Hey I'm a girl, of course I'm obsessed with shoes

For my birthday last week I got a great gift-promise from my dad: one pair of new running shoes and one pair of new tango shoes. I'm all over the running shoes. I love my asics; I am definintely getting a new pair of these, despite being tempted to try those weird foot glovey toe-shoes (for lack of a better name) to prove that I am one with nature and prefer to run the way God evolved me to do or however it goes.

If you're unfamiliar with this debate, it's one raging in the running community at the moment - is it better to run (virtually) barefoot or with our fancy schmancy shoes? The argument for running (virtually) barefoot, does make some sense - better connection with the ground, using your foot, etc. On the other hand, I have run in any number of different sorts of shoes - not only the rather impractical stilletto boots while trying to catch a bus, but also flats and the nearly not-there dance slippers - and I have to say I really appreciate the support of shoes. Also, any argument that premises on the "It's more natural"/"this is how we're evolved" instantly inspires obstinate skepticism in me.

It just seems so - well - optimistic about evolution. The evolutionary process seems to paint with fairly broad strokes - largely of the "adaptation to a certain environment that offers a mild improvement in the probabilty of lasting long enough to mate that statistically adds up towards favoring certain traits over a very long time" variety and not in the "making the ultimate super being" sort of fashion. I am wary of anyone trying to say that we're better off emulating cavemen because we "evolved" to be that way, and this sort of simplified presentation is one that I see quite a lot in these contexts. "Evolution" literally means "change" - trying to pinpoint some form of ideal homeostasis seems pretty odd to me. Mankind's propensity for innovation might be included as part and parcel of the evolutionary process. Not to say every technological change has been for the better, but I certainly wouldn't turn down a pacemaker because I hadn't "evolved" to have wires in my chest; it just seems like it's always going to be a pick or choose proposition at any rate in deciding when "natural" is going to be healthier and when it isn't. And besides, take the raw food movement (no please take it), which seems to result in high levels of food poisoning (hey raw hemlock salad is delicious!), malnutrition, ammenorhea, dental erosion, low bone mass...

I'm not saying, by the way, that these weird shoe glove things aren't totally the way to run or that they don't look really cool, because they kind of remind me of toe-socks, which I happen to love. Not quite as colorful though. I think I'll wait until the vibram fivefingers come out with stripey rainbow-colored shoes, preferrably with glitter and maybe some form of tassle. But really, I think my reluctance to the style is that they scream "yuppie hipster anti-gear-headed-gear-headedness" and avoiding that is of much greater concern to me than optimized running.

My new Vibram toe-shoes design (no stealing)

So Asics it is. But the tango shoes... what about them? This should be easy, considering my previously heavy habit, but I seem to be lost in a whirlwand of unattached brand loyalties. I am sooooo over Comme Il Fauts (OMG!!!). I'm not really, but, I'm less into them than I used to be.

To my sense, they've become victims of basic economic principles: When I got my first pairs, CIFs were very difficult to come by in the states, despite their coveted status. Distributors sold them, but few were willing to dish out, so they were always in short supply. Most CIFs came from individuals picking up a few extra pairs/getting completely carried away in Bs As and selling the extras for profit to cover their trips. This meant you could often find them on ebay for a steal, because the sellers weren't necessarily market savvy.

Just a few years later, the shoes are *a lot* more commonly distributed. This should theoretically should make the price fall, but the ready availability has instead contributed to an even higher increase in demand... Long story short, the supply and demand curve has shifted out and the shoes are even pricier than they used to be. Add to this the increases in costs for shoe-materials and you find a lot of cost-cutting going into the shoes even while the prices are staying pretty steady. So they basically suffer from sucessful-restaurant syndrome, where the more popular the place becomes, the smaller, less tasty and pricier the portions become.

Disclaimer: This blog is solely the personal opinion of one blogger. It in no way advocates the eating of tango shoes for all dancers. Readers are encouraged to do their own research regarding which shoes fit best for their dietary habits and what portions suit their personal needs.

Or maybe it's really sociological: signalling is at the bottom of it all. A signal is a mark that distinguishes a high performer from a non-high performer. For instance, some theorize a college education is not actually helpful for the job market, except insofar as it indicates something about the person who has recieved it. It identifies him/her as a hard worker, both because the opportunity cost of four additional years of study is lower for harder workers and because it shows they are more willing to delay gratification and stick to a job. I've speculated that clothes and shoes serve as a short-cut signal for tango. CIFs used to suggest that a person had either studied in Argentina or was serious enough about her studies that she was willing to expend the money. The diminished difficulty of acquiring the signal dilutes its potency, and on the other side there is the elite reaction of counter-signaling. A counter signal is a statement that one is *so* good that no signal is even necessary. This of course becomes a signal in and of itself - see, e.g. an entire generation of ironic hipsters who end up becoming clones of each other even as they "react" against conformity. In tango, one could perhaps pinpoint the new fad of practica shoes/dance sneakers and sweat pants over CIFs as perhaps being a counter-signal/the new signal. Nuevo is all about throwing any and all formality aside.

Me? I want something purdy, but I also want certain qualities in my shoes:

1. The sole has to be leather. That's just unquestionable. I need to be able to pivot on a dime and with leather I can use the side edge of my foot to stop quickly.

2. The straps have to be a little flexible and placed just at the right spot on my ankle to allow some support without confining the natural motions of my foot or keeping me from moving to the inner edge when I dance.

3. The workmanship, needless to say, needs to be solid. Shoddy shoes are a nightmare to dance in. Generally, something made of leather (sorry animals, I won't eat you, but I sure will wear you), that follows the shape of my foot, is lightweight, but also durable... It should also be able to take a lot of scuffing, because my feet do brush past each other in collection.

4. The heel is the most important part of the shoes as far as I'm concerned: It's go to be spiked and battle ready!! Boleo attack!! Ok, or, well, there are other things I like about a shoe.

* My heel has to be placed just at the right point in the foot: neither too far to the front or back of the heel. I tend to step heel-toe when walking forward both because the sound pleases me and because I enjoy the sense of absorbing the ground and rolling through my foot, so the heel must be strong enough for this (i.e. good craftsmanship rule applies). I should be able to touch it to the ground for support, but generally feel comfortable with it being just slightly off the ground (at the end of the day, I don't dance with the further back-weighted nuevo posture).

* It's sort of like how dogs and their owners sometimes resemble each other, except with shoes: my tango heels should be tall and thin just like I am (or given there is about 8 inches more vertical and 9 inches less circumference to me in relevant areas not including the head than "the average american woman" I am comfortable with the t&t description as a relative evaluation that ignores any confusion caused by the existence of models and the like in the netherworld of the fashion industry). This is for both aesthetic and functional reasons.

Aesthetically, I think it creates a much prettier and more daring line, by elongating and extending the leg. It also allows for nicer embellishments either with a pointed or flexed foot, by allow more point and more flex and therefor more flash and flicker.

Functionally, 4 inches or thereabouts puts my weight exactly where I want to be on my foot (and my partner's face just about at the top of my low cut shirt - so probably exactly where he wants to be on my body), so that I don't have to dance in releve position. And thin offers a flexibility to dance on the inner edge of the foot. With a sturdier heel, the foot stays right on top of itself in the middle of the ankle. A thinner heel allows the ankle more ability to roll, pronating and supinating at will. Naturally this is more dangerous since it can roll either to the lateral or medial edge if there isn't good ankle control, but with strong ankles, the freedom and handling that comes from this are necessary. It's like the difference between an automatic transmission and a stick-shift. Some of us like the discretion.

Of course it's hard to know where to look when most of the shoes I'm considering are made in Argentina and will require at least four weeks of shipping and possibly a suitable fit, but the work ethic in Bs As isn't ideal. Wish me luck!