Chinese Foot Binding Ethics

Madelyn Deal
Ethics from a Global Perspective
Dr. Robert Scott
27 April 2017
Chinese Foot Binding
For many years, Chinese foot binding was a way to show that a woman was wealthy and beautiful. If you did not bind your feet, then you were a poor, hard-working woman who had slim chances of getting married. Women had to go through this painful experience for years, just to show that they were among the elite. Foot binding was a very agonizing experience for girls just to have a good chance of marriage; this process relates to the ethical theories of Kant, Mill, and feminism.
This process of foot binding began when the girl was about five or six (Foreman). Small feet were the equivalent to having a tiny waist in Victorian England; it represented
female refinement (Foreman). Having three inch feet was the most desirable size; these are known as the “golden lotuses”, which basically represented physical perfection. Feet that were five inches or longer were dismissed by society, and known as “iron lotuses” (Foreman).
Foot binding was a long, excruciating process that took about two years to complete. The process first began by plunging the feet into hot water, and clipping her toenails short. Then, all of the toes, except the big toe, were broken and bound flat against the sole, making a triangle shape (Foreman). Finally, the arch was strained as the foot was bent doubled over, and the feet were bound in place using a silk strap. About every two days, they removed the wrappings to prevent blood and pus from infecting the foot (Foreman). Any excess flesh was either cut away or encouraged to rot. These girls were forced to walk long distances in order to hasten the breaking of their arches. The wrappings slowly became tighter and the shoes were made smaller to crush the heel and sole together (Foreman). After about two years, the whole process was complete, and the shape could not be reversed, unless a woman wanted to go through the same pain all over again. This is a very haunting, painful process all for one thing: to be considered beautiful (Foreman).
Brannigan discussed foot binding in the book, Ethics Across Cultures. Brannigan talked about how foot binding was accepted by Confucian ethics and related to Confucian virtues, and how it became a practice because of male dominance (Brannigan). Males dominated and oppressed these women to suit their wants. The parents of these girls did not see anything wrong with binding their feet, because they were preparing them to have a satisfying life. Society had a certain view of beauty, and the people followed and met that view with this practice.
The immorality of foot binding relates to Kant’s Deontology in many ways.
First, deforming one’s body to fit society’s views of beauty goes against rationality and respect for oneself (Introduction to Ethics). Next, since deforming one’s body or beautifying has been taking place for achieving a particular goal, which is to attract or please men and to meet men’s beauty standards, the action done by women is considered as a hypothetical imperative. This is an immoral action, according to Kant, because the action is not done for one’s own sake (Introduction to Ethics). Lastly, the intention was to create beauty standards as a means to make women appealing or pleasing to men’s senses. Man have used women as a means to their end, which is sensual pleasure (Introduction to
Ethics).
The issue of foot binding also relates to feminist ethics, considering that only women were binding their feet to meet men’s beauty standards. Radical feminists see society as male dominating. Since males had these specific beauty standards for women, women had to endure pain to have disabled feet that would hinder their mobility and way of life (Introduction to Ethics). Foot binding is simply considered to be “gender inequality, men’s sexual oppression and domination of women as a consequence of this immoral practice” (Introduction to Ethics). According to Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist, “consequences of foot binding included pain, suffering, sexual dominance, oppression of women and manipulation of women by making them to think that as a consequence of binding their feet, they would be able to present themselves as being in upper social and economic status” (Introduction to Ethics). Men oppressed women to make them believe that these tiny, bound feet were beautiful. These feet showed men that these women were among the wealthy, and did not have to work to live, which made them more appealing to men. Women had to suffer through this long process to bind their feet, just to fit the beauty image that men had made for these women.
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism also relates to the ethical issue of foot binding.
Considering the views of society, this process can be considered moral; if foot binding creates the greatest happiness for the most people, then it would be considered a moral action (Introduction to Ethics). Mill focused mainly on the Greatest Happiness Principle, which says that actions are considered moral if they promote utility (Introduction to Ethics). Women suffered through the binding of their feet for the greater good of society, which was to please men and get married (Introduction to Ethics). Therefore, if women were doing this action for a good purpose, then it was considered to be
moral.
Although today, foot binding is considered to be immoral, at the time women were doing it, it was considered to be the best thing to do to have the best life possible. This would be a counterargument, because parents did this for their daughters so they would be wanted in society and would not have to live a difficult life. At the time, this was the only way to get married; if you did not have bound feet, then you had very slim chances of marriage. Mothers did this to their girls at such a young age, so they could ensure that their daughters got married to a good man and into a good family when they got older. By parents doing this to their daughters so they could live a good life, justifies the practice and makes it more acceptable.
Overall, women had to break and bind their feet just to fit society’s view of beauty. This practice was specifically meant for the wealthy and elite women to show their pride, and that they do not have to work to live. Foot binding was a very agonizing experience for girls just to have a good chance of marriage; this process is easily related to the ethical theories of Kant, Mill, and feminism. These ethical theories showed how each of these people would view this issue. Foot binding is considered an immoral practice today, but it was justifiable at the time so girls could live the best life possible.