Hi David et al.:

It is interesting that this thread has broadened into a
socio-political demonstration of the postcolonial theories
of Homi Bhabah and Edward Said.

I also find it interesting that everyone who has condemned
foot binding (Candace, Clarrisa, Deb, Nick, etc.) has done
so from the position of the here and now, and has made no
attempt to understand the role of foot binding within
context.  Imagine going into the past and preventing foot
binding from ever starting . . . how much different would
Chinese culture be today?

> 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."

Criticism of a culture from beyond that culture is
distasteful to me.  Yes, all Americans pride themselves in
freedom of speech.  And there may be value in that for
Americans.  But Chinese culture is not American culture.
Certainly, American culture - such as it existed during the
period of time during which the Chinese practiced foot
binding - was filled with all sorts of horrors.  Something
to consider?

> 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".

And I think you are ignoring the countless immoralities and
inferiorities of Western civilization.  That anyone can use
the word 'civilization' to describe anything human is
insulting.  Civilization assumes civility.  To civilize
means to bring out of a primitive state into a state of
technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of
cultural development.  While Western civilization has
"advanced" or "progressed" technically, the rationalism
and - to jump ahead (to your next paragraph) - the
humanistic values are doubtful.

Consider the numerous wrong-doings - from political
corruption, to actual (or economic, education, etc.)
slavery, to wars over 'resources' as varied as land, oil and
ideologies.  Is any of that rational?  If you answer 'yes',
and can demonstrate why, you're many steps ahead of the
Existentialists not to mention all other philosophers who
have dealt with the heady topic of 'good versus evil'!
(I'll stick with Heidegger's notion of "becoming.")

> 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.

I find it interesting that you put "more or less" in
parentheses.  It is, in fact, the "less" which should be
emphasized in Western civilization - from my perspective.
For example, when the United States was formed, WHO was
valued?  Land-owning, white, males.  Sounds like a small
percentage when you take into account how many women and
children, native peoples and African (and other) slaves,
lived in the original 13 colonies.

> Call me an elitist (excu-u-use me!), but, in the immortal
words
> of Martha Stewart, I consider this a Good Thing.

'Good' is subjective, as is 'bad'.  What you view as good,
others may view as bad.  What you view as bad, others may
view as good.

(Even Kant, as idealistic a Western philosopher as one can
find, recognized the need for a thorough process of
intrinsic self-criticism before making extrinsic judgments.
IOW, judge yourself carefully before judging others at all.)

> 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.

I think it's quite a balancing act to condemn another
culture without reconciling one's past condemnable acts.
("Holier than thou" springs to mind.)

> 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.

This is a fundamental difference in mindset - hence,
cultures develop differently the world over.  Americans are
a fighting people.  The United States was founded based on
revolution.  Early Americans were, for the most part, Brits
who threw off the yoke of subservience to the British
monarchy in exchange for self-determination.  But why do
American believe that self-determination is "the best"?

I believe in democracy . . . but I was born and raised in a
democracy.  Look at how many former Soviets want Stalin,
Lenin and the Communist Party to reign supreme in a new
U.S.S.R.  Just goes to show you that 'freedom' has more than
one meaning.  Some Soviets felt free because there was NO
self-determination.  Look at how many British citizens are
unhappy that the Royal family is not more active and
powerful in British politics.  Look at how many countries
still have monarchs, dictators, oligarchies, etc.

> 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.

And so, I ask you: How many marriages broke apart in China
during the period when foot binding was common practice?
Did it not serve its purpose of keeping marriages together?
Of ensuring that husbands kept their wives, that  children
were cared for by their mothers?  That a wife's "golden
lotus" feet became an object of erotic worship by husbands
made wives desirable, yes?

Contrast that with contemporary life in the United States of
America where the average age for marriage has climbed
steadily, where birth rates have fallen to a level which
(sooner rather than later) will not support population
growth, where 50% of first marriages and 65% of second
marriages end in divorce.  There are more single parent
families, more working couples with latch-key kids, more
unwed teen pregnancies, and more child support deadbeats
than ever before.

How about comparing this familial dynamic with ancient Roman
families, certainly a paternalistic structure, whereby the
man of the household made the law . . . had sole control of
all family assets, could discipline his family members any
way he saw fit, etc.  Sounds pretty cruel considering these
humanistic Western values to which you referred.  What about
arranged marriages in Western cultures?  What about chastity
devices developed as much in the West as in the East?  What
about convents and nunneries in which daughters were locked
away, forced to become nuns?  What about the Jewish
tradition in which a woman could 'divorce' her husband only
if he gave permission?  What about denying voting and
participation in politics to women until well into this
century?

I'm not saying that disfiguring women's feet was a good
thing or a bad thing -- but it was what it was.  It worked
in that time and place.  And nobody on this list is in a
position to make a judgment.

> 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.

I think this is sensible, to celebrate difference.  But is
it fair to be selective when celebrating difference?  After
all, what you view as the 'good' and the 'bad' developed
together.  One would assume that celebrating Confucianism
means accepting the good and bad qualities . . . which
includes foot binding.  (I came across countless quotations
from Confucian texts supporting foot binding.)

> 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.)

Interesting that you don't provide an 'Option C' . . . that
we ought to stay out of it.

> 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.

That women and girls were viewed in most cultures as little
more than a commodity was a fact.  In 2002 in the United
States, we vehemently disagree with this view.  But to
expect everyone around the world to agree is unfair,
displacing their cultural values.

Perhaps this explains why so many countries around the world
hold the United States in such disdain?  That Americans so
often denigrate cultural ages-old traditions that are
fundamental to a culture . . . and expect instantaneous
alignment with an American (Western) approach.  And this
disdain is not restricted to non-Western cultures.  A fair
share of European countries share these feelings.  Are they
wrong to expect the United States to butt out of their
cultural value system?

> 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.

This is a false notion, that condemning a behavior is not
equated with condemning the person.  Typically, people
commit actions based on forethought . . . so, you are
condemning the person.

> 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.

Again, I'll point out how judgment is your focus, while
contextualization is mine.

I am no supporter of slavery.  It was what it was, and we
cannot change what happened.  But just as the Jewish people
and other victims of the Nazi Holocaust should receive
reparations, just as the Japanese people who were interned
during World War II deserve reparations, so too do
African-Americans who suffered during the much-too-long
period when slavery was the norm in this nation.

> 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.

So, if you condemn officially-sanctioned slavery, do you
also condemn the contemporary economic and educational
equivalent?  What is the limit of your condemnation?  At
what point do you stop looking back to cast judgment and
start moving forward without judgment?  When is it time to
repair the past (to whatever degree is possible) . . . and
then move forward?

> 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.

As if Western values are all humanitarian.  Outrageous!
Have there been no examples, in your mind, of the
devaluation of humans in the Western hemisphere?  I can
think of several dozen right off that bat.

> But that doesn't mean we need to be afraid to criticize
> practices of the past or present which demean or harm
> people.

"Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto
you."

Yes, you might say that Chinese men should not have imposed
foot binding upon women if they were unprepared to suffer
the same consequences.  But, on a more global scale, who are
Americans to judge Chinese cultural traditions and values?
To say, "I would not do that to my daughter today" is fine.
To say, "If I was there in China at that time I would not
have done that to my daughter" is ridiculous.

Hypotheticals don't work in such cases . . . and only serve
to demonstrate a lack of logic and a disregard for context.
(As my mother would say, "If my Bubby had wheels, she'd be a
bus.")

> 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.

If only I could view Western civilization as flawless.  But
being a responsible adult means accepting ALL that happened
in the past, the 'superior' and the 'inferior'.  I am,
simply amazed, that you can dismiss the sheer, overwhelming
number of inferior events in Western civilization, and how
much it pushes everyone down, down, down . . .

Sincerely,

Jay Heuman, Visitor & Volunteer Services Coordinator
Joslyn Art Museum, 2200 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68102
342-3300 (telephone)     342-2376 (fax)     www.joslyn.org

Copyright retained.
My opinions - no one else's.
If you have a problem with what I wrote, take it up with me
personally.
If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!

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