>
《读书》 《读书》 78693成员

白露:汪晖没有剽窃--关于汪晖事件的访谈(未删节版)

苏门答腊 2010-07-24
白露:汪晖没有剽窃--关于汪晖事件的访谈(未删节版)

作者:白露 文章发于:当代文化研究网 点击数:66 更新时间:2010-7-24 顶 荐 【字体:小 大】
【复制本文】 【下载本文】

(白露:美国莱斯大学历史系亚洲研究讲席教授;著名理论刊物《立场:东亚文化批评》创立人和资深主编

1、你为什么会发起这封公开信的签名?


这本来不是一封公开信,而是写给清华大学同仁的私信。它的起因是,我们当中的很多人从四月开始收到一些无端的、内容一致的匿名信,要求我们注意“汪晖的剽窃”。一位署名 “Kev”或“Kevy”的人,自称是此类信件的作者之一,联络了我们当中的很多人。我多次给他写信,问他是谁,还希望知道他有些什么证据,他都没有回答。这个事件标志着我们介入的开始,我们同时越来越怀疑一场有组织的活动可能已经把我们当做对象。所以当某位不知名人士把我们给清华校长的信泄露给了中国媒体,我们最终决定自己发表该信,以驱除对我们的怀疑,表明我们的意图 (由于在主流媒体上发表此信的努力屡屡受到挫折,我们才在网上公布了此信)。这封公开信的联署名单包括了检查注脚的翻译者、亚洲研究的专家、历史学家、与翻译们合作的重要学术出版社的编辑,还有在过去的几十年中...
白露:汪晖没有剽窃--关于汪晖事件的访谈(未删节版)

作者:白露 文章发于:当代文化研究网 点击数:66 更新时间:2010-7-24 顶 荐 【字体:小 大】
【复制本文】 【下载本文】

(白露:美国莱斯大学历史系亚洲研究讲席教授;著名理论刊物《立场:东亚文化批评》创立人和资深主编

1、你为什么会发起这封公开信的签名?


这本来不是一封公开信,而是写给清华大学同仁的私信。它的起因是,我们当中的很多人从四月开始收到一些无端的、内容一致的匿名信,要求我们注意“汪晖的剽窃”。一位署名 “Kev”或“Kevy”的人,自称是此类信件的作者之一,联络了我们当中的很多人。我多次给他写信,问他是谁,还希望知道他有些什么证据,他都没有回答。这个事件标志着我们介入的开始,我们同时越来越怀疑一场有组织的活动可能已经把我们当做对象。所以当某位不知名人士把我们给清华校长的信泄露给了中国媒体,我们最终决定自己发表该信,以驱除对我们的怀疑,表明我们的意图 (由于在主流媒体上发表此信的努力屡屡受到挫折,我们才在网上公布了此信)。这封公开信的联署名单包括了检查注脚的翻译者、亚洲研究的专家、历史学家、与翻译们合作的重要学术出版社的编辑,还有在过去的几十年中以中文或者其他翻译语言读过汪晖作品且关心此事的知识分子。



2、信中说,关于汪晖的著作,“他们当中没有一人发现有任何剽窃的现象”,你认为依据何在?



剽窃是对于智识成果的蓄意偷盗。查贝蒂抄袭兰内格兰的案例是目前定义剽窃的模型。请参见兰内格兰教授在《高等教育年鉴》的文章(http://chronicle.com/article/Fending-Off-a-Plagiarist/44680/),其中描述了其被剽窃的经历。网络百科全书Statemaster, 用兰内格兰教授的例子定义剽窃如下(http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Plagiarism):“剽窃是对于智识成果的蓄意偷盗。例如,南非金山大学(University of Witwatersrand)的教授马可斯·查贝蒂,在他的博士论文中进行了剽窃。他使用的是美国佛罗里达大学教授金百莉·兰内格兰的著作,他对兰内格兰教授的作品几乎进行了逐字抄袭,并把抄袭结果呈交新学院大学。兰内格兰教授在发现了查贝蒂对她的剽窃之后,展开了对查贝蒂的调查。查贝蒂被解职,他的博士学位也被新学院大学收回。”



汪晖教授并没有在拷贝他人的著作后,再把自己的名字放在上面。我们没有看到蓄意作假的证据,也没有发现故意欺瞒的企图,也就是说没有剽窃。汪晖引述他人作品的事实,就证明了他缺乏作假的动机。王彬彬集中地调查了汪晖22年前的博士论文,举出了他的证据,而这些证据也已经被中国学者钟彪、舒炜和魏行细致地分析和论述。他们分别宣布汪晖的错误既不是有意的盗窃,也不是汪晖论文的重点。另外,汪晖旧作的注释风格符合1980年代的编辑风格。注释的问题至多只能说是不仔细,而不是蓄意欺骗或者误导。



3、信中提到汪晖“在国际亚洲研究中的重要性”,你认为这种重要性表现在哪里?



如果你要问为什么汪晖被认为对国际亚洲研究有重要影响,那么他的著作的翻译书目或许可以帮助解释。国际亚洲研究的学者不是单一的中国公民,也不仅止于种族上、文化上或者社会属性上的中国人。我们当中有的以中文为母语,还有很多是在中文语境中有着研究能力的学者。我们来自亚洲、欧洲、非洲、澳大利亚和新西兰、拉丁美洲和北美洲。团结我们的是学术研究的规范、学术冲突中执行合法程序的标准、对于剽窃指控进行实质论证的要求或者将剽窃区别于粗心大意的要求、以及获得媒体发言渠道的公平性,只有这样,诚实的不同意见才能被大家听到。任何支持这些学术价值的人都是国际学术界的一员。



国际主义并不是“东方主义”。如此多不同种族、不同国籍和语言、来自不同知识背景、且著作风格各异的学者,为支持汪晖教授而在公开信上签名,这件事本身就证明了如今的中国在全球学术界的重要性。东方主义是英帝国和法帝国在其全盛时期,由为殖民主义服务的学者捏造出来的教条,为的是贬低亚洲社会和思想。相反地,当代的国际辩论,正是要打破国家间的边界,邀请学者们与新观念、新历史、新语言和新哲学进行博弈。作为中国研究在海外国际化的重要学者之一,汪晖教授不是一个东方主义者。那些念过他的著作并积极思考的学者也同样不是东方主义者。而那些宣称汪晖教授是剽窃者的学者也未见得是“西方主义者”。



显然地,世界各地的读者和知识分子都在讨论中国和中国的精英们对于国际政治、学术工作和智识辩论究竟有着什么样的重要性。汪晖教授就是参与这些辩论的一个重要学者。关于中国在世界中扮演何种角色,汪晖教授有着广泛的著述,包括地区主义、朝贡体系、政治制度和军事对抗。我们当中有同意汪晖教授的也有不同意汪晖教授的、或有些时候同意而另一些时候不同意的。而重点在于,汪晖之所以有影响力,是因为他的研究、出版著作、反思性文章和演讲是当代中国现代性论争的一部分,是中国知识分子为世界文化和历史做贡献的一部分。正因如此,他成为了许多前沿知识分子中的一员,影响着众多学者、学生和一般读者。



4、信中提到“汪晖影响了国内和国外的学者”,你认为是什么样的影响?



中国对世界有重要的影响力,而中文是一个国际语言,就像英文和西班牙文。我们当中的大多数人都不用法文念福柯,而是用英文、中文、西班牙文或日文等语言来阅读。中国学者如今用中文阅读世界各国的学者的论述,如韦伯、哈贝马斯、齐泽克、阿马蒂亚·森和竹内好等。这是学术生活的正常面向。所以世界各地的学者,通过中文报纸、博客、书籍文章,越来越紧密地追踪中文学术世界的事件,就一点也不出奇了。这就像我们这些中国研究学者(无论是不是中国人),跟踪柏林、巴黎、东京、悉尼和约翰内斯堡的事件一样。正因为全世界都看到了中国现在和未来的重要性,所以人们开始学习中文,有些甚至从小学和中学就开始。世界各地的读者和学者学习中文正是为了理解中国历史和社会。他们不是东方主义者。当然,有些人认为中国是他们的敌人。可你如果问他们中国为什么“危险”,他们无法回答因为他们不知道。这是纯粹的偏见,也不是什么东方主义。
有些学者特别善于发现公共生活中的盲点,比如上述的偏见,也特别能揭开无知的面纱。这些人是公共知识分子。作为一个公共知识分子,汪晖的影响力超过了学界的许多学者。无论你是不是同意他的观点,汪晖呈现了一个以中国为中心的思考模式,从而理解现代中国国家和社会是如何在过去几世纪中兴起的。他的写作是学术性的,是能够被任何一个受过教育的读者理解的。他的著作广泛流传,已经被翻译成日文、韩文、西班牙文、英文、葡萄牙文、法文、德文、意大利文和阿拉伯文。



由此,汪晖既是一个中国学者也是一个国际学人。像汪晖一样在中国生长受教育而在国际学术圈拥有自己的读者和批评者的学者将越来越多。当今世界学者的任务,是要承担起对于大家都有意义的知识工作。哲学、社会实践、社会学、知识论和历史,不再只是区域性的问题,而是所有知识分子的责任。所以,我们必须彼此学习。我们有着优秀的教育,我们继承了各自的社会背景、民族传统和无知,我们同样继承了理念上的恐惧和误解。我们必须尽最大努力克服这种恐惧和误解。



国际学术界从没有在任何事情上达成内部共识。我们的工作是与我们学习的对象合作,并把我们自己交付给我们的对象去审视。这也同样适用于中国学者和世界其他地方学者。在事实中发现真相是一项国际性的事业,它需要对于学术正义的耐心、忠诚和审慎的思考。



以下为英文版原稿:

1. What is the reasoning behind the public letter?



It was not a public letter. We wrote a private letter to our colleagues at Tsinghua University. We did so because many of us had, since April 2010, started getting unsolicited, identical, and anonymous form letters warning us to beware of “Wang Hui’s plagiarism.” One of the alleged authors of such letters, who used the name of “Kev” or “Kevy” contacted many of us. He did not respond to my repeated inquiries to learn more about him and his evidence. This event marked the beginning of our involvement and our growing suspicion that we were possibly the target of an organized campaign. When an unknown person leaked our letter to the Chinese news media we eventually decided to publish it in order to dispel suspicion about us and our intentions (since our effort to publish the letter in mainstream media was repeatedly frustrated, we decided to publicize it on a website). The signatories to this letter include translators who check footnotes as part of their work, Asian studies specialists, historians, editors of major scholarly presses who work with translators and concerned intellectuals who have read Wang Hui’s work in Chinese or one of the many languages in which his work has appeared over these last decades.

2. According to the letter, “none has found any indication of plagiarism no matter how loosely this word is defined,” where do you think the evidence lies?

Plagiarism is the intentional theft of intellectual work. The case of Lanegran versus Chabedi is the current model of what plagiarism is. See http://chronicle.com/article/Fending-Off-a-Plagiarist/44680/ for the Chronicle of Higher Education essay describing Professor Lanegran’s case.

The online encyclopedia Statemaster http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Plagiarism defines plagiarism using Lanegran’s case: “Plagiarism means the intentional theft of intellectual property. For instance, Marks Chabedi, a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, plagiarized his doctoral thesis. He used a work written by Kimberly Lanegran at the University of Florida and copied it nearly verbatim before submitting it to The New School. When Lanegran discovered this, she launched an investigation into Chabedi. He was fired from his professorship, and The New School revoked his Ph.D “Since Professor Wang did not copy someone else’s book and put his own name on it, we see no evidence of intentional fraud, no attempts to deceive anyone, no plagiarism. Wang Binbin conducted his intensive investigation of Prof. Wang’s 22 year old doctoral dissertation. He presented his evidence and his evidence has been thoughtfully reviewed by scholars in the People’s Republic including 钟彪, 舒炜 and 魏行. Speaking as nonaligned scholars these specialists have declared that Professor Wang’s errors are neither intentional theft nor integral to Prof. Wang’s dissertation arguments. Moreover, Prof. Wang Hui’s footnotes conform to 1980s editorial style. At most they can be said to be inattentive, but they are never intentionally deceiving or even misleading.

3. The letter mentions Wang Hui’s “importance in international Asian studies;” in what way is such importance manifested?

If you are asking why Prof. Wang is considered an important influence in International Asian studies his bibliography of translated work helps explain our statement. International Asian studies scholars are not exclusively Chinese citizens or racially, culturally or socially Chinese. We consist of native speakers and readers of Chinese and many who have acquired research skills in Chinese. We come from Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Latin America and North America. What unite us are rules of scholarly engagement, standards of due process in scholarly conflicts, requirements that charges of plagiarism be substantiated as plagiarism and distinguished from carelessness, and equal access to media outlets so that honest differences of opinion can be aired. Anyone who supports these scholarly values is part of the international scholarly community.

Internationalism is not “orientalism.” That scholars of many races, national origins, citizenships, language fluencies, styles of work and intellectual backgrounds have signed this letter of support for Professor Wang Hui is a symptom of China’s current importance in global academic scholarship. Orientalism was a dogma fabricated by European colonial scholars during the heyday of the British and French empires to demean Asian society and thought. Contemporary international debates, on the contrary, are shared scholarly concerns which open up national boundaries and invite scholars to struggle with new ideas, new histories, new languages and new philosophies. As a leader in the internationalization of Chinese studies outside of China Prof. Wang is not an orientalist. Neither are the scholars who have read his work and sought to come to terms with it. Scholars who declare that Prof. Wang is a plagiarist are not “occidentalists,” either.

Obviously, readers and intellectuals everywhere are discussing how China and Chinese elites are significant to the international world of politics, scholastic work, and intellectual debate. Prof. Wang is a leading figure in these debates. He has written extensively on China’s role in the world in his essays on regionalism, tribute systems, political policy and military conflict. We do not all agree with Professor Wang, and some of us agree at times, but not at other times. The point is that Wang Hui is influential because his research, publications, reflective essays and speeches are part of the contemporary international debates about Chinese modernities and Chinese intellectual contributions to world culture and history. In this he is one of many leading intellectuals who are influencing scholars, students and general readers.

4. The letter also stated that “Wang Hui has influenced scholars in China and outside the country;” what kind of influence has Wang Hui had?

China is a major power and Chinese is an international language, just like English and Spanish. Most of us do not read Foucault in French but in English, Chinese, Spanish, or Japanese and so on. Chinese scholars are reading Weber, Habermas, Zizek, Amartya Sen, Takeuchi Yoshimi and scholars from all over the globe now in Chinese translation. This is a normal part of scholarly life. It is also not at all surprising that scholars internationally, increasingly follow events in the Chinese scholarly world by reading Chinese language newspapers, online blogs, books and articles, just as we – Chinese and non-Chinese – follow events in Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Sydney, Johannesburg and so on. Because people around the world see China’s current and future importance they are acquiring Chinese language skills as early as grade school and middle school. That is because readers and scholars all over the world are learning to understand Chinese history and society. They are not orientalists. Of course, some people believe China is their enemy. If you ask them why China is “dangerous,” they cannot tell you why because they do not know. It is a simple prejudice. But that is not orientalism.

Some scholars are particularly talented at finding the blind spots in scholarly and public life and have the capacity to lift the curtain of ignorance. These are public intellectuals. As a public intellectual Wang Hui has had a larger influence than most professors in academic scholarship. Whether you agree with his positions or not, Wang Hui has presented a China-centered way of understanding the emergence of modern Chinese state and society in the last centuries. He has written at the scholarly level and also at a level that any educated person can understand. His books, which have been translated into Japanese, Korean, Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, German, Italian, and Arabic have circulated widely.

Thus, Wang Hui is an international scholar as well as a Chinese scholar. There will be more and more scholars like him who are born and educated in China but have readers and critics in the international scholarly world. The scholar’s burden in today’s world is to take on intellectual work that is common to us all. Philosophy, social engagement, sociology, epistemologies, histories are not parochial concerns but are the responsibility of all intellectuals. Consequently we must dedicate ourselves to learning from one another and trying as hard as we can to overcome the conceptual fears and misconceptions that we have inherited along with our excellent education, our social background, our national traditions and our ignorance.

The international community never fully concurs internally on anything. Our work is to collaborate with those whom we study and submit ourselves to their scrutiny. This applies as much to scholars in China as it does to scholars elsewhere. Seeking truth from facts is an international undertaking requiring patience, loyalty to scholarly justice and careful consideration.


0
显示全文

查看更多有趣的豆瓣小组

回应 (2条) 只看楼主

  • 月光族
    所以当某位不知名人士把我们给清华校长的信泄露给了中国媒体,我们最终决定自己发表该信,以驱除对我们的怀疑,表明我们的意图 (由于在主流媒体上发表此信的努力屡屡受到挫折,我们才在网上公布了此信)。这封公开信的联署名单包括了检查注脚的翻译者、亚洲研究的专家、历史学家、与翻译们合作的重要学术出版社的编辑,还有在过去的几十年中以中文或者其他翻译语言读过汪晖作品且关心此事的知识分子。


  • 黄星云
    学习中,看看学术界是如何处理这种事情的,如何区别于大众方式
添加回应

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
    App 内打开