During the Hundred Days' Reform, Kang Youwei submitted the "Memorial Requesting the Prohibition of Women's Foot-Binding," petitioning Emperor Guangxu to issue an edict banning foot-binding and transforming social customs. Like the other seeds sown during the reform, this memorial died in the womb when the coup d'état ended the movement. The Chinese people—Chinese women in particular—were subjected to decades more of cruelty at the hands of the ignorant and vicious Qing rulers. There are now many historical revisionists who claim Kang Youwei was all talk and no action—nothing could be further from the truth. In the history of the anti-foot-binding movement, Kang Youwei was both a visionary in thought and a pioneer in action. Revolution begins at home: Kang Youwei resisted pressure from his clan and refused to bind his own daughters' feet. In 1895, he founded the Guangdong Anti-Foot-Binding Society in Guangzhou. In 1897, the movement expanded to Shanghai, where Kang Guangren, Liang Qichao, Tan Sitong, and others established the Natural Foot Society. The Natural Foot Society did not merely advocate against foot-binding; it worked through practical social initiatives to create a social environment free from the practice. Its charter stipulated that daughters born to members must not have their feet bound, sons born to members must not marry women with bound feet, and members were free to intermarry among themselves. Progressive in thought and pragmatic in action—a true practitioner of what he preached. In the Qing dynasty, for a woman to have the right to unbound feet, she had to be a daughter of Kang Youwei and his comrades. Today, Chinese women are born without the fear of foot-binding and broadly enjoy the rights to education and employment. This is because they are daughters of socialism. Through the great revolutions of the twentieth century, Chinese women have, on the whole, gained relatively equal rights to social participation, both in law and in practice. This is truly remarkable. I say this today not to give credit to a male figure in the history of women's rights, but rather to discuss the relationship between tradition and modernity. For over five years now, from the top leadership on down, there has been great talk of tradition—tradition seems even more popular than the renminbi. And this so-called "tradition" amounts to nothing more than "new rural gentry culture," "family values and family rules," the Disciple's Rules, the Vegetable Root Discourse—things that are neither elevated nor anything but reactionary. The situation for women is also grave: at one International Women's Day speech, the top leader used the phrase "assisting the husband and teaching the children"—something unprecedented. Yet if we look at Kang Youwei's thought and political practice, we know that tradition is not a monolith. Tradition was never a static, internally consistent thing, much less capable of providing a guarantee of what is "desirable." Kang Youwei's political philosophy was considered heretical by many, but within the Gongyang school of classical scholarship, this characterization is untenable. In the Han dynasty, Gongyang scholars regarded Confucius as an uncrowned king who reformed society under the guise of antiquity, the Spring and Autumn Annals as a political constitution, and the Gongyang Commentary as its chief reference—all basic common knowledge. The doctrines of the Three Ages and the Great Unity also had firm foundations. Kang Youwei's political philosophy naturally bore the imprint of his times, but it was by no means an invention of history. Yet today, when our society calls upon tradition, it pointedly does not summon the kind of tradition represented by Kang Youwei—a tradition that drove social revolution, that was progressive and revolutionary. Instead, it summons the kind that confirms and reinforces power relations. It summons the abstruse, decrepit tradition of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism from the history of classical scholarship. Rather than promoting Kang Youwei's tradition of organic social participation and the transformation of customs, it glorifies rural gentry and clan structures—traditions that have historically deeply harmed and oppressed the people. What kind of tradition is this? It is precisely the kind Mao Zedong and Lu Xun spoke of: the tradition that, once a ruling order has been established and power secured, takes a Confucianism stripped of its revolutionary and critical edge, erects a statue of Confucius in Tiananmen Square, and uses it to justify unequal power relations. Every dynasty in history has done the same. But we are fortunate to have Master Kang. As early as the nineteenth century, he showed us how to view tradition, how to use tradition, how to engage in organic social participation, and how to carry out social revolution with the unity of knowledge and action. Here is the original text of the "Memorial Requesting the Prohibition of Women's Foot-Binding":

Your servant memorializes requesting the prohibition of women's foot-binding, so as to preserve their bodies and uphold the transformation of customs, and humbly submits this memorial for the Imperial review:

It is recalled that the Han minister Jia Yi, in his "Memorial on Governance," stated: "High officials treat clerical matters and scheduled meetings as great affairs, yet when customs decay and society degenerates, they see nothing strange in it." This was truly a man who understood the essentials of order and disorder. The way of governance must attend to both root and branch, and nothing is greater than protecting the people. The glory of sagely transformation lies in attending to every detail, and nothing takes precedence over rectifying customs. In this age of intercourse among all nations, where governance and customs are compared with one another, the slightest failing invites mockery and contempt—this is no longer the era of a unified, closed empire. In our China, thatched hovels stand side by side, ragged garments are seen everywhere; add to this the binding of opium and beggars lining the roads. Foreigners photograph these scenes and circulate them as jokes, deriding us as barbarians. And what draws the greatest ridicule and shame is the practice of women's foot-binding. Your servant feels deep disgrace at this.

The amputation of feet was one of the ancient corporal punishments—a punishment that, once inflicted, is irreversible. Later rulers, fearing its reach to the innocent, abolished it, and history has praised their virtue. What crime have women committed that, from childhood, they should be subjected to this amputation, suffering lifelong agony, irreversible once done? This is truly without parallel in all nations, and especially intolerable to a sage ruler. Parents nurture their children with compassion as their guiding principle; girls, being physically weaker, deserve even greater care. Yet barely weaned, their hair still damp, their sinews not yet grown, their bones not yet hardened, their tender feet are ruthlessly bound and tightly wrapped. With three feet of cloth and seven feet of binding, fingers are forced to curl, bones are forced to break, feet are crumpled and crippled, pressed to the earth beneath a darkened sky. The young girls suffer and cry day after day. Sometimes medicinal water is applied, fumigated morning and night. Narrow socks and tiny shoes are worn even at night, all to ensure the feet are bent and never straightened, slender and never sturdy. They must hold the bedpost to stand, lean against the wall to walk. The wealthy suffer from this, and the poor even more so—operating the well and the mortar themselves, doing the cooking and washing, tending children below and serving ailing mothers-in-law above, running hither and thither without a moment's rest, climbing heights and treading depths, going about daily labors—all while clutching their feet and sighing, weeping behind furrowed brows. Some fall from ladders and lose their lives; some are injured and sickened by the pain. And in times of fire, flood, war, or flight, carrying husbands, clasping children, hauling belongings and clothes—impassable gorges cannot be crossed, high peaks cannot be climbed, jagged rocks block the way, thorns snag their garments—how many have hanged themselves from trees or leapt from buildings to their deaths, beyond counting! Even in times of peace and prosperity, in wealthy, fortunate households with maids aplenty, sitting comfortably to eat—yet in matters of propriety and human relations, in times of illness, in serving elders and raising children, receiving relatives and entertaining friends, how can there be no hardship? And hardship aside, hygiene is truly harmed: blood and vital energy cannot circulate, the air is foul, foot disease is easily contracted and transmitted to the body—sometimes passed down to descendants, weakening generation after generation. These are all our nation's people. With weakness passed down the line, how shall we raise soldiers? Observe the people of Europe and America: upright in body, vigorous in spirit, for their mothers do not bind their feet, and thus their offspring are strong. Look upon our own people: frail, slight, and stooped, for their mothers bind their feet, and thus their offspring are weak. In this era when all nations conscript their armies and compete with one another, to preserve this weakened stock is cause for the gravest alarm.

That parents, in their compassion and love, should willingly inflict this cruel and inhumane punishment upon their little daughters—it is only because this vile custom has been passed down, and without it a woman is not valued. If her feet are unbound, no good family will marry her; she is degraded to the status of a concubine or maidservant. Thus parents would rather injure one part of her body than see her cast aside for life. This is a matter of individuals and families, and those who endure the bitterness in silence truly have no recourse. Yet if a sage ruler cherishes and protects the common people—if even one man's misfortune is regarded as the ruler's own failing, if even one creature not in its proper place is taken as a personal transgression—then to allow two hundred million Chinese women, generation after generation for all eternity, to suffer this amputation, and four hundred million Chinese people, generation after generation for all eternity, to propagate this weakened stock—this brings no glory to the protection of the people and gravely injures benevolent governance. Can Your Majesty not feel compassion and be moved to concern?

Your servant has investigated this vile custom of foot-binding, but its origins remain unknown. The "sharp-toed shoes" mentioned in the Records of the Grand Historian were merely pointed at the toe; Tang dynasty poetry had not yet celebrated the practice. It was in the Song dynasty that it spread throughout the land to the present day. Some attribute its creation to Li Houzhu, the last ruler of the Southern Tang, though it may simply have been the wind of an evil fashion. Song scholars noted that only the family of Cheng Yi refrained from foot-binding—from which the prevalence of the custom can be inferred. In all of ancient and modern history, across all nations, there has never been a vile custom so injurious to the body, unrelated to any official decree, yet so pervasive across the realm and persistent across a thousand years. Nothing is more appalling. In terms of national law, it constitutes an unlawful punishment inflicted upon the innocent. In terms of familial love, it harms the compassion of parents. In terms of personal health, it breaks bones to cause purposeless disease. In terms of military strength, it perpetuates the folly of weakened stock. In terms of the beauty of custom, it earns the mockery of "barbarism" from neighboring nations. If this can be tolerated, what cannot?

Moreover, when the reigning dynasty arose, it strictly prohibited foot-binding; thus Manchu women all esteem natural feet. All who are subjects of the empire, equally sheltered under heaven—the women of the realm deserve even greater compassion. Furthermore, laws should be uniform and customs should be consistent. May Your Majesty take pity on these helpless women, rescue these innocents, and promptly prohibit this cruel practice and reform this evil custom. I humbly request that a clear edict be issued strictly prohibiting women's foot-binding: those who have already bound their feet shall loosen them entirely; those who defy the order—if their husband or son holds office, he shall not receive investiture; if he is already an official, he shall be subject to a fine. Any girl under the age of twelve found to have bound feet—her parents shall be severely punished. Thus shall the wind bend the grass, and the evil custom shall be reformed of its own accord. All the weak women of the nation shall be made whole in body, the stock of China shall gradually grow strong, the foreigners' accusation of barbarism shall be dispelled—and the benefit to the sage's civilizing influence will be no small thing! Humbly submitted for Your Majesty's sacred review.