Interesting and disturbing observations on recent Chinese censorship from the journal Critical Asian Studies director, editors, and authors, who (strangely) cite Lenin(!) as an opponent of censorship:
–Posted by Magnus Fiskesjö, nf42@cornell.edu
Source: CRITICAL ASIAN STUDIES VOL. 49, NO. 4 (2017), 479–480
Director and editors’ note on censorship
We recently were informed that two articles previously published in Critical Asian Studies have been republished in China without the permission of the authors, CAS, or our publisher, Taylor & Francis. Moreover, both of these unauthorized versions were severely edited of any material that might be deemed politically sensitive in the People’s Republic of China. The two articles are Claudia Pozzana and Alessandro Russo’s “China’s New Order and Past Disorders: A Dialogue Starting from Wang Hui’s Analysis,” Critical Asian Studies 38:3 (September 2006), pages 329–351, and “Continuity/Discontinuity: China’s Place in the Contemporary World,” Critical Asian Studies 43:2 (June 2011), pages 261–284. Pozzana and Russo’s 2006 article was censored and reprinted in 区域 [Remapping], Volume 4 (2015), edited by Wang Hui and published by the Social Sciences Academic Press of China [Zhonguo Shehui Kexue Xueshu Chubenshe] for the Tsinghua Institute of Advanced Studies. Their 2011 article appears in an unauthorized form in Understanding China’s Vision: Wang Hui’s Academic Thought and Commentary [Lijie Zhongguo de Shiye: Wang Hui Xueshu Sixiang Pinglunji], edited by Zhang Xiang and published by the Oriental Press [Dongfang Chubanshe] in 2014.
The intellectual rights of our authors and the integrity of Critical Asian Studies are of utmost importance to us. We reject censorship in all forms, and in all places. This is a matter of fundamental principle to CAS, which informs all aspects of our scholarly practice. In light of this incident, these articles in their original form have been made available without charge by Taylor and Francis for the next three months. To access these articles, visit: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcra20/current.
The following is a statement by the authors of these two articles, Claudia Pozzana (Department of History and Cultures) and Alessandro Russo (Department of Education), University of Bologna:
We have been only belatedly apprised that two of our papers have been published without prior authorization of any kind. Worse still is that the articles in question have been heavily edited. Beyond any legal considerations, all this is a very sorry state of affairs for us personally. Two cases of accidental “miscommunication” are indeed hard to comprehend.
What is even more beyond the pale is that we intended both of these articles to facilitate an exchange of views with Wang Hui and, in a more general way, with China’s intellectual milieu regarding political issues crucial to our times. The censor’s zealous hand has struck not only the most critical points from our papers but, in doing so, has removed the very basis of our intent. A long discussion of the tragedy of 1989 that is based on our field research in China at the time, including in Tian’anmen Square, has been deleted. We could never have written these articles without mention of this topic.
Censorship in China is a problem that goes beyond any rhetoric of human rights, academic freedom, or the like. At issue is what constitutes its real objective. In a recent polemical exchange with Cambridge University Press, the Global Times, a publication of the People’s Daily, argued that censorship is meant to discourage any impediment to China’s development that originates in what it described as “ill-informed” or “ill-intentioned” Western sources. Yet the last two centuries have clearly shown that it is wishful thinking to suppose that capitalist development can be contained within national borders. For that matter, to imagine that scholarly research must be subordinated to local political interests is a reactionary utopia. Censorship is not capable of stopping the exchange and flow of ideas, information, and discussion; we are confident that anyone in China who really wants to read these articles in their original form will surely find a way to do so.
No matter where it is practiced, censorship is the pursuit of compelling everyone to write only with a “slavish tongue.” In such situations there are only two options: either one can write formidable works like Lenin’s Imperialism in response (Lenin himself used the term “slavish tongue” to refer to Tsarist censorship), or internalize the deadly enjoyment of the censor.
To cite this article: (2017) Director and editors’ note on censorship, Critical Asian Studies, 49:4, 479-480, DOI: 10.1080/14672715.2017.1381465