 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perry’s Philosophy of Shoelaces
Cross-culture of shoes and knots The first point to make is that, as well as their purely functional aspect, shoelaces can be seen both from the perspective of being part of the well established culture of shoes and as a sub-set of the world of knots. These two areas are very different; one about fashion, the other about tradition; one about class and status, the other about function; one about feel the other about process. Shoelaces are therefore of interest because they embody the clash between these very different histories, beliefs and attitudes. Just look at a pair of fashionable laced shoes and you can see these contradictions at work. It is no surprise that at the height of shoe fashion the lace is absent. A difficulty in agreeing a cultural role for the shoelace is also clear. Cultural references to shoes
are all around us (following in someone's footsteps, the Cinderella story, red shoes etc. etc.).
Cultural references to shoelaces however, are limited to two. Firstly there are the general metaphors associated
with learning to tie shoelaces. e.g. phrases like 'he couldn't even remember how to tie his laces.'
This does provide a useful example for an analysis of learned behaviour, where a complex sequence of steps is learnt
when young and remains a habitual part of ones life. The questions of how this is accomplished, how the information is stored and how easy it is to modify behaviour or apply it in different circumstances are helped by the shoelace-tying example, but this isn't taken any further here. Secondly, there remains the widespread (certainly in western culture) use of the term 'shoestring' to
mean low budget. I suspect this will have developed in the Middle Ages when lace fastenings were associated with the
lower classes and anyone who was anyone had elaborate buckle fastenings. However, the first known reference to
'shewstring' only comes from the early 17th century. The first use of the term as meaning 'low budget' doesn't appear
until the late 19th century. For example, shortly after this A P Valdes uses the phrase 'he speculated on a shoe-string'
in the book The Origin of Thought from 1904. This brings us to a fuller exploration of the history of the shoelace, where things really start to
get interesting.
History Without any preamble, here is my precis of human development. This isn't pure invention, but is based on a fair amount of research. Obviously as we go back in time the evidence base gets weaker and the accuracy of dates becomes more questionable, but I think the basic point is sound.
Up until now the definition of when the first humans existed has traditionally been based on the invention and use of tools (Homus Habilis (i.e. handy man)). But we now know we're not the only animal to use tools, so others have proposed the discovery of how to create fire as a more suitable starting point for human existence. The view I'm suggesting here is that the creation of the shoelace pre-dates other significant inventions, but still acts as a defining moment in the move to becoming a creative manipulator of the environment. The development of the shoelace probably has as great a claim as anything else as the defining moment in starting human history. This leads directly to the first postulation.
Perry's First Postulation My argument for this can be summarised by: 1. The evolution of humans is inextricably tied to the move from tree-dwelling to a ground based existence and the development of an upright posture. There is, I think, still some debate as to whether this move was caused by or whether it enabled growth
in brain size, but consequent evolutionary development certainly requires this move. 2. This move to upright posture was accompanied by a need to develop protective foot-coverings. Current wisdom suggests that the earliest foot-coverings were based on tying leaves to the feet
with vines - hence the first versions of shoelaces as created purposeful devices. 3. Subsequent human development will therefore have been reliant on the existence of the shoelace. So our existence in general, and each of us in particular, would have been impossible without shoelaces. Pre-shoelace there were no humans.
Perry's Second Postulation Further than the 1st Postulate, it is interesting to think about a world post-shoelace. Although we've been through a buckles period, a button fastening phase, and are now in an age where other shoelace substitutes exist (elastic, Velcro and zips), none of these are clearly superior technology or likely to supplant the primacy of the shoelace. But will this always be the case? The 2nd postulation is that the shoelace will become redundant at some time in the future, but that this will be due to evolutionary change in humans rather than materials technology or footwear fashion. The shoelace will therefore become not only the defining point for the start of human history (1st Postulation), but its demise will become a recognised end point. In the future, people (or our successors) will use the term 'Homo Calciligo' (Shoefastening Man) to refer to this phase in our evolutionary development. I have looked at whether an extension of the 2nd Postulate is workable, where a shoelace phase of evolution would apply in all possible worlds. This doesn't currently look feasible since it is possible to imagine beings, climates, planet surfaces (and indeed liquid or gas based environments) where shoelaces are not required. Whether this turns out to be the case though, remains to be seen. So for the moment it is possible that a shoelace period is a defining feature of all intelligent life everywhere in the universe, but this cannot yet be proved.
So next time you bend down to tie your laces, recall that you are engaged in a symbolic act of homage to your ancient ancestors, asserting your membership of a civilised race, and extending the continuum of human existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| main page | perry products | back | top | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
