This has been quite an eventful spring for me.  One different from any previous ones, in fact unique from any other part of my life.  While I had many occasions, where I went non-stop for several days either by definition barefoot or with nothing on my feet, it usually went no further than 6 days.

I am now happy to say that I have been going barefoot in the true sense of the word non-stop for 2 weeks – a stretch that began on March 20th – the first day of Spring.

Can I prove that to you? Well, only voluntarily.  If you bump into a lot of people who know me, while they would all probably attest that I haven’t worn socks in almost 2 years, they would say I was bullshitting as far as being barefoot 24/7.  And to a certain point of view they would be correct.  Take a look at this foot and tell me if it is shod.

One of my favorite adages goes as follows:

“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck” 

It almost always generates a chuckle of two when it gets to people to realize how obvious a situation or person is that merits that quote.  It can piss others off when used directly at them, for example when I thought one of my contractors was trying to change the terms of the agreement.  He was not happy when I directed that quote at him.

Now based on the duck test, I would for sure agree that this looked like a shoe.  Though it doesn’t quack, whether it walks like a shoe, we will get to in a minute.

What made me think of this quote?  It can be applied to a person that is shod but considers himself to be barefoot. As barefoot has become more mainstream and shoe companies are rushing to create the next best thing to barefoot (yes – barefoot is still the best!), the term itself has grown more abstract to the point where some get philosophical about the actual term.

Years ago, things were much simpler and meanings less abstract.

You were either shod or barefoot.

In other words: If it looked like a shoe, it was for sure a shoe! Otherwise a person was barefoot.

Unfortunately with those two general states however came even more generalizations and stereotypes.

Shoes equaled affluence and bare feet meant poverty

Shoes = civilized; Bare feet = primitive

Shoes = intelligence; Bare feet = ignorance

Shoes = sophistication; Bare feet = simplicity

Shoes = adult, maturity; Bare feet = childishness

While it was not uncommon years ago for children in school to be barefoot, shoes seemed to represent adulthood and advancing from  that small town barefoot boy playing in the field to a shod adult in a suit and constraining footwear and hosiery striving to attain the American dream.

The contrast became even sharper in the 1960′s as American youth – both genders – took to the streets barefoot – their intention was to show a return to earth, nature and innocence while conservatives and older generation people looked at it as a form of defiance and rebellion.  Though bare feet retained that stigma even after the protests wound down, a nice thing happened being that bare feet became fashionable to some American adults for about a decade before the 1980′s brought about a reversion in a sense to the 1950′s combined with an inane obsession for fashion which of course included uncomfortable shoes and flashy, in some cases florescent hosiery – probably due in part to the advent and popularity of music videos.

Not absent from this trend was of course the sneaker industry, each one jumping on the bandwagon to offer the most protective foot gear out there for running.  Cushioning, arch support, air pockets, the list goes on and on.  In fact from my own personal experience I owned about 5 different pairs of sneakers – basketball, tennis, 2 pairs of running shoes – 1 Nike, 1 Reebok, Keds slip-on, Tennis, and with that an drawer overflowing with athletic, dress, casual argyle type socks.  I was blessed not to have any kind of serious running injury from sneakers, although running the NYC Marath0n in ’97 was painful and I think I remember being sore for a few days.

Then with the turn of the century/millennium came a new outlook.  As people became more aware of personal health, a small group began to question whether shoes were healthy or in fact necessary and soon grew into a movement.  Most were not ready to jump into going barefoot, either out of fear of injury and equally being looked at as oddballs, so with the Vibram Five Finger Shoes, barefoot simulation was born.  One by one, companies began to jump on the barefoot bandwagon including Nike, New Balance and Adidas.  Barefoot running groups were born with a whole array of barefoot or minimalist shoes out there.  For the one who wants to have more of a sneaker there are the New Balance and for one that wants to go as minimal as possible, The Invisible Shoe!

At the same time, a change in attitude for footwear was growing, especially among women.  It was during the 1980′s & early 90′s “Working Girl”, starring Harrison Ford and Melanie Griffith set the trend – women getting into the corporate workplace and wanting to be as business like as possible.  On the hottest days of the summer, you would see them in their hose and closed heels by their desk waiting to be worn until it was time for their owner to switch back to sneakers.  This was the trend when I first joined the corporate world, though since my job did not require full corporate attire, I made it a habit early on of going to work sockless and spending the majority of my desk time as well as conference room meetings in my bare feet.

In the late 90′s with casual dress down Fridays becoming fashionable, sockless feet became commonplace, which soon spilled over into corporate dress days.  The closed shoe sockless look soon morphed into sandals.  As a more casual and comfortable style began to spread – the news headline on TV one day announcing “Bare legs and sandals! The new office scandal!”

It now became common to see secretaries and even professionals sitting at their desk with their feet bare, the stocking/sneaker/socks mobile attire now being replaced by flip flops.  While small businesses were becoming more numerous, with male employees going in flip flops and sandals as well, some of the more corporate types became more rigid refusing to accept anything that showed most of the foot as not wearing shoes – and for the first time footwear faced an identity crisis – shoe or not a shoe?

I have been a part of numerous discussions revolving around going shod or barefoot, especially when it came to the subject of running.  An example -  a friend of mine of Facebook would tell me, “I’ve been running barefoot for three weeks.”  I find myself having to ask – “you mean, nothing on your feet?” only to have him confess. “Well I mean Vibrams.”

I belong to a barefoot running group though now it is more precisely referred to as “barefoot and minimalist running group”.  Granted some people consider minimalist shoes barefoot while others do not.

On the same token I’ve heard foot-phobes complain about all the girls riding on subways “barefoot”.  It didn’t take much probing to figure out that he meant flip flops.  Others, more correctly in my opinion, consider feet in flip flops to be as shod as a closed shoe.  Flip flops work for most establishments that otherwise prohibit bare feet, though a slab or rubber in my opinion does not make a difference, other than separating it from the ground which should be a non-issue anyway.  It is really an argument that can go both ways – some considering a flip flop to be neither a shoe or barefoot – does it look like a shoe? or what does a shoe look like?

Is the definition of a shoe based on appearance or functionality?  Let’s look at Miriam Webster’s list of definitions:

 

On the website the word “shoe” as a noun has 6 definitions.  Let’s disregard the last 4 since they have nothing to do with footwear.

The first definition refers to something that has a sole and a lighter material on top.  This would definitely include a minimal type footwear including Vibrams.  On flip flops and even Invisible Shoes, as minimal as the top part is, it is some sort of material.  Thus, some establishment that for whatever odd reason bans bare feet would not have an argument against this type of footwear unless its rules called for “protective” footwear.  Remember as barefooters whether we like it or not, establishments have the right to post their own by-laws.

If it looks like a shoe, walks like a shoe, quacks – well okay shoes don’t quack…but otherwise it is a shoe.  Now Vibrams, flip flops and Invisible Shoes do not look like shoes but they still fit the primary definition.  Now what about say, topless sandals?

This definitely does not resemble a shoe in anyway, well say if you are standing and looking down.  Maybe if the wearer is sitting down and has her feet up they look like shoes.  They do walk like shoes, considering they are separated from the ground.  In the second definition, from the bottom up they appear as a shoe and function like a shoe.  So Webster would probably consider this a shoe and an NS3 establishment owner may at first glance be hesitant but then accept it as a shoe, unless he or she is concerned with appearance (but then you can throw the high heel on a man argument back in his face.  So topless shoes based on functionality would qualify as a shoe.

Let’s take the next item, the reverse of the previous one – soleless shoes.  I would categorize these under two groups based on the intent in which one wears them:

1.Decorative sandals

These are sometimes worn by say a bride who wants to have a barefoot wedding but decorate her feet.  These do not look like shoes, which is their actual intent – just to provide a pretty foot decoration and accentuate the beauty of the bare foot itself – thus to show others that she’s barefoot

2. Trick barefoot sandals

With these, the foot functions more as a bare one rather than a shod one, but their intent is the opposite of the first – to make others think that the foot is shod, when it is in actuality bare.  They could consist of just a strap that goes around the foot like a leather sandal or thong.  I have a pair of straps similar to that but have doubts about whether they are enough to trick the shoe police, so I designed my own.

My bare sole sandals (To keep my cover, I refrain from posting any picture of them on this site), tend to resemble a soled sandal more due to the I material I leave on the perimeter of my toes and behind the heel for the purpose of tricking the shoe police, but in actuality my sole is in full contact with the ground and my form is barefoot except for keeping the sole lower to the ground when around the shoe police.  Still outside of a couple of straps, the foot is bare and while off the foot, does not at all look like a shoe!

So while topless sandals may fit into the category of shoe, a soleless sandal would qualify to most as barefoot, especially if one of the the shoe police members challenged the wearer to show him the sole (or lack thereof!)  Which brings me to the next candidate.  Before I go further, let’s take a look at the picture below.

If you saw this image you would probably say that this person was shod. Whether you want to call it bare-shod or another term sockless, ultimately you would consider these feet shod.  If you were a foot-phobic establishment owner, or even better – the manager or employee of Whole Foods, you would probably even allow this person in and give him royal treatment.

  Here is another view from the side. Now using the “duck” test you can say this for sure looks like a shoe.  Does it walk like a shoe?  Well, that all depends on what a shoe walks like but I guarantee you this walks differently from anything that fits the first shoe and in the spirit of April 1st I say…

By the way, I realize I am typing this right after April 1st so now let’s say…

 

April Fools!

Now would you say this walks or functions like a shoe?  If you go by the first definition in Webster, as this lacks a sole, this would not fit that criteria.

And no, this is not an optical illusion.  This footwear is entirely sole less which allows the foot to come out from the bottom entirely.   Looking from below the sole is entirely cut out.  By the way, since taking this picture, I’ve cut away further around what’s left of the sole so the foot is entirely touching the ground.

Now coming back to our argument, this may or may not fit the second definition – something resembling a shoe in function or placement.

Functionally this would be barefoot in a decorative sandal.  It may cover your foot from the rain but the sole is still unprotected, defying the original purpose of the shoe.

Now perhaps it comes close to appearing as a shoe in placement as the upper part is positioned in the exact way a shoe would fit.  But would placing a shoe on yourself include resting your foot on a sole that separates it from the ground?

I posted this as a question on a survey and most felt that a person wearing an item like this would be considered shod.  Considering that the second definition of the word “shoe” has such a broad definition, it really becomes a matter of what is to the person wearing it and audiences.  While others may consider the person by all means shod, it is mainly out of reasons of deception.  If a Whole Foods manager were to see the sole, he or she may decide not to allow the person in – or may just look the other way thinking to him or herself “well, his feet are bare, but who’s looking?”  If I were to wear these and cross one foot over the lap a person sitting next to me would probably exclaim “he’s barefoot!”

Now let’s focus on the person wearing these, what would be his motive?  Maybe fashion but that is highly unlikely for a person who eschews shoes.  The sole (no pun intended) purpose would be to get the feeling of walking barefoot, or to continue to enjoy its health benefits that he would otherwise not be getting were he wearing bonafide shoes with a sole.  If not for the shoe police or establishments not accepting bare feet, this person would not wear them at all.  It is as his motive would be to go barefoot and not get any kind of hassle while defying unnecessary rules.

This is a dramatic difference from a shoe fitting the first definition, which include flip flops and even topless sandals, worn to avoid contact between the bare sole and ground.  While the foot may appear to be closer to bare than the soleless shoe, it still behaves closer to a shod foot than a bare one.

On the other hand, a soleless sandal like the decorative ones, or functional one designed to trick the shoe police functions similarly to the sole-less shoe.  To the individual this is as close to bare as it gets without the foot in plain view.  Based on the now vague difference of shod or barefoot, would it actually be considered bare?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Well, I am glad to say that I can take these off in confidence knowing that no smell is emanated from their lack of bottoms or my soles themselves.  Yay to no more smelly feet typically caused by an insole of any kind.

As I wear them and cross one foot over the left, the best reaction is the gut one – OMG his feet are bare! I think that kind of reaction is enough to confirm them as indeed bare.

Indeed they are.

The Barefoot Lifestyle Coach who by the definition of a shoe, has not worn them in 2 weeks – accounting so far for all of Spring!

Let your toes spring you forward!

{ 0 comments }