<It is interesting how this thread has gone from corsets, fashion and 19th century garb to the concept of foot binding.  From a researcher's point of view, both practices represent cultural aspects from a certain society; American/European - corsets, Chinese - footbinding, but I have to wonder how the idea of foot binding could be construed from corsets?  >

     I did, indeed, suggest a connection between the practice of footbinding and corsetry.  I referred to overly-tight lacing and footbinding as "unreasonable", a term by which I still stand.  I perceive them both to be unreasonable distortions of the body for the sake of "beauty" -- as each culture or era defined it. I deem them to be unreasonable because of their harmful and/or painful effects upon the (primarily) women who suffered from the practices. The cultural differences lie, I suppose, in whether the desired effect was perceived (by the recipient of the practice) to have outweighed the discomfort.  Such is why I long ago gave up wearing high heels, I suppose.
   I now find myself wondering whether any such "distortions" were imposed as widely upon males.  Someone mentioned castration (for achieving a vocal ideal?).  How widespread (pardon the pun) a practice was that?  Nonetheless, I would certainly call that an unreasonable step to achieving an ideal...but in light of the ensuing discussion, I might add that, yes, it may just be unreasonable by current yardsticks for such things.  On the other hand, perhaps a significant factor is whether the person upon whom the practice was imposed had any say in the matter.  If they don't object is it still unreasonable?  Would slavery be deemed unreasonable by the enslaved if they didn't object to their situation?  Was it unreasonable if the women whose feet were bound didn't object to it?
     ...and don't historians/museums have an obligation to present these issues with as much information as can be had about the circumstances that led to them?  Do we also have an obligation to comment on them by our standards?  Should we be denouncing slavery but not footbinding (or excessive body-piercing)?  Don't we teach about things historical in order to learn from the past?  Is our obligation merely to present the issues to the viewer (as in an exhibition), in as unbiased a way as we can, to let them decide how they feel about it?  Does that mean we should show what some members of our society deemed the "benefits" of slavery, for instance, in addition to its horrors, in order that visitors to our museums can decide for themselves how they feel about it?
Lynne



=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).