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】
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。
）：“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。”
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.