New Version of Civilization Transcends Western-Centrism

2024-July-2 14:35 By:

Chinese modernization, breaking the myth that modernization equates to Westernization, showcases a unique civilizational perspective that transcends Western-centric views. Current academic research on “Western-centrism” mainly employs Marxist views on civilization to critique the “uncivilized” and “barbaric” aspects of capitalism, revealing its aggressive, exploitative nature and the inherent negation within capitalism that suggests it will eventually be replaced by socialism. This research uses the concept of a community of shared future to analyze the coexistence and mutual learning of diverse civilizations, overcoming Western-centrism and its array of induced issues. To transcend “Western-centrism,” it is crucial to clarify its logical inception while not being blinded by Western self-reflection. Importantly, the “new view of civilization,” advocating “equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and inclusiveness,” provides potential pathways for creating new forms of human civilization.

I. Emergence of “Western-Centrism”

“Western-centrism,” in brief, regards Western civilization as the world’s center—the most advanced, perfect, and vibrant civilization. This perspective has both inward and outward dimensions, intertwining the glorification of Western civilization with the denigration of non-Western cultures. Western-centrism often manifests a certain invasiveness, attempting to assimilate all other human civilizations based on a binary of civilization versus barbarism, with the West seeing itself as carrying the “burden of civilization,” aiming to “create a critical morality to rationally restrain humanity and thereby forge a global civilization.” Among Western scholars, Hegel is notably representative of “Western centrism” in civilization. This is primarily reflected in his later philosophical lectures, where he suggested that the influence of Greek culture might have reached as far as India and China. He remarked, “The Chinese are so clumsy that they could not even devise a calendar, and they seem incapable of conceptual thinking,” and “Estimations of the scientific knowledge of Indians and Chinese are erroneously high.” Kant also displayed tendencies towards Western centrism, criticizing the Chinese for their “cumbersome formalities and excessively elaborate greetings, which contain much foolish and bizarre superstition!” He noted that “the inhabitants of the East have a particularly false taste in this respect.” The notion of “Western centrism” has deep historical roots and can be explored from historical, theoretical, and practical perspectives.

1) A metaphysical way of thinking that violates the principles of dialectics

Historically, the emergence of “Western-centrism” was influenced by the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Enlightenment, the bourgeois revolutions, and the Industrial Revolution, which together gradually established the West’s dominant position until the outbreak of World War I in 1914 signaled its decline. The rapid development during the Industrial Revolution and the fact that “Western civilization has always advanced transportation and commercial layouts as the backdrop for its widespread dissemination” solidified the ideological concept of “Western-centrism.” “Globalization is often seen as a process of Westernization,” “an extremely formulaic history. Globalization originated in Europe; first with the Renaissance, followed by the Enlightenment, and then the Industrial Revolution.” After the Industrial Revolution, Western capitalist countries became significantly stronger and went through a phase of barbaric global expansion, “At the end of the 19th century, European politics, economy, and culture were dominant,” “Europeans began to view the world with nearsighted, self-centered perspectives that are unimaginable today.” However, times have changed, and the West is no longer the center of the world, especially given the multitude of real issues exposed in various Western domains. Simply put, an abstract discussion of “Western-centrism” without mentioning its current societal realities will not be convincing.

Moreover, the West’s view of other civilizations is often based on specific historical stages rather than a comprehensive evaluation from a broader historical perspective, which is particularly evident in their critiques of other civilizations. For example, “Many in the West are accustomed to viewing China as a modern nation-state within the scope of Western modernization theories, while losing sight of its more than five thousand years of civilization, making it difficult to truly understand China’s past, present, and future.” China has created the only civilization that has continued without interruption and has made significant contributions to the world, such as the pre-Qin philosophers and the “Four Great Inventions”, which are undeniably recognized by all scholars. Objective evaluations are also necessary for specific historical periods in China, such as the Song and Ming dynasties; it is inappropriate to overlook these periods simply because their territories were smaller or their foreign relations were too passive. The thriving philosophy, poetry, commerce, and foreign trade during Song Dynasty also accounted for a significant portion of the global economy at the time, and Zheng He’s voyages in Ming Dynasty demonstrated China’s comprehensive national power. Moreover, it wasn’t until the 19th century that the West managed to overturn its trade deficit with China, though with opium and gunboats, instead of better made-in-Europe products.

2) A convenient belief to maintain self-esteem

Every nation is prone to overestimating its civilization, and this is true for Western countries as well, as indicated by Boas’s “ethnocentrism,” Yin Haiguang’s “our-nation centrism,” and Fei Xiaotong’s “self-centered view.” Boas noted that “ethnocentrism” is “the tendency to judge other cultures by the standards of one’s own,” and Yin’s view implies that “if a country is a cultural unit and this cultural unit is the country, then it is only natural for the citizens of that country to care for their culture... Every element of the culture is more or less an ‘our-nation centrist’.”

Max Weber, in the last chapter of “Confucianism and Taoism,” wrote that the teachings of Protestantism fostered the emergence of capitalism, and was conducive to economic development, whereas Confucian thought hindered the emergence of capitalism, leading to economic stagnation. However, the rise of the “Four Asian Tigers” broke the entrenched cognitive pattern of the West, prompting a quiet change in Western scholars’ perspectives. American scholar Lawrence E. Harrison had to admit that “Confucianism” “is conducive to modernization.” In recent years, especially in the capitalist United States, the response to the pandemic has been weak and ineffective, racial conflicts have reached a boiling point, economic crises have intensified, social conflicts have continued, and the disadvantages of Western liberalism, individualism, and anthropocentrism have become increasingly apparent compared to Eastern collectivist values and the ecological view that believes “men are an integral part of Nature”. The West does not want to appear weak facing the rise of Eastern countries, but the long-held “Western psychological superiority” takes a slow and long process to fade, otherwise it may cause an extreme psychological gap and “mental meltdown.” It is precisely because of the issues exposed in various Western fields that the West needs to externally reinforce and create a “fake persona” by self-labeling as “culturally advanced,” as Marx said, “Nature bares itself in spring as if conscious of its victory... but in winter it covers its shame with ice and snow.” This artificially created “Western-centrism” reveals that Western civilization is no longer the center of the world. “If there is nothing inside, one must seek outside”, as Xunzi mentioned in his book “Nature of Evil”. Besides, “The end of history” theory is perhaps an external manifestation of the Western loss and anxiety.

3) A result of cultural differences

Cultural differences between China and the West lead Western scholars to have limited understanding or misunderstandings of Chinese history and culture, and their derogatory evaluations easily give rise to “Western-centrism.” Wittgenstein once pointed out, “In the cultural domain of the West, there is a phenomenon, namely, that people use a standard that is inappropriate and unsuitable for Jews to measure this race,” “If we use our (discourse power) as the only standard, then it is inevitable that they will often be unfairly evaluated. They are therefore either overrated or underrated.” Bear in mind that “culture” has the effect of “culturing people,” it’s deeply rooted in the “soul” and “cultural gene” of a nation, where everyone is subtly influenced by the cultural environment in which they are born and raised. Whether one is aware of it or not, his own ideas and actions are a manifestation of specific national cultural implications (Eliot’s “cultural unconsciousness” theory); moreover, culture as a whole can only be correctly understood within a specific cultural background and in a specific cultural context. There are evidence that some non-Western scholars, after having worked and lived in Western countries for a long time, still can’t fit in with mainstream Western culture. For example, Indian scholar Amartya Sen, despite having taught in the UK for a long time, clearly opposes Western values and Western-centrism; Sayed, a Jewish scholar, despite studying and teaching in the United States, strongly condemned the West’s treatment of Eastern countries, especially the Islamic world. He argued that the “West’s view of the East” differs greatly from the actual situation in the East. For native Western scholars, they are most familiar with the Western culture in which they grew up, and it is inevitable that they have limited understanding of non-Western cultures, especially Eastern cultures. Qi Shirong pointed out in his evaluation of Spengler’s “The Decline of the West” that Spengler “is more familiar with Western culture, but he only has a superficial understanding or even complete ignorance of other cultures mentioned in the book. For example, he mistook Xunzi as Sunzi, which exposes his poor knowledge of Chinese history, yet he kept talking extensively about Chinese culture in many places in the book.” While there are commonalities between Chinese and Western cultures, their differences are also obvious, especially in terms of language differences, leading to misunderstandings of Chinese historical culture. Language philosophy representative Wittgenstein once pointed out, “When we listen to Chinese people speak, we may only hear some disorganized, unintelligible clucking sounds in our ears.” This should be unsurprising because in Chinese culture, “Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know” (“Laozi: Chapter 56”), “What follows the mind cannot be conveyed in words” (“Zhuangzi: Heaven’s Dao”), “The Dao cannot be expressed” (“Zhuangzi: Knowledge Rambling in the North”), “The knowledgeable do not teach by speaking” (“Han Feizi: Examples of the Old”). So, if language cannot accurately explain reasoning, let alone the significant differences between Chinese and Western languages, it would be far more difficult for most ordinary Westerners to understand classical Chinese. Hegel’s “Lectures on the Philosophy of History” Volume One, though touching upon Taoist culture, shows clearly that due to language and cultural differences, his observations are inaccurate.

4) An intentional belief shaped by Western ideology

Despite peace and development being themes of the current era, Western bourgeois expansion and aggression persist, disguised by various ideologies. This approach, termed “Western-centrism,” aims to Westernize other countries extensively, seeking to achieve “victory without fighting” through peaceful evolution. A notable example of this is the concept of the “end of ideology,” prominently represented by Daniel Bell. Under the guise of “Western-centrism,” Bell disparages Asian and African ideologies while praising Western bourgeois ideology. He champions the idea that ending the conflict between multiple ideologies with a singular Western ideology is a beneficial solution. Bell claims the “universality” of bourgeois ideology, asserting it is “universal and humanitarian,” while characterizing Asian and African ideologies as “regional, instrumentalist, and created by political leaders.” Bell further argues that only the established bourgeois ideology embodies freedom and equality, whereas the new ideologies from Asia and Africa are mere tools for autocratic rulers to exploit the people. He warns that such ideologies could lead to new forms of oppression, suggesting that movements to achieve their goals risk sacrificing the current generation and creating new elite-driven exploitation. This perspective aligns with the American ideological research tradition, which often equates ideology with totalitarianism, as noted by McLellan: “Only in the United States is the equivalence of ideology and totalitarianism most clearly confirmed.” If we naively accept the Western notion of the “end of ideology,” we risk lowering our guard and becoming vulnerable to Western ideological influence. This could lead to increased “Westernization” and division within our society, ultimately jeopardizing our ideological security and political stability.

5) Excessive admiration for Western civilization among some of our people

For a long time, many countries have recognized “Western cultural centrism” to varying degrees, actively leaning towards Western culture and thereby promoting its development. This excessive admiration for the West, including idolizing foreign things and demeaning Chinese ones, is one of the key factors sustaining “Western-centrism.” Among the general public, this is evident in the excessive admiration for overseas education, goods, cultural products, festivals, and religions. In academia, it is manifested through the high regard for overseas journals, educational environments, and working conditions. Qiao Jinzhong and others have noted that “the earlier the first paper is published internationally, the shorter the ‘latent period’ of talent”; those who pursue PhDs at top foreign universities or work at prestigious international institutions have significant developmental advantages, with a shorter ‘latent period’ compared to those with domestic backgrounds. This trend is also evident in the preference for foreign academic thoughts. In some companies, “Western-centrism” is shown in incidents like Cathay Pacific discriminating against non-English-speaking passengers, the BMW mini ice cream incident, and the reliance on foreign brands in retail. Historically, Mao Zedong once criticized “foreign-style essay writings,” and Deng Xiaoping criticized scholars for “blindly admiring” Western theories without analysis or critique. Today, some Chinese scholars excessively use Western theories in academic research, often “piecing together” crudely made works and treating Western discourse as golden rules. A few philosophers and social scientists regard only Western academia as authoritative, with some scholars directly translating Western academic papers into Chinese and others blindly copying Western theories into the Chinese context. While it is acceptable to draw on foreign theories when analyzing domestic problems, we must not abandon our cultural roots or fall into the misconception that we must always reference Western ideas. Additionally, “Western-centrism” is evident in the arts, where some music, movies, and variety shows fervently plagiarize and imitate overseas works.

II. Western Scholars’ Critique of “Western-Centrism” and Its Theoretical Limitations

Recent multiploidization driven by the rise of non-Western countries in political, economic, cultural, and social fields have made some Western scholars recognize that the West is no longer the epicenter of global civilization. This realization has led to self-doubt about “Western-centrism.” However, constrained by bourgeois scholarly perspectives, their critiques have inherent limitations. Despite concerns about the decline of Western civilization, these scholars remain confident in the future of Western culture and actively devise strategies for its resurgence as the central civilization of the world.

1) “Western-centrism” or “cultural diversity”?

Samuel Huntington, in “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” identifies seven or eight civilizations whose rise challenges the “Western-centric” view and threatens the United States’ hegemonic status. Huntington argues that modernization has promoted non-Westernization and the revival of local cultures, stating, “Modernization does not necessarily mean Westernization. Non-Western societies can and have modernized without abandoning their own cultures or fully adopting Western values, systems, and practices. Westernization is nearly impossible.” He asserts that “modernization has strengthened these cultures while diminishing the relative power of the West. The world is fundamentally becoming more modernized and less Westernized.” Terry Eagleton also opposes “Western-centrism,” asserting that “art and an elegant lifestyle are not exclusive to the West,” and globally, “the West does not seem to hold a special advantage in winning the cultural war.” Upholding Raymond Williams’ views, Eagleton advocates for cultural relativity or “culture as plural,” recognizing the legitimacy and “relativity” of multiple cultural forms, thus promoting cultural pluralism over “Western-centrism.” He references Herder’s opposition to European cultural centrism through cultural diversity, stating, “He insisted that culture refers not to some grand, consistent narrative about universal humanity, but to a diversity of specific lifestyles, each with its own unique developmental laws,” and that Herder attempted to oppose the European center of culture as a universal civilization, claiming that “people in every corner of the earth live and die not because of the dubious benefit of superior European culture.”

Compared to Western scholars, Indian scholar Amartya Sen’s perspective is more objective. Sen criticizes the erroneous views of “Western-centrism” by combining historical facts. Opposing the “so-called uniqueness of Western values,” he notes that “democracy has a ‘global foundation’,” and “Western science... inherits a global heritage.” He acknowledges the democratic elements in ancient Greece and the embryonic democratic ideas in Mozi’s philosophy from China. Additionally, Sen highlights the significant non-Western influence on the West in science and technology, stating, “Contributions from China, Arabia, Iran, India, and other societies have significantly influenced the sciences, mathematics, and philosophy that played a major role in the Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment in Europe,” and that “the world’s high-tech innovations like chain suspension bridges, kites, compasses, paper, printing, gunpowder, unicycles, and rotating fans have spread worldwide, including to Europe.” Sen emphasizes that “mathematical and scientific innovations from South and West Asia played a significant role in the scientific revolution that transformed Europe,” advocating for overcoming the erroneous notion of overall Western superiority. He asserts that “different regions of the world have achieved brilliant successes in various fields such as science, mathematics, engineering, and even philosophy.” Bowden notes that Arab civilization has made significant advances in mathematics, health studies, hygiene, and medicine.

2) Strategizing for a potential re-centralization of Western culture

Most Western scholars, bound by their class affiliations, inevitably serve the bourgeoisie and their homelands, resulting in ideologically biased views that primarily represent Western interests. As Huntington states, “As a patriot, I deeply hope my country can maintain unity and strength, and continue to be a society built on the foundations of freedom, equality, the rule of law, and individual rights... My selection and explanation of these phenomena are likely influenced by my patriotism.” These scholars begin to discard their disdainful views of other civilizations, recognizing the need to draw strengths from them to advance their own. To maintain the “Western center,” particularly the “American center,” Huntington, concerned about the decline of American civilization, prescribes a “remedy” for its revival: “self-reform and renewal,” hoping American culture can be reborn from its nadir. Jacques Derrida harbors an “anti-Eurocentric” sentiment, recognizing the imperfections and deficiencies of Western civilization. He criticizes traditional cultural studies’ “self-satisfaction of Europeans” and “our inability to discover anything new in Asia,” suggesting that Europe should learn from Asia to overcome its shortcomings: “Asia is an indispensable complement to us,” and “The philosophical history of China and India is not a redundant repeat of our existing philosophical history, nor just a reality from which we can study interesting sociological effects. It directly relates to us because it informs us of human potential and connects us with the real origins of another ‘existence of humanity’ that is not ours but could also be ours, being uniquely irreplaceable in historical existence.” Miller points out, “We must learn to draw beneficial nutrients from other cultures; in fact, we know very little about Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and as for Confucianism or Japanese Shinto, most Westerners have probably never even heard of them.”

3) Attempting to transcend but unable to escape

Oswald Spengler’s “The Decline of the West” superficially opposes “Western-centrism.” He critiques the idea that Western Europe is a central, uniquely designated area, forcing other great historical cultures to revolve around it, likening this to the sun and its planets. He argues that the notion of “world history” as centered on the West is a Western self-deception that dissipates with a bit of skepticism. Spengler asserts that Western culture holds no superior position over Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Arabian, or Mexican cultures. Despite initially opposing “Western-centrism” and rejecting the traditional Western-centric historical division of ancient, medieval, and modern history, Spengler ultimately cannot escape the belief in Western cultural superiority. He envisions a bright future for Western culture, suggesting that even if the West declines, it can be reborn, unlike non-Western cultures. Scholars have noted that Spengler praises the broad geographical perspective of Western culture, claiming it is unmatched by any other culture. He argues that Western culture remains vibrant and superior, compared to the seven cultures that have died out globally. American historian William H. McNeill has attempted to break through the pitfalls of “Western-centrism,” but his emphasis on the West as the source of global dynamism since 1500 casts doubt on his success in this regard. McNeill’s focus on the historical contributions of Western civilization and his view of modernization as a process of Europeanization or Westernization perpetuates the very “Western-centrism” he aims to overcome.

III. Surpassing “Western-Centrism” with “New View of Civilization”

President Xi Jinping proposes “upholding a civilization perspective of equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and inclusiveness,” providing theoretical guidance for transcending “Western-centrism.”

1) Adopting a multidimensional perspective on civilizational equality and evaluating diverse cultures dialectically

“Every civilization has its unique content and features, distinct from others, and is equal in value.” The idea of “harmony without uniformity” emphasizes that the diversity of civilizations is an objective fact consistent with the history of civilization development. Many scholars from both China and the West acknowledge this diversity, though their classification methods differ. Affirming the existence and significant value of civilizational diversity is also a core tenet of Marxism. Marx stated, “You praise the delightful diversity of nature and its endless treasures, you do not demand that roses and violets emit the same fragrance, but why do you demand that the richest thing in the world – spirit – can only have one form of existence?” Mao Zedong also called for cultural equality and diversity, arguing that the study of culture “should not be divided into Chinese and Western.” Jiang Zemin noted, “It is essential to fully respect the diversity of different nations, religions and civilizations.” And Xi Jinping stated, “Civilizations only vary from each other, just as human beings are different only in terms of skin color and the language used. No civilization is superior over others.” He further quoted Mencius: “‘Things are born to be different.’ Civilizations are only unique, and no one is superior to the other. All civilizations are rooted in their unique cultural environment. Each embodies the wisdom and vision of a country or nation, and each is valuable for being uniquely its own. And we should overcome a false sense of superiority with coexistence.”

Establishing a view of civilizational equality requires recognizing the coexistence of fine essence and dross within each civilization. Regarding our traditional culture, we must adhere to a dialectic thinking, neither wholly negating nor wholly inheriting, and learn to accurately identify its essence and dross based on the stance, viewpoint, and methods of Marxism. Some aspects of traditional culture, born and sustained in class society, reflect and sustain the interests of the exploiting class. For instance, sages like Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, Han Feizi, and Mozi advocated strict hierarchical systems and supported monarchic despotism, which should now be discarded. Confucians emphasized “ritual and righteousness” as foundational to hierarchical systems, while Han Feizi’s thoughts on “selfish human nature,” “legal tactics,” and “adhering to law for power” served monarchic despotism. His contempt for the public, such as “the inadequacy of people’s wisdom,” “suspicion and internal strife,” and “the rites of subjects and rulers” are filled with feudal hierarchical concepts. Similarly, regarding Western civilization, we must also adhere to a dialectic approach. We must actively guide the public to recognize the errors in Western distorted and denigrating views of Chinese civilization, especially those of a strong bourgeois ideological nature. This guidance may reshape among the public a correct ideological concept towards the West. At the same time, we should actively extract concepts and discourse with distinctive Chinese characteristics to confront “Western-centrism.” For the fine elements within Western civilization, we should absorb and utilize them for our benefit.

2) Promoting common development and progress of civilizations through exchange and mutual learning

We should innovate and develop our national culture, advocating attention to civilizational heritage and innovation, exploring the value of each country’s historical culture, and promoting the creative transformation and innovation of each country’s fine traditional culture during the modernization process, in which interconnection and interaction are external driving forces of development. Human civilization was not born isolated. The blending and coexistence of diverse civilizations have promoted their common development and progress through exchange and mutual learning. Historically, migration between Eastern and Western nations over thousands of years has facilitated the exchange of ideas and innovations. Chinese civilization has been renowned for its openness and inclusiveness, continuously rejuvenating through interactions with other civilizations. The over 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization demonstrates that species, technology, resources, people, and even ideas and culture have developed and progressed through continuous dissemination, exchange, and interaction. Unlike the West, which adheres to civilization-centric views underpinned by aggression, expansion, colonialism, and hegemonism, Chinese civilization has historically followed a path of peaceful diplomacy, civilizational exchange and mutual learning. This is evident in the ancient Silk Road, the influence of Han and Tang cultures, and Zheng He’s voyages. Today, Chinese Communists not only promote national development, but also seek common ground for the world and embrace global cooperation. This is reflected in the civilizational coexistence theory of the community of shared future and the “Belt and Road Initiative”, which promotes the common prosperity and development of countries and regions involved. To achieve this, we must actively promote fine Chinese culture, providing Chinese wisdom to the world, allowing other civilizations to draw strengths from and blend with Chinese civilization, and progress all together; overcoming Western zero-sum game logic, actively contributing to the development and progress of the global cultural body, facilitating the construction of a human community, and sharing the fruit of civilizational development with countries worldwide.

First, drawing on Marxism’s emphasis on dialectical development, we can promote the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional Chinese culture. This means adapting it to socialist society, not simply copying the past. As Engels argued with ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, “modern materialism” builds on the past while adding new knowledge. Similarly, we should preserve the essence of our classics, but enrich them with contemporary insights. Additionally, cultural exchange is crucial. We can learn from foreign cultures while maintaining our own identity. By absorbing “fine components” and integrating them with Chinese characteristics, we can avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Marxism’s principles of “combining theory with practice” and “specific analysis of specific issues” will guide this process.

Second, to enhance the influence of Chinese civilization globally, we can actively promote its dissemination. Through archaeological findings, historical research, and international discussions, we can showcase China’s profound history, achievements, and contributions. This fosters a deeper understanding of China’s past and present, creating a positive international image. We can also share “advanced socialist civilization” concepts like the community of shared future and ecological development, offering Chinese solutions to global challenges. Importantly, such communication should be a two-way street. By balancing “our narrative” with “their narrative,” we can effectively tell China’s story while fostering mutual understanding. Grassroots cultural exchange through social media can further bridge the gap, showcasing the latest developments in China and fostering a more comprehensive image of the country.

3) Overcoming narrow nationalism and cultivating an inclusive and broad-minded mentality

While critiquing the errors of Western-centrism, we must avoid falling into the trap of Chinese-centrism, which can manifest as extreme nationalism. As China’s comprehensive national strength rises, some citizens have begun to blindly reject Western culture. To counteract this, we need to foster a healthy and rational mentality that is both open and confident as well as humble and modest. Adopting an open and inclusive attitude toward diverse civilizations, with a broad-minded understanding of their different interpretations of value, is crucial. Although we belong to different civilizations, we all share one world. It is through civilizations coexisting harmoniously and learning from each other that a true global civilization can be built. A country can be considered truly great only when its people develop a mindset that matches current and future developments. An essential sign of such maturity is the establishment of a culturally inclusive ethos among the populace. This involves respecting the diverse cultures of other countries, steadfastly promoting national culture and values, and absorbing other nations’ cultures with an inclusive spirit, thus making patriotism more rational, pragmatic, and inclusive.

When the spire of Notre Dame collapsed, the world mourned the damage to this global cultural heritage. Today, the restoration work has commenced, with China and France signing a cooperation agreement involving Chinese experts in the restoration efforts. This demonstrates China’s commitment to preserving our shared human civilization and showcases an open and inclusive great-nation mentality through practical actions.

(Author: Guo Xiaoran, Lecturer at the Marxism College of China West Normal University)

Editor: JYZ
More from Guangming Online


The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's, makes no representations as to accuracy, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information.