The last two characters, 自信 (zìxìn), combine to mean “self-confidence.” By adding 四个 (sì ge), the phrase becomes a specific, enumerated list: “The Four Self-Confidences” of the nation and the Party.
The “Four Confidences” is a high-level political concept central to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under General Secretary Xi Jinping. It was developed to strengthen belief in China's system and legitimize the Party's long-term rule, both internally and on the world stage. The four components are:
1. **道路自信 (dàolù zìxìn):** Confidence in the Path. This refers to the path of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," China's unique model of economic development combined with one-party political control. 2. **理论自信 (lǐlùn zìxìn):** Confidence in the Theory. This is confidence in the CCP's guiding ideological framework, which includes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and, most importantly today, Xi Jinping Thought. 3. **制度自信 (zhìdù zìxìn):** Confidence in the System. This means faith in China's political and social systems, such as the leadership of the CCP and the People's Congress system, as being superior and more effective for China than Western multi-party democracy. 4. **文化自信 (wénhuà zìxìn):** Confidence in the Culture. Added by Xi Jinping in 2016, this is confidence in China's 5,000 years of "fine traditional culture," its "revolutionary culture" from the Mao era, and its "advanced socialist culture" being developed today.
Comparison to a Western Concept: This can be compared to the American concept of “American Exceptionalism.” Both are foundational beliefs about a nation's unique and rightful place in the world. However, there's a key difference: “American Exceptionalism” is a more organic, widely debated cultural idea that grew over centuries. The “Four Confidences,” in contrast, is a specific, top-down ideological framework actively promoted and taught by the state to unify thought and reinforce the legitimacy of the ruling party.
You will almost exclusively encounter this term in formal, official, or academic contexts. It is not used in everyday, casual conversation.
Its connotation is overwhelmingly positive and serious in these official contexts. Using it casually or sarcastically would be highly unusual and could be seen as mocking state ideology.