FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2091354835> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2091354835 endingPage "27" @default.
• W2091354835 startingPage "8" @default.
• W2091354835 abstract "The Body as Attire: The Shifting Meanings of Footbinding in Seventeenth-Century China Dorothy Ko Footbinding was superfluous in the colonial age: its prestige had waned and its aura dimmed but the practice lingered, more stubbornly than the abolitionists had anticipated. I have been probing this disjuncture by subjecting the bound foot to historiographical inquiry. This essay is a preliminary report. My premise is simple: for a historian, there is no neutral or objective knowledge about footbinding. Whatever knowledge we can gain depends on who we are, who wrote the texts, when, and why. The impossibility of coherent, objective knowledge is compounded by the peculiar history of footbinding. It was neither a uniform practice across regions, nor did it sustain a timeless and essential core of meanings. The unanimity of condemnation in modern times masks the multiplicity of practice and the instability of meaning that is the only salient truth about footbinding. Footbinding as History: The Problem With the Archives Behind the uniform label of footbinding lay a colorful variety of local traditions and distinct practices that have fascinated anthropologists and medical missionaries since the nineteenth century. The practices they have documented range from pressing a girl's four toes toward the heel with cloth binders, hence bulging the foot into an arched shape, to wearing tight socks for a slender look. The local variations in method of binding , desired length and shape, age of initiation, required paraphenalia, public and private rituals, shoe patterns, and terminologies of footbinding were so great that it was impossible to produce a master narrative. Historians have encountered a different problem in writing about footbinding, which defies the conventional approach of seeking meaning, if not truth, from archives. Footbinding is a puzzling anomaly. On the one hand, what it is about seems painfully obvious to its modern critics, who condemn the practice as the most hideous bodily mutilation inflicted on women by patriarchs (often dubbed Confucian) to serve male interests. First, footbinding kept women in a hobbled and subservient domestic state; second, it rendered them sex objects to satisfy certain perverted erotic fantasies of men. These are dead certainties to our modern minds. Yet on the other hand, we hardly know what footbinding is about because © 1997 Journal of Women's History, Vol. 8 No. 4 (Winter) 1997 Dorothy Ko 9 the archives fail to answer even the most rudimentary questions. Legends aside, when did it start? How did it spread through time, across geographical regions, and across class lines? And, most important, how did women feel about it? Upon scrutiny, our certainties may turn out to be dead wrong, based as they are on an uncritical imposition of modern perspectives onto a Chinese past that thrived on values and body conceptions alien to ours. In order to answer questions about the history of footbinding we need to re-ask them in more self-reflexive ways. To begin with, we need to recognize the modern nationalist bias of our sources and informants. Much of our present knowledge of footbinding is colored by China's search for a virile identity under the traumas of imperialism. Our factual knowledge about the practice derives almost exclusively from nineteenth- and twentieth-century writings, drawings, or photographs: literature produced by anti-footbinding societies, missionary accounts, medical reports, field-notes of Japanese anthropologists, interviews with footbound women.1 These materials would not have been produced without the intrusion of Euro-American missionaries into the heart of China since the 1860s and the colonialization of Taiwan by Japan in 1895. Couched either in a scientific tone of objective observation or as an impassioned plea for abolition, these accounts cannot be accepted at face value. They document less the sociology of footbinding than the vehemence of national shame as China was exposed, in a feeble and dependent state, to the scrutiny of the community of nations. Stated tacitly or loudly, the authors' goal was the same: to eradicate the practice as the epitome of tradition. Yet all of the classic treatises on footbinding, from Howard Levy's Chinese Footbinding: The History of a Curious Erotic Custom in English to Okamoto Ryuzo's Tensoku monogatari [The story of footbinding ] in Japanese, have used this..." @default.
• W2091354835 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2091354835 creator A5025655798 @default.
• W2091354835 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W2091354835 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2091354835 title "The Body as Attire: The Shifting Meanings of Footbinding in Seventeenth-Century China" @default.
• W2091354835 cites W1964578695 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W1979214023 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W2032577159 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W2071335140 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W2128901311 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W2129769317 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W2144966691 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W2158238027 @default.
• W2091354835 cites W585395158 @default.
• W2091354835 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2010.0171" @default.
• W2091354835 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2091354835 type Work @default.
• W2091354835 sameAs 2091354835 @default.
• W2091354835 citedByCount "42" @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352012 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352014 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352016 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352017 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352018 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352019 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352022 @default.
• W2091354835 countsByYear W20913548352023 @default.
• W2091354835 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2091354835 hasAuthorship W2091354835A5025655798 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C2778023277 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C29598333 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C107038049 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C111472728 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C138885662 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C142362112 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C144024400 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C166957645 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C2778023277 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C2780876879 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C29598333 @default.
• W2091354835 hasConceptScore W2091354835C95457728 @default.
• W2091354835 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2091354835 hasLocation W20913548351 @default.
• W2091354835 hasOpenAccess W2091354835 @default.
• W2091354835 hasPrimaryLocation W20913548351 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2030322432 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2115770576 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2359465864 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2391251918 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2394276907 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2807747613 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W2912095797 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W3030760309 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W3107920273 @default.
• W2091354835 hasRelatedWork W32766078 @default.
• W2091354835 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W2091354835 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2091354835 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2091354835 magId "2091354835" @default.
• W2091354835 workType "article" @default.