 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by ThaoThanhNguyen0725 (talk | contribs) 18 days ago. (Update) |
Every Step a Lotus: Shoes for Bound Feet is an illustrative guide by Dorothy Ko about footbinding.
Synopsis edit
History edit
Study edit
- saijfioajdioa
Reception edit
Sinologists and social scientists have acclaimed Every Step a Lotus as a visually splendid exhibition of lotus shoes that simultaneously appeals to the general public while providing a nuanced, informative explanation of the numerous factors behind the popularity of footbinding in late imperial China. Art historian Suzanne Cahill commended Ko's endeavor to uncover the heart of late imperial Chinese culture through a methodological examination of lotus shoes as exemplifying the Confucian imperative of the "investigation of things." Sociologist Stephen R. Smith praised the multidisciplinary appeal Ko lent through her inclusion of multiple perspectives informed by other social sciences, remarking, "Historians will be pleased with her arguments about change over time. Anthropologists will be pleased with both the etic (scientific, analytical) and etic (native understanding) interpretations, and cultural geographers will like her discussion of distributional variables." However, some scholars have criticized Ko's neglect of the significance of class differences between women in late imperial China in informing footbinding attitudes and practices. Anthropologist Francesca Bray expressed dissatisfaction at Ko's conspicuous silence on the question of how mothers would continue to bind their daughters' feet despite their consciousness that they were inflicting pain on them, commenting that "the non-sinological public may be ready for an account of footbinding which engages more explicitly with some of its ambiguities." Gender studies scholar Sarah Dauncey raised questions about the motivations behind the gentry women's gravitation toward homemade textile production and recommended that Ko address these by articulating the relationship between class and footbinding practices more clearly.