One of the worlds largest collections of shoes for bound feet is in Chicago, but its not at the Field Museum or the Art Institute its in Paul Prentices apartment.
By Deanna Isaacs August 7, 2008
In search of airplane reading material before a trip to China last spring, I grabbed Lisa See’s popular novel Snow Flower and the Secret Fan from a bookstore shelf and was promptly riveted by her description of foot binding. Nothing in my glancing awareness of this practice prepared me for the details she provided: that it was inflicted on girls as young as three years old, that “the arch and toes of the foot must be broken and bent under to meet the heel,” and that the ideal result would fit into a shoe no more than three inches long. I knew that foot binding was female mutilation, falling somewhere on the continuum between clitoral cutting and ear piercing; what I didn’t know was that it had been practiced for nearly a thousand years, that the bound foot—no less than the bountiful breast in Western culture—represented an epitome of female beauty, and that the obsessively decorated coverings for these status-symbol stubs constituted their own complex and prized folk art genre.
Visitors descending on Beijing for the Olympics this week will get a jaw-dropping look at an ancient country catapulting itself into the future. They’ll see alarmingly massive skyscrapers sprouting like so many ginkgo trees in a city where a thousand new cars hit the streets every day. They’ll tour the empty shell of the Forbidden City and the spiffed-up remains of a few old courtyard-and-alley neighborhoods—perhaps by rickshaw, after a tea ceremony. But they aren’t likely to learn much about the once-pervasive culture of foot binding, thought to have affected as many as a billion women, including nearly 100 percent of those from the upper classes. Eradicated 60 years ago when the Communists took over, swept away with so much else during the Cultural Revolution, it’s not something the government or government-sponsored museums want to highlight. It wasn’t until my last day in China that I chanced upon a pair of bound-feet shoe replicas for sale. Creamy embroidered silk, they nestled in the palm of my hand like baby birds. To see the real thing on a major scale I had to come home.
Paul Prentice, an event designer for chic Chicago florist Blumen, owns one of largest—and lowest-profile—collections of bound-feet shoes in the world. His fascination with things Asian started early. Growing up in the little town of Troy Grove, near Starved Rock State Park, he was a kid with an unusual hobby: accompanying an aunt to farm sales, he began buying Chinese and Japanese porcelain. “No one else was interested in it,” he says. “I would have three or four dollars in my pocket, and I collected Satsuma, Imari, Kutani.”
A few years later, after moving to the west coast, where there was more interest in such things, he sold that collection. The proceeds paid for a yearlong trip around the world that brought him to China in 1980, just as it was opening up to Westerners. Backpacking across the country, he found the Chinese eager for foreign money—“selling whatever they had, digging out stuff that had remained hidden from the Cultural Revolution.” He bought his first few pairs of bound-foot shoes on that trip without knowing anything about them. “I thought so little of them, I came back and gave them away as gifts, as curiosities,” he recalls. Then, he says, “I started doing research on it.” Two years later he was back in China on a shoe-buying mission.
No one knows for sure how foot binding—which looks from a distance like national insanity—took hold in China, but there’s archaeological evidence that it had already been around for a while by the 13th century. Legend has it that it was inspired by a clubfooted empress, or tenth-century palace dancers cavorting on their toes. Incredibly cruel and painful, perversely erotic, it was clearly a means of repression and confinement. And yet—as Prentice’s favorite scholar, Barnard College historian Dorothy Ko, argues in Every Step a Lotus—for hundreds of years it was also the ultimate mark of class standing. In a culture that valued cloistered domesticity, where being wealthy meant not having to do anything that resembled physical labor (even walking) for oneself, a foot the shape and size of a lotus bud was the ticket to a more important kind of mobility.
There were geographic variations, but for the most part big-footed women were housemaids and field hands, bound-foot women could become rich men’s brides. Foot binding was the central event in their lives, Ko writes, and the intricate shoes they made by hand for themselves, their families, and as offerings to their gods, are evidence of the value they assigned it.
Prentice says misinformation and distortions that proliferated in early writing on the subject, much of it by missionaries, have been perpetuated in books by more contemporary experts and novelists. He maintains, for example, that X-ray evidence shows that though foot binding stretches ligaments and displaces bones, it does not break them. The very tiny foot, he says, was mostly an illusion.
Using a 19th-century model from his collection, he shows that the big toe remained forward for balance, while the other toes were folded under. “The heel bone was extended down, so you actually walked on it. The arch was pushed up and compressed, creating a hump on the front of the foot,” he says.
The toes and the heel bone went inside the shoe; the rest of the foot remained above it, covered with a short, decorated legging that was often secured with a decorative sash called a puttee. Though some shoes were made commercially (and embroidered by men), “the craft was handed down from mother to daughter,” he notes.
Prentice has never shown his collection in public and is careful even when talking about it. His experience has been that “people think it’s some kind of fetish. They get indignant and judgmental about a culture without understanding it.” If the right venue came along, however, he says he’d consider an exhibition. In the meantime, we’re missing a dazzling trove of 500 pairs of shoes and a thousand or so related items like leggings, sashes, bindings, shoe-making tools, photographs, paintings, and books.
The shoes—many of them never-used dowry items—are displayed in mind-boggling abundance in lighted cabinets that fill a room and more of Prentice’s vintage apartment. Each pristine pair—shaped according to the traditions of the region it came from, painstakingly beaded, embroidered, appliqued, or painted with symbols of fertility and good fortune—tells a story he can read. There are undyed shoes for the progressive stages of mourning; burial slippers with ladders to heaven on the soles; votive miniatures for the altar of Guanyin, goddess of foot binding; overshoes, undershoes, and shoes to wear to bed.
Despite tales of erotica mostly intended for the tourist trade, the bound foot, Prentice insists, was never uncovered except in the absolute privacy of the women’s quarters. A lover might clutch the tiny foot in passion, but he’d be clasping a mystery in its artful second skin. Send a letter to the editor.
From the Reader blogs Chicagoland Whet Moser: Get your credit default swaps at the Merc (soon). Thursday at 2:49 pm
|
Flag as inappropriate
Tina Lee at 10:22 PM on 8/7/2008
This tradition may be no less severe than women breaking or removing bones in their faces as well as injecting plastic into their chests. it's all relative. women are always objectified in every society throughout history.
Flag as inappropriate
Kiki at 1:34 PM on 8/8/2008
Or it may be far more severe . . . our culture doesn't impose plastic surgery on young children, and facial reconstruction doesn't cripple its recipient for life. I guess an extreme boob job could make it harder to run, but it'd be the recipient's choice.
Flag as inappropriate
Kels at 4:55 PM on 8/8/2008
But our culture does regularly circumcise infant boys without their consent, justifying it on religious or dubious hygienic grounds and it is genital mutilation just the same. So what a culture decides is brutal or beauty is subjective.
Flag as inappropriate
Kiki at 8:26 PM on 8/8/2008
Point taken, though from what I can tell circumcision's supposed ill effects on sensitivity haven't been proven any more definitively than its hygienic advantages. I'd argue that it's not comparable to mutilating a person so that she can't even walk a mile.
Flag as inappropriate
archangel at 10:26 PM on 8/8/2008
I think you're missing the point -that you can not judge a culture through your own cultural perspective. To the women who could afford not to be able to walk a mile it was not a mutilation, and not a sacrifice. It was an elevation in status.
You are also wrong about circumcision. See the website www.nocirc.org/ for a clearer picture of the harm done to infants without their consent . Your minimizing the subject just shows your cultural bias- "no big deal". The same could be said for a clitoridectomy - "get over it, it's just a clitoris."
"Mutilation" is a judgmental word on your part. We as a culture fill our breasts with silicone, tattoo, pierce, lift, lop and sculpt our body parts. Everything from our own perspective is "enhancement"- but in another culture it's "mutilation".
Flag as inappropriate
VERA VASUDEVAN at 9:01 AM on 8/9/2008
Thanks for the great article. Having lived and traveled in Asia, I too am fascinated with the idea that a human can be made deliberatley immobile through the idea of fashion or the rules of society.
I remain a loyal "Reader" reader and I especially appreciate that the article was only two pages in length.
Flag as inappropriate
Katie at 1:31 PM on 8/10/2008
"To the women who could afford not to be able to walk a mile it was not a mutilation, and not a sacrifice."
But the practice spread well beyond those who could afford to not walk places. As the article said, it's estimated that it affected over a billion people - and many out of the Imperial Court. It not only crippled the women physically, but it economically crippled the working classes because it made their women unproductive. I really don't think it's comparable to male circumcision or breast implants - the nefarious effects aren't as widespread. And I'm no supporter of circumcision.
Flag as inappropriate
Kiki at 1:20 PM on 8/11/2008
I'm not missing the point--I'm just not a cultural relativist.
Flag as inappropriate
archangel at 7:46 AM on 8/12/2008
Yes, over a billion women are estimated to have had their feet bound. But just as you have your facts wrong about the "Imperial Court" (no one in the Imperial court had bound feet- the imperial court were composed of Manchu peoples who did NOT bind, further, bound feet women were NOT allowed in the Forbidden City). Most women who had their feet bound were not only mobile , but worked in the family fields and often walked many miles a day. Footbinding could not have lasted a thousand years if it economically crippled the working classes. Women who were wealthier and had their feet bound to a greater degree were economically productive by weaving cotton or sericulture, two economically valuable occupations that did not require mobility- actually , the very fact that these occupations were so valuable probably facilitated the spread of footbinding. see "Economic Corellates in Footbinding" by Hill Gates. And if you were so wealthy that economic productivity was not required, yes, you didn't care, as physical mobility was not valued, so no sacrifice. Physical activity was for peasants and coolies, not for the wealthy, male OR female, who BOTH would have been carried in sedan chairs when going from place to place.
You are not a "cultural relativist", you're just someone who can form an opinion about something despite being totally ignorant of the subject.
Flag as inappropriate
some gal at 9:56 AM on 8/12/2008
yeah, but somehow it seems to me, archangel, that you think its ok for some humans to be subject to physical brutality in exchange for elevation in status. no?
perhaps you also think that female infanticide is something we should not comment upon since it happens in an alien culture?
Flag as inappropriate
Kiki at 7:06 PM on 8/12/2008
I'm not "totally ignorant," archangel. Obviously you're not either, but you are selectively choosing evidence that says circumcision's bad but footbinding's OK.
Flag as inappropriate
Melissa at 8:01 PM on 8/12/2008
The Manchus ruled China starting in the 17th century (and did outlaw foot binding). Foot binding is thought to date back to at least the 10th century, though.
Flag as inappropriate
archangel at 8:37 PM on 8/12/2008
Well Some gal, it is interesting that you propose to argue your point by projecting an opinion onto me that I have never made. I am not advocating foot binding. I am merely stating that an an elevation in status through "brutality" is an objective that all cultures are willing to embrace including our own.
According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 329,000 women underwent breast implant surgery in America for cosmetic reasons in 2006. They not only faced the risks of surgery, but also complications due to ruptures, systemic illness and disease ,and disfigurement from capsular contracture . But big breasts are rewarded in our culture... and they were willing to take the risk and suffer for an elevation in status.
An estimated 3% of high school boys begin injecting themselves with steroids. they run the risk of high blood pressure and hypertention, not to mention the risk of roid rage and sudden cardiac death- but a muscular male in our culture is elevated in status.....and they and many others are willing to take the risk.
I am not saying footbinding was bad, But I am not saying footbinding is good. It was a choice made within the context of the culture, and judging it ignorant of the context is unfair.
Oh, and your inclusion of infanticide as something that you should not comment on as it "happens in alien culture"- it happens in our culture all the time- we call it abortion. It sounds so clinical that way. Just like footbinding in ancient China it is a subjective procedure that is used to address a cultural ideal.
Confidential to Kiki; I am not saying footbinding is O.K., I'm saying it "was". It fulfilled a cultural imperative within the context of the society supplying an answer to needs- it lasted over one thousand years accordingly. I am not saying footbinding is O.K.. But yes, your continued uneducated and uninformed argument does point to the conclusion that you are probably totally ignorant.
Flag as inappropriate
some gal at 2:59 PM on 8/13/2008
its not good. its not bad. ok, so? where do you stand as a human, archangel?
"To the women who could afford not to be able to walk a mile it was not a mutilation, and not a sacrifice. It was an elevation in status."
how do you know for sure? are you from within the culture and are actually 200 years old? how do you know that the women you talk about prefer elevation in status to suffering from the pain of the mutilation and the gender based brutality?
the gals in the pics above sure don;t look terribly happy to me.
how can you pass pronouncements on a culture based on your intellectualizations?
Flag as inappropriate
archangel at 8:00 PM on 8/13/2008
"How do I know for sure?" some gal? Well, first from a costly and extensive education. Secondly, from intensive readings from the leading current Sinologist including Ebrey,Bloodworth,Gernet, Mann, Ko, ect. and thirdly, though I am not 200 years old I have read the chronicles and historys of those who were there 200 years ago including women whose feet were bound. But I can see now that this education was in vane.....You have established a new system of empirical study where all you have to do is look at the "gals in the pics" and determine "they sure don't look happy to me"
What a waste of time all of this studying was. I'm going to go into my library and cut all of the text out of the books- all I need are the pictures!
I am not the one" passing pronouncement" on a culture_ YOU ARE!!! I already said I didn"t judge footbinding bad or good- you're the one who calls it a "gender based brutality". Unfortunately, you have arrived at your conclusions without knowing anything about it . But it is fascinating that you propose to analyze a cultural phenomena that lasted 1000 years by ascertaining the degree of happiness in an old photograph. perhaps you can get out your quija board and fill in on the unknown facts of transcontinental migration.
No, an old dinosaur like me has to rely on facts and data rather than your new emotive "look at the picture" method you have pioneered.
So, one fact you might find interesting that is a testament to how women felt about their bound feet is how hard it was to eradicate. Despite numerous attempts by the Qing dynasty to abolish footbinding women would not cooperate and footbinding was only abolished by force. (see Gladys Aylwards insightful autobiography on her attempts to eradicate footbinding and the opposition she faced from Chinese women. Oh dear, ......I forgot, all text, no pictures....never mind.
And oh, somegal, it might interest you to know why those gals in the pics "don ;t look terribly happy".
It's because the exposure time for an albumen print was at least five minutes long. As Marien puts it : "despite the photographers
best efforts, people were forced to sit completely still without blinking for unnatural amounts of time, which often resulted in the stern expressions"
Albumen photos of male or female , east or west always look rather grim, as the subjects had to hold a prolonged pose and were actually quite often held rigid by "vise like equipment " (Rinhart) that curtailed any movement.
....but once again Somegal you have "passed a pronouncement" on a culture based on you ignorance, bias,emotional response, and projected feelings.
Where do I stand as a Human? " Far from the madding crowd"
%fv655555v`1
Flag as inappropriate
LC at 2:40 PM on 8/14/2008
I found the article very interesting, and the comments added much. I wish the article would have been longer with more pictures.
It is most difficult to understand why a culture institutes certain customs, and then perpetuates them. And now China is ashamed of this tradition because ... . why?
Add a comment