Civilization Has No Differences; Culture Has Superiorities and Inferiorities

文明无差异 文化有优劣 ——关于文化无优劣与邓晓芒先生商榷

—A Discussion with Professor Deng Xiaomang (邓晓芒) on "Culture Has No Superiorities or Inferiorities"

By Du Hongwei (杜鸿威)

【Editor’s Note: The author reflects on Professor Deng Xiaomang's article discussing the differences between Chinese and Western philosophy. While appreciating Deng's insights, especially the distinction between Chinese philosophy as the "study of wisdom" and Western philosophy as the "love of wisdom," the author disagrees with Deng's assertion that "culture has no superiorities or inferiorities." He argues that culture, shaped by ideology and societal practices, does have distinctions of superiority and inferiority, particularly in how it fosters or hinders humanistic values like freedom, democracy, and equality. Citing thinkers like Max Weber, Samuel P. Huntington, and Fukuzawa Yukichi, the author supports the idea that cultural determinism plays a crucial role in a nation's progress. He emphasizes that while cultures can be diverse, civilization—rooted in universal values—is singular. Therefore, all cultures should aspire toward these universal values to remain relevant and avoid being left behind in human progress.】

Recently, I came across an article online by Professor Deng Xiaomang titled "Why Is There Such a Huge Difference Between Chinese and Western Philosophy?" In this piece, I greatly appreciate most of Professor Deng's viewpoints, finding them insightful. Especially, his articulation of the essential differences between Chinese and Western philosophy is remarkably apt.

The concept of "philosophy" originates from the West; in ancient Greece, it meant the "love of wisdom" (philosophy), that is, the pursuit and adoration of wisdom itself, considering wisdom as a sacred purpose higher than all other aims. When the Japanese first translated this term, they rendered it as "aichi" (love of knowledge). Later, they extracted the character "zhe" from ancient Chinese and retranslated it as "zhexue" (哲学), meaning "the study of wisdom." This is the translation we Chinese are accustomed to using today. Although the Japanese later reverted this translation, the Chinese did not follow suit; we find "zhexue" convenient and easy to understand.

Chinese philosophy is the study of wisdom, while Western philosophy is the love of wisdom. This one-word difference marks a world of distinction. In my understanding, Western philosophy is metaphysical, whereas Chinese philosophy is metaphysical in a different, more practical sense. The former is a tireless pursuit of truth; the latter is the practical application of wisdom. The term "wisdom" in "the study of wisdom" and "the love of wisdom" shares the same word but differs in meaning—they are two entirely different concepts. In "the study of wisdom," "wisdom" mainly refers to stratagems, much like Feng Menglong's (冯梦龙) Book of Schemes (《智囊》). In "the love of wisdom," "wisdom" refers to truth and origin. Using Chinese Daoist terminology, "the love of wisdom" belongs to the realm of "Dao," the ontological domain, while "wisdom" belongs to the realm of "techniques." Therefore, strictly speaking, from the concept of ancient Greek philosophy, China does not have philosophy. The so-called thoughts of the various schools during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, except for Laozi and Zhuangzi who had some notions of nature, mostly discussed the art of governance, ethical hierarchies, and social order—none of which belong to the metaphysical domain. Thus, the "contention of a hundred schools of thought" during the Spring and Autumn period was essentially a competition among schools for favor, with the goal of securing official positions by any means necessary. The sole purpose of this contention was "to master civil and martial arts to serve the imperial household."

However, I do not quite agree with Professor Deng Xiaomang's views when he discusses Chinese and Western cultures. He says: "I believe that, in a general sense, history progresses, but culture has no superiorities or inferiorities. However, although culture does not have distinctions of superior or inferior quality, in each specific historical period, a culture will always exhibit its own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, we must acknowledge the distinction between advantageous cultures and disadvantageous cultures, as in the saying 'thirty years on the east bank, thirty years on the west bank.' If a disadvantageous culture does not absorb the strengths of an advantageous culture and strive to keep pace with the times, it will become increasingly backward and even be eliminated." The renowned scholar Qin Hui (秦晖) holds a similar viewpoint.

Professor Deng Xiaomang believes: "Therefore, a disadvantageous culture is not equivalent to an inferior culture. Those extinct cultures, such as Egyptian or Mayan cultures, and those that are still in an absolute disadvantage today, like the indigenous cultures of Australia or Africa, are not inferior cultures, let alone the relatively disadvantageous Chinese culture today. But in an era of cultural competition, if one does not see clearly the direction of human civilization, if a disadvantageous culture does not strive to learn from an advantageous culture, then history will not spare you because your culture still possesses various fine qualities, allowing you to luckily escape the fate of elimination."

I believe that Professor Deng Xiaomang, as a philosopher, proposing the view that "history progresses, but culture has no superiorities or inferiorities" does not accord with historical facts. The correct assertion, in my opinion, is "civilization has no differences; culture has superiorities and inferiorities."

I consider the view proposed by Qin Hui and Deng Xiaomang—that "culture has no superiorities or inferiorities"—to be incorrect because I believe that so-called national culture is the production and living habits that a nation naturally develops over a long period in a specific geographical environment. These habits, after being processed and abstracted into a symbolic system through ideology, become the so-called national culture. The notion of "no superiorities or inferiorities" should refer to naturally formed living habits, but once ideology is added to form culture, then there are distinctions of superiorities and inferiorities.

On the other hand, civilization has no gradations. The term "civilization" is linked with modernity; it is used to generalize modern phenomena such as capitalism, nation-state building, industrialized life, and democratic systems. In a stricter sense, civilization has nothing to do with culture; it only pertains to the spirit of humanism, which is the will of God. Freedom, democracy, and equality in modern political civilization are all related to this.

If I were to describe what civilization is in one sentence, I would say: "Civilization is how people view and treat others—whether they regard others as people like themselves and thus generate empathy; compassion is the only criterion that distinguishes civilization from barbarism."

Therefore, civilization is unrelated to the level of productive forces or material technological progress. A healed leg bone of a prehistoric human signifies the sprouting of human civilization, while the intrigue, conspiracies, and bloody massacres in resplendent modern palaces are sheer acts of barbarism. So civilization has nothing to do with material prosperity; it is only related to human belief. Modern civilization was born out of Christian faith.

Many of us take it for granted that all development must be linear and continuous, always getting better. But history tells us: not necessarily! Would the people at the pinnacle of Chinese culture during the Spring and Autumn period have thought that 2,600 years later, the Han people would not only be forcibly required by the northern Manchus to wear queues but also have to learn to kneel, and even kneel to a certain level before they could call themselves "slaves"? Would the citizens of the Roman Republic have imagined that 2,500 years later, with science and culture entering the era of artificial intelligence, a majority of people would begin to forget what "republic" and "rule of law" mean? Would those ancient Greek philosophers who gazed at the stars have thought that 3,000 years later, most of humanity would have returned to a state of upright animals with no spiritual sustenance, caring only about their material gains?

Would the Afghan women in the 1970s, sipping coffee on their way to work, have imagined that 50 years later their granddaughters would no longer be allowed to wear skirts but be forcibly required to wear Islamic robes that only expose the eyes, and be prohibited from going to schools, churches, restaurants, or being in the company of men? Human material development and technological progress, as a whole, are undoubtedly advancing continuously, so many people take it for granted that human thought and civilization are also moving forward. In reality, human thought and civilization are often standing still, or even artificially regressing.

The natural time and space created by God for humanity and the social time and space created by human self through organized indoctrination can be completely artificially severed. Human space can be the Internet and artificial intelligence space, while human time can stay or even revert back to the era of Emperor Qin Shi Huang. As Orwell said: "Who controls the past controls the present and future." The only difference between humans and other animals is that humans are creatures of ideas. All progress and backwardness in human society are actually caused by the progress and regression of human thought and concepts; this is the cultural and civilizational reflection we need to face.

Terms like "Medieval civilization," "pre-modern civilization," "modern civilization," as well as "Neolithic civilization," "Ancient Greek civilization," "Ancient Indian civilization," "Chinese civilization," etc.—these are all influenced by Arnold Toynbee. He even referred to different regional cultural phenomena as twenty-six kinds of civilizations. This is an abuse of the term "civilization," deviating from its original meaning and using "civilization" as a unit of measurement for different historical stages or stages of productive force development. Civilization belongs to the spiritual domain and has nothing to do with the material level.

The assertion that culture has no superiorities or inferiorities is equivalent to saying that systems have no superiorities or inferiorities because systems are the product of culture. If we regard culture as soil, then systems are the big trees growing from that cultural soil; systems are the abstract expression of culture in the political realm. Different soils grow different trees, and the fruits they bear are entirely different—some are civilized, some are barbaric. Therefore, the soil of culture indeed has superiorities and inferiorities, just as saline-alkali land and irrigated land differ greatly in quality.

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics raised an important question: What determines a country's prosperity? The laureates, including Daron Acemoglu, provided the answer: a country's prosperity is mainly determined by its political and economic systems, not by other factors.

There has long been much debate about what factors determine a country's prosperity, mainly including the following viewpoints: racial determinism, geographical determinism, institutional determinism, and cultural determinism. I do not agree with the first and second determinisms, especially the first one; they base economic prosperity and civilization on unchangeable innate factors while ignoring human spiritual factors, belonging to mechanical materialism. Geographical determinism has some validity but commits the error of singular, simplistic causation, involving dogmatic speculation and logical fallacies. Counterexamples are numerous and readily available. I believe that the main factors determining whether an economy is prosperous are the dual influences of system and culture. From the horizontal perspective of history, systems are more evident and effective. From the vertical perspective of history, culture is the solid foundation for long-term prosperity. Culture is the soil; systems are the abstract expression of culture in the political realm.

I believe that systems are, in fact, the abstract expression of culture in the political realm. Culture and systems complement each other; culture forms systems, and systems, in turn, protect and promote the development of those parts of culture that are beneficial to such systems. For example, China's Confucian culture is advantageous to autocratic systems, so it has been protected and promoted for thousands of years. However, the geographical environment determines a nation's living and production habits, which are the main source of a nation's culture. But the geographical environment does not directly determine systems and economy; rather, it is the ideological part of national culture that plays a key role. In Marx's words: "The class that controls the material means of production also controls the means of mental production. Therefore, the thoughts of those who lack means of mental production generally belong to this class." Ideology is the expression of the ruler's will in culture.

Therefore, geography, culture, and systems form a logical chain. Taking any one of them alone as the sole key to success or prosperity is to commit the error of dogmatic speculation, being rash and violating the principle of sufficient reason in logic. In fact, I believe that the more profound thinking among these four determinisms comes from cultural determinism. Cultural determinism holds that Europe's rationalism and Christian cultural background determined why only Europe gave birth to science, freedom, private property, and capitalism. In cultural determinism, Max Weber's (马克斯·韦伯) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (《新教伦理和资本主义精神》) is a representative work. Weber studied the relationship between Protestant ethics and modern capitalism; he believed that Martin Luther's concept of vocation in Protestantism (labor as a vocation is the core value in Protestantism; labor is to glorify God, and diligent labor can obtain God's predestination—this notion transformed religious motivation into daily labor, ultimately becoming a modern capitalist spirit: labor is the vocation to glorify God; only through diligent labor can one receive God's salvation) and Calvin's doctrine of predestination led to the emergence of the European concepts of diligence and frugality, thus laying the spiritual foundation for modern capitalism. Weber's research has formed a broad consensus in today's world because cultural determinism has a more rigorous logic and clearer argumentation, providing deeper causation than geographical determinism, racial determinism, or even institutional determinism. Why do countries with the same democratic system and free market economy exhibit such enormous differences in economic development between those that believe in Catholicism and those that believe in Protestantism, especially Calvinism?

Samuel P. Huntington (亨廷顿), hailed as the most influential political scientist of the past 50 years and a professor of political science at Harvard University—the author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》) and The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (《第三波：20世纪后期的民主化浪潮》)—spent his life pondering issues of democracy, transition, and systems. In his later years, he returned once again to "the power of ideas."

All his later works focused almost exclusively on the theme of "culture." In Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (《文化的重要作用：价值观如何影响人类进步》), Huntington points out that the developmental differences between Eastern and Western societies in politics, economy, and technology, especially the differences in national transition paths, ultimately point to the same "cultural passing line"—whether they recognize universal values of civilization such as freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

Undoubtedly, he firmly denied the viewpoints that "culture has no high or low," "culture has no superiorities or inferiorities," and pointed out the decisive role of "advanced culture on advanced systems": political preferences, value identification, and choices of personal interests.

Since Huntington's passing, this prediction has been repeatedly verified: developed countries, even if they experience turmoil due to immigration waves and far-left politics, can quickly "bounce back" and reorganize order; while many developing countries, even if their economic and social systems have loosened and changed, will return to pre-modern societies due to the barriers of culture and values.

Fukuzawa Yukichi (福泽谕吉), hailed as Japan's great Enlightenment thinker and a political scientist, held the same viewpoint. He said that for a nation to rise, it must change three aspects: first, a change in people's hearts; second, a change in systems; and third, a change in implements and economy. The sequence of these three aspects should be the soul first, then the system, and finally the economy. Reversing this order may seem like a shortcut on the surface, but ultimately it won't work. A truly great nation is not found in skyscrapers or authoritative podiums, but in every life with a soul. Their independent thinking and free expression will form an atmosphere, spreading step by step, enveloping more and more people, quickly turning into a cultural movement, bringing forth a group of truly wise elites, and giving hope to the entire country.

Actually, in the final analysis, the superiority or inferiority of a national culture determines whether the nation's system can move towards modern political civilization. As benchmarks of human political civilization, Britain and the United States have become beacons of human civilization because they perfectly integrated the ancient Hebraic biblical culture (faith culture) and its successor, Christian culture, with the rational culture of ancient Greece and the legal and republican culture of ancient Rome.

Why have Americans enjoyed unprecedented freedom, opportunities, and prosperity in history? Historian Russell Kirk (拉塞尔·柯克), in his book The Roots of American Order (《美国秩序的根基》), provided a very persuasive answer: it's because America is not only the land of the free and the home of the brave but also because she enjoys freedom under order (liberty). What needs to be emphasized here is that this order is what modern people often call spontaneous order; in fact, this order is a divine order, an order designed by God for humanity, which can also be called God's constructed order. The term "spontaneous order" was an expression made by Hayek to distinguish it from human-constructed order. This freedom under spontaneous or divine order has deep roots; it was sown by the Hebrews nearly three thousand years ago, who realized an existence "with a moral purpose under God."

Subsequently, the ancient Greeks, with their philosophy and political self-consciousness, consolidated this foundation. Then the ancient Romans nourished this foundation with their laws and social consciousness. This foundation is inseparable from Christianity's understanding of human responsibility and hope, as well as human redemption, then combined with medieval customs, scholarship, and courage. Finally, this foundation was enriched by two great legal and free social experiments: one in London, the birthplace of the Magna Carta and the British Parliament; the other in Philadelphia, the birthplace of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, Kirk's narrative can be called the story of five cities—Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia.

Alternatively, it can be said that modern civilization was born out of Protestant Christian culture, and the rational spirit of ancient Greece and the legal spirit of ancient Rome are the two wings that allowed Christian culture to soar into modern political civilization. Why did modern civilization only emerge within Christian culture and not within any other culture? This is because Christian culture is God's revelatory culture, and civilization is also a revelatory concept bestowed upon humanity by God. This concept was practiced by some of His devout believers in America and achieved great success, becoming a beacon for humanity. Therefore, among all cultures in the world, only and solely Christian culture can rightfully be called Christian civilization (Biblical civilization). All other cultural phenomena can only be called cultures, such as Confucian culture, Islamic culture, Buddhist culture, etc.

Through Kirk's narrative, we can derive a clear trajectory of human development from culture to civilization. The promulgation of Britain's Magna Carta and America's Declaration of Independence marked the first time humanity tamed the Leviathan beast of power. Human political civilization was thus born. The most precious wealth of human civilization is not the progress of science and technology or vast literature and art. After two to three thousand years of painstaking effort and perseverance, humanity accomplished something almost impossible: the taming of power, putting it into a cage. Humanity stepped out of the jungle for the first time, breaking free from the social Darwinist law of the jungle, realizing God-given human rights and equality and freedom among people under God's will. Only political civilization can bring other forms of human civilization; this is the true meaning of modern civilization. The reason we say "civilization has no differences; culture has superiorities and inferiorities" is because civilization is a concept bestowed upon us by God—it is singular—while culture is the product of human free will and can be diverse.

In summary, culture can be pluralistic, but civilization is singular—that is, universal values. All human cultures must ultimately move toward civilization to retain their pluralistic value; otherwise, they will be thrown into the dustbin of history with the development and progress of human civilization.

My attitude toward traditional Chinese culture is basically to completely negate it but not to completely abandon it. Completely negating refers to the aspect of thought and theory; if we do not completely negate it, then we have not negated it at all—we are still trapped in dialectical thinking. Not being able to completely abandon it refers to practical operations; in fact, we cannot completely abandon it. If we completely abandon it, the Chinese would no longer be Chinese. Therefore, culture can be pluralistic, but civilization is singular. All cultures must ultimately move toward civilization to retain their pluralistic value; otherwise, practices like female genital mutilation in Africa or foot-binding of Chinese women could be excused as cultural diversity and retained. Among all traditional Chinese culture, I believe that only "Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you" possesses the value of modern civilization. Others, such as "Establish oneself by establishing others; achieve oneself by achieving others," are forcing others and embody autocratic thought. This is the distinction between negative freedom and positive freedom as Isaiah Berlin (以赛亚·柏林) puts it. As for those so-called local tunes, local operas, paper-cutting, embroidery, ink painting... these traditional classics mainly serve autocracy, especially opera; the shaping of historical knowledge and worldviews among ordinary Chinese people is basically accomplished through opera. Why do I say we must completely negate it? Because if we do not completely negate it, we are not negating it at all, still falling into the trap of dialectical sophistry.