>
《读书》 《读书》 73512成员

Andrew Jones on Wang Hui

不偏不倚 2010-07-22

http://www.douban.com/note/81863669/

Andrew Jones on Wang Hui2010-07-22 21:19:45

I'd like to suggest that it would be helpful if we make sure to adhere
to basic standards of scholarly protocol in discussing allegations of
plagiarism in the work of Wang Hui. Some of the discussions of this
issue — on this list and elsewhere — have impugned his scholarly
integrity without so much as providing a single citation that would
allow readers to see the disputed passages for themselves and to assess
them in context. Indeed, most of these accusations simply refer to or
reiterate the charges leveled at Wang Hui by Wang Binbin and others.

(For the Wang Binbin article which initiated the controversy, see
http://nf.nfdaily.cn/nfzm/content/2010-03/25/content_10468868.htm)

Proper citation and the provision of adequate context are, however,
crucially important. One case in point is the serious imputation,
originally brought by Wang Binbin and later repeated by the self-styled
academic watchdog Fang Zhouzi, that W...

http://www.douban.com/note/81863669/

Andrew Jones on Wang Hui2010-07-22 21:19:45

I'd like to suggest that it would be helpful if we make sure to adhere
to basic standards of scholarly protocol in discussing allegations of
plagiarism in the work of Wang Hui. Some of the discussions of this
issue — on this list and elsewhere — have impugned his scholarly
integrity without so much as providing a single citation that would
allow readers to see the disputed passages for themselves and to assess
them in context. Indeed, most of these accusations simply refer to or
reiterate the charges leveled at Wang Hui by Wang Binbin and others.

(For the Wang Binbin article which initiated the controversy, see
http://nf.nfdaily.cn/nfzm/content/2010-03/25/content_10468868.htm)

Proper citation and the provision of adequate context are, however,
crucially important. One case in point is the serious imputation,
originally brought by Wang Binbin and later repeated by the self-styled
academic watchdog Fang Zhouzi, that Wang Hui stole from Joseph
Levenson's work and replaced Liang Qichao's name with that of Lu Xun.
Fang Zhouzi's account seems at first to be absolutely damning:

著名学者汪晖研究鲁迅的博士论文《反抗绝望》一书有没有抄袭?这个
问题的答案显而易见。不信,只要把下面这两段话拿去问一个小学生:

  勒文森《梁启超与中国近代思想》:梁启超的著作是将一种文化中所包含的
技术、结构、价值和精神状态完全或部分地引入另一种文化的文献记载。这种
文化引入包括四部分内容:变更需要、变更榜样、变更思想、变更理由。

汪晖《反抗绝望》:鲁迅的著作是将一种文化中所包含的技术结构、价值和
精神状态完全或部分地引入另一种文化的文献记载。这种文化引入包括四部分
内容:变更需要、变更榜样、变更思想、变更理由。

(For the full text of Fang Zhouzi's article, see
http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/wanghui.txt)

What is particularly upsetting here, as both Wang Binbin and Fang Zhouzi
point out, is what appears to be a startling lack of intellectual
integrity. How could Wang Hui have simply substituted Lu Xun's name for
that of Liang Qichao, thereby collapsing crucial differences between
these two very disparate figures?

The original passage from pages 68 and 69 of Wang Hui's /Against
Despair/ (/Fankang juewang/), quoted in its entirety, tells a rather
more ambiguous story:

鲁迅的著作是将一种文化中所包含的技术结构、价值和精神状态完全或部分地引人
另一种文化的文献记载。这种文化引人包括四部分内容:变更需要、变更榜样、变
更思想、变更理由。(1) 与梁启超等人不同,鲁迅的这种以民族文化改造为根本目
的的文化引人主要是以否定性的方式进行的,即是以抨击与批判传统文化的方式进
行.而不是以系统的介绍方式引人。正是经由鲁迅及其同伴的努力,西方现代文化
的一些基本价值观念以各种不同的方式逐步改变了传统文化的内部结构,从而在根
本上影响了中国现代文化思想的历史发展。(《反抗绝望》第68-69页)

What we immediately notice here is that Wang Binbin and Fang Zhouzi have
neglected to mention that Wang Hui does in fact provide us with a
footnote (1), the text of which reads: 列文森:《梁启超与中国近代思想》,
第46页. As several commentators have already quipped, Wang Hui has made
it spectacularly easy for Wang Binbin to locate the passage from
Levenson from which he allegedly "plagiarized"... by actually citing it!

(For a detailed analysis of this and other omissions from Wang Binbin's
article, see Zhao Mu's critique at
http://www.cul-studies.com/Article/focus/201003/6980.html. Shu Wei, the
copy-editor of the Sanlian edition of Wang Hui's /Fankang juewang/, also
provides some interesting perspectives:
http://bjyouth.ynet.com/article.jsp?oid=64627386)

Obviously, serious problems remain. Wang Hui has not properly employed
quotation marks, despite the fact that the passage from Levenson is
clearly footnoted. This is a sloppy and misleading omission, whether or
not (as some have argued) standards for academic citation had yet to be
institutionalized in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But does it
constitute willful plagiarism? I think there is room for argument.

Perhaps more troubling is the fact that Liang Qichao's name has been
replaced by that of Lu Xun. It's possible that Wang Hui may have wanted
to deceive us here by pawning off Levenson's characterization of Liang
Qichao as his own assessment of Lu Xun. Yet the very next sentence
—precisely the portion of the passage omitted by both Wang Binbin and
Fang Zhouzi — ("与梁启超等人不同,鲁迅的这种以民族文化改造为根本目的的文
化引人主要是以否定性的方式进行的...) explicitly argues for an essential
/difference/ between the two figures. In other words, the passage
doesn't entirely make sense as it stands, and it is at least as likely
that the substitution of Lu Xun for Liang Qichao in the first sentence
is a mistake, a misprint, or a copy-editing glitch, as an intentional
(and thus logically inconsistent) effort to pilfer Levenson's argument.

My aim is not primarily to assert Wang Hui's innocence or to argue on
his behalf. I don't have any definitive answers. Controversies of this
sort often shed more heat than light. What I do hope is that any further
discussion of this issue be based on scholarly debate and close
argumentation of specific examples, rather than unsupported assertions.

Andrew F. Jones
University of California, Berkeley

1
显示全文

查看更多有趣的豆瓣小组

回应 (31条) 只看楼主

  • vivo
    Andrew F. Jones真是个孤陋寡闻之辈,好像一点都不知道所有后续的证据披露情况,比如小猫换婴儿、托尔斯泰/鲁迅换头术这类经典笑料。
  • sasa
    在经典也没有朱老师句句都有典故来得经典。秉公办理也要分个轻重缓急嘛。
  • vivo
    朱真金的笑料也是货真价实的经典,不过他的事情一直有汪粉在高度关注,好像暂时犯不着我来操心。神教诸位兄弟姐妹继续努力挖掘,我每日的好心情如今要靠你们的最新朱袭例证来赐予。
  • 正命
    vivo 我觉得你若不是自视过高,就是心里发虚。否则干嘛事事都和自己联系在一起,谁指望你来操心了呀
  • vivo
    是吗?那么《读书》小组“vivo被朱学勤的气场给吓住了”(http://www.douban.com/group/topic/12724577/)之类的帖子是在没来由地放屁了,老操心我为什么不揭发朱不学剽窃。
  • vivo
    我爱干啥就干啥,关别人鸟事,再也不要指名道姓对我不着四六、不三不四地说三道四说长道短谈天论地说东讲西。
  • 金刚伏魔
    你爱干啥就干啥,可人家也有对你的行为发表评论的权力啊。
  • vivo
    2010-07-23 01:19:51 金刚伏魔

    你爱干啥就干啥,可人家也有对你的行为发表评论的权力啊。

    ——————————

    【林毓生:我的感受,中国的知识分子在80年代这十年间,渐渐形成了一个基本的共识。过去的知识分子很多连权利(rights)与权力(pow er)这些名词都区分不了,那时候国内的学者给我写信或做评论,我经常发现这种连名词都不知道的情况。但到了80年代后期,相当多人发现了早期知识分子严复已经在用这些概念,两个概念指涉两种不同的含义。】http://view.news.qq.com/a/20100718/000002_1.htm

    当然,我也接受全拼输入法错误此类解释。


    【说三道四】后面我省略了本来想写的【指手画脚】、【吆五喝六】之类,“人家”不但评论,还想指点/指导我去做什么呢,我不认为他们有这个权利(right)。
  • 金刚伏魔
    别人既有对你行为发表评论的权利,也有对你说三道四的权力,在这里是一码事。
    别没事学金文明。
  • vivo
    “发表评论的权力”

    百度一下,找到相关网页29篇,用时0.076秒
    http://www.baidu.com/s?bs=%A1%B0%B7%A2%B1%ED%C6%C0%C2%DB%B5%C4%C8%A8%C0%FB%A1%B1&f=8&wd=%A1%B0%B7%A2%B1%ED%C6%C0%C2%DB%B5%C4%C8%A8%C1%A6%A1%B1


    “发表评论的权利”

    百度一下,找到相关网页约25,700篇,用时0.128秒
    http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=%A1%B0%B7%A2%B1%ED%C6%C0%C2%DB%B5%C4%C8%A8%C0%FB%A1%B1
查看更多回应(31)/  添加回应

更多相关帖子

推荐小组

值得一读

    豆瓣
    我们的精神角落
    免费下载 iOS / Android 版客户端