Both of them are very popular intellectuals among Chinese people,
although Li, as a writer and social commentator in Taiwan, enjoys his
popularity among the general public, whereas Fang, a Postdoc Biochemist turned
popular science writer residing in the US, is more well known in the scientific
research community in Mainland China. They share some commonalities and yet
they have some fundamental differences. I think it will be interesting to take
a closer look at some of the similarities and differences between these two
Chinese intellectual big guns, particularly in terms of sources of controversy
and their ways of confronting controversies.
Sources of controversy
Both of them are often associated with controversies, partly because
they refuse to conform to a key Chinese traditional value - interpersonal
harmony when it comes to addressing some sensitive issues. They take a direct
and somewhat confrontational approach to commenting on the public enemies they
have identified regardless of their social status, with little intent to save
their face or reputations.
Li himself seems to stir up controversy by engaging ideological debates,
attacking political heavyweights in Taiwan and historical figures/heroes in
Mainland China, or revealing his liberal attitudes towards sexuality and his
personal romantic encounters; whereas Fang is more interested in exposing the
dark side of the Chinese academe, such as plagiarism and other misconducts in
relation to academic ethics, than discussing his political inclination or private
life. As a result, Li has transformed himself into a famous entertainer (i.e. a
sought-after host in the Hong Kong Based Phoenix TV), while Fang is still
regarded as a serious academic science fraud-buster.
Ways of confronting controversies
Both of them, as self-proclaimed gatekeepers, are outspoken and
courageous in their fights with those influential figures who are deemed
corrupted or lacking in integrity. Their uncompromising approaches have
incurred enemy hostile fire on various fronts and both them have been ruthless
in lauching attacks and counter-attracts through the public media
Li has mainly relied on conventional media such as books, newspaper and TV
to launch his personal crusade against social inequities and is well known for
this humorous, outrageous and acute styles in his writing or speeches. He is a
specialist in influencing people by telling them simple stories, personal
anecdotes or even off-colour jokes.
Fang, who vowed to safeguard academic integrity and scientific spirit,
has been making the most of his own website (Xin Ye Si 新語絲)
to uncover the unethical conducts of researchers and scientists in China; call
on Chinese scientists and researchers to uphold the fair play principle in the
Chinese science and research community; and co-ordinate debates on some
controversial issues, such as GM food or environmental conservation issues.
Fang, an ardent supportor of Lu Xun, is unequivocal in criticizing the 「bad apples」 in the Chinese scientific community by using
straightforward and sarcastic tones as well as strong logical reasoning.
Even though both of them are characterised by their independent,
maverick and critical spirits, Li』s most powerful weapons have been
his ability to sensationalize events (including his 8 years』 ordeal as a political prisoner in Taiwan) and his ability to stay in
synch with the masses (particularly the young) by playing the cultural, gender
or national identity card. But his viewpoints have not been always backed up by
the evidence that could be found in the orthodox or mainstream archives, which
is apparently the Achilles' heel of his otherwise very impressive works and
speeches. Personally, I found in some of his remarks an overdose of emotional
appeal and exaggeration and an underdose of academic rigor and scientific logic.
By contrast, Fang tends to base his arguments or criticisms on stringent
logical reasoning and empirical evidence, thanks to years of PhD research
training and extensive exposure to the Western scientific research traditions.
But Fang』s arguments are not without his weaknesses. His over-reliance on the
well-established Western codes of conducts and practices as the only criteria
to judge Chinese scientific community may be problematic, mainly because there
exist huge discrepancies between the Chinese and the Western societies in the
history of scientific developments and in social and cultural milieus.
Furthermore, Fang's heavy influence by positivism have hindered his judgements on interdisciplinary works in social science disciplines, which are gradually leaning toward
the paradigm of constructivism or post-modernism. For instance, his critiques on religions
(e.g. Christianity) by resorting to scientific principles seems somewhat out of
place because they respectively belong to two entirely different domains of
human existence.
I wonder what will happen when these two
controversial intellectuals actually meet up and sit at the same debate table,
given that Li has recently launched a fierce tirade against Lu Xun, of whom
Fang has been a great fan. Whatever happens, one thing is for sure: there will
be no shortage of sparks flying at the meeting.