Saturday, May 15, 2010

Going Barefoot

I’m on State Street, in downtown Ann Arbor, walking behind a tall young man with a green mohawk dressed all in black leather, but everyone is staring at me. I have on new jeans and a dress shirt, with my computer carrying case. It’s sunny, early summer, most people are dressed in less clothing than I, except I’m the only one with no shoes.

Two years ago I ‘acquired’ a running injury called plantar fasciitus, in which the fascia, kind of a sheath, or layer, of tissue running along the bottom of the foot, which aids in arch support, gets inflamed. I ended up seeing four different doctors and spending lots of money that my uninsured self couldn’t really afford, only to be told that I would never get ‘better,’ that since I was getting older, plantar fasciitus was something I’d have to learn to live with, so that every time I ran I would have to use super arch support shoes, with an extra added arch support insole, and tape my feet, every time. At the time, I was grateful. I just wanted to run again. After a while though, and after lots of tape, when I still couldn’t ever run more than twenty-five minutes at a time without feeling a throbbing pain in my heels, I started to re-think my problem: If a bone breaks, in general it heals. If a tendon gets torn, it heals. Why not a fascia?

Then a friend recommended barefoot running. Initially skeptical, after doing some informal research on the Internet, I became curious with the personal testimonies by folks on a barefoot running Yahoo! Group, who claimed their running injuries stopped after starting to run barefoot. Around the same time I came across Men’s Health and Fitness writer Chris McDougall’s book Born To Run, in part a great reflection/investigation about how we humans literally evolved as long-distance runner-hunters. McDougall also takes the running shoe companies, especially Nike, to task for pushing a product that is actually bad for the human foot. The argument goes: we humans went two million years barefoot, our feet are built for it. It’s not, like I believed for years, that we’re getting foot injuries like plantar fasciitus because we walk on paved surfaces now. To use Spike Lee out of context: “It’s the shoes!”
So I tried it, alternating running barefoot with these things made by the Vibram company called Five Fingers, basically gloves for the feet, just a rubber-like protective covering on the bottom, with no arch support or cushion. And, suddenly, immediately, I was running again, with no plantar fasciitus problems. In fact, the more I ran, the better my feet started to feel.

In order to toughen up the bottoms of my feet, I started going barefoot in my apartment, which may not seem radical, but the doctors had said I’d never be able to go barefoot again, ever. Then I moved outside, going barefoot around town. And, it felt good. Kind of naked, kind of taboo, kind of non-conformist. Sure, stepping on a pokey rock hurt, at little, and still does, but I liked the odd sensation of having sensation down there. I’d never realized how cut off my feet were in shoes. At first, especially after runs, my feet felt raw walking across cement sidewalks, and some sidewalks were rougher than others, but pretty soon my feet toughened up, and actually changed shape and size: when I had to wear shoes for whatever reason, rarely, they felt strange, small and constrictive. That was the worst part about going barefoot. The best part? Splashing through puddles and squishing mulberries.

And yes, one time after about four months with no incidents, I did cut myself on glass. I’d just walked out my front door and wasn’t paying attention, probably looking at an attractive woman across the street, so it was her fault, and I stepped on a piece of glass three houses down. I had even seen glass there before, because the kids that live there tended to have parties sometimes, so I should’ve been checking. It hurt, kinda. It bled, kinda. I put on my moccasins for the rest of the day and wore my VFFs on runs for the next two days and I was fine. I will take that kind of pain though over the plantar fasciitus kind, the kind where I can’t run for two years, any day.


The contrast between people’s reactions to me running barefoot and walking barefoot is huge. That is, everyone looks at me like I’m crazy, but when I’m running barefoot, some people actually smile, or say, “That’s so cool!” or a “Dude, that’s hardcore!” Hardcore crazy is more acceptable. Normal life? Not so. For example, I walk into my favorite cafe: The place is full, and as soon as I step in, everyone, everyone, immediately stares at my feet. It’s only for about one second, maybe two, and just as quickly they look away, though as I walk up to the counter, they look again out of the corners of their eyes.

Or, on another day, walking barefoot to the Post Office, a young couple stared at me across the street while we all waited for a light to change. The woman managed to wait until we were all crossing, and I was closer to them, to say to her husband, “That’s disgusting!” I’m not sure if the majority of people in America would agree with this woman, but I realized she meant two different things. First, by going barefoot, I am walking on disgusting things, because everybody knows the streets of Ann Arbor are strewn with dogshit, and you can die from dirty feet. Second, she wasn’t just saying that going barefoot was ‘disgusting,’ nor were the people in the cafĂ© worried for my well-being. No, I was forcing my disgustingness on them, spreading dogshit anthrax spores with every step.

But the first place I got busted in, of all places, was the library. I admit to disappointment: I expected a confrontation at some point, perhaps with an irate restaurant manager, but not in one of my favorite bastions of democracy. I somehow thought the librarians would be on my side, since they’re supposedly rational, and open to new ideas, open to finding out stuff, finding out facts, the truth, that they instantly know what is right and wrong. Plus they don’t serve food in libraries. They wouldn’t have anything to freak out about, right?

I had actually been zipping in barefoot all summer to drop off books or pick up inter-library loans, definitely getting some weird looks from both the patrons and employees, but no one had ever said anything. On that particular day though, I walked up to the third floor to do some browsing and after a while an employee approached me. I actually felt sorry for him, he was very apologetic, and seemed like he really would have preferred to be doing anything else but stating to me that library policy required everyone to wear shoes. I couldn’t resist making him squirm a little by saying I hadn’t seen any signs saying I couldn’t, but he said that the library rules were posted around the building, and online. And I could’ve kept going and asked him to explain why there was a policy against bare feet, but I knew he didn’t know, and even more importantly didn’t care, so I put on my moccasins I’d had stashed in my bag for just such an emergency. But I did end up feeling a little humiliated somehow, and therefore actually somewhat angry, like I had been accused of being a criminal, and by a wimpy nerd librarian!

I couldn’t let it go without a least a small fight, and emailed the library director, asking her if there was indeed a shoe policy, and where I could find it, and to her credit she did write back the next day, informing me the that rules were posted around the building, and she gave me a link to them on the library website. I followed the link and yep, there it was, Rule #4:

Requires patrons to wear shirts and shoes, or other footwear, at all times in the Library for hygiene and safety purposes. (http://www.aadl.org/aboutus/policies/behavior)

Also in her email, the director politely addressed my feelings, saying she was sorry that I had felt singled out, but she did add (and I paraphrase here because I unfortunately didn’t save the email) that she was sure I would understand why there had to be a rule about footwear. I know she wasn’t talking about the safety issue, because what exactly would sandals save me from in a library that my bare feet wouldn’t? Instead, she meant that I would understand that going barefoot was unhygienic, and she was politely chastising me for doing something she thought I obviously knew to be wrong. So yes, I did understand something better: People think that someone going barefoot will spread disease to them.

To which I reply: Really?

How can a bare foot spread a disease, and/or make a public place unhygienic? How can it be that the bare foot is any more unhygienic than the sole of a shoe? Have you looked at the bottom of your shoes lately? I had plenty of recent sources demonstrating the benefits of going barefoot, starting with McDougall’s Born To Run, which cites some leading sports medicine experts, and after the book came out, articles in papers and on news websites popped up talking about the benefits of barefoot running, all of which also mentioned the benefits of going barefoot in general. But to be fair, I wanted to find something, somewhere, that would explain why/how going barefoot was unhygienic. Put another way: What was Library Rule #4 based on? Surely the librarians would base their rules on facts?

So where would I go to try to find the answers to these questions? The library! Oh, the irony. I made two separate visits to reference librarians to help point me in the right direction. First they helped me find the Ann City codes as a possible source, there’s actually a link to them from the library website, but you know what? There’s nothing about bare feet in public places. They also helped me navigate the available databases, both for popular magazines and newspapers, and peer-reviewed medical journals. They helped me get the right search words (like “hygiene” “foot care”) but neither with their help, nor on my own, could I for the life of me find anything that said going barefoot was unhygienic, though one really short article in Shape magazine articulated what most people probably feel is bad about going barefoot: "Your [____] pick up particles that contain lead from paint, pesticides from lawns, allergens from plants, and bacteria from animal feces.” That’s from John Roberts, an environmental engineer quoted in the article, who tested fifteen different houses for chemical exposures. Except, that blank space I’ve made in the text? It actually has the word “shoes,” not feet. Everything that people think bad about bare feet seems just as true for shoes, more so even, since feet get washed regularly.

The second reference librarian I talked with pointed me to an obvious source, one that I should have thought of on my own, since it’s the first place all my composition students head to: Wikipedia. The “Barefoot” entry on Wikipedia was obviously put together by pro-barefoot folks, and therefore a wee bit biased, but one important thing it does mention is a possible reason why going barefoot has become so taboo, something that I’d been wondering/suspecting myself: that various myths about, and regulations against, going barefoot “were perpetuated during the counterculture movement of the 1960s, as a way to keep hippies out of conventional business establishments.” I was born in 1968, and this fits with what I remember from the seventies: both seeing people going barefoot, and NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE signs, which nowadays are rare.

The most useful parts of the “Barefoot” entry were, like many Wikipedia entries, the References and Links sections. Most are recent magazine/newspaper articles, though none of them, of course, talk about any negative aspects of going barefoot. One of them, from The News and Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina, profiles three locals who choose to go barefoot, and this is the source the Wikipedia entry uses for the barefoot taboo coming from the anti-hippie movement in the 60s and 70s. The staff writer, Joe Miller, does a good job of giving some historical perspective on going barefoot, reminding his readers that “4 million years ago, going barefoot was all the rage,” and he has a couple claims that he presents as facts, and which sound correct, though I’m not sure where he’s getting them. The first is that we humans developed footwear as we moved to cooler areas of the globe. As a resident of Michigan, I can attest that this is probably basically true, though having walked over rocks myself, even with my new calloused feet, I’m betting protection was still a factor too.
The barefoot Wikipedia page also has a link to The Society for Barefoot Living website, and they’re the folks who I suspect wrote it. They’re a group of people in American and elsewhere, who, through the power of ‘teh Internet’ have banded together to offer support and advice to each other. Their website has even more sources about the benefits of going barefoot, and testimonials and some funny stories from members, but the most interesting and useful thing the group did was write letters to the Departments of Agriculture (which are responsible for healthy and safety codes for public businesses like restaurants) in each state asking specifically whether going barefoot was illegal or not. In every case (except for Utah, which didn’t write back, and somehow that doesn’t surprise me) the reply letters state that there are no regulations against going barefoot in public spaces. The ‘SBL’ has posted pdfs of the letters on their website. They also point out that there are no federal laws against going barefoot in public places, and only one, through The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), states that only employees of restaurants must wear footwear, for safety purposes.


I know, though, that proving logically that bare feet aren’t unhygienic, and that in fact going barefoot is good for feet, just isn’t good enough. I can present the evidence, and people still would not only not want to try it, but have an almost emotional reaction against anybody doing it, coming from some kind of currently accepted standard of cleanliness. I can’t expect everyone to lower their standard of cleanliness down to mine, not that mine are that different: I agree with washing hands as a way to stop the spread of germs and don’t think there’s anyone who wouldn’t. Thing is, we touch each other with our hands, we touch our noses and mouths with our hands, we touch silverware and doorknobs with our hands. With our feet? Not so much. They tend to stay on the ground, at least in the parts of the world I’ve visited. And if the counter argument is that someone going bare feet into a public place causes diseased germs to drift around and land on people’s food, why would that happen with feet and not shoes, or even sandals?

Other people having different standards of cleanliness would be fine, except that those standards affect me. That is, people’s personal tastes, and not facts, are forming policy that prevents me from doing some I want to do, when it’s not hurting anybody. So I’m left a little stumped: I wish the burden of proof were on the business to prove that I was being unhygienic, but that’s not how it works. Once someone at a restaurant asks you to do something, that’s it. Even arguing to prove one’s innocence is trouble, and nobody likes a troublemaker. I even understand that—I worked at a restaurant and I didn’t like the weirdoes that expected us to bend over backwards for their demands. And having an argument with a restaurant manager is a no-win situation for everybody:

“Excuse me sir, you need to have shoes on to be in the restaurant.”

“Really? According to what I know, there are neither federal, state, nor city laws against me being barefoot. What are you basing your statement on?”

“Listen pal, you want me to call the cops?”

Or something like that. Not fun for them, not fun for me. Both of our nights are ruined. I don’t want that. So, in order to just be treated like everyone else, if I just want to have a good dinner, without getting into a discussion about what is or is not legal to wear or not to wear in a restaurant, I have to be non-confrontational and put on shoes before I go in. Is this a big deal? I guess not. There’s bigger problems in the world. Does it make it fair? No, but a lot of things in this world aren’t fair. I’ll just have to consider my love of going barefoot as yet another in a long list of subversive things I have done in my life, like having long hair, playing heavy metal music, writing poetry, being a vegetarian, reading poetry, not owning a television, and voting my conscience.

Fortunately, living in Michigan makes getting too righteous about going barefoot hard, since it’s freezing-ass cold here six months of the year. As I wrote and revised this, the days got shorter and the air colder, and slipping on my moccasins has become necessary every time I go out. Which is not so unpleasant: they at least don’t have any arch support or padding, which feels good, and at home I still pleasantly pad around my apartment’s oak floors, waiting for Spring.

11 comments:

  1. Could be that the NO SHOES rule started to keep hippies out, but I imagine that it has prevailed these days to to avoid lawsuits that establishments could incur from you stepping on something, breaking a toe by kicking the stacks, dropping a book on your foot, etc. Litigious society, you know.

    My kids don't like to wear shoes, and I've had a librarian talk to me about that before. As you experienced, she was very polite about it. She explained that all sorts of awful things happen on that carpet and my daughter's feet shouldn't be touching them. Funnily enough, though, no one ever gave me a hard time about her crawling around on the floor before she could walk.

    One of the best ways to keep your house clean and save yourself cleaning time is not to bring your shoes (and the attendant outside dirt) into the house. I imagine that if you are barefoot all the time outside, you'd want to have slippers to wear when you go inside, at least until you clean your feet, to avoid bringing dirt in! Then again, feet have smaller "treads" than shoes, so probably less of a problem.

    Good for you for recognizing that the people who confront you about it in establishments don't know why the rule is there and don't care to have a discussion about it.

    You should not be surprised, though, if you are not allowed to go barefoot. Whether or not it is a state or federal law, establishments can obviously make their own rules which you have to agree to follow when you patronize them. I think they can do that because you always have the option of going someplace else!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is excellent, I meant to read it and reply when you posted it on the yahoo group a short time ago; it has languished in my inbox all this time.

    I've recently (in the last couple weeks) started "walking barefoot as much as I can." I have the opposite problem from Michigan, here in Texas the afternoon sun bakes everything and the tar on the roads is literally melting, so I don't like walking outside in my barefeet when it is like that. I did start walking around the office a couple weeks ago bare foot and a couple people have commented but nothing negative. So far.

    I agree with the last commenter, why is it nobody complains when our children crawl all over, but I walk in barefoot and suddenly they are concerned about health?

    I guess I'm like you, I'm not out to make a statement or cause a fuss, I just like walking barefoot. I'm not about to get into a fight with a business owner over it, and I have some Sanuks that are really just flip flops with cloth over them to wear shopping or dining, so everyone's happy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bri and Jen,

    Thanks both for taking the time to reply here. I agree with you both, there's some weirdness in regards to people's reactions. I recently had someone in Zingerman's (well known bread store here in Ann Arbor) a young guy, new employee, confront me about my bare feet, and man we surprised when I stood my ground about it. I think he went into shock.

    Anyway, Bri, I recently bought a pair of huaraches off of Barefoot Ted. I still prefer BFing, but wanted to try them. I've wondered about hotter weather, like you're describing, and I think I'd end up wearing the huaraches down there. I'm going to post a review of VFFs soon, and mention the huaraches in there. I'd like to hear more about those Sanucks.

    Cheers,

    John

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is the problem with all this - few younger people know the history of this, and those who are older have moved on and forgotten about the past, and change with the times. It's not like they teach details of cultural and social history in school that would include the practice of going barefoot as it was about 40 years ago. Few young people today even know that people actually did go barefoot in public and in stores then. You were born in 1968 - I was an elementary school kid. So I remember that time and what teenagers and young adults were doing, and seeing bare feet everywhere in public on nice summer days was just normal to me, and I took it totally for granted. More often than not, though, it was teenage girls and young women that were doing it. You really did not see much in the way of middle aged men doing it. Though for a few years, you could see barefoot and shirtless long haired young men with bellbottom jeans wandering around the streets. Those anti-barefoot signs probably started appearing around 1968 or so, (varied regionally), and by 1969 and 1970 spread to a lot of business windows all over the US, a lot more of them back then than there are now. Most were not worded the way they are today, at least not at first, they just said simply "No Bare Feet". There were enough people going barefoot then that the signs eventually became unenforceable. I assume that people were being kicked out all day for a while, then they just gave up. Some of the more stubborn store owners, somewhere, who knows who or where, then added the line "by order of board of health". Then that 'meme' spread quickly, and many people began to think it was a regulation. Signs or not, I used to see barefoot girls entering places ignoring the signs, and never saw anyone get kicked out. It was obvious to me even back then that the purpose of those signs was to keep hippies out. So in a way, they started as 'political' signs, not 'health and safety' signs. They just changed the reason years later. Long hair for men was also very unacceptable at first, but look how many times long hair for men went in and out of style in the past 40 years. And no one cares. So going barefoot was sort of tolerated for a while, but never became as accepted as long hair. For about 5 or 6 years, going barefoot was happening even in places like NYC. But as fads go, it was already on the decline by the mid to late 1970s, and even much less by the 1980s, with a slow decline by the end of the decade, and now it so rare that you have what is going on today. It never went in and out of style, just a slow decline to almost nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice post.
    Today I returned from a lunchtime run and as I was walking through the lobby a co-worker was escorting a guest out and looked at me in disgust and mentioned he didn't appreciate me spreading my diseases all over. All I could do was look at him with bafflement as say "are you serious"? And he was. He was actually offended by my bare feet. I'm the barefoot one. It is I who should be offended by what people might be tracking around on the bottom of their shoes!

    A few weeks ago I was asked to leave a library since a book may fall and injure my bare feet. I walked out and put on my flip-flops and went back in. The security guard thanked me for understanding. As if a pair of flip-flops is going to protect my feet that much more? I just don't understand the stupidity of some people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "he didn't appreciate me spreading my diseases all over"

    People REALLY NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT BIOLOGY AND SCIENCE IN GENERAL. Lack of knowledge of basic science is atrocious in the US. Then they would be much less likely to say something that totally stupid. Someone that says that needs to be totally confronted and asked specifically. Name the diseases, how is it they could be spread, by what mechanism. Then ask him if access to all beaches should be prohibited. After all, aren't all those thousands of bare feet spreading diseases to each other? And people are not just walking on the sand, but letting it run through their hands, digging in it, lying in it, and even burying themselves in it. Then they use their hands to eat with. And seagulls do not use the toilet, last time I looked. And there aren't any beachgoers dropping dead left and right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Juicy Couture, from the California fashion brand,the designed is to go the sweet girls'route. Juicy couture tracksuits are heat in the market for people buying them as gifts or for themselves. The jewelries are fashion design, quality guarantee and also value the money. Find discount juicy couture tracksuits at Juicy couture tracksuits on sale.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christian Louboutin experimental art and design styles in shoe manufacturing is a maverick. Embellishment on the shoes of those well-designed small-pattern often gives people a great surprise, such as a bright red sweetheart, a pink feathers, delicate and charming flower buds. Charmingly, Christian Louboutin Slingback enjoy great part of the market place and huge popularity among consumers. Find discount Christian Louboutin at Christian Louboutin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow barefoot running is exciting for me...I feel it is a very challenging things to do...Nice post there!!!

    ReplyDelete