity, and mutual learning are the main notes; interconnection and interdependence are the big trend; and peace, development, cooperation, and win-win results are the main themes. These expressions such as "main notes," "big trend," and "main themes" actually express the important progress made by humanity today in the construction of international relational civilization, which can be called a kind of actual relational civilization or a relational civilization emerging in reality. The community with a shared future for humanity and the life community of man and nature, which are being actively constructed, are undoubtedly important manifestations of the realization and crystallization of relational civilization.
Relational civilization, on the one hand, possesses a function of revealing and reflecting, and on the other hand, it has a normative role. In other words, the fundamental purpose of proposing and constructing relational civilization is to carry out a civilization-ized transformation of current human relations; thus, relational civilization simultaneously possesses a normative, "ought-ness" significance. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, currently, "humanity is in a period of great development, great change, and great adjustment. World multi-polarization, economic globalization, social informatization, and cultural diversification are developing in depth; a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution is germinating and growing; countries are interconnected and interdependent; the fate of the globe is shared and closely related. The rise of the forces of peace far exceeds the growth of war factors, and the trend of the times for peace, development, cooperation, and win-win results is even stronger." Therefore, we "must abandon the old thinking of zero-sum games and 'I win, you lose,' and establish the new concept of win-win and multi-win; we should take into account the interests of others when pursuing our own and promote common development when seeking our own development." This "abandoning the old thinking... and establishing the new concept" is essentially a yearning and call for peaceful and harmonious international relations and a fair and just international order in the context of relational civilization. Furthermore, our construction of a Beautiful China and a Beautiful World is actually a yearning and pursuit for a harmonious and symbiotic person-nature relation.
III. The Productive Practice Basis for the Formation of Relational Civilization
In the Marxist view of civilization, civilization is formed and developed on the basis of human productive practice. Different productive practices result in different forms of civilization. For example, material civilization is generated based on material production, spiritual civilization on spiritual production, and ecological civilization on ecological production. So, what is the practical basis for relational civilization? It is the production of human relations. It is on the basis of the production of human relations that relational civilization is produced, and the production and reproduction of human relations continuously promote the development of relational civilization.
Marxist production theory is a theory of "comprehensive production" [5]. In...
In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx proposed the concept of "production in its totality" (全面生产). Contrasting human production with that of animals, Marx wrote: "An animal produces only what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally." From the perspective of the Marxist theory of total production, human society is an organism. For this organism to persist, it requires a continuous exchange of matter, energy, and information with the surrounding natural world; to this end, material production must be carried out incessantly. This is because "any nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish." Of course, human material production is not conducted blindly or spontaneously, but rather under the governance of certain ideas and consciousness. For this reason, people must also engage in mental production. Mental production is the "production of ideas, notions, and consciousness," [7] primarily involving the creation of systematized and theorized intellectual products. To maintain its existence, the social organism must also carry out the production of human beings themselves—that is, the procreation of the species. Initial social relations were formed in the process of this production of human beings: "the family... is at first the only social relationship." It is the natural requirement for the production and reproduction of humans themselves that constitutes the powerful internal drive for material and mental production. As society developed into the modern era, anti-ecological behaviors emerged in production and daily life. Under the "warning" of severe ecological crises, people discovered the existence and importance of ecological production. They realized that in the interaction between humanity and nature, in addition to material production, there exists ecological production involving human participation, primarily aimed at restoring, protecting, and maintaining ecosystems.
The Marxist category of "production in its totality" also includes the production and reproduction of human relations, especially social relations. The reproduction of social relations achieved through human activity includes two cases: simple reproduction and expanded reproduction. The simple reproduction of social relations involves "cloning" existing social relations—that is, completely continuing the original relations. The expanded reproduction of social relations, however, means the manifest expansion or growth of social relations on the original foundation, including expanded reproduction in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. Quantitative expanded reproduction refers to the expansion of the scope of social relations of the same nature. Qualitative expanded reproduction refers to the emergence and development of social relations with new qualities, thereby causing significant changes in the landscape of social relations and social life. In a certain sense, social history is the history of the continuous production and reproduction of human relations, specifically social relations.
"The production of life, both of one’s own in labor and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the cooperation of several individuals." It is evident that social relations between people do not exist prior to humanity but are formed in the productive activities of transforming nature and the various communicative activities carried out on that basis. This indicates that the production of relations and material production emerge at least simultaneously. If material production and material civilization are important, then the production of relations and relation-civilization are also important. The activity of transforming nature cannot be an individualistic behavior; it is the "cooperation of several individuals" formed through mutual interaction between individuals. It is precisely this mutual interaction or reciprocal effect between people that forms human relations, including social relations. "What is society, irrespective of its form? The product of men’s reciprocal action." Looking from the perspective of the production of human relations, so-called relation-civilization is the manifestation of the production level and positive achievements of human relations, particularly social relations. It is expressed as the progressive state of humanity’s production of relations and communicative life. Using historical development as a thread and based on the evolution of modes of production, Marx divided the history of human civilization into three stages according to the periodic characteristics of social relations—relations of personal dependence, relations of material dependence, and the all-around development of individuals. These stages attest to the progressive history of human civilization.
For a long time, we have categorized human civilization into areas such as material civilization, political civilization, spiritual civilization, social civilization, ecological civilization, and information civilization. Civilizations in different fields reveal the improvement and progress of human relations within their respective spheres. For example, material civilization expresses the improvement and progress of material relations of production; spiritual civilization expresses the improvement and progress of relations in the realm of spirit and culture; political civilization expresses the improvement and progress of relations in the political sphere; social civilization expresses the improvement and progress of relations in the narrow sphere of social life; and ecological civilization expresses the harmony and progress among various elements of the ecosystem, especially the relationship between humanity and nature. Since the civilizations in these different fields all study the question of "relations," does this create a conflict with "relation-civilization"? In other words, is "relation-civilization" a valid concept? The answer is certainly yes: the concept of relation-civilization can be fully proposed, and its construction is imperative.
While civilizations in different fields characterize the progress of relations within their respective spheres, this "progress" has the limitation of being "confined to its own domain" [8]. On one hand, conflicts often occur between civilizations in different fields; on the other hand, some "social relations" such as international relations and interpersonal relations have not yet been fully integrated into the construction and development of "sectoral civilizations." More importantly, although we have been vigorously promoting the construction of various civilizations, as human civilization has developed to the present day, it is facing a serious impact from "developmental disharmony." This problem of disharmony has caused human civilization to lose its luster. Therefore, we must adhere to a systems perspective, adopt generalized research ideas and methods, and refine and generalize based on the commonalities of the "relations" involved in different forms or fields of civilization. We must rise to the height of a general "relation-civilization" to conduct a positive, specialized, and systematic exploration of the phenomenon of the civilization of human relations, including its essence, laws, mechanisms, and trends. It is clear that the proposal of "relation-civilization" has a solid realistic basis and a foundation in civilizational practice. In the past, people carried out the construction of relation-civilization in different fields. Now, based on the deepening of understanding, the development of practice, and the emergence of new problems, there is an urgent need to construct a new form of civilization—relation-civilization—to enrich and improve the content and structure of human civilization while ensuring its survival and development. In fact, the concept of civilization itself contains the phenomenon of communicative or social relations and their improvement. The concept of relation-civilization is the refinement and generalization of this progressive phenomenon.
IV. The Status and Role of Relation-Civilization in the New Form of Human Civilization
Although the concept of "relation-civilization" has not been formally and explicitly proposed previously, the Party, in the practical process of leading the people in modernization, has long manifested clear concepts and practices for promoting the construction of relation-civilization and has achieved positive results. After the founding of New China, because the socialist system was established and the broad masses of the people became masters of the country, we strengthened education in collectivism, vigorously promoted the Spirit of Lei Feng [9], and advocated the concept of "one for all and all for one," establishing generally equal and harmonious interpersonal relations. At the beginning of the new century, our Party proposed the building of a harmonious society, which could be called a top-level design of a "relation-civilization" nature. Since the beginning of the New Period and especially in the New Era, under the governance of the "lever" of resolving the principal social contradiction [10], we have pushed forward the construction of material civilization while simultaneously advancing political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations. Combining the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four Comprehensives, we have comprehensively deepened reform, moved toward the comprehensive building of a modern socialist country, and actively pursued comprehensive social progress and the all-around development of the person. This has led to positive progress in China in terms of adjusting, improving, harmonizing, and optimizing the relations between people, the relationship between humanity and nature, and the relationship between the human body and mind.
Socialist China not only vigorously promotes the civilization of social relations domestically but also actively advocates the civilization of international relations globally. In 1954, China, India, and Burma (Myanmar) jointly advocated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence [11]. This was a major pioneering work in the history of international relations, making a historical contribution to the establishment of a just and reasonable new type of international relations. In the mid-1980s, Deng Xiaoping put forward the strategic judgment that peace and development are the themes of the era, providing the basic epochal basis for us to promote the construction of relation-civilization. Since the New Era, against the background of "peace, development, cooperation, and win-win results becoming the trend of the times," our Party has further proposed Chinese concepts and initiatives such as building a community with a shared future for humanity, the four Global Initiatives [12], and calls for peaceful and common development. One could say this has formally sounded the clarion call for the construction of international relation-civilization on a global scale. On a worldwide level, the Chinese path of development or Chinese-path modernization is also a practical path for actively promoting the construction of relation-civilization. It can be said that socialist China is a paradigm for promoting the development of relation-civilization. First, China’s development is peaceful development. "China has repeatedly stated publicly that it will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development and will also promote all countries to jointly adhere to peaceful development. China will actively assume more international responsibilities and work with all countries to uphold human conscience and international justice." Second, China’s development is cooperative development. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that China’s development "is cooperative development. We will adhere to the concept of common development, carry out economic and technological cooperation with all countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, and promote our own development and the common development of all countries through cooperation." Finally, China’s development is also common development. "China adheres to common development, and this concept will not waver. In today’s world, the people of all countries are a community with a shared future who share weal and woe. Markets, funds, resources, information, and talents are all highly globalized. Only when the world develops can all countries develop; only when all countries develop can the world develop." It is clear that China’s development in the New Era embodies the harmony between material and spiritual civilizations and, more importantly, our active pursuit of constructing a civilization of international relations. In a sense, the concept and practice of relation-civilization have already clearly manifested in the process of Chinese-path development.
After the comprehensive building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, we took advantage of the momentum to embark on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress...
The "creation of a new form of human civilization" is listed as one of the essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization. We should take advantage of the "east wind" [13] of creating this new form of civilization to explicitly propose the initiative of establishing "relationship civilization" (关系文明). In a sense, the proposition of a new form of human civilization serves as a confirmation of relationship civilization; our creation of this new form naturally encompasses the establishment of relationship civilization. Alternatively, one could say we need to further grasp the connotation of relationship civilization within the context of the new form of human civilization.
First, regarding content and structure, the reason the new form of human civilization is "new" lies in the fact that human civilization continuously expands and integrates new internal structures through interaction with human practice. That is, it must reflect and mark the creation and improvement of human relationships, solidifying and manifesting the progress or positive achievements in the sphere of human relations in the form of "civilization." This simultaneously demonstrates that the reason human civilization has acquired a "new form" through the practical creations of Chinese-path modernization in the New Era is that we have injected the elements or forms of relationship civilization into it. This represents a summarization and absorption of the concepts and practices through which Chinese Communists promote relationship civilization; thus, human civilization, having "integrated the new" elements of relationship civilization, proves its own attribute as a "new form." In other words, the new form of human civilization cannot dispense with relationship civilization; without it, this new form would be incomplete and possess significant omissions.
Second, regarding practical efficacy, human civilization is not only indicative but also "overcoming"—it develops by overcoming various costs and problems that hinder or damage the progress of human civilization. This is because the progress and costs of civilization, its development and its problems, exist in a dialectical unity. This unity also indicates that the reason the new form of human civilization possesses a "new quality" (新质性) is that it adheres to a problem-oriented practical approach. Only by formally proposing the concept of relationship civilization and consciously, purposefully constructing it in practice can we truly overcome the problem of "developmental disharmony" encountered by human civilization against the backdrop of the "changes unseen in a century" [14]. In short, the new form of human civilization, having integrated relationship civilization and building upon the vigorous overcoming of practical problems, has propelled the development of human civilization into a new historical stage.
The new form of human civilization embodies the relationship between the "One" and the "Many." The so-called "One" expresses the meanings of "monism" and "integrality." "Monism" refers to the fact that the new form of human civilization possesses an advanced and leading character in the contemporary development of human civilization, representing its future direction. "Integrality" means that the various elements constituting the new form of human civilization form an indivisible whole. Within this new form, in addition to relationship civilization, highly unified relations exist between the other five dimensions of civilization [15]. Likewise, relationship civilization and these five share a unified relationship of interdependence and interaction. Interdependence means a close relationship where "you are in me and I am in you" (你中有我，我中有你). Relationship civilization cannot be separated from the five dimensions; it contains their elements and "shadows," while the five dimensions provide the supporting role for the generation and development of relationship civilization. Conversely, the five dimensions cannot be separated from relationship civilization; they contain its content. In practice, only when relationship civilization is well-constructed can it provide a basic guarantee for the development of the five dimensions. The unity between relationship civilization and the other five, and the resulting integrality, constitutes the new form of human civilization with its new quality.
The so-called "Many" expresses diversity and difference. Diversity refers to the fact that the new form of human civilization is composed of various sub-civilizations, forming a "5+1" unity. Difference refers to the clear boundaries, different functions, or different objects of "civilizing" between the sub-civilizations—especially between relationship civilization and the other five. Although they overlap to some extent, relationship civilization and the other five generally cannot substitute for one another. The other five civilizations are generally entity-based, domain-specific, or element-based forms of civilization, corresponding to the spheres of material production, political activity, spiritual production, social life, and ecological production. Although these domain-specific civilizational activities also function to transform and adjust human relations within their respective fields, relationship civilization is the positive result of the civilizing transformation and adjustment of general human relations as a whole. It focuses not only on relations within different spheres but also on the relations between different spheres, while also performing civilizing adjustments on human relations that the five dimensions do not cover. Relatively speaking, relationship civilization is not an entity-type but a relationship-state (关系态) civilization, reflecting human communicative activities—including the interaction between humans and nature—and the positive results achieved therein.
Some might argue that social relationship civilization is already included in social civilization in the narrow sense. However, if relationship civilization were confined solely to "social civilization," it would be a case of "underestimating" or "slighting" relationship civilization. Relationship civilization should not be limited to social civilization; its connotation, status, and role far exceed the scope of social civilization in the narrow sense. It should be independent, becoming a new form of civilization existing in parallel with the other five. This requires us to study relationship civilization frontally and systematically according to the needs of human civilizational development, grasping its connotation, manifestations, characteristics, significance, and construction measures.
V. How to Construct Relationship Civilization
The category of "relationship civilization" possesses both worldview and methodological significance. Its worldview significance lies in its revelation of "relational ontology" (关系本体). In other words, why must we propose, study, and construct relationship civilization? Because the existence of things is a unity of "entities" or "objects" and "relationships." We live in a material world, and matter manifests as both entity-matter and relationship-state matter. Matter, the connections of matter, and the motion of matter caused by these connections all possess ontological significance. Marx and Engels pointed out: "The first and most important of the inherent qualities of matter is motion." How then is motion generated? it is generated in the mutual connection—the mutual interaction—of things. "The fact that these bodies are in a certain connection already implies that they are interacting on one another, and this mutual interaction is what motion is." Thus, we can only "know bodies only in their mutual relations, in their motion." Clearly, the ontological status of the existence of relationships provides the fundamental realistic support for our attention to and study of human relationships from the perspective of civilization. To understand the world, we must proceed from both material ontology and relational ontology; we must grasp both the ontological nature of matter and the ontological nature of relationships or connections. Our timely proposal and vigorous promotion of relationship civilization construction actually possess sufficient academic basis, while also giving the construction of relationship civilization a high-level, overarching significance.
People always produce and live within a series of concrete human relationships, especially social relationships; social relations are the social form of human social practice. Human relationships—especially social relations—are so important to human survival and development that all sciences, including the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, are sciences that study the relationships within and between things. Any given science is a revelation and reflection of the essence and laws of a certain field or aspect; meanwhile, the essence, laws, the mechanism of things, the logic or mechanism of human cognition and practice, and ubiquitous social norms are all actually generated from or are expressions of the relations of things or social relations. This shows that the study of the relationships between things constitutes the primary object of study for all sciences. In other words, different sciences study different relationships: for example, economics studies economic relations, political science studies political relations, sociology studies the relations of social life, culturology studies cultural relations, military science studies military relations, and so on. It is evident that the formation and progress of human civilization have a philosophical basis, a practical foundation, and a theoretical material foundation provided by all sciences. The diversity and richness of human science create and attest to the richness of human civilization.
Throughout the evolution of thought, both ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign, there has always been a longing and aspiration for the civilizing of human relationships, as well as "intellectual explorations" by ancient sages attempting to adjust and optimize tense social relations from various angles. It is within these "intellectual explorations" that the embryonic ideas of relationship civilization are contained. For example, in the descriptions and aspirations of the ancients regarding an ideal society or a beautiful world, content concerning beautiful and harmonious human relationships is always included. If the relationship between Heaven and humans (人天之间) [16], and especially between humans and humans (人人之间), is inharmonious, it certainly cannot be called an "ideal society." China’s fine traditional culture "contains important inspirations for solving the difficult problems facing contemporary humanity." This fine traditional culture mainly includes: "the social ideal of the world as a commonwealth (天下为公) and the Great Unity (天下大同); the governance philosophy that the people are the foundation of the state (民为邦本) and that governance should be conducted through virtue; the tradition of a unified state characterized by diverse components integrated into a single whole; the patriotic sentiment of self-cultivation, family management, state governance, and bringing peace to the world (修齐治平); the spiritual pursuit of carrying the world with great virtue and promoting the Way (厚德载物); the economic ethics of enriching the people and balancing justice and profit; the ecological concept of the unity of Heaven and humanity (天人合一) and all things growing together; the philosophical thought of seeking truth from facts and the unity of knowledge and action; the thinking method of grasping two extremes to find the mean and maintaining harmony; and the way of social interaction characterized by valuing good faith, promoting harmony, and being kind to one's neighbors." Thus, in China’s fine traditional culture, there are rich conceptual consciousnesses regarding the pursuit and improvement of human relationships.
With the deepening and expansion of human interaction and the acceleration of globalization, some scholars have pointed out that from the late 19th to the late 20th century, two major transitions occurred in philosophical concepts. The turning point of the 19th century can be called the shift toward "practical philosophy," while at the end of the 20th century, "the human concept of practice underwent another major transformation, shifting from a traditional single-subject model to a multi-polar intersubjective communicative practice perspective." The shift in the philosophical concept of communicative practice (交往实践) reflects, at a philosophical level, the high importance humanity attaches to communicative activities in cognition and practice. It is a manifestation of humanity shifting the focus of its practical objects to the field of social interaction. The philosophy of communicative practice provides philosophical validation for the proposition of relationship civilization. Social communicative theory and intersubjective theory, which mainly took shape in the 20th century, also contain a wealth of propositions and wisdom from Western scholars attempting to resolve complex and tense interpersonal relationships. Marx's theory of social interaction and the relationship civilization thoughts and practices of the Chinese Communists provide us with the most direct and important theoretical and practical support for proposing and constructing relationship civilization.
Proposing and constructing relationship civilization is of great significance. Regarding the theoretical significance of its construction: First, it greatly enriches and expands Marxist civilization theory and its civilizational horizon, advancing the Marxist view of civilization to a new height in an "advancing with the times" manner. This ensures that Marxist civilization theory, while continuously developing, continues to respond to new changes and problems in the development of human civilization, enabling the Marxist view of civilization to guide the construction of civilization and the creation of a new form of human civilization with a more robust framework and greater strength. Second, it enriches and perfects the structural system of human civilization, causing a major shift in the "paradigm" of human civilization and its development—namely, a shift from domain-specific or element-based civilization to communicative or relationship-state civilization. This results in a basic "5+1" pattern in the content and structure of human civilization. Such a new-quality civilizational structure or pattern reveals the holistic trend of human civilizational development and accurately reflects the true state of human civilization today.
Regarding the international significance of relationship civilization: Its construction is vital for the implementation of the four major global initiatives [17]. Or rather, to implement these four initiatives, we must simultaneously promote the construction of relationship civilization. The Global Development Initiative (GDI) is based on the commonality and long-term nature of the development of all countries, aiming to achieve sustainable development through common development. The key to the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) lies in the collective management of humanity...
A "garden of civilizations" where people "value their own beauty and appreciate the beauty of others" [18], and on this basis, persist in promoting the common development of global civilizations through exchange and mutual learning; the key to the Global Security Initiative lies in adhering to a vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, carving out a new path to security characterized by dialogue rather than confrontation, partnership rather than alliance, and win-win results rather than zero-sum games. The core concept of the Global Development Initiative is to uphold sovereign equality, observe the international rule of law, practice multilateralism, advocate for a people-centered approach, and focus on action-orientation; the Global Development Initiative is becoming a new norm for international relations. "To emerge from the mist and walk toward the light, the strongest force is unity of mind, and the most effective method is to pull together in times of trouble." [19] What the four major global initiatives have in common is that they essentially improve human relations from different aspects or angles to promote the construction and development of relational civilization; conversely, building relational civilization is an inevitable requirement and the only path for implementing the four major global initiatives. Relational civilization and the four major global initiatives share a relationship of internal essence and external manifestation. Furthermore, to build a new type of international relations characterized by cooperation and win-win results, to build a relationship between humanity and nature characterized by harmonious coexistence, to build a relationship between individuals characterized by equality and mutual benefit, and to build a relationship within the human body and mind characterized by balance and joy, we must specifically carry out the construction of relational civilization. The aforementioned major relations—as well as the community with a shared future for humanity, the life community of man and nature, and the community of physical and mental harmony—are both the concrete results of constructing relational civilization and the fundamental "stepping stones" for promoting our construction of relational civilization. They characterize the effectiveness of building relational civilization, whereas the construction of relational civilization in turn plays a positive role in promoting the construction of these "communities."
Building relational civilization requires starting from both the conceptual and practical levels. At the conceptual level, we must realize a shift from egocentrism to symbiontism—that is, to promote the construction of relational civilization, we must establish the concept of symbiontism. At the practical level, we must realize a shift from "mutual-harm development" to "mutual-benefit development"—that is, to promote the construction of relational civilization, we must follow the path of mutual-benefit development.
(I) In terms of value concepts, we must realize the shift from egocentrism to symbiontism.
At present, the fundamental conceptual cause of tension and conflict in human relations is the developmental concept of egocentrism that people have long adhered to. Egocentrism is a worldview and methodology that views the world and handles the relationship between the self and the world based on the supremacy of one's own existence. Egocentrism mainly includes various forms such as individual egocentrism, national or ethnic egocentrism, and anthropocentrism. Since contemporary "human society" primarily manifests as an "international society"—a human society essentially constructed and supported by national subjects and their activities—the forms that play a negative role in reality are primarily national egocentrism and individual egocentrism. Egocentrism is dominated by a subject-object dichotomy in its mode of thinking, turning the bidirectional, mutually beneficial subject-object relationship into a "parody" of unidirectional, unilateral profit-seeking. It pursues an ego-centered worldview, an arrogant view of the subject, a solipsistic view of practice, and a selfish view of interests. Methodologically, it adopts the behavioral principle of "walking my own path and leaving no path for others," thereby transforming the relationship between man and the external world from a rational "for-myself" [20] relationship into an extreme "only-me" relationship. In short, egocentrism essentially follows the principle of maximizing self-interest. Spatially, this maximization manifests as the occupation and domination of the "other" by the self; temporally, it manifests as the monopoly or overdrafting of the future for the sake of the present, resulting in the phenomena of spatial "insularization" and temporal "generational disconnection." As the "conceptual culprit" causing severe tension and opposition in human relations, egocentrism must give way to a new form of value concept that can guide human civilization out of its predicament and provide support for the construction of relational civilization—namely, the value concept of symbiontism—within the historical context of implementing the four major global initiatives and building a community with a shared future for humanity and a life community of man and nature.
Symbiosis is the universal state and basic mode of existence and development for all things in the universe. From celestial bodies above to nations and societies below, all are "symbiotic entities" at different levels. The "symbiotic entity" state of human society indicates that symbiotic relations exist between man and nature, between individuals, and within the human body and mind. Since a universal law of symbiosis exists in nature and human society, a conceptual consciousness of symbiontism naturally forms. So-called symbiontism is a conceptual reflection of these ubiquitous symbiotic relations. Symbiontism is mainly composed of sub-contents such as the consciousness of coexistence, harmony, mutual benefit, and common prosperity. Symbiontism adheres to the thinking principle of the unity of subject and object, pursuing and constructing bidirectional and mutually beneficial subject-object relations. It thus presents a systematized worldview, an equalized view of the subject, a co-evolutionary view of practice, a mutual-benefit view of interests, and the methodological principle of "walking my own path while also leaving a path for others." The qualities of symbiontism grant it a powerful worldview and methodological function to dissolve and alleviate human tensions, thereby becoming the basic conceptual foundation for building relational civilization.
(II) In terms of the practical path, we must realize the shift from mutual-harm development to mutual-benefit development.
At the practical level, the developmental model responsible for current human tensions is the "mutual-harm" mode of development that has been quite prevalent until now. So-called mutual-harm development refers to development where mutual injury occurs between different interest-based subjects, or between subjects and the objects of those interests (natural ecosystems), during specific stages of development. In a sense, real human beings are "interest-based beings"; the fundamental problem facing human development is the problem of interests, and social relations are essentially relations of interests or stakes. From this, we can see that "discord" in social development is actually discord over interests.
The process of human civilization has featured mutual-harm mechanisms for most of its history. Marx pointed out the laws of human civilizational development with piercing clarity: "From the very beginning of civilization, production begins to be based on the antagonism of orders, states, and classes, and finally on the antagonism of accumulated labor and immediate labor. No antagonism, no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to our days." [21] The series of wars that have occurred "between persons" up to now are basically concrete manifestations of typical zero-sum games. Robert Wright pointed out that "at any given step on the ladder of cultural evolution, wars—whether the combatants are villages, city-states, or whatever—are rarely if ever the embodiment of non-zero-sum interaction." In his view, "once a war is underway, it is full of zero-sum interaction: as two enemy soldiers fight, their destinies are so related that only one can walk away." Even today in the 21st century, humanity is still acting out the "zero-sum game" of war, with certain countries or groups asserting and realizing their interests and inflicting mutual harm through warfare. "Capitalism is inherently violent," "it is armed to the teeth against rivals at home and abroad. Its martial inclination is also increasing." Since the Second World War, and especially since the 1960s and 70s, human mutual-harm behavior has extended into the field of relations between man and nature, leading humanity to face new mutual-harm problems in addition to the mutual-harm games within society, and these problems arising from the man-nature relationship are becoming increasingly serious. In his book The Unnatural History of the Sea (translated as If the Oceans Were Empty: A Self-Destructive History of Human Civilization), British scholar Callum Roberts exposed the reality that under humanity’s unrestrained overfishing, marine fishery resources have decreased sharply to the point of near-exhaustion. "These catastrophic fishery collapses show that the relationship between humans and fish has changed. It is clear that humans now have the ability to push fish populations to the brink of collapse, even for fisheries that had maintained high productivity. In 1883, Huxley asserted that the great marine fisheries were inexhaustible; however, this view has long been proven wrong."
When we "lift the telescope of historical laws to look closely" at the general trend of social development, we find that "in this world, the degree of interconnection and interdependence among countries has deepened to an unprecedented extent. Human beings live in the same global village, in the same time and space where history and reality intersect, increasingly becoming a community with a shared future where we are part of one another." Therefore, "the law of the jungle where the weak are prey to the strong is not the way for human coexistence. Militarism and hegemonic dominance are not the strategy for human peace. Winner-takes-all and zero-sum games are not the path for human development." In other words, mutual-harm development—which only focuses on power mechanisms while ignoring mechanisms of balance and coordination—has reached its end against the backdrop of the "high costs" it has created. How will we create a harmonious tomorrow and a secure future for humanity? The answer lies in the path of mutual-benefit development.
"The world does not belong to one unique interest, but to many, many interests." Only the scientific principle of mutual benefit is the sole choice for us to understand and handle complex interest relations. The Marxist view of interests is essentially a view of mutual benefit; this scientific view of mutual benefit is highly consistent with the civilization of human relations. This is because the occurrence of a relationship requires not only the existence of at least two objects (relata), but the occurrence of the relation is also, in principle, always bidirectional. "All natural processes have two sides; they are based on the relationship of at least two acting parts, on action and reaction." In the social sphere, human relations naturally possess bidirectional interactivity. The essence of this bidirectional interaction is interaction dominated by interests, the general principle of which should be the adoption of a mutual-benefit development model. When we combine the Marxist view of mutual benefit with the theory of social development—especially the development practices of the New Era—we form the theory and path of mutual-benefit development. In General Secretary Xi Jinping’s view of interests, there are "propositions of the times" regarding the promotion of mutual-benefit development, such as his advocacy for "creating a balanced and inclusive development model" and his assertions requiring all countries "must walk a new path of mutual assistance and win-win cooperation," which provide important theoretical support for our proposal and implementation of mutual-benefit development.
Mutual-benefit development refers to a development model that pursues or achieves a pattern and outcome of mutual benefit and reciprocity. Mutual-benefit development is the transcendence and sublation (Aufhebung) of mutual-harm development; this development model reveals the mutual-benefit mechanism that should exist within the social organism. The internal logic of the mutual-benefit mechanism is as follows: benefiting both self and other (mutual benefit) → universal benefit → mutual-benefit relations → mutual-benefit society → mutual-benefit development → a pattern of harmony and win-win results. The mutual-benefit development model presents positive correlation and convergence—that is, from the perspective of "me," I benefit myself and the other; from the perspective of the "other," he benefits me and I benefit him. This is the practice of positive correlation in profit-seeking and walking toward each other. This is a pattern or outcome of collective benefit, symbiosis, and common prosperity—an end where "beauty is shared" and results are inclusive and win-win. That is, the collective benefit of all or the group is realized through mutual benefit in both objective and subjective terms. Only on the basis of mutual-benefit development can the construction of relational civilization be truly supported. In other words, mutual-benefit development provides a solid practical foundation for relational civilization; it grasps the key to relational civilization—collective benefit—and ensures its realization from the perspective of development models or practices. Only through mutual-benefit development can the reciprocity or collective nature of human relations be truly realized, thereby forming a relational civilization.
Author Profile: Qiu Gentian, Professor at the School of Marxism, Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (National Academy of Governance). Source: Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), Issue 1, 2026. Editor: Huihui