![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Picture-1-300x169.jpg\")
Figure 1. the manifestation of foot binding<\/p>\nFigure 1. the manifestation of foot binding<\/p>\n
Elizabeth LaCouture\u2019s perspective highlights the central role of women in the domestic space in Republican China\u2019s domestic space, positioning them as subjects of the state and family or \u2018jia\u2019.1<\/a><\/sup> Her opinion indicates that in late imperial and early Republican China, women primarily occupied a passive subject in the domestic space. Their significance within the family was often underscored by the public recognition conferred upon them. For example, women brought political recognition to the family when they were bestowed the honor of chaste widows or virtuous women by the imperial state.2<\/a><\/sup> Also, women usually took the responsibility of preparing and placing ritual offerings at the ancestral altar.3<\/a><\/sup> LaCouture\u2019s stance implies that women attained subjecthood within the household through an external acknowledgment or by publicly assuming significant roles in family-related affairs. It was the external forces that made women the subject of the household.<\/p>\n However, this blog seeks to scrutinize LaCouture\u2019s viewpoint and introduce another prevalent practice during that era\u2014foot binding. The blog argues that women actively and independently consolidated their centrality in the domestic space through foot binding. This is contrary to LaCouture\u2019s view. Women are not passive actors in the domestic sphere. Referencing the book Cai Fei Lu<\/em>, published in the 1930s and compiling contemporary interpretations of foot binding as a social practice, this blog aims to refute the claim that women were confined to the \u201cjia\u201d sphere solely due to external influences. Instead, it asserts that female autonomy played a significant role, challenging the notion that women were merely subject to external factors in shaping their roles within the household.<\/p>\n Cai Fei Lu<\/em>, compiled by the Republican scholar Yao Lingxi, delves into the history and practical implications of foot binding in Republican China. Considering these two dimensions, it\u2019s reasonable to argue that the widespread practice of foot binding was a result of women women\u2019s autonomous choice.<\/p>\n The book repeatedly narrates a shared sense of the origin of foot binding that was created by an imperial concubine PanFei<\/em>, \u201c\u6f58\u5983\u4f5c\u4fd1\u65bc\u4e00\u6642\u3002\u201d4<\/a><\/sup> She practised foot binding to curry favour with the emperor. The practice of foot binding steadily gained popularity and grew to be regarded as a viable method for women to attract men, \u201c\u826f\u5bb6\u5a66\u5973\u4e43\u4ee5\u70ba\u53d6\u5a9a\u7537\u5b50\u4e4b\u9053\u5728\u662f\u3002\u201d5<\/a><\/sup> Even though its historical origin cannot be substantiated, the prevailing social idea depicted in the book suggests that it was motivated by women\u2019s pursuit of beauty, \u201c\u5a66\u5973\u7e8f\u8db3\u3002\u521d\u610f\u5fc5\u4ee5\u7f8e\u89c0\u800c\u8d77\u3002\u201d6<\/a><\/sup> This spontaneous desire requires women to engage in the physical practice of foot binding, seeking to attain the beauty they deemed desirable. Furthermore, foot binding did not only reshape the female feet, but also reconfigure their identity in the domestic realm, or \u2018jia\u2019. On the one hand, due to their desire for beauty, which was primarily for getting male attention, their distorted feet became a product of male preference, though they voluntarily bound their feet. They allowed their physical selves to be conceptually linked to male family members. Foot binding, although a female behaviour, was essentially impacted by male consciousness, or what women perceived as male preference. On the other hand, because of the foot binding, women confined themselves in the physical domestic space. Consequently, women\u2019s mobility would significantly reduce, rendering them unable to walk for extended durations and impeding their ability to move freely between the physical domestic space and the external environment. That is, \u201c\u884c\u52d5\u8271\u82e6\u3002\u201d7<\/a><\/sup> Consequently, women assumed a prominent role within the domestic sphere due to their extended presence. The practice of foot binding, therefore, was a choice made by women, became an autonomous necessity, and reshaped their identities and positioning within the domestic realm.<\/p>\n Elizabeth LaCouture argues that women were at a disadvantage when it came to establishing their identity in the domestic space. In late imperial and Republican China, women could only assert their centrality in domestic space through public recognition. However, after analysing the Republican publication Cai Fei Lu<\/em>, the blog offers an alternative perspective, arguing that women\u2019s limitations in the domestic sphere were not entirely due to external forces. Women\u2019s autonomy drove them to practice foot binding. This act physically constrained their mobility, psychologically tethered their physical form to the preferences of male family members, and consequently shaped women\u2019s central identity within the domestic space.<\/a><\/p>\n *Cai Fei Lu: <\/span>https:\/\/taiwanebook.ncl.edu.tw\/zh-tw\/book\/NTUL-9900013372\/reader<\/a><\/p>\n Figure 1. the manifestation of foot binding Elizabeth LaCouture\u2019s perspective highlights the central role of women in the domestic space in Republican China\u2019s domestic space, positioning them as subjects of the state and family or \u2018jia\u2019.1 Her opinion indicates that in late imperial and early Republican China, women primarily occupied a passive subject in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1479"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1479\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1575,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1479\/revisions\/1575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spatialhistory.net\/cities\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}