（白露：美國萊斯大學歷史系亞洲研究講席教授；著名理論刊物《立場：東亞文化批評》創立人和資深主編

1、你為什么會發起這封公開信的簽名？

這本來不是一封公開信，而是寫給清華大學同仁的私信。它的起因是，我們當中的很多人從四月開始收到一些無端的、內容一致的匿名信，要求我們注意“汪暉的剽竊”。一位署名 “Kev”或“Kevy”的人，自稱是此類信件的作者之一，聯絡了我們當中的很多人。我多次給他寫信，問他是誰，還希望知道他有些什么證據，他都沒有回答。這個事件標志著我們介入的開始，我們同時越來越懷疑一場有組織的活動可能已經把我們當做對象。所以當某位不知名人士把我們給清華校長的信泄露給了中國媒體，我們最終決定自己發表該信，以驅除對我們的懷疑，表明我們的意圖 （由于在主流媒體上發表此信的努力屢屢受到挫折，我們才在網上公布了此信）。這封公開信的聯署名單包括了檢查注腳的翻譯者、亞洲研究的專家、歷史學家、與翻譯們合作的重要學術出版社的編輯，還有在過去的幾十年中以中文或者其他翻譯語言讀過汪暉作品且關心此事的知識分子。

2、信中說，關于汪暉的著作，“他們當中沒有一人發現有任何剽竊的現象”，你認為依據何在？

剽竊是對于智識成果的蓄意偷盜。查貝蒂抄襲蘭內格蘭的案例是目前定義剽竊的模型。請參見蘭內格蘭教授在《高等教育年鑒》的文章(http://chronicle.com/article/Fending-Off-a-Plagiarist/44680/)，其中描述了其被剽竊的經歷。網絡百科全書Statemaster, 用蘭內格蘭教授的例子定義剽竊如下（http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Plagiarism）：“剽竊是對于智識成果的蓄意偷盜。例如，南非金山大學(University of Witwatersrand)的教授馬可斯·查貝蒂，在他的博士論文中進行了剽竊。他使用的是美國佛羅里達大學教授金百莉·蘭內格蘭的著作，他對蘭內格蘭教授的作品幾乎進行了逐字抄襲，并把抄襲結果呈交新學院大學。蘭內格蘭教授在發現了查貝蒂對她的剽竊之后，展開了對查貝蒂的調查。查貝蒂被解職，他的博士學位也被新學院大學收回。”

汪暉教授并沒有在拷貝他人的著作后，再把自己的名字放在上面。我們沒有看到蓄意作假的證據，也沒有發現故意欺瞞的企圖，也就是說沒有剽竊。汪暉引述他人作品的事實，就證明了他缺乏作假的動機。王彬彬集中地調查了汪暉22年前的博士論文，舉出了他的證據，而這些證據也已經被中國學者鐘彪、舒煒和魏行細致地分析和論述。他們分別宣布汪暉的錯誤既不是有意的盜竊，也不是汪暉論文的重點。另外，汪暉舊作的注釋風格符合1980年代的編輯風格。注釋的問題至多只能說是不仔細，而不是蓄意欺騙或者誤導。

3、信中提到汪暉“在國際亞洲研究中的重要性”，你認為這種重要性表現在哪里？

如果你要問為什么汪暉被認為對國際亞洲研究有重要影響，那么他的著作的翻譯書目或許可以幫助解釋。國際亞洲研究的學者不是單一的中國公民，也不僅止于種族上、文化上或者社會屬性上的中國人。我們當中有的以中文為母語，還有很多是在中文語境中有著研究能力的學者。我們來自亞洲、歐洲、非洲、澳大利亞和新西蘭、拉丁美洲和北美洲。團結我們的是學術研究的規范、學術沖突中執行合法程序的標準、對于剽竊指控進行實質論證的要求或者將剽竊區別于粗心大意的要求、以及獲得媒體發言渠道的公平性，只有這樣，誠實的不同意見才能被大家聽到。任何支持這些學術價值的人都是國際學術界的一員。

國際主義并不是“東方主義”。如此多不同種族、不同國籍和語言、來自不同知識背景、且著作風格各異的學者，為支持汪暉教授而在公開信上簽名，這件事本身就證明了如今的中國在全球學術界的重要性。東方主義是英帝國和法帝國在其全盛時期，由為殖民主義服務的學者捏造出來的教條，為的是貶低亞洲社會和思想。相反地，當代的國際辯論，正是要打破國家間的邊界，邀請學者們與新觀念、新歷史、新語言和新哲學進行博弈。作為中國研究在海外國際化的重要學者之一，汪暉教授不是一個東方主義者。那些念過他的著作并積極思考的學者也同樣不是東方主義者。而那些宣稱汪暉教授是剽竊者的學者也未見得是“西方主義者”。

顯然地，世界各地的讀者和知識分子都在討論中國和中國的精英們對于國際政治、學術工作和智識辯論究竟有著什么樣的重要性。汪暉教授就是參與這些辯論的一個重要學者。關于中國在世界中扮演何種角色，汪暉教授有著廣泛的著述，包括地區主義、朝貢體系、政治制度和軍事對抗。我們當中有同意汪暉教授的也有不同意汪暉教授的、或有些時候同意而另一些時候不同意的。而重點在于，汪暉之所以有影響力，是因為他的研究、出版著作、反思性文章和演講是當代中國現代性論爭的一部分，是中國知識分子為世界文化和歷史做貢獻的一部分。正因如此，他成為了許多前沿知識分子中的一員，影響著眾多學者、學生和一般讀者。

4、信中提到“汪暉影響了國內和國外的學者”，你認為是什么樣的影響？

中國對世界有重要的影響力，而中文是一個國際語言，就像英文和西班牙文。我們當中的大多數人都不用法文念福柯，而是用英文、中文、西班牙文或日文等語言來閱讀。中國學者如今用中文閱讀世界各國的學者的論述，如韋伯、哈貝馬斯、齊澤克、阿馬蒂亞·森和竹內好等。這是學術生活的正常面向。所以世界各地的學者，通過中文報紙、博客、書籍文章，越來越緊密地追蹤中文學術世界的事件，就一點也不出奇了。這就像我們這些中國研究學者（無論是不是中國人），跟蹤柏林、巴黎、東京、悉尼和約翰內斯堡的事件一樣。正因為全世界都看到了中國現在和未來的重要性，所以人們開始學習中文，有些甚至從小學和中學就開始。世界各地的讀者和學者學習中文正是為了理解中國歷史和社會。他們不是東方主義者。當然，有些人認為中國是他們的敵人。可你如果問他們中國為什么“危險”，他們無法回答因為他們不知道。這是純粹的偏見，也不是什么東方主義。
有些學者特別善于發現公共生活中的盲點，比如上述的偏見，也特別能揭開無知的面紗。這些人是公共知識分子。作為一個公共知識分子，汪暉的影響力超過了學界的許多學者。無論你是不是同意他的觀點，汪暉呈現了一個以中國為中心的思考模式，從而理解現代中國國家和社會是如何在過去幾世紀中興起的。他的寫作是學術性的，是能夠被任何一個受過教育的讀者理解的。他的著作廣泛流傳，已經被翻譯成日文、韓文、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，汪暉既是一個中國學者也是一個國際學人。像汪暉一樣在中國生長受教育而在國際學術圈擁有自己的讀者和批評者的學者將越來越多。當今世界學者的任務，是要承擔起對于大家都有意義的知識工作。哲學、社會實踐、社會學、知識論和歷史，不再只是區域性的問題，而是所有知識分子的責任。所以，我們必須彼此學習。我們有著優秀的教育，我們繼承了各自的社會背景、民族傳統和無知，我們同樣繼承了理念上的恐懼和誤解。我們必須盡最大努力克服這種恐懼和誤解。

國際學術界從沒有在任何事情上達成內部共識。我們的工作是與我們學習的對象合作，并把我們自己交付給我們的對象去審視。這也同樣適用于中國學者和世界其他地方學者。在事實中發現真相是一項國際性的事業，它需要對于學術正義的耐心、忠誠和審慎的思考。

以下為英文版原稿：

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 鐘彪, 舒煒 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.

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號