作者:
John Robert Shepherd 出版社: University of Washington Press 副标题: Ethnicity, Labor, and Status in Traditional China 出版年: 2018-12-30 页数: 264 定价: USD 90.00 装帧: Hardcover ISBN: 9780295744414
Previous studies of the practice of footbinding in imperial China have theorized that it expressed ethnic identity or that it served an economic function. By analyzing the popularity of footbinding in different places and times, Footbinding as Fashion investigates the claim that early Qing (1644-1911) attempts by Manchu rulers to ban footbinding made it a symbol of anti-Manchu ...
Previous studies of the practice of footbinding in imperial China have theorized that it expressed ethnic identity or that it served an economic function. By analyzing the popularity of footbinding in different places and times, Footbinding as Fashion investigates the claim that early Qing (1644-1911) attempts by Manchu rulers to ban footbinding made it a symbol of anti-Manchu sentiment and Han identity and led to the spread of the practice throughout all levels of society. Detailed case studies of Taiwan, Hebei, and Liaoning provinces exploit rich bodies of previously neglected ethnographic reports, economic surveys, and rare censuses of footbinding to challenge the significance of sedentary female labor and ethnic rivalries as factors leading to the hegemony of the footbinding fashion. The study concludes that, independently of identity politics and economic factors, variations in local status hierarchies and elite culture coupled with status competition and fear of ridicule for not binding girls' feet best explain how a culturally arbitrary fashion such as footbinding could attain hegemonic status.
作者简介
· · · · · ·
JOHN ROBERT SHEPHERD is associate professor of anthropology at the University of Virginia. He is the author of Marriage and Mandatory Abortion among the 17th-Century Siraya and Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600-1800.
目录
· · · · · ·
Cover
Title Page, Copyright, Dedication
pp. i-vi
Contents
pp. vii-viii
List of Illustrations
· · · · · ·
(更多)
Cover
Title Page, Copyright, Dedication
pp. i-vi
Contents
pp. vii-viii
List of Illustrations
pp. ix-xii
Acknowledgments
pp. xiii-xiv
Abbreviations
pp. xv-xvi
Chronologies
pp. xvii-xviii
Notes on Usage
pp. xix-xxii
Introduction: Seeking Status, Avoiding Shame
pp. 3-9
Chapter 1. The Qing Conquest and Footbinding
pp. 10-31
Chapter 2. The Taiwan Census of 1905
pp. 32-50
Chapter 3. The 1915 Prohibition
pp. 51-59
Chapter 4. Footbinding for Marriage
pp. 60-69
Chapter 5. Regional Variations among the Hoklo Fujianese
pp. 70-98
Chapter 6. Women’s Labor in Agriculture
pp. 99-112
Chapter 7. Women’s Labor in Handicrafts
pp. 113-143
Chapter 8. Bannerwomen and Civilian Women in the Northeast
pp. 144-163
Conclusion: The Tyranny of Fashion
pp. 164-176
Chinese Character Glossary
pp. 177-180
Notes
pp. 181-214
References
pp. 215-240
Index
pp. 241-252
Back Cover
· · · · · · (收起)
The case studies included here cast doubt on ethnic identity and labor compatibility theories about the spread of footbinding and demonstrate the independent power of status hierarchies and social pressure to shape the lives of women. The cases treating the Qing conquest, Hakka-influenced Hoklo, and banner-influenced North Chinese contradict assumptions that footbinding intensified as a way to mark ethnic differences between footbinding and non-binding groups. Notions that footbinding was most intense where it was compatible with the work women did in agriculture or handicrafts are contradicted by the findings from Taiwan and Hebei that reveal no connection between footbinding and cropping patterns and textile handicrafts. Instead, footbinding was nearly universal in solidly Hoklo Ta... (查看原文)
Prominent scholars have claimed that the early Manchu prohibitions on footbinding (1636, 1638, 1645?, 1664–68) failed among the Han majority because they were “defied” by women and that “resistance” caused the fashion to spread further.13 But evidence does not support the widely repeated assertion that Manchu prohibitions on footbinding were extended to the civilian Han population of China proper after the conquest, although the Qing court early in the Kangxi reign (1662–1722) did briefly consider a proposal to ban footbinding among the general population in China. Nor does Qing politicization of a cultural trait as a badge of identity (natural feet among bannerwomen) automatically convert what was already a long-standing practice of footbinding among Han into a marker either of Han ... (查看原文)
0 有用 赖怀普 2022-11-20 23:58:41 河南
作者挖掘1644缠足禁令与孙之獬故事的真实性及其近代的演绎，认为坚持缠足是反抗满清的汉民族行为这一观点并不可靠。（p24-26）此外，缠足的地方差异比较也可作为补充。此后作者以台湾地区的缠足材料为基础，展开量化研究，比较台湾地区福佬、客家与土著缠足观的差异与地域分布，并认为缠足对田间劳作的影响比通常认为的小，反驳所谓旱地劳作与湿地劳作对缠足的影响一说。（p112）通过辽宁等地的数据，对手工业假说（... 作者挖掘1644缠足禁令与孙之獬故事的真实性及其近代的演绎，认为坚持缠足是反抗满清的汉民族行为这一观点并不可靠。（p24-26）此外，缠足的地方差异比较也可作为补充。此后作者以台湾地区的缠足材料为基础，展开量化研究，比较台湾地区福佬、客家与土著缠足观的差异与地域分布，并认为缠足对田间劳作的影响比通常认为的小，反驳所谓旱地劳作与湿地劳作对缠足的影响一说。（p112）通过辽宁等地的数据，对手工业假说（劳动约束、轻劳动）展开反驳，认为缠足并非一种经济选择，也不是对女性劳动力的剥削。（p119-129）最后认为缠足不过是一种时尚，是社会地位的一部分，也掺杂进了婚姻的考量，与其说是向上流动的条件，不如说是获得体面的先决条件（p171），不应该夸大身份政治和种族认同在这一时期缠足研究中的地位。 (展开)
0 有用 Gecila 2020-04-02 10:40:51
有关缠足historiography的演进真是让人感慨万千...
0 有用 司马文岚 2020-04-03 00:20:37
早就看Ko的缠足研究不爽了，那么多后现代的文本解读，就喜欢这样搞实证，把Ko的脸打得肿肿的。什么文人想象，什么女性自我价值体现，对于绝大部分妇女而言，缠足与否就取决于羊群效应
0 有用 赖怀普 2022-11-20 23:58:41 河南
作者挖掘1644缠足禁令与孙之獬故事的真实性及其近代的演绎，认为坚持缠足是反抗满清的汉民族行为这一观点并不可靠。（p24-26）此外，缠足的地方差异比较也可作为补充。此后作者以台湾地区的缠足材料为基础，展开量化研究，比较台湾地区福佬、客家与土著缠足观的差异与地域分布，并认为缠足对田间劳作的影响比通常认为的小，反驳所谓旱地劳作与湿地劳作对缠足的影响一说。（p112）通过辽宁等地的数据，对手工业假说（... 作者挖掘1644缠足禁令与孙之獬故事的真实性及其近代的演绎，认为坚持缠足是反抗满清的汉民族行为这一观点并不可靠。（p24-26）此外，缠足的地方差异比较也可作为补充。此后作者以台湾地区的缠足材料为基础，展开量化研究，比较台湾地区福佬、客家与土著缠足观的差异与地域分布，并认为缠足对田间劳作的影响比通常认为的小，反驳所谓旱地劳作与湿地劳作对缠足的影响一说。（p112）通过辽宁等地的数据，对手工业假说（劳动约束、轻劳动）展开反驳，认为缠足并非一种经济选择，也不是对女性劳动力的剥削。（p119-129）最后认为缠足不过是一种时尚，是社会地位的一部分，也掺杂进了婚姻的考量，与其说是向上流动的条件，不如说是获得体面的先决条件（p171），不应该夸大身份政治和种族认同在这一时期缠足研究中的地位。 (展开)
0 有用 司马文岚 2020-04-03 00:20:37
早就看Ko的缠足研究不爽了，那么多后现代的文本解读，就喜欢这样搞实证，把Ko的脸打得肿肿的。什么文人想象，什么女性自我价值体现，对于绝大部分妇女而言，缠足与否就取决于羊群效应
0 有用 Gecila 2020-04-02 10:40:51
有关缠足historiography的演进真是让人感慨万千...