Abstract：In 2008, when the Chinese officials hosted the Beijing Olympic Games (Olympics for short), it put forward the concept of the "Humanistic Olympics." In 2022, Chinese officials hosted the Winter Olympics in Beijing again and proposed fostering a global community of a shared future with "One World, One Family" at the opening ceremony. The concepts and discussions advocated by the two opening ceremonies of the 2008 and 2022 Beijing Olympics in this study mainly focused on three core topics: the meaning of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, the discussion of humanism and Olympism at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and the one world, one family, and patriotism at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. In the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics opening ceremony, the Chinese officials focused on fostering a global community of a shared future, echoing Chinese President Xi Jinping's policy concept of bringing China closer to the world stage and making greater contributions to humanity (Zhong, 2019). There has been much discussion about the opening ceremony of the Olympics and its implications (Arning, 2013; Ho, 2011; Lee & Yoon, 2017; Leheny, 2019; Smith, 2016). For example, Smith (2016, p. 31) argues that the opening ceremony of the Olympics is a kind of mega-event carefully rehearsed by the host country. At the 1936 Berlin Olympics, German officials deliberately prioritized the values of Nazism, glory, and loyalty over the values of rules and peace. Arning (2013, p. 536) analyzes the Olympics opening ceremony from a semiotic perspective and points out that it allows the host country to demonstrate its soft power externally and strengthen its cohesion internally. The host country is the transmitter of the message intended for a global audience. The opening ceremonies thus serve as a medium for the official messaging campaign of the host countries, as shown for example in the 2008 Beijing and 2012 London Olympics. Leheny (2019, p. 12) cites the Harvard political scientist Nye's (2004, p. 5) concept of soft power while claiming that the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony was characterized by chauvinistic ethnonationalism. On the other hand, the 2012 London Olympics conveyed the message of an open and inclusive multiethnic metropolis (Leheny, 2019, p. 12). Similarly, Lee and Yoon (2017, pp. 956-966) point out that the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics emphasized the grand narrative of China's official identity, while the 2012 London Olympics emphasized the U.K.'s multicultural identity, cultural hybridity, and multiculturalism. It may be seen that the content of the opening ceremony of the Olympics is rich in specific meanings. However, the core concept of the content of the opening ceremony and its formation is worthy of further discussion on the concept of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and 2022. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinese officials put forward the concept of a humanistic Olympics, emphasizing a people-oriented message as its defining mood and promoting the humanistic spirit of the Olympic Movement (Sport Bureau of Zhejiang Province, 2007). China's official humanistic interpretation of the Olympics then extends from mutual respect between people to the collectivist concept of the Chinese national spirit. In addition to emphasizing respect for individual differences, China's discourse on humanities also includes the collective elements of the state and nation (Brownell, 2004, pp. 61-62). Tomlinson (1996, p. 590) argues that the universal values of the Olympic ideal have been recreated with specific historical and cultural applications and that the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics embodies traditional Chinese culture, integrating the concepts of "One World of Confucian" and "Unity of Human and Nature" with the Olympic Movement's spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play. However, Brownell (2023, p. 24) uses the idea of post-Olympism to portray the modernists of the past, based on the modernist and progressive values embodied in the Olympics, as asking "Is it possible for Olympism to change China?"; Brownell suggests that a post-Olympic view would recast the question as, "Will China Change Olympism?". As a product of modern Western sports and the European-centric hypothesis, the Olympics assert that spreading Olympic values can bring universal values to the world. However, Chinese officials have taken the initiative to supplement the concept of Olympism. In the discussion of Olympism and Chinese humanism, the root cause is the debate at the ideological level of Chinese humanism, involving the debate between cultural relativism and universalism. Chinese officials use their special historical and cultural context to explain their ways of and priorities for caring for people, then disagree that there is a universal value in the world (Hwang & Chiu, 2007; Jarvie et al., 2008). Exploring Chinese humanism and universal value discourse supports the concept of cultural relativism and emphasizes "Asian Values." Cultural relativism asserts that many values and practices vary from society to society (Svensson, 2002, pp. 47-48). Asian values are presented as a concept of relativism that responds to different cultural and social backgrounds and is used to debate universal values such as human rights and democracy in the West. However, de Bary (1998/2003, p. 161) and Donnelly (1999) critique Chinese collectivism, Asian values, and even cultural relativism, arguing that universal values such as human rights, which prioritize individual rights, are not incompatible with the values of harmony and social discipline in Chinese Confucianism. In addition, Svensson (2002, p. 49) disagrees with cultural relativism, arguing that no culture or society is a single system but rather several conflicting value systems. A nation-state often is composed of several distinctly different cultures or value systems. At the 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony, Chinese officials emphasized the concept of "one world, one family" and the value of fostering a global community with a shared future. From a historical perspective, Ge (2015, pp. 18-23) analyzed how China's concept of tianxia(天下)was appropriated and became "Tianxiaism." Ge refuted the concept of tianxia in Chinese history as a worldview full of "Equality" and "Harmony." In contrast, tianxia refers to I vs. he, inside vs. outside, hua vs. yi (Chinese/barbarian). The Chinese "Tianxia Imagination" and tianxiaism were used to critique the concept of "International Order" and as an alternative to "Cosmopolitanism," the ideal of human society that all human beings belong to the same spiritual community. Behind this lies the political background of the so-called China Dream, stemming from the rise of China and the pursuit of "World Power." When the Chinese officials put forward the idea of one world, it also emphasized the connotation of national collectivism, which formed an inherently contradictory exposition. However, the world's citizens are not citizens of every country but the whole world. Then, when achieving global citizenship, it is necessary to emphasize that the interests of the country and society are given top priority, which will inevitably reveal its contradictions, become difficult to practice, and face criticism as a case of cosmopolitan nationalism (Ge, 2015, pp. 18-23). This study discusses the performance and significance of the Olympics opening ceremonies in China. It highlights the humanistic Olympics of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity proposed in 2022, as well as the dialogue dilemma between the values of humanism and world harmony advocated by the Chinese officials and the universal values of individualism and human rights emphasized by Olympism from the West. (Full text)