Wang Hui (Chinese: 汪晖; pinyin: Wāng Huī) is a professor in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Tsinghua University, Beijing. His researches focus on contemporary Chinese literature and intellectual history. He was the executive editor (with Huang Ping) of the influential magazine Dushu (读书, Reading) from May 1996 to July 2007.[1] The US magazine Foreign Policy named him as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world in May 2008.[2] Wang Hui is the recipient of many awards for his scholarship, and has been Visiting Professor at Harvard, Bologna (Italy), Stanford, UCLA, Berkeley, and the University of Washington, among others. In March 2010, he appeared as the keynote speaker at the annual meeting for the Association of Asian Scholars.
Contents |
Wang Hui was born in Yangzhou, Jiangsu, in 1959. After finishing high school in Yangzhou, Wang Hui worked for two years as a factory worker before entering college.[3] He completed his undergraduate studies at Yangzhou University (then Yangzhou Normal College), and then graduate studies at Nanjing University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences where he received his Ph.D. in 1988.
Wang Hui was a participant in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. He was investigated about his involvement, but nothing significant or serious was found. He was later sent to "re-education" (“锻炼”, not to be confused with Re-education through labor “劳动教养”) in Shangluo, Shaanxi for one year.[4] Through his many publications and journalistic endeavors, he has repeatedly called attention to the human suffering that economic reforms have visited on farmers, laid-off workers, women migrants, and other weak sectors of society; for these views, he has been called the leader of the New Left although Wang Hui has cautioned journalists that he prefers not to embrace this label:
Actually, people like myself have always been reluctant to accept this label, pinned on us by our adversaries. Partly this is because we have no wish to be associated with the Cultural Revolution, or for that matter with what might be called the 'Old Left' of the reform-era CCP. But it is also because the term New Left is a Western one, with a very distinct set of connotations – generational and political – in Europe and America . Our historical context is Chinese, not Western, and it is doubtful whether a category imported so explicitly from the West could be helpful in today's China.[5]
Professor Wang has authored dozens of books, articles and public statement on the scholarly and socio-political issues of the day. A representative portion of his work has been translated into English and other languages.
Wang Hui’s monographs include, in Chinese, From An Asian Perspective: The Narrations of Chinese History (《亞洲視野：中國歷史的敘述》, 2010); For Alternative Voices (《別求新聲》, 2009); Depoliticized Politics (《去政治化的政治》, 2008); The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought (four volumes), (《現代中國思想的興起》, 2004–2009); and Rekindling Frozen Fire: The Paradox of Modernity (《死火重溫》, 2000). His books translated into English include the forthcoming The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought (four volumes), in press;[6] The End of Revolution: China and the Limits of Modernity (Verso, 2010); China’s New Order: Society, Politics, and Economy in Transition, translated by Ted Huters and Rebecca Karl (Harvard University Press, 2003); Shisō kūkan toshite no gendai chūgoku (Modern China as a Space for Thinking), translated by Murata Yujiro, Nasuyama Yukio, and Onodera Shiro (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006); and A New Asian Imagination (in Korean; Seoul: Creation and Criticism Press, 2003).
Wang Hui was involved in the controversy following the results of the Cheung Kong Dushu Prize (长江读书奖) in 2000. The prize was set up by Sir Li Ka-shing, which awards one million RMB in total to be shared by the winners. The 3 recipients of the prize in 2000 were Wang Hui, who served as the coordinator of the academic selection committee of the prize, Fei Xiaotong, the Honorary Chairman of the committee, and Qian Liqun, another committee member. Wang Hui was then the editor-in-chief of Dushu magazine, which was the administrative body of the prize.[7][8]
Professor Wang Binbin, a professor of literature from Nanjing University, accused Wang Hui of plagiarism, citing what he deemed to be improper use of footnote protocols and incorrectly cited passages in Wang’s doctoral dissertation on Lu Xun 《反抗绝望》 (Against Despair).[9] Wang Binbin's accusation was first published on an academic journal,[10] and reappeared on Southern Weekly on March 25, 2010.[11] Professor Wang Binbin suggested further that Wang Hui in his The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought may have used R. G. Collingwood's canonical book, The Idea of History, with or without proper citations.[12]
Apart from Wang Binbin's findings, an analysis of Wang Hui's weak use of footnotes by Xiang Yihua, a researcher with the Zhejiang Academy of Social Sciences, revealed other sections incorporating sources without citation.[13] He also published a review of Wang Hui's essay 《“赛先生”在中国的命运》 (English translation: "The Fate of 'Mr. Science' in China"[14]), questioning the originality of his research.[15]
Online commentators found some paragraphs in Against Despair to be copied verbatim from other sources. Authors such as M. B. Khrapchenko and F. C. Copleston were used without acknowledgment to either the original works or their translations.[16][17][18][19]
The scholarly community are concerned over the plagiarism accusations. Prof. Lin Yu-sheng (Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madison) agrees that some of plagiarism charges are sustained, which is concurred by Prof. Yu Ying-shih.[20] An open letter signed by more than 60 scholars called for Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Tsinghua University to investigate into the plagiarism case.[18]
Some international scholars and weblog authors have come to Wang's defense, noting that this is mostly a case of sloppy citation practice, not actual plagiarism. A letter signed by 96 scholars addressing to the authority of Tsinghua University endorsing Wang Hui's scholarly integrity was made public on 9 July.[21] Most of the passages highlighted by Wang Binbin did actually have citations to the original works, asking readers to "consult" those works.[22][23] It is argued that there is no attempt by Wang Hui to hide the sources of the sections in question, even if the citations were at times nonstandard.[22] Charles Custer, editor of the China Geeks site, has called the case against Wang Hui "pretty thin — to put it mildly."[24]