| | 汪晖抄袭丑闻，转向国际 2010-07-13 20:53:48 来自: 心岳(埋头苦干)
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/07/12/china-wang-huis-plagiarism-scandal-international-turn/
China: Wang Hui's plagiarism scandal, international turn
Posted 12 July 2010
Written by Oiwan Lam
A plagiarism scandal broke out in March in Chinese academic circles when Nanjing University literature professor Wang Binbin charged that Wang Hui's dissertation on Lu Xun -Resistance to despair - contains a number of passages lifted from other books without citation. (More background information from Granite Studio and ChinaGeeks)
Wang Hui is honored as the spokesperson of the Chinese “New Left” intellectual circle and in spite of the scandal, in May he was nominated by Tsinghua University and successfully received a scholarship award from the highest government authority, the State Council.
While Wang Hui kept silent and expected the matter to be “clarified within the academic community”, many scholars and public intellectuals have commented on the issue via local media outlets. Some defended Wang Hui; some pointed out that the dilemma is one of non-standard citation rather than of intentional plagiarism; some have suggested a thorough investigation be led by an independent academic committee. The whole debate has mainly taken place within the local academic circle and online public sphere until very recently (July 7) when a local media outlet (ifeng.com) disclosed a joint letter signed by “an international community of scholars, translators, editors, historians and cultural critics” in support of Wang Hui.
Backup from international academic community
The open letter, signed by many prominent western scholars such as Tani Barlow, Arif Dirlik, Gayatri C. Spivak and Frederic Jameson, frames the plagiarism charge as an “attack from the popular media in China” and defends Wang Hui's academic integrity:
The charges have been contested and discredited in the careful analyses given by Zhong Biao, Shu Wei, Wei Xing and others. Among the signatories to this letter are also translators and they are without doubt closest to the work of Wang Hui. Each translator has checked and double checked all the footnotes in the vast bibliographies of Professor Wang's publications over the last thirty years. None has found any indication of plagiarism no matter how loosely this word is defined.
Second, among us are many Asia specialists in Chinese studies and we attest to Professor Wang's scholarly integrity and his importance in international Asian studies.
Interestingly, the two accounts of Zhong Biao and Wei Xing, quoted in the letter, were set up for the purpose of this debate but quoted as if the two individuals were well-known public intellectuals. In addition, their “careful analyses” have yet to clear Wang Hui of his technical mistakes. In Zhong Biao's article, he explains the background of Wang Hui's book and criticizes Wang Binbin's unreasonable charge:
《反抗绝望》的编辑出版正好处于1988-1991年这一段众所周知的特殊时期，当时具体的学术规范状况与今天有很大的不同。汪晖在该书重印时的对“主要参考书目”的“注”中说：“本书初版时，应出版社要求，删去了全部参考书目。现在这份书目是重新编定的。”
The publication of “Resistance to Despair” was between 1988-1991. All of us know that it is a sensitive period. The academic standard was very different then. In the new edition, Wang Hui explains in a footnote of his bibliography that “in the first edition, the publisher demanded all references be deleted. This is a newly edited reference list.”
脱注是作者的疏失，日后修订《反抗绝望》时可以补充完善。但从上下文的引证来看，作者并无掩盖与前述几本著作的关系的意思，因为在这些段落的前后，作者都 曾引及这些书。而且这里的引述主要都是历史背景性的或理论背景性的叙述，是参照性质的，并不涉及作者的中心观点。疏失和剽窃，是完全不同性质的问题。
Missing footnotes is the writer's mistake and he can improve that in the future edition. However, reading from the text and footnotes, the writer does not try to hide the fact that the passages are closely connected with the few books he quoted in the previous pages. Moreover, what has been quoted is mainly the historical and theoretical background rather than the writer's main argument. Unthoughtful mistakes and plagiarism are issues of different nature.
Media Attack?
Wei Xing is the first to frame the issue as a media attack and his viewpoint has obviously been taken up by the international community of scholars' joint letter:
从王文来看，汪晖所谓”抄袭”的地方其实”并不很多”，而且”较难定性”。这其实已经承认，3月25日《南方周末》破例刊登王文，其实是一种媒体预先设定”有罪”推论而进行的非法的”缺席”审判，因为其论证本身是完全站不住脚的。
It is clear that in Wang Binbin's article, there are “very few” “copied” passages and it is “difficult to define their nature”. However, the Southern Weekend decided to publish the article against its usual practice on March 25. Such kind of coverage is an illegal “absent trial” without substantial evidence but built upon the assumption of a “presumed guilty”.
Quoting from a number of debates across web-platforms such as Douban's Duping（讀品） and zhongguosixiang.com, Wei Xing believes that media and internet violence have destroyed academic integrity:
面对平面媒体与网络媒体合谋推动的猖狂暴力，学术其实已经斯文扫地。难道中国的学术界就只能这样陷入其中而不能自拔吗？学术界究竟如何来保卫自己的独立与自由？这已经是一个摆在学术界面前的严峻问题。
The conspiracy between the printed media and online media have promoted an unrestrained violence, destroying the integrity of academia. Should the Chinese Academia be submerged in such kind of violence? How can we defend our independence and freedom? This is a serious issue.
A transparent and accountable investigation
Many scholars and intellectuals will laugh at the above quote as the Chinese Academia has hardly enjoyed any freedom and independence since 1949 and political liberals believe that the only way to strike for academic freedom is to develop accountability to the public. In this sense, the joint letter signed by more than 60 local university professors and public intellectuals calling for immediate investigation by the Tsinghua University and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on Wang Hui's plagiarism charge is probably a most effective attempt to defend the academic independence and freedom:
事件發生距今已3個月，其間不斷有學者呼籲中國社會科學院和清華大學組織調查委員會，但是至今未見回應。汪暉對上述批評迄今也沒有任何回應，但他曾表態， 希望能由學術界內部來解決。為對汪暉教授負責，澄清這一爭議，結束莫衷一是的狀態，走向良性循環，我們支持熊、林二位的建議，聯名要求中國社科院和清華大 學迅速答複，履行職責。我們也同意易中天的主張，在組成調查委員會時，應邀請貴院、貴校之外的學者，乃至海外學者參加，公示委員會名單和調查結果。我們同 時要求，調查結論以及各委員投票意向最終能公布，以示公開、公正，接受公眾監督。
The debate has been carrying on for three months, many scholars have urged the Chinese Academy of Social Science and Tsinghua University to organize an investigative committee. Up till now there isnt' any response from the two institution. Wang Hui has remained silent regarding the charge but he once mentioned that he hope the issue would be solved within the academic community. In order to clarify the confusion and end the controversy, we support the suggestion raised by Xiong Bingji and Lin Yusheng in this joint letter and look forward for the two institutions' positive reply in fulfilling the duty. We also agree with Yi Chongtin that the committee should be composed of overseas scholars and publicize the investigation result and keep the process, including the opinions and attitudes of individual committee member, transparent to the public.
Local political liberals VS. international new left
The two letters is now viewed as a confrontation between two clans of intellectuals: the local political liberal VS. the international new left. The former calls for a transparent investigation and public accountability, the latter frames the debate as attack from popular media and open criticisms as violence against academic freedom.
Wu Lian, a literary critics is outraged by the international joint letter:
你们居然说“媒体无端地攻击一个学者”，无端，那就是诽谤！你们应该在中国将媒体告到中国法庭！而不是通过写信，给一个面目模糊的大学当局施压！你们搞错了，大学校长不是法官！
You said that “the media attack a scholar without any reason”, if so, it is defamation! You should have sued the media outlet in a Chinese court, not by writing this letter to press an university authority. You are wrong, the principal is no judge here!
你们声称要“声援”汪晖教授？你们又搞错了吧！难道这是一次政治迫害？我们怎么从来没有看到你们在另一些远为严重的事件之后，对那些被迫害者的声援？你们是否觉得，你们的所谓学术声誉，居然比另一些价值更为重要，更需要加以急迫的保护？
You said that you have to “support professor Wang”. You are wrong again! Is this a political suppression? How come we have never heard any support from you when political dissidents are repression in serious political incidents? Do you think academic fame is more important than other value and deserve your urgent support more?
你们任意裁剪光天白日之下的事实，关注此事的每一个汉语阅读者，都知道王彬彬教授指控汪晖教授《反抗绝望》一书涉嫌抄袭的那篇文章，首先发表在中国学术期刊《文艺研究》，此后才由《南方周末》刊登！你们显然故意忽略了这一事实，就如你们常说的那样，“历史是被建构出来的”，你们现在直接“建构”事实了！
在这一“建构”之下，学术刊物《文艺研究》从人间蒸发了，不见了，消失了，不存在了！
这是对一本重要的中国学术刊物的公然藐视！
You have cut and pasted the reality in the bright day light. Every Chinese person who concerns about this incident knows that the article written by Wang Binbin that charges Professor Wang's Resistance to Despair is first published in “Literature and Arts Studies” and then republished in Southern Weekend. You ignore such fact and like what you have always said, “history is constructed”, now you have directly engaged in the “construction” of reality!
Under such “construction”, the local academic publication, Literature and Arts Studies has vaporized, vanished, disappeared!
This is an insult to an important Chinese academic publication!
你们给清华大学当局写这封言辞灼灼的公开信，到底所意何为？证明汪晖教授的清白？可是调查尚未开始！证明汪晖教授学术成果斐然享誉你们所建构的“世界”？可是王彬彬教授并没有谈论这个问题！证明“媒体”只是一场“狂乱”，希望学校当局不要加以理会？可是已有众多的学院学者介入了此事，媒体履行了它的职能，因为公众具有知情权！莫非你们认为学者只要在媒体发表文章或发表言论，他们就成了媒体的一部分？
What is the intention of this rhetorical open letter to the Tsinghua authority? To prove that Professor Wang Hui is innocent? But there hasn't been an investigation yet! To prove that Professor Wang Hui is honored in your constructed “world”? But Wang Binbin's article has never addressed this issue! To prove that “media” is “crazy” and that the university need not respond to that? However, so many scholars have discussed about the issue and it is the duty of the media to report on that. The public has the right to know! Or do you think that whenever scholars talk or publish through the media outlets, their discussion would turn into media talk?
Immediate responses
It seems that the international turn of the scandal is doomed to add oil to the boiling water in China .Below are some immediate responses from Twitter:
mozhixu
汪晖不是成天反全球资本主义的扩张吗, 怎么一到自己跟前,就抱上全球文化霸权的大腿了, 真恶心人啊
Isn't Wang Hui against globalization and global capitalism? How come he embraces the global cultural hegemony when it comes to personal interest, this is disgusting!
WuyouLan
汪暉在國內和西方都自居左派。在國內，和共產黨抱團，叫左派。在西方，反體制，叫左派。
Wang Hui is a leftist in China and in the West. In mainland China, the left embraces the CCP; in the West, the left challenges the establishment.
lingcangzhou
80位学者支持剽窃的公开信观点和老头劈叉——扯蛋一样。公开信三点均属扯淡，第一点未解释举报者提出的抄袭段落；第二点证明剽客诚信谁信证明者？第三点攻击传媒，把汪晖替换为“大学”！此公开信无耻啊！
The opinion of the 80 scholar joint letter supporting plagiarism is purely bullshit. Firstly it did not refer to the problematic passages raised by Wang Binbin and others; Secondly, who will trust those who try to prove the integrity of a plagiarist? Thirdly, by attacking the media, the letter shift the focus of the issue from “Wang Hui's plagarism problem” to “university's legitimacy”. The open letter is shameless!By Oiwan Lam · Posted 12 July 2010
|
