Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Barefootedness

On the 4th of July each year, the people of the United States of America celebrate Independence Day, the anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence on the same date in 1776. Although an official constitution was not ratified until 11 years later, we Americans generally think of July 4th as the anniversary of our country's founding.

Patriotic toes!
Courtesy: Elizabeth McCullough

Freedom is something we hold dear and do not take lightly in the U.S. Our country was founded on the basic principle of having the rights to say and do as you please (so long as it is within the law). Ask any American and they'll tell you that, for all of our country's flaws, this is still the best place to live in the world. I do believe that...to an extent. Why? Going barefoot in this country is a freedom that many of us do NOT have -- not really.

Americans have a deep relationship with -- even addiction to -- shoes. As much as women complain about how much heels hurt their feet, many would never think of giving them up. For many groups, the shoes they wear are a status symbol among their peers. Like addicts with a drug, most Americans feel like they need shoes. Footwear has become a part of our identities and influences how we feel about ourselves. They've become a prophylactic antibiotic that we've become convinced we will suffer without. The problem is that this country's addiction to shoes has led us to believe in inappropriate distortions and perversions of key biomechanical functions of our bodies.

Even though the Declaration of Independence says each one of us is endowed by our creator with the "unalienable" rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," our shoe-centric society has declared that those rights are at the discretion of others when it comes to our feet. Even though feet are not considered "private" areas of the body and going barefoot would bring no real harm or liability to anyone else, we somehow do not have the liberty to live in the way we feel is best for our own bodies.

There's Just No Justice

Though it's perfectly legal to drive, shop or dine barefoot almost everywhere in this country, the prevailing assumption is that it is illegal. It's all not true! Because these myths are so prevalent, they've percolated down into the collective of social norms so that many people now are convinced that it's wrong to go without shoes. It's widely thought that going barefoot -- that is, making the choice to not wear foreign objects on our bodies -- is unsafe, unhealthy, unhygienic and inappropriate. Because of that, we who prefer to live barefoot are often discriminated against by friends, family, business managers and more.

The scales of "justice" for bare feet.

That "and more" includes discrimination by the courts. Bob Neinast, a barefooter in Ohio, has actually brought suit against public facilities in his state for disallowing his bare feet and has subsequently LOST each one of the cases. The courts ruled that going barefoot is dangerous enough that the facilities have a right to bar their patrons from going without shoes. These rulings have been made without any legal or scientific evidence to back them up. These are obviously judges who carry the same biases against feet as so many others in our country.

It doesn't make sense. Where's the real "justice," here? The Declaration of Independence says I should have these freedoms and the 10th Amendment of The Constitution ultimately leaves all this up to the states "or to the people." No state has made illegal the practice of going barefoot, so I should be in the clear because the right belongs to the people - of which I am one - right?

One could argue that business proprietors also have a right to pursue their own happiness -- a happiness that may come partially from having all their patrons keep their shoes on so that they don't get hurt and the owner doesn't get sued. I wonder, though: Who ultimately gets to decide that a business proprietor's rights supersede my individual right to not wear shoes? What if the establishment is a public institution whose purpose is to serve the people (e.g. a public library, courthouse, city hall, capitol building, etc.)? All of Bob Neinast's lawsuits have rightfully argued that these tax-funded institutions should not be biting the hand that feeds them and have no reason to deny people entry simply because they are without shoes. Likewise, you'd think that most businesses wouldn't take issue with a paying barefoot customer so long as they're not putting others at risk. Does the danger of allowing customers go barefoot really rank worse than losing their money and helping your bottom line?

The Realities of Risk

I've heard all the ill-conceived reasons to deny people the ability to go barefoot into an establishment. There's a widespread belief that walking barefoot inside a store or restaurant is an enormous risk to the feet and has the potential for significant injury. In all actuality, the risks in going barefoot are very low - much lower than other activities, actually, that are allowed by various establishments. There is rarely any broken glass or super infectious disease just laying about, especially the kinds that can cause serious injury.

When you take a close look at what patrons of most establishments are allowed to do, it's surprising that bare feet are what get banned for "safety" reasons. There are no other social norms, legal precedents, or identifiable risk concerns that require the constant restriction or "protection" of ongoing biological systems like those for the feet:

• Hand Function: Restaurants do not require that diners wear protective gloves when using a fork or steak knife. Diners are expected to be careful and try not to cut themselves. Establishments (except for specific areas of some hospitals) do not require that patrons wear surgical gloves on property to avoid the risks associated with communicable diseases. Individuals take on the risks of being infected when in public places. Library patrons aren't expected to wear gloves to protect against paper cuts when flipping through books. It's expected that they take on those risks.
• Respiratory Function: Establishments (except for specific areas of some hospitals) do not require that patrons wear protective masks to avoid the risks associated with communicable diseases. A social norm exists that individuals take on the risks of being infected when in public places. Gas stations don't require that customers who fill up their cars wear gas masks to protect against noxious gasoline fumes. Everyone involved understands that the risk of inhaling such things is part of the process.
• Neck Function: Amusement parks do not require people to wear neck braces on roller coasters or bumper cars. (In fact, I can tell you from my experience working a roller coaster years ago that riders with neck braces would not be allowed) Policies are posted that you take on the risk of injury by riding such things. Car manufacturers do not require that drivers and passengers in their vehicles wear neck protection as part of the safety features in case of a collision. A social norm exists that people take on the risk of being injured if a collision occurs.
• Hearing: Concert and auto racing venues do not force attendees to wear ear plugs for their own safety even though these events can get to volumes that are dangerous for the hearing. Concert goers and racing fans understand that by participating, they take their hearing into their own...ears.
• Eyesight: Outdoor venues do not require on sunny days that their guests wear sunglasses for their eyes' protection. People understand that they take responsibility for their own eye health.

Are the risks from going barefoot so much worse than those from the activities above? Is the potential for impaired hand function, lung infection, neck pain, hearing loss and cataracts so much less objectionable than a cut to the foot?

Biology's Best

One natural - but very controversial - biological function has had to be protected by law to prevent discrimination against those who practice it. Even with legal protection, breastfeeding is still looked upon poorly by many in our society. In fact, many mothers hesitate to use their right to breastfeed in public even with the protections afforded by law in almost every state. As I blogged about in June 2010 ("Exposing Another Healthy Taboo"), going barefoot and breastfeeding both have many health benefits and are legal in public, but both also have a prudish stigma attached to them. One is frequently protected by law, but the other is not. Do the health benefits of breastfeeding far outweigh the benefits from going barefoot?

The hands and feet are both unique sections of the body that serve important and specific biomechanical functions. Just as a core element of our hands is to feel, grasp, move and use objects, our feet serve a critical function in our ability to stand, feel, balance, walk and climb objects (like stairs, for example). Both hands and feet have a large number of bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints and nerve endings that are used to carry out these jobs. Blocking our feet from feeling the ground, a process called exteroception, stifles an important and significant biomechanical system that aids the body in balance and danger avoidance. Reducing foot flexibility by requiring footwear increases the likelihood for tightened soft tissues and foot stiffness.

For each establishment that requires shoes on our feet, it forces the equivalent of gloves on our hands, masks on our faces, braces on our necks, plugs in our ears and shades on our eyes. By denying us - heck anyone - the ability to choose what is best for our own bodies, we are being denied something that was "endowed" to us by our creator - or nature, if you so choose. It's one thing for a person to choose for themselves to wear shoes - that, too, is a liberty afforded in this country - but it's another when a person is denied entry to a business, church or publicly-owned facility only because they prefer to go shoeless.

The Pursuit of Protection

I assert that going barefoot should be legally protected from an establishment's ability to set codes of conduct or attire. We have a natural biomechanical right to go barefoot and take on the risks associated with it. It's an issue of health and personal liberty. Just as laws have been established to protect the biological functions of breastfeeding women and their babies, laws should be put in place to protect the biomechanical functions of bare feet. It's the right thing to do. Realize that dress codes dictating what kind of pants can't be worn or prohibiting certain kinds of hats is not in the same vain as this issue. This is a matter directly related to protecting key systems of the human body.

My fear is that we could see a very appreciable and negative backslide for the barefooting movement if these issues aren't proactively tackled now. Many of my readers may disagree with me, but I believe that the increase in barefoot activity that we're seeing could lead to the tables turning against us. In some ways they already have because of the precedents set in the court decisions mentioned earlier. We don't want court precedents discriminating against barefoot activity to continue, that is for certain.

Going forward, I will begin pursuing the legal and legislative intricacies related to all this. Through my own efforts and the collective backing of The Primalfoot Alliance, we barefooters will hopefully soon be able to see significant positive change in support of the barefoot lifestyle. I don't know where this road will ultimately lead. I hope it doesn't end in disappointment at every curve. With the arguments I've laid out above, I hope to present a solid case to attorneys and legislators that protecting bare feet is the right thing to do. It's a pursuit of happiness that should be protected.

What do you think? Should barefoot activity be protected by law? Am I off base by comparing bare feet to other biomechanical systems of the body or even breastfeeding? What do you think needs to be done in the U.S. to press the issue of greater barefoot acceptance and less discrimination? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.