On May 17, 2016, General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the Seminar on Philosophy and Social Sciences, charting the course and providing fundamental guidance for the development of philosophy and the social sciences in the new era. As the 10th anniversary of that speech approaches, CSST interviewed several scholars about the achievements China has made over the past decade in building its discourse systems in philosophy and the social sciences.

From ‘listeners’ to ‘dialoguers’

“A decade ago, at many international academic conferences, Chinese scholars were still mainly listening and learning,” recalled Sun Xiguo, a professor from the School of Marxism at Peking University. “We were adept at using Western theoretical frameworks to explain Chinese phenomena, but rarely used China’s own discourse system to address global issues.”

A shift began in 2016. At the Seminar on Philosophy and Social Sciences, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized the need to “develop philosophy and social sciences with Chinese features,” requiring that “they should display salient Chinese features and style in such areas as guiding principles, range of disciplines, academic system, and discourse system.” Chen Xianhong, director of the Institute for Creative Communication of the Chinese Story at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, remarked that General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speech sounded a clarion call for the academic community’s “awakening of intellectual sovereignty” and marked “an emancipation of the mind.”

Yang Hong, director of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Communication Research Center at the Communication University of China, said that “taking intangible cultural heritage (ICH) research as an example, we used to apply Western conceptual paradigms. Now, guided by the theories of ‘integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and fine traditional culture’ and ‘creative transformation and innovative development,’ we have distilled original academic discourse such as systematic protection, productive protection, and lifestyle-based protection from China’s rich practical experience in ICH preservation.”

Li Jianguo, head of the theoretical research department at the National Academy of Chinese Modernization under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, observed that on the major subject of Chinese modernization, Chinese academia no longer treats the Western model as the sole benchmark. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the Chinese path to modernization is emerging as a new paradigm in its own right.

Sun noted that at the Second World Congress on Marxism, hosted by Peking University in 2018, Chinese scholars positioned the vision of a “community with a shared future for humanity” at the intersection of the Chinese cultural ideals of “pursuing common good for all” and “promoting harmony among all nations,” and the Marxist ideal of a “community of freely associated individuals.” In his view, this both highlights Chinese characteristics and gives them global resonance, effectively amplifying China’s voice on the international stage.

Yue Qi, a professor from the international Chinese language education center at the Communication University of China, said that since 2016, scholars in international Chinese language education have closely aligned with the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s “May 17” speech. They pioneered the “Chinese-language plus” paradigm, elevating Chinese from a mere object of instruction to a “golden key” linking learners to opportunities in China. For instance, scholars have developed such innovations as the “Chinese character-based” teaching theory and the “expression-driven” theory, while also helping formulate national standards such as the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education.

New starting point, new requirements

Zhong Xin from the School of Journalism and Communication at Renmin University of China believes that the most important lesson of the past decade has been the alignment of national top-level design, systematic departmental planning, and the academic community’s own initiative. “Relevant departments have formulated actionable plans for building an independent knowledge system, while the social sciences community has gained a clearer understanding of this endeavor, fully unleashing its innovative potential,” Zhong said.

Achievements notwithstanding, certain challenges must not be overlooked. Yang pointed to three persistent “disconnects” facing philosophy and the social sciences in the process of building their discourse systems. First, theoretical research on the economic logic, cultural impact, and related dimensions of many emerging digital practices has clearly lagged behind. Second, some studies remain trapped in the path dependence of fitting Chinese realities into Western frameworks, or remain content with describing phenomena, failing to distill from China’s own rich practices an independent knowledge system with broader explanatory power. Finally, while research on major real-world problems requires interdisciplinary collaboration, disciplinary barriers remain prominent, and platforms capable of producing integrated, systematic, landmark research are still relatively few.

Zhao Junfeng, director of the Center for Translation Studies at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, asserted that overcoming these disconnects will require transformation in four key areas: deeply exploring the core concepts and modes of thought embedded in Chinese civilization and creatively translating them into foundational concepts for modern social science; strengthening capabilities for international dialogue and shifting from “talking to oneself” to proactively setting agendas with both Chinese characteristics and universal relevance; reforming evaluation and collaboration mechanisms; and providing long-term support for basic theory and “rare and endangered” fields of study.