摘要：本文聚焦中西民族观念背后的人性论差异，通过对比西方以种族（race）为核心的民族建构逻辑与古代中国以文化（culture）为标准的“华夷之辨”，揭示两者在人性认知、道德实践及民族认同上的差异。西方传统中，人性论与基督教原罪说、自然法理论及实证主义科学交织，形成了血统论，以生物性特征划分民族。相比而言，华夏文明则以“天人合一”哲学思想为根基，将人性视为道德实践的载体，强调文化认同对民族身份的决定性作用。这种差异构成了中西民族建构的底层逻辑，在当代，也深刻影响了现代民族国家的形成路径与价值取向。
关键词：人性论；华夷之辨；种族主义
一、引言
民族观念作为人类文明的核心命题之一，其本质是人性论在群体层面的投射。在西方的传统观念里，长期以来，人们对人性的看法常常受到基督教原罪说、自然法理论及实证主义科学的影响，这也形成了西方人以生物性特征来划分民族的血统论。而华夏文明则基于儒学里的“天人合一”根基，将人性看作是道德实践的载体，强调文化认同对于民族身份的决定性作用。本文通过溯源中西两方的人性论传统沿革，试论二者在民族建构上的不同之处，并探讨这些差异对现代民族问题有何种启发效果。
二、西方民族观念中的人性论
（一）基督教原罪说：人性本恶与民族分野的宗教根源
西方人性论的核心矛盾，源自“灵肉二分”的宗教传统。奥古斯丁在《忏悔录》中提出“原罪”这一概念，认为由于亚当夏娃的堕落，人性在诞生之初就带有不可根除的罪性。[1]这种“性恶论”的预设直接影响了西方早期的民族观念。中世纪欧洲通过“一滴血原则”将犹太人定义为“被诅咒的民族”，其逻辑根源就在于，他们将人性恶视为了不可改变的生物本质。这一观念在十字军东征时期达到了小规模的顶峰，基督教世界将穆斯林视为“异教徒”与“堕落者”。这些看法一方面源于宗教信仰的对立，另一方面，它深植于人性本恶的预设——非基督徒被自然而然地视为道德缺陷的群体。
原罪论的人性观，在民族分野中进一步演变为“道德—生物”的判断标准。[2]若一个群体在宗教信仰上偏离正统，其生物特征便被强加上了“堕落”的象征。西班牙宗教裁判迫害摩尔人和犹太人时，将他们的肤色、习俗等生物特征都作为其“罪性”的外在证据，这也显示出，基于道德原罪论，西方文化里已经逐渐产生了对不同种族的道德“高低”划分，这些划分并非基于客观经验，但在长期的种族文化碰撞中，它们与种族的生物表征联系在一起，形成了从“道德低劣”到“生理差异”的转化。
（二）自然法理论与人性等级：从霍布斯到康德的理性主义路径
17世纪，霍布斯在《利维坦》里提出自然状态说，将人性定义为“自利且有限理性”的生物本能，为近代种族主义提供了理论支撑。[3]卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源》中，将民族差异归因于气候、土壤等自然因素。[4]康德在此基础上，进一步将人性划分出了“文明人”与“野蛮人”的等级，他在《永久和平论》中提出，“野蛮人尚未达到道德立法的能力”，[5]这种论调直接将人性与人的道德能力挂钩，本质是哲学层面的论辩，却为当时大航海时代普遍的殖民扩张提供了道德借口——殖民者们自诩为“道德进步的承载者”，被殖民者被冠以人性“尚未开化”的名号，在文明殖民中渐渐丧失了主体性。
自然法理论衍生出的人性等级论在18世纪殖民实践中呈现出双重标准：殖民者以“传播文明”为名掠夺资源，却将原住民的反抗视为“人性野蛮”的证明。例如，英国对印度的统治中，东印度公司官员认为印度教徒的种姓制度是一种野蛮、落后、僵化的体制，对自身的经济剥削行为，又假以“文明使命”（civilization mission）之名。
（三）实证主义与生物血统论：人性论的异化与种族主义的科学化
19世纪，体质人类学的发展将人性论推向极端。戈宾诺在《人种不平等论》中提出“雅利安人优越论”，以颅骨形状、脑容量等“科学”数据论证种族优劣。这种实证主义方法论推动了西方民族观念的科学化、工具化。19世纪末，“优生学”运动盛行，进一步将人性简化为可测量的生物属性，甚至主张“选择性繁殖”优化人种。[6]当时美国《强制绝育法》就基于“防止劣等人种繁殖”的理由，对黑人、移民及残障人士实施绝育手术，[7]其理论依据正是这种基于实证主义的生物决定论。
科学种族主义在科学实验、数据统计等实证考察的基础上，将人性异化为可操控的对象，逐渐消解了人的道德主体性。纳粹德国的种族清洗政策便是其极端体现——犹太人被定义为“非人性的存在”，其人性价值被生物学标签彻底否定。然而，这些实证考察的数据，仅仅基于部分“伪科学”的调查数据，具有较多实验者自身的种族背景干扰和主观臆断因素。科学方法能否真正证明出人性善恶与种族类别之间存在着必然联系，我们需要对这一点存疑。
三、中国华夷之辨中的人性论
（一）天人合一与人性本善：道德实践的哲学根基
儒家的“性善论”构成了华夷之辨的核心，也是中华民族自古以来较为广泛认可的人性论观点。《孟子·告子上》里写道，“人无有不善”，人性本具“四端之心”——恻隐、羞恶、辞让、是非，这四种道德潜能，通过“扩而充之”，将会臻于至善，实现社会大同。董仲舒在《春秋繁露》中，进一步将人性观与天命观结合，提出“仁之美者在于天，天仁也”，使华夷之辨具有了超越血缘的文化正当性。传统儒学主张“远人不服，则修文德以来之”，便是将人性论的善，扩充到不同文化的交界处，用道德感召而非武力征服，实现文化的糅合，进而达成民族的融合。在这种“修文德”的论调下，儒学的性善论默认了人性是可塑的。人们通过教化与礼乐实践，可以将人性中的善端发展为道德自觉。北魏孝文帝推行汉化改革时，就是以“礼”为纽带，将“善道”推而广之，实现了游牧民族的道德提升，促进治下的民族大融合。
（二）礼乐文明与文化认同：人性论的实践载体
华夷之辨的核心标准在于“礼”。《礼记·王制》记载，“中国戎夷，五方之民，皆有性也，不可推移”，但“修其教不易其俗，齐其政不易其宜”，这种治理原则表明，华与夷之间并不是存在着绝对的壁垒和分隔，二者的民族身份可以经过长期的教化，培育出文化认同，进而实现转化。唐代安史之乱后，回鹘可汗主动请求“衣冠中国”，宋儒陈亮更是提出“夷狄进至于爵，天下远近小大若一”此类民族包容的观点。由此可以看出，古代中国并没有严格意义上的“华夷分隔线”，相反，中华民族的民族建构模式是随着中央王朝的更迭而动态更新的，本质上，这一过程也是中华民族人性论的实践——只要接受华夏礼乐文化，便可获得“华夏”身份。渐渐地，这一过程演变为常态化的民族道德实践，即华夷之辨。华夷之辨较少基于生物性差异，更多的是对“仁义礼智信”等道德价值的认同。[8]在统一多民族国家王朝的发展后期，周边政权如越南李朝、朝鲜李氏王朝，虽非汉族政权，但因奉行儒家礼制，也被视为了“小中华”，这就说明，中国的人性论有很大一部分融合进了华夷之辨的实践，成为了这一民族区分的方法论——人性通过礼乐文化得到教化，逐渐融合进“华夏”的身份认同。
（三）历史实践中的弹性边界：人性论与民族融合
华夏文明通过“用夏变夷”实现民族融合，建立在对人性普遍可塑性的哲学认知之上。例如，明代在西南地区推行“改土归流”，以儒家教化取代土司制度，其依据正是人性论中“人皆可以为尧舜”的信念。这种实践与西方种族主义形成鲜明对比，当西方殖民者以“文明使命”为名掠夺资源时，华夏文明则通过文化认同实现“不战而屈人之兵”。
人性论在此过程中，一方面，为民族融合提供了道德正当性，另一方面，通过文化实践，人性中的道德归属可以构成社会秩序的软约束。科举取士这一制度设计，就是将抽象的人性论转化为具体的社会治理实践。元代色目人、南人通过科举制度进入统治阶层，其合法性源于对儒家伦理的认同，而非血统或种族。
四、中西人性论与民族观念的深层对比
（一）哲学预设的差别：灵肉二分与天人合一
西方人性论以“灵肉二分”为前提，将人性视为堕落的、等待救赎的“恶”；中国古典人性论以“天人合一”为基础，强调人性通过道德实践将趋于至善。这种人性观念上的不同，使得西方民族观念偏重于种族间的不可调和性，提出了著名的“一滴血原则”；华夏华夷之辨偏重于主张人性的可塑性，在民族问题上“用夏变夷”。在民族国家建构的实践上，也形成了鲜明对比。美国的南方种植园主基于性恶论，以“黑人劣等”为由坚定维护奴隶制的存在，导致黑人种族长期受压迫。中国历史上，鲜卑、契丹等民族学习中原文化实现汉化，渐渐融入了统一多民族国家的社会生活。
（二）道德实践的差异：他律与自律
西方人性论将道德视为对原罪的约束，而华夏人性论则将道德视为人性本善的展开——“克己复礼为仁”。[9]这种差异在对待不同的民族时，表现为，西方以法律和暴力强制推行“文明标准”，这便出现了殖民地的同化政策。例如，英国在印度推行英语教育时，以“文明开化”为名强制摧毁本土文化。华夏文明通过礼乐教化实现“以文化人”，这使得中国在越南、朝鲜推行儒家教育时，倾向于通过乡饮酒礼、释奠礼等实践激发人性中的道德自觉。
（三）现代转型的困境：人性论的异化与复归
西方种族主义在殖民时代演变为“文明等级论”，将人性论异化为压迫工具；而华夏文明在近代通过“民族革命”实现转型时，仍保留文化认同的核心地位。然而，现代性问题也暴露了两种人性论的局限，西方自由主义将人性简化为“理性经济人”，导致个体主义的泛滥；而华夏传统中“群体本位”的人性论，则在全球化时代面临多元文化认同的挑战。[10]例如，美国“政治正确”运动试图以法律强制消除种族歧视，却陷入“身份政治”的分裂；而中国在处理民族问题时，则通过“铸牢中华民族共同体意识”平衡文化认同与个体权利。
五、结论
中西民族观念的分野，本质上是人性论认知的差异在民族建构中的投射。西方以生物特征划分民族的人性论预设，最终导致种族主义的泛滥与道德主体的消解；而华夏文明以文化认同为核心的人性论传统，创造了多元一体的民族融合模式，但也经历着现代性的冲击。
这一对比不仅揭示了文明演进的深层逻辑，更为当代民族问题提供了历史借鉴。唯有超越生物本质主义与文化绝对主义的人性认知，才能构建真正包容的民族共同体。在全球化与逆全球化交织的今天，重新审视中西人性论传统，一定程度上能为缓解民族冲突、文化认同危机提供新的思考。
(中国外交学院 黄淑婷)
[1] 徐琪: 奥古斯丁政治思想的双重意蕴[J]. 基督教研究. 2021(01). 96-109.
[2] 梅祖荣: 近代早期西方哲学与历史中的种族契约——以洛克与康德为例[J]. 世界民族. 2019(01).
[3] 魏德伟 郭泰辉: 霍布斯与洛克社会契约论的双重基础：神圣与世俗[J]. 政治思想史. 2022(03).
[4] 郑顺奇 孔德奥 刘明辉: 西方社会契约论的逻辑理路与正义建构——基于霍布斯、洛克、卢梭传统社会契约与罗尔斯契约论的分析[J]. 今古文创. 2024(37).
[5] 黄戈: 康德共同体理论的三重实现路径：至善、目的王国与永久和平[J]. 四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）2024vol51.(03).
[6] 张和原: 理性与信仰双重视域下的西方近代之前哲学发展史[J]. 知识文库. 2024(33).
[7] 杨文极: 美国实用主义研究[M]. 北京社会科学文献出版社. 2019. 344-345.
[8] 赵洪波 石当社: 先秦时期儒学在秦地的发展探微[J]. 西北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）. 2025. vol55(02).
[9] 吴贤武: “成己”与“克己”：儒学中的自我与他者[J]. 齐鲁学刊. 2025(02).
[10] 龚建刚: 传统儒家“性善论”与西方管理人性论的比较研究[J]. 中国文化与管理. 2024(02).
Human Nature-Based Analysis of the Divide in Chinese and Western National Concepts: A Comparison Between the Western “Race” Distinction and the Chinese “Hua-Yi” System
Abstract: This paper focuses on the differences in national concepts underlying Western and Chinese theories of human nature. Comparing Western national pattern centered around race, and ancient Chinese “Hua – Yi” national distinction based on culture, this article reveals latent differences of understandings of human nature in between. These differences not only shape the pattern of Chinese and Western national concepts, but also exert a profound influence on the value orientations of modern nation-states.
Keywords: Human Nature, “Hua-Yi” Distinction, Race
I. Introduction
The concept of nation, one of the core propositions in human civilization, is intrinsically a projection of the understandings of human nature at a group level. In Western civilization, the theory of human nature is intertwined with the Christian doctrine of original sin, natural law, and positivist science, forming the “race distinction” that divides people into racial groups according to biological characteristics. In contrast, rooted in “the unity of man and nature (天人合一)” philosophy, Chinese civilization regards human nature as the carrier of moral practice, thus emphasizing the decisive role of cultural identity in “Hua – Yi” distinction.
Why do discrepancies exist between Chinese and Western national concepts? Is this to a certain degree linked to both understandings of human nature? Through diachronic analyses and synchronic comparisons, we will trace back to the evolution of national theories and delve into the impacts that human nature has exerted on both national construction, reflecting on the illumination for modern national issues.
II. The Theory of Human Nature in Western Racial Division
(1) The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin: Religious Basis for Belief in Humans’ Inherently Evil Nature and Racial Division
In Western theories of human nature, the theoretical root stems from their religious tradition, referred to as “dichotomy of spirit and flesh”. As the ancient Roman theologian Augustine claimed in Confessions and The City of God, the concept of “original sin” was first proposed, arguing that human nature has an ineradicable sinful nature due to Adam’s fall.[[1]] This presupposition, “the evil nature of man”, has greatly influenced Westerners’ formation of national concepts. A typical case is that in medieval Europe, the Jews were defined as the “cursed nation” according to the “one-drop rule”, the logical root of which lies in considering the evil nature of man as an invariable biological essence. For example, during the Crusades, the Christian world regarded Muslims as both “infidels” and “corrupted men”, which not only originated from clashes in religious beliefs, but was also ingrained in the prerequisite that human nature is innately evil—non-Christians were inherently regarded as groups with moral deficiencies.
The view of human nature, based on the doctrine of original sin, further evolved into a “moral-biological” criterion for national judgment, especially in the Western division of nation-states.[[2]] If a group deviated from orthodoxy in religious belief, its biological characteristics, such as skin color, language, would be labeled as “corrupt”. For instance, the Spanish authorities conducted persecutions against Moors and Jews in the 15th and 16th centuries, also under such a pretext that their skin color, customs, and other biological characteristics were seen as external evidence of “sinfulness”, thus should be deported and expelled from Spanish mainland.
(2) Natural Law and the Hierarchy of Human Nature: The Rationalist Path from Hobbes to Kant
In the 17th century, in Leviathan, politologist Thomas Hobbes put forward the famous theory — the “state of nature”, defining human nature as a biological instinct of “self-interest and limited rationality”, providing a theoretical foundation for modern racism.[[3]] Jean-Jacques Rousseau ascribed national differences to natural factors like climate and soil in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality among Men. [[4]]Later, Immanuel Kant divided humanity into “civilized people” and “savages”. In his book Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, he argued that “savages have not yet reached the ability of moral legislation”.[[5]] Naturally combining human nature with moral ability, this discourse provided a moral excuse for colonial expansion—colonizers justified themselves as the “carriers of moral progress”, while the colonized lost their independence owing to allegedly “uncivilized” human nature.
Derived from natural law theory, the notion of a hierarchy in human nature demonstrated a double standard towards colonial acts in the 18th century: colonizers plundered resources in the name of “spreading progress”, yet regarded righteous resistance of indigenous inhabitants as “savage human nature”. The British colonial rule of India is a potent example. Officials of the East India Company regarded the Hindu caste system as an embodiment of “the corruption of human nature”, but they labeled own economic exploitation as a lofty “civilization mission”.
(3) Positivism and Theory of Biological Bloodline: Alienation of Human Nature Theory and Scientization of Racism
With the emerging scientific revolution in the 19th century, rapid advancement in physical anthropology pushed Westerners’ understanding of human nature to an extreme. Ethnologist Joseph Arthur de Gobineau raised the “Aryan superiority” theory in An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, attributing all discrepancies in human nature to biological factors such as skull shape and brain capacity.[[6]] He claimed that it was concluded through positivist methodology and a large pool of empirical observations, thereby promoting the scientization and instrumentalization of Western national concepts. (Although it has since been proved not a true “positivism” after centuries.)
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and Francis Galton’s eugenics theory were also products of positivism, leading to the eugenics movement in the late 19th century. This movement regarded human nature as a measurable biological agent, even proposing to improve the human race through “selective breeding”. Furthermore, American “compulsory sterilization laws”, enacted under the pretext of “preventing the reproduction of inferior races”, targeted blacks, immigrants and the disabled for sterilization operations.[[7]] The theoretical basis of these was mainly related to positivism that human nature could be simplified into biological indicators.
Based on positivism, Westerners developed the theory of scientific racism, alienating human nature into an object that could be manipulated and gradually dissolving the moral subjectivity of human beings. An extreme manifestation of this was Nazi Germany’s “racial purification” policy. Jews were defined as “non-human beings”, and their human subjectivity and value were arbitrarily denied by biological labels.
III. The Theory of Human Nature in Chinese “Hua – Yi” Distinction
(1) Unity of Man and Nature (天人合一) and Innate Goodness of Human Nature (人性本善): Philosophical Foundations for Moral Practice
The theory that humanity possesses innate goodness at birth is one of the crucial components in Confucianism. It forms the core theoretical basis of the distinction between “Hua(Chinese)” and “Yi(barbarians, now referring to other ethnic groups and foreigners)”. In the classic scripture Mencius – Gaozi, Mencius proposed that “there is no one who does not possess a good nature(人无有不善)”, noting that human nature inherently includes the “four origins of one’s heart(四端之心)” – compassion, shame, modesty, and the ability to discern right from wrong(恻隐、羞恶、辞让、是非之心). Besides, through “expansion and fulfillment(扩而充之)”, these moral potentials can be achieved to promote harmony within the society.
Later, Dong Zhongshu, in Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals, linked human nature to the mandate of heaven(天命), claiming that “the beauty of benevolence lies in heaven, and heaven is benevolent(仁之美者在于天，天仁也)”. This endowed the “Hua – Yi” distinction with a cultural legitimacy that transcends biological characteristics. As Confucius advocated, “if people from afar do not submit, then cultivate culture and morality to attract them(故远人不服，则修文德以来之)”, concluding that the approach to national integration should be through moral attraction rather than military conquest.
The theory of “innate goodness of human nature” also focuses on the plasticity of human nature. And through education and ritual practices, the virtuous nature can be transformed into moral consciousness. For example, when Emperor Xiaowen of Northern Wei Dynasty carried out the Sinicization reform, he utilized Chinese ritual practices – Rites and Music – as a link to promote national integration. Its logical premise was that human nature could tend towards the highest good(止于至善) through civilized practices.
(2) The Civilization of Rites and Music(礼乐) and Cultural Identity: The Practical Carrier of Human Nature Theory
Whether one belongs to the Chinese civilization of Rites and Music or not is the main criterion of the Hua – Yi distinction. The Book of Rites – Wangzhi stipulates that “Chinese, the Rong and Yi, and people living in five directions outside the main plain, all have their own natures, which cannot be changed(中国戎夷，五方之民，皆有性也，不可推移)”. However, the governance principle of “cultivating their education without changing customs; standardizing their administration without changing appropriate practices(修其教不易其俗，齐其政不易其宜)” indicates that national identity can be transformed by nourishing cultural identity.
For example, in the Tang Dynasty, after the An Lushan Rebellion, the Khagan of the Uyghur group automatically requested to “dress in the Chinese style(衣冠中国)”. Chen Liang, a renowned Confucian scholar in the Song Dynasty, proposed an inclusive national view that “barbarians can be promoted to the status of nobility, and the whole world, near and far, large and small, will be united as one(夷狄进至于爵，天下远近小大若一)”. This dynamic model of national construction is, in essence, a practical expression of the theory of human nature—as long as one accepts the Chinese civilization of Rites and Music, one can obtain the cultural identity of “Hua Xia”, i.e., the Chinese nation.
At the practical level, this sense of belonging has transformed Chinese national construction into a community of national moral practice, namely, the distinction between Hua and Yi. The “Hua-Yi” distinction is not based on biological differences but on the recognition of moral values, including “benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and faith(仁义礼智信)”.[[8]] For example, although the Vietnam Ly Dynasty and the Korean Joseon Dynasty were not part of Chinese Han regime, they were seen as the “Little China” since they practiced Confucian rites, and their legitimacy stemmed from the common pursuit of moral values in human nature.
(3) The Elastic Boundary in Human Nature Theory: National Integration
Chinese civilization has achieved national integration due to its principle of “using Xia to transform Yi”, whose theoretical basis lodges in the universality and plasticity of human nature. During the Ming Dynasty, the authority implemented the policy of “replacing native chieftains with centrally – appointed officials(改土归流)” in many southwest districts, replacing the chieftain system with a Confucian – based system of education and bureaucracy. This policy was based on the belief that “everyone can become a saint like Yao and Shun(人皆可以为尧舜)”. This forms a sharp contrast to Western racism. When Western colonizers seized resources in the name of “civilization mission”, Chinese civilization achieved “subduing the enemy without fighting(不战而屈人之兵)” via cultural identity.
In this process, the theory of human nature, on one hand, provides moral legitimacy for national integration, as the saying “All men within the Four Seas are brothers(四海之内皆兄弟)”; on the other hand, it shifts the moral sense in human nature into social order through cultural practices. For instance, during the Yuan Dynasty, the Semu group and southerners entered the ruling elite through civil service examinations, and their legitimacy embedded in their recognition of Confucian ethics rather than race.
IV. Comparison between the Chinese and Western Theories of Human Nature
(1) Philosophical Presuppositions: The Dichotomy of Spirit and Flesh vs. the Unity of Man and Nature(灵肉二分与天人合一)
Western theories of human nature take the “dichotomy of spirit and flesh” as a premise. They account human nature as a fallen essence waiting for salvation. In contrast, Chinese theories of human nature are based on “unity of man and nature”, emphasizing that human nature can strive towards the highest good via moral practice. This difference may explain why Western national concepts concentrate on the irreconcilability of biological differences, while the Chinese “Hua – Yi” distinction advocates the plasticity of cultural identity.
During the American Civil War, southern plantations owners and slaveholders defended slavery on the theoretical ground of “inferiority of blacks”, believing that human nature is evil under the dichotomy of spirit and flesh. Reviewing Chinese history, ethnic groups such as Xianbei and Khitan achieved “Sinicization” through intermarriage, drawing wisdom from Confucian ideas, as well as adopting Chinese rites and etiquette. All out of the theory that human nature possesses innate goodness within the framework of the unity of man and nature.
(2) Moral Practice: Heteronomy and Autonomy
Western theories use moral heteronomy to constrain on original sin, especially in Christian asceticism, while the Chinese regard morality as the unfolding of the innate goodness, thus promoting moral autonomy — “restraining yourself and returning to courtesy is the way towards benevolence(克己复礼为仁)”.[[9]] This difference is manifested in national concepts: the West forcibly imposed “civilized standards” via laws and violence, as the assimilation policy in colonies; While China realizes “cultivating others through culture” by the diffusion of Chinese cultivation like the Rites and Music.
When the British spread English education in Indian colonies, they coercively destroyed local culture, believing that those inhabitants should be “civilized” by moral heteronomy. Nevertheless, when China promoted Confucian education in Vietnam and Korea, it inspired the moral consciousness in human nature, through its village drinking ceremony, or rituals offering sacrifices to Confucius.
(3) Dilemmas in Modern Transformation: The Alienation and Restoration of Human Nature
With the colonial era stepping up, Western racism evolved into a hierarchy of civilizations, and it has alienated human nature theory into a tool of oppression. Meanwhile, as Chinese civilization underwent national revolution in modern times, it still retained the core position of Chinese – centered cultural identity.
These transitions remain latent hindrance for further modernization. Western liberalism simplifies human nature into the “rational economic man”, leading to the rampage of individualism.[[10]] Chinese theory of human nature, with the collective – centered facet, also triggers the problem of multicultural identity, particularly in the era of globalization.
V. Conclusion
Generally speaking, the division between Chinese and Western national concepts, can be summarized as the differences in both understandings of human nature. The Western presupposition, which divides nations according to biological characteristics, ultimately leads to the ubiquity of racism. Chinese traditional theory of human nature, revolving around cultural identity, has created a pluralistic and integrated model of national integration. However, it has also been inflicted by modernity and the rise of neighboring nation – states.
This comparison not only reveals logic discrepancies between these two civilizations, but also provides historical lessons for contemporary national issues. Only by transcending the mentality of human nature based on biological essentialism and cultural absolutism, can we establish an inclusive national community. In today’s era, where globalization and anti-globalization are intertwined, re-examining these traditional theories of human nature can, to a certain extent, provide new insights into solving national clashes or cultural identity crises.
（China Foreign Affairs University, Huang Shuting）
Bibliography
Gong Jiangang. “A Comparative Study of Traditional Confucian ‘Theory of Innate Goodness’ and the Theory of Human Nature in Western Management.” Chinese Culture and Management 2024, no. 02.
Huang Ge. “The Three – Dimensional Realizability of Kant’s Community Theory: The Highest Good, the Realm of Ends, and Perpetual Peace.” Journal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Science Edition) 2024, vol. 51, no. 03.
Mei Zurong. “The Racial Contract in Early Modern Western Philosophy and History: Taking Locke and Kant as Examples.” World Ethno – National Studies 2019, no. 01.
Wei Dewei, and Guo Taihui. “The Dual Foundations of Hobbes’s and Locke’s Social Contract Theory: The Sacred and the Secular.” History of Political Thought 2022, no. 03.
Wu Xianwu. “The ‘Adult’ and ‘Restraining Oneself’: The Self and the Other in Confucianism.” Qilu Academic Journal 2025, no. 02.
Xu Qi. “The Dual Implications of Augustine’s Political Thought.” Studies in Christianity 2021, no. 01, pp. 96–109.
Yang Wenji. Research on American Pragmatism. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2019, pp. 344–345.
Zhang Heyuan. “The Development History of Western Philosophy Before the Modern Era from the Perspectives of Reason and Faith.” Encyclopedia of Knowledge 2024, no. 33.
Zhao Hongbo, and Shi Dangshe. “An Exploration of the Development of Confucianism in the Qin State During the Pre – Qin Period.” Journal of Northwest University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 2025, vol. 55, no. 02.
Zheng Shunqi, Kong De’ao, and Liu Minghui. “The Logical Thinking and Justice Construction of Western Social Contract Theory: An Analysis Based on the Traditional Social Contracts of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Rawls’s Contract Theory.” Jingu Wenchuang 2024, no. 37.
[[1]] Xu Qi.”The Dual Implications of Augustine’s Political Thought.”Studies in Christianity 2021,no.01:96–109.In Philosophy and Humanities·Philosophy;Social Sciences I·Political Science.
[[2]] Mei Zurong.”The Racial Contract in Early Modern Western Philosophy and History:Taking Locke and Kant as Examples.”World Ethno-National Studies 2019,no.01.
[[3]] Wei Dewei,and Guo Taihui.”The Dual Foundations of Hobbes’s and Locke’s Social Contract Theory:The Sacred and the Secular.”History of Political Thought 2022,no.03.
[[4]] Zheng Shunqi, Kong De’ao, and Liu Minghui. “The Logical Thinking and Justice Construction of Western Social Contract Theory: An Analysis Based on the Traditional Social Contracts of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Rawls’s Contract Theory.” Jingu Wenchuang 2024, no. 37.
[[5]] Huang Ge. “The Three – Dimensional Realizability of Kant’s Community Theory: The Highest Good, the Realm of Ends, and Perpetual Peace.” Journal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Science Edition) 2024, 51, no. 03.
[[6]] Zhang Heyuan. “The Development History of Western Philosophy Before the Modern Era from the Perspectives of Reason and Faith.” Encyclopedia of Knowledge 2024, no. 33.
[[7]] Yang Wenji. Research on American Pragmatism. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2019, 344–345.
[[8]] Zhao Hongbo, and Shi Dangshe. “An Exploration of the Development of Confucianism in the Qin State During the Pre – Qin Period.” Journal of Northwest University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 2025, 55, no. 02.
[[9]] Wu Xianwu. “The ‘Adult’ and ‘Restraining Oneself’: The Self and the Other in Confucianism.” Qilu Academic Journal 2025, no. 02.
[[10]] Gong Jiangang. “A Comparative Study of Traditional Confucian ‘Theory of Innate Goodness’ and the Theory of Human Nature in Western Management.” Chinese Culture and Management 2024, no. 02.
暂无评论内容