2014年5月14日 星期三

This is Not a Diary by Zygmut Bauman rebuffs plagiarism accusation此非日記 / Louis Althusser 來日方長︰阿爾都塞自傳

Zygmunt Bauman (born 19 November 1925) is a Polish sociologist. Since 1971, he has resided in England after being driven out of Poland by an anti-semitic campaign, engineered by the Communist government he had previously supported. Professor of sociology at the University of Leeds (and since 1990 emeritus professor), Bauman has become best known for his analyses of the links between modernity and the Holocaust, and of postmodern consumerism.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman

This is Not a Diary

Front Cover
Polity, Feb 27, 2012 - Social Science - 200 pages
This is not a diary: while these observations were recorded in autumn 2010 and spring 2011 in the form of dated entries, they are not a personal reflection but an attempt to capture signs of our times in their movement - possibly at birth, at a stage when they are still barely perceptible, and in any case before they have matured into common, all too familiar forms, escaping our attention due to their banality. Some will perhaps settle in our daily life for a long time to come, others will fade and vanish before they would otherwise have a chance to be noted, recorded and explored in depth: in our fast-moving, protean and kaleidoscopic world, it is hardly possible to predict their future course and to decide in advance which of them will grow in volume and significance and which will prove to have been still-born. Whatever their fate, the author tried to take a leaf from William Blake's precept of seeing the universe in a grain of sand - and, having done so, alert us to what is or may be happening to our individual lives, forms of togetherness, shared prospects; to the ways we perceive and relate to each other, the forces that shape our life chances and itineraries; and to the ways we try to control, or at least influence, and sometimes even reform for the better, some or all those dimensions of our existence.These timely meditations by one of the most perceptive social thinkers of our time will appeal to a wide range of readers.

 第一篇2010.9.3早上5點鐘的沉思末尾充滿叡智.....
中文翻譯有些疏忽 譬喻 pointillist 不是斑斑駁駁
實驗.....start them off  非"開啟" 
 quasi-diary he reflects 黑體字沒翻 (中文p.5 英文p.3
 http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=pCV-f_NMKQgC&q


此非日記

  • 作者:(英)齊格蒙‧鮑曼
  • 出版社:灕江出版社
  • 出版日期:2013年
  •  收入的是齊格蒙•鮑曼于2011—2012年里寫下的日記式隨筆,他在文中對快速流動的現代社會中民主、自由、信仰等理念所遭遇的困境作了清晰而深刻的闡述,指出它們未來衍變的可能性方向,同時他也對西方政治現實、社會學家的人文立場作了獨到而令人深省的評論。

  • 目次
  •  2010年9月
    寫日記有無意義
    大戰風車的作用
    虛擬的永恆
    文字的耕耘
    超級大國和超級債務國
    關于平均數
    多任務處理
    盲目者領導無能者
    吉普賽人和民主
    信任的衰落和傲慢的膨脹
    憤怒的權利
    ............
    2011年2月
    全球地區化來臨的時代
    如何應對年輕人
    關于並非每個人都具備的美德
    關于毫無偏袒的祝福和詛咒
    一場人類海嘯及之後
    底線之下的底線
    外來的內部,以及在內猶外
    奇跡,也不完全是奇跡
    Facebook,親密性和非親密性
    在進攻之下構築堡壘
    美國人的夢想︰是發訃告的時候了麼?
    2011年3月
    H.G.威爾斯,和我的最後一個夢想與自白
    注釋
 *****
來日方長︰阿爾都塞"自傳" ---不是一般自傳/回憶錄是"懺悔錄"兼"答辯錄"......
中文譯者"3個月"就譯出 約1999-2000. 不知何故十幾年之後才出版.

 1976年秋~冬 『事実』[最初の自伝草稿]を執筆

 1977年5月 『第22回大会』を上梓。内容は1976年12月の講演。マスペロ社(fr.)『からの「延安叢書」(Cahier Yenan)の発刊の機会にアラン・バディウと再び接触。

自伝(『未来は長く続く』)執筆のきっかけ

(ウィキペディア・フランス語版より抄訳)fr:Althusser
アルチュセールは、1985年3月14日付の『ル・モンド』紙のある記事を目に留める。それは、パリ人肉事件の佐川一政が 書いた本の成功を取り上げた、クロード・サロートの記事だった。彼は精神病院に一時拘留されたが、予審免訴の恩恵を受け、すぐに本国に返されている。サ ロートはこう書いている。「我々報道者というものは、アルチュセールという権威的名前と、予審免訴というおいしい話とを一緒くたにして、すぐにことを大げ さに考える。犠牲者? そんなことには、三行すら書く必要もなかろう。主役は犯人である。」
アルチュセールの友人は、反論を勧めた。しかし、彼も予審免訴に与っているのだから、その記事はたしかに当を得ている。こうして、アルチュセールは 自伝をものして、自分のしたことを説明しようとしたのだ。(『未来は長く続く』の「編者による紹介」を参照〔邦訳には載っていない〕。)



Louis Althusser
Althusser.jpg
Born Louis Pierre Althusser
16 October 1918
Birmendreïs, French Algeria
Died 22 October 1990 (aged 72)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser


來日方長︰阿爾都塞自傳
作者:(法)阿爾都塞
出版社:上海人民出版社
出版日期:2013

作者: [法]路易·阿尔都塞
出版社: 世纪文景/上海人民出版社
副标题: 阿尔都塞自传
译者: 蔡鸿滨 / 陈越
出版年: 2013-5
页数: 440

内容简介  · · · · · ·

作者简介  · · · · · ·


目录  · · · · · ·

中文版序言  陳樂民
法文版序言
来日方长
事实
年表
索引
译者后记



《來日方長——阿爾都塞自傳》譯後記
2013-5-22 8:48:21 來源:易文網 作者:蔡鴻濱

    庚辰溽暑,鏖戰三月,終於愉快、欣喜地譯完這本小書。
    先說為什麼會感到愉快。幾年來,陸續譯過些托多羅夫、戈德曼、福柯、蜜雪兒·塞爾、利奧塔爾的理論著作,深為這些人的書裏內容晦澀難懂、語言佶屈聱牙所苦;譯時絞盡腦汁,傷透腦筋,譯後卻茫然若無所得。老友樂民囑我譯阿爾都塞的這本自傳,起初我因心有餘悸,仍有些遲疑,等粗略讀過一遍原書之後,正如他所說,覺得“這本書重在敍事,是我能看懂的”(見《一個哲學家的“懺悔”》),這才應承下來,翻譯時也確實感到輕鬆愉快得多。當然書中有些章節譯時也頗費斟酌,因為作者在敍事中既有“事實”和“幻覺”錯綜複雜的混合,也有“瘋狂”和“理智”的搖擺不定,另外還有些關於心理學、精神分析學、哲學的聯想闡釋也極為費解,所以一邊譯,一邊腦子裏閃過一個念頭:作者在寫這本自傳時是否抑鬱症和譫妄症已徹底痊癒。不過仔細想想,這倒也在意料之中,否則阿爾都塞就不成其為阿爾都塞,阿爾都塞也就不成其為哲學家了。
    更主要的還是欣喜的心情。要說欣喜,這話就長了,要追溯到半個多世紀以前。四十年代後期,我和老友樂民還在中學讀書。那時國民黨統治已日薄西山,搖搖欲墜,政治腐敗,民不聊生。像我們這樣的小知識份子,雖然也有些正義感,憂國憂民,胸中充滿悲憤,但終歸是“少年不識愁滋味”,不知怎麼突發奇想,說將來我們一起寫書,讓另一位李姓同學開書店,出書售書。不過當時我們並沒有“搭鉤”起誓,也沒有“歃血”為盟,隨著時間推移,加上世事變遷,這個願望也漸漸被淡忘了。五十年代,我們先後大學畢業,他被分配到外事部門,從事民間外交工作,跑遍世界五大洲,他自嘲說是“跑碼頭的”。我畢業後留在最高學府當了教書匠,在階級鬥爭的風口浪尖上磨爬滾打,經受考驗和鍛煉。我們各自幹的“行當”不同,不過都涉及一個“外”字,所以不論在國內、國外都有見面的機會,還有通信來往,可是“一起寫書”的事早都丟在九霄雲外去了。
    其實,那時候年輕人要想寫書又談何容易。我的老友在紀念李一氓同志的短文《瀟灑氓公》中,曾回憶起五十年代初隨一氓同志在一個國際組織工作,常駐國外,做些翻譯、秘書之類的事,看到這位領導同志在工作之餘,專注地根據宋、明底本校箋《花間集》,留下深刻印象。可是就他自己來說,雖然喜歡讀書,興趣廣泛,可是那時年輕人要“分配幹什麼就該只幹什麼,心不旁騖,才是忘我,一心撲在工作上”。至於自己的種種愛好、興趣,“贊之者寬厚地許以‘興趣廣泛’,責之者至少是斥之為‘不務正業”’。(見《學海岸邊》)我在學校裏該可以讀書習文了吧?其實不然,一來自己悟性不高,二來環境、氣氛也不許可。那時沒少學《實踐論》,也深知“你要知道梨子的滋味,你就要變革梨子,親口吃一吃”的道理,可是學歸學,真要實踐一下,嘗嘗梨子的滋味到底是甜的還是酸的,那就有“業務第一”、“白專道路”、“名利思想”之嫌。那時候,一扣上這幾頂帽子,比文革中的“臭老九”分量並不輕。那麼在學校裏所司何事呢?據說這所大學是“階級鬥爭的晴雨錶”,於是階級鬥爭便成了主課。“大批判”此起彼伏,接連不斷,於是在階級鬥爭的大舞臺上,人人出場亮相,全武行,大開打,個個搞得灰頭土臉,“洪洞縣裏沒好人”,到這時人的自信心都沒了,要想寫書恐怕也難以搦管了。就這樣,我雖然在外語系科工作,身邊有許多知名的導師,圖書館有豐富的中外文藏書,卻貽誤良機,從沒想過寫什麼,也不敢譯什麼,就“一心一意撲在工作上”。再往後,老友樂民在“大好形勢”下,下放到農村去三餐吃白薯,到外省幹校去勞動鍛煉;我則在“開門辦學”的名義下,隨外語系師生到離京城百里之遙的山村分校去種大田、修果樹、整河灘,教課成了“捎帶手兒”的事。這時我們在彼此通信中,誰也想不起再提“一起寫書”的事了。
    改革開放,撥雲見日。我的老友開始從事國際問題研究,成就斐然,屢有專著問世,而且將讀書治學的心得彙集成集,以饗讀者,曰《學海岸邊》、《文心文事》、《書巢漫筆》;我每見到他的新作總有一番驚喜,願先睹為快。我自己也在聯合國機構搞了幾年文字工作,然後又回到學校一心一意地教課;“老牛自知夕陽晚,不待揚鞭自奮蹄”,業餘時間也讀點書,譯、寫約二三百萬字,雖然做的都是三四十年前該做的事,但總算追回一點虛擲的寶貴時光,為文化事業作點綿薄貢獻。就在這樣的情況下,老友囑我譯《來日方長》,並表示要為譯本作序,我們終於“一起寫書”了。世事滄桑,人莫能測,半個世紀的夙願,兩人均到古稀之年才得實現,為此快事,不是值得令人欣喜的嗎?



   最後.還要感謝老友陳君樂民的女兒陳 豐,是她挽救了被擱置幾年的本書譯文;也要感謝北京世紀文景文化公司的幾位編輯,是他們代我們那位早已失散的老同學,幫助我們實現了多年的夙願。中華人民 共和國開國大典時,我和樂民老友站在天安門西側西三座門南邊自由觀禮,見到這位老同學走在群眾遊行隊伍裏,我們彼此打打招呼,從那以後就杳無音訊了。
    如今陳君樂民已歸道山,沒能見報我們一起寫的書;也不知哪位同學今在何處,但願他能見到半個多世紀前的同窗舊友搞成的這本小書。

                                                  蔡鴻濱
                                              于北京大學中關園



Zygmunt Bauman rebuffs plagiarism accusation

Sociologist claims high-quality scholarship does not depend on obedience to technical rules on referencing
Zygmunt Bauman
Source: Alamy
Pointed remarks: Zygmunt Bauman argues that high-quality scholarship does not depend on ‘obedience’ to ‘technical’ rules
An eminent sociologist has claimed that high-quality scholarship does not depend on “obedience” to “technical” rules on referencing after a PhD student accused him of plagiarising from websites, including Wikipedia, in his latest book.
Zygmunt Bauman, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Leeds, was responding to claims that he fails to clearly indicate that several passages in his 2013 book Does the Richness of the Few Benefit Us All? are exact or near-exact quotations from the online encyclopedia and other web sources.
His accuser, Peter Walsh, a University of Cambridge PhD student, said the websites are at times mentioned in passing as sources, but Professor Bauman does not make clear, through quotation marks or indented text, that he is directly reproducing material. He said this fulfilled the definition of plagiarism in the Harvard Guide to Using Sources.
Mr Walsh also flags up several instances in which the 88-year-old academic, after whom a sociology institute is named at Leeds, appears to reproduce mistakes in the allegedly plagiarised sources.
“He appears to have found [online] evidence to support his claims and stopped there.
“He hasn’t shown any desire to check the facts, statistics and quotes in his sources, and that is fairly elementary,” Mr Walsh explained.
Mr Walsh said he was a “huge admirer” of Professor Bauman, who has published nearly 30 books since the year 2000, and had only stumbled upon the alleged plagiarism after following up a reference in the book to the 1998 Human Development Report.
“These reports are published every year [by the United Nations Development Programme]. I wondered why he was referring to such an old one, especially as his argument is that economic inequality has been getting worse in recent years,” he added.
Mr Walsh said a Google search revealed that he appeared to have “lazily plagiarised” a 2012 interview transcript from Asia Times Online, which also refers to the 1998 report, and in the process had reproduced mistakes. These included an erroneous reference to where the statistics were quoted in the UN report.
“After that, I noticed a number of casual references to Wikipedia, and was rather surprised that an ‘old-school’ intellectual would be so reliant upon it. I then thought it worthwhile to delve a little deeper,” he continued.
Mr Walsh admitted that it was “risky” to speak out against such a renowned figure, with “a number of allies built up over an exceptional career”.
“There has been a real need to proceed with caution, and I’ve taken advice from as many people as I could,” he explained.
But he said that Professor Bauman’s reputation made it especially important that “violations of the most elementary of scholarly standards” were exposed “if the reputation of academic sociology is something worth fighting for”.
Shown the allegations by Times Higher Education, Professor Bauman said that in 60 years of publishing he had “never once failed to acknowledge the authorship of the ideas or concepts that I deployed, or that inspired the ones I coined”.
“All the same, while admiring the pedantry of the authors of the Harvard Guide to Using Sources, and acknowledging their gallant defence of the private ownership of knowledge, I failed in those 60-odd years to spot the influence of the obedience to technical procedural rules of quotations on the quality (reliability, effectiveness and above all social importance) of scholarship: the two issues that Mr Walsh obviously confuses,” he said.
“As his co-worker in the service of knowledge, I can only pity him.”
Mr Walsh retorted that there was “nothing pedantic about asking authors to indicate when they are using the words of other authors”. He said Leeds’ own guide on plagiarism contained similar prescriptions.
Professor Bauman’s publisher, Polity, declined to comment on whether it had checked Professor Bauman’s manuscript for plagiarism.
A senior Cambridge academic, who asked to not be named, agreed that Professor Bauman had “a strong prima facie case to answer”. He knew of several graduate students who had been failed because their theses had been found to contain unacknowledged passages. He suggested that Professor Bauman’s apparent indifference was the result of “generational differences”.
Earlier this year, Lewis Wolpert, emeritus professor in cell and developmental biology at University College London, apologised for including unattributed material, including from Wikipedia, in two recent books. He said that after downloading the passages he had forgotten he had not written them.
Mr Walsh noted Wikipedia’s own warning against using it for academic projects because “anyone…can edit an article, deleting accurate…or adding false information”.

沒有留言:

網誌存檔