Footbinding was a brutal Chinese custom in which a young girl's feet were deformed through tightly wrapping them. It created a small, dainty foot, which was considered a sign of beauty. (At least, until she took her shoe off, and then it looked hideous). It was irreversible, and pretty much crippling. A foot-bound young woman was not going to be sweeping her porch or running around with the kids. The custom lasted until the beginning of the 20th century. It was a treasured example of conspicuous consumption, demonstrating that the family had wealth enough to support a woman who could do no physical labour.
Confucians have taken some flack for not speaking out against this custom. Is it a fair criticism?
On the one hand, Confucians were dealing with some difficult issues like how to feed millions of people and how to prevent barbarian invasions. Beauty fads, even ones lasting centuries, are not the normal topic for philosophers and imperial advisors. Current Feminists address issues like anorexia and cosmetic surgery, but most philosophers don't.
When we first hear about a practice like this, we tend to imagine it as something inflicted on the poor girls. And we have good reason to. But if we step away from our own cultural values (as justified as they are in this case) it isn't so hard to imagine that the girls actually desired it.
The bound foot was first of all a sign of beauty and second of all almost a requirement for future marriage. Even in modern, North American culture, girls like to be considered beautiful and marriageable. And when so many people are suffering things that they don't want, you tend to overlook the fact that some of them are suffering things they do want. For example, is it a failing of modern social theorists they don't take a stronger stand on smoking? Whenever they try, they just end up looking priggish and another teenager decides to light up. (In fact, J. R. Reynolds could sponsor a slick advertising campaign and make foot-binding all the rage again.)
There were plenty of Confucian prigs, don't be fooled. In fact, probably all of them were prigs at one time or another. But Master K'ung did instruct us not to be. And for an excellent reason: people don't listen to prigs. The sort of denouncements that critics seem to want from Confucians on this issue aren't very persuasive, especially when addressing an endemic problem that no one recognises as a problem.
But couldn't they have at least refrained from having their own daughters' feet bound? Sure, they could have done. Maybe some of them did, though I doubt it. Which makes you a better father: to make your daughter a physical cripple or a social cripple? A mother and a wife still has the chance to teach proper values to her family, and serve as a strong rolemodel. A single girl with healthy feet is a voice crying out in the wilderness, and what good is that? Confucian dads would have bound their own feet if it meant they were able to have a more positive impact on society.
See, Confucians, almost alone among moralists, are used to functioning in the real world. They had an idea of the shape of the world they wanted, but they knew it would take a lot of small, dainty steps to get there. Solve the problems you can, and the ones you can, let go for the moment. Shocking moral statements get people's attention, but in the end, it is gentle persuasion and strong rolemodeling that makes the difference.