In a message dated 02-05-15 13:43:08 EDT, Jay Heuman wrote:

<< It just sounds to me as if those condemning Chinese foot
 binding have taken a position of cultural superiority - one
 which ought to be viewed with as much (if not more) distaste
 as Chinese foot binding. >>

I think we can understand and appreciate norms, beliefs, and practices of the
past and of "other" cultures without "condemning" them.  But I think it's
going too far to assert that criticizing such beliefs or practices from the
standpoint of contemporary Western values should be considered "distasteful."
 It seems to me that the greatness of Western civilization (and the reason it
should be taught in schools, not to mention that its artifacts should be
collected by museums) is precisely that it has evolved into a position of
moral and "cultural superiority".  From the philosophies of the Greeks
through the Middle Ages to the Renaissance to the Enlightenment up to the
present day, Western civilization has unsteadily but inexorably developed a
humanistic culture which values (more or less) the worth, well-being, and
fulfillment of each and every individual.  Call me an elitist (excu-u-use
me!), but, in the immortal words of Martha Stewart, I consider this a Good
Thing.  And I don't think we need to apologize for harboring such an ideal.
Indeed, it's quite a balancing act to reconcile our confidence in our
achievement with an attempt to view other cultures of the past or present
objectively, without being patronizing, overly judgmental, or heavy-handed.
Certainly an overly judgmental or critical approach would conflict with our
attitude toward the value of the individual--since the shared beliefs of a
group to which an individual belongs constitute a significant part of that
person's personality and makeup.  To condemn foot-binding from a medical
standpoint or because it symbolized the subjugation of women by men (and
constituted the physical enforcement of that subjugation) does not mean we
need to condemn the shared cultural and aesthetic values that it
represented--to do so would indeed be a distasteful assertion of cultural
superiority.  But that doesn't mean we can't suggest the various and obvious
benefits of letting feet grow without artificial restrictions.  Sorry, I just
have a problem with a system that thought physically altering a girl with a
painful intervention in order to fulfill an aesthetic ideal which would make
her more marriageable.  I say "altering" advisedly, while I'm actually
thinking "disfiguring", because I don't want to be judgmental and impose my
own moral standards.  I shudder to think what diabolical devices they would
have dreamed up if big feet had been the aesthetic ideal.

I don't want to see the entire world collapse into a single homogeneous
copycat Western model.  The rich variety of the world's cultures seems rather
like another Good Thing.  But perhaps I'm just being sentimental and selfish,
wanting to be able to travel and delight in this rich variety and revel in
the sheer otherness.  Do non-Western cultures have to maintain practices that
the West finds inhumane, like African genital mutilation (or infibulation, to
be non-judgmental) and slavery, where it still persists, in order to remain
unique and vibrantly non-Western?  Should we encourage the Chinese to
reinstitute foot-binding on the grounds that rejecting it was an unwarranted
capitulation to Western values and a denigration of their culture?  (Then we
can visit China and marvel at all those tiny tortured feet and congratulate
ourselves on how open-minded and objective we are and how we appreciate
diversity.)

It seems to me that foot-binding constituted a kind of slavery.  This is not
to trivialize real slavery, which was--and remains--a horrible thing.  But to
bind a child's feet, whatever the justification, subjected her to a kind of
lifelong slavery and symbolized that she was regarded as little more than a
commodity.  You can condemn the practice without condemning the practitioners
who thought--and probably sincerely believed--that it made economic,
cultural, and yes, moral, sense within their system.  Does that mean the
system was "wrong"?  I don't know--maybe.  But this is why I oppose
reparations payments for slavery.  I think it was wrong (based on my moral
and cultural superiority!), and I think the system that condoned or
encouraged it was morally, culturally, and economically wrong, corrupt, evil,
unsound, and stupid, but I can understand and appreciate how people could
have been taught to view it as a good and sensible thing.  Yet within a very
short time Western culture has outgrown those beliefs, thanks to the
evolution I mentioned above--an evolution which was accelerated by the power
of a few inspired individuals.  I can condemn slavery without having to
condemn people (or a whole culture, such as that of the 18th-19th century
American South) who inherited nasty ideas and labored under benighted
concepts of both racial and class superiority.

Reconciling contemporary Western humanitarian values with non-Western
practices which devalue humans, while objectively appreciating diverse
traditions, is difficult and fraught with problems and inconsistencies.  But
that doesn't mean we need to be afraid to criticize practices of the past or
present which demean or harm people.  I consider myself very lucky to have
been born into a culture which, in this time and place, has evolved into a
position which seems to me in many ways "superior".  It's actually very
humbling.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
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).