When I was a child in India, I was taught (not by my parents, by the societal milieu I suppose) to not let the (soles of?) my feet touch a book or a bag that contains books of knowledge. In any case, the behavior is a strongly trained habit so I feel compelled to do it. I do not choose or or not choose to do it. It is close to an automatic behavior, something like wrinkling one’s nose at a bad smell or so on.
I was not brought up in a religious household and have never been a follower of any known religion. And I do not have any belief tied to this behavior. It is an oddity of my being that I accept.
Isn’t it interesting how one can be conditioned so? I sometimes wonder if alcoholics or drug addicts feel this way.
Perhaps the Japanese feel this way about their cultural quirk in the way I feel about mine.
Most (literate, educated) Indians have been trained the same, and it has very little to do with religion. When you do accidentally step on a book though, each religion has their own format - Hindus touch the book then touch their head then chest in penance, Muslims lightly kiss the book or touch the book/bag and kiss their hand, Christians touch the book and cross themselves.
This is something I've noticed is uniquely culturally Indian, and transcends all religions. Which is beautiful.
I was once whacked in the head by a teacher for throwing a book onto the shelf, and rightly so.
In Dutch culture it is far more common to keep shoes on literally everywhere, so perhaps I'm biased, but I would think that in an emergency where every second counts, these people can be forgiven for not adhering to the strictest etiquette?
I'm not surprised the person last mentioned in the article, who suggests exactly that, got 800 likes on their comment. I am surprised that it even needed to be said.
Now I'm suddenly wondering (probably stupidly) whether firefighters also take their shoes off when entering a burning building.
I think we can roughly split paramedic visits into “patient needs to get out ASAP” and patient can’t get out alone or with help of friends and family”, so I would hope they keep their shoes on for the first type.
But ambulances in with full sirens begging over their speaker-system to have pedestrians at Shibuya crossing let the vehicle through, is probably the worst thing about Japan.
As for your second question, I’m reminded of Bob Mortimer in Would I lie To You: “… then the fire brigade came and ruined the whole house” - “Bob, surely the fire was ruining the house” - “No, water damage”. Maybe if those darn firefighters had taken their boots off, there had been a bit more left of Bobs childhood home.
I've known enough people who worked in EMS to know that it's very common for there to be little alignment between 1a)what the dispatcher is told 1b)what comes from dispatcher 2)what they see when they walk in the door and 3)what the person actually needs.
I suspect that there are several levels of severity in an emergency and that when appropriate the responders forego removal of shoes. It's a low depth article, they didn't go into details.
So, I can’t honestly personally understand taking your shoes off in an emergency, however I am sure they have gotten very efficient at it.. I can say that if they didn’t it would cause damage to the home, many Japanese homes, especially traditional but also in general just aren’t built to take shoes. Tatami mats, and even hinoki floors despite being “hard” for a softwood, is still a softwood, so some level of genuine damage would occur. Again of-course versus the emergency in saving a human life, I’m not quite sure I can understand it.
Here in America, EMS personnel generally wear tall, reinforced boots; they are considered protective/safety equipment. We would never take them off just to enter a home
Probably the same in most Western countries. It's self reinforcing though; if you were expecting to take them off you'd never pick those shoes by default, rather leave them in the back of the car (which presumably/hopefully is what they do in Japan, in case they *do* need them? idk…)
if you do need them you're not going to have time to go get them as an Emergency Responder. I think the pragmatic course then is to disregard etiquette and tradition for safety and practicality in a general sense.
Everyone except the driver has ample time to swap boots during the drive to the location. (In cases where not, I'd also default to robust safety boots.)
Depending on the boots, you might not want to wear them while "idle"¹ in any case, though that's mostly a non-concern with modern safety shoes.
¹ mandatory note: most emergency responders have tons of work while "idle", I just mean "not actively responding"
You don't always know what the location is like though. You are called to an apartment: maybe it is spotlessly clean, maybe the floor is littered with used needles
A friend of mine who was a paramedic told me that getting people out of a building is actually heavy, dangerous work. "They always die on the crapper, up 3 flights of stairs."
Also, in my town, the firefighters are also paramedics. The first people who showed up in my Moment of Need came in a fire truck. The ambulance came a couple minutes later.
> Another user attracted more than 800 likes for suggesting that strict etiquette could perhaps be forsaken at such times: “It’s an emergency. I would just tell them: ‘Please step inside with your shoes on!’”
This seems like the best policy in an emergency where 30 seconds actually matters. And I actually like the East Asian custom of taking one's shoes off before entering a house and adopt it myself.
Where I grew up (suburbs in the Midwest in the US) it was common and expected all around that you'd leave your shoes just inside the door and walk around in your socks, at least for family/friends/guests. Can't remember about service workers.
Firefighters in Japan wear boots and keep them on, but fire is generally cause for demolition anyway due to the way most homes are constructed.
The Japanese shoe taboo is about purity. It's not about protecting the floor but about the idea of cleanliness. Walking in with outdoor shoes is the equivalent of deliberately walking into a western home with dogshit all over your shoes, or (since most Japanese homes have small family altars inside) spiritual desecration.
People in the west tend to overthink spirituality.
Having been to houses/flats across all of eurasia, uk to hong kong, vietnam to lithuania, the majority prefers taking shoes when entering a house, but can be as practical as necessary when the need arises.
> Another user attracted more than 800 likes for suggesting that strict etiquette could perhaps be forsaken at such times: “It’s an emergency. I would just tell them: ‘Please step inside with your shoes on!’”
Even when it looks like a laced up tennis shoe, closer examination of an 'outdoor' shoe will show that it has been stomped into and slipped out of many times.
If it is a sports use, i.e. basketball or other gymnasium, or indoors in a professional setting like at a busy office there will be a changing area and people etiher change into provided slippers (town hall and community centers, schools, and other public spaces have many cubicles and slippers) or will change into 'indoor shoes' brought for the purpose.
There is a strong cultural 'habit' that can be interpreted as 'manners' such that when visiting someone's house and switching from outdoor shoes the host will then either turn the shoes toward the outdoors such that they are easier to step into on the way out, or will arrange them facing out but no longer in the main path of the entry way.
It is this 'manners' which the EMT is requesting to stop. The indoor slippers are used for hard floor and rug covered areas, but not tatami mats. A quality tatami mat can be damaged and require actual replacement if stepped on with a hard soled shoe even once.
So the 'taking off of shoes on the way in my EMT is quite appropriate, and the time to 'unshoe' and reshoe on the way in and out is cumulatively not more than 5 to 7 seconds total - if the emergency case is that close to failure, the low speed ambulance ride through narrow streets is going to be the failure, not the shoes. But rearranged and relocated shoes becomes much more complex when the crew have a person in a stretcher (which is faster AND safer than a rolling gurney) - they can step into their own shoes without really even looking if the shoes are left exactly as they were placed on the way in - and this is what the original article is requesting.
The intent of the article in original Japanese is: "Don't slow down the exit process by moving our shoes in an effort to be 'mindful of good manners'. We really wont think poorly of your manners if you neglect this small gesture"
tangential, but I don't understand why keeping your shoes on in your house is a thing. It's so unsanitary. The bottom of your shoes are in contact with things like the floor of public bathrooms, animal feces (when walking on grass), dirt, mud, etc.
And it's so much more comfortable to be in your house barefoot, with socks or with slippers.
So much cleaner. I'm disgusted when people try to walk in my house with their shoes on.
Coming from a shoes-on culture I can give a couple points.
First, in the rare cases you describe (when was the last time you stepped on feces?) one would indeed leave their shoes outside. But in the day-to-day your shoes have some dust on them and that's it - you won't even notice it's there when compared to the dust that already accumulates daily. If you live in a climate where this assumption doesn't hold (snowy areas come to mind) then the equation changes.
Second, the floor is usually stone and therefore designed for being walked on with shoes. I would feel awkward walking on some polished wood, but if the difference between inside and outside is "this one is less coarse but just as hard" then I wouldn't see a good reason for taking my shoes off. I would probably avoid the rug, but that's me.
As for comfort, keeping your shoes on also means one less thing to do when going in and out. Do not underestimate the path with less friction.
I have seen in Switzerland that people leave their shoes at the entrance and switch to house shoes. Or they use a shoe cover when they enter house with shoes. Probably because houses are mostly wooden floored.
Try this , when was the last time you stepped somewhere that had previously been stepped on by someone who had walked on a spot which had been stepped on by someone who may have stepped on a spot trod on by ... go far enough back and it's all had feces on it to some small degree.
An easy way to keep this concept clear and understand the reasoning behind a 'leave the outside shoes out of the house' is something learned as a child.
Just like there is a Law of Conservation of Mass, and a Law of Conservation of Energy, and these two are the same law as defined by Einstein, there is also a Law of Conservation of Filth. The law may be stated as: "A spoonful of wine in a barrel of pigshit is a barrel of pigshit. A spoonful of pigshit in a barrel of wine is... a barrel of pigshit."
Taking off the outdoor shoes to come indoors changes the "is there trace amount of feces on my dining room tatami floor?" risk from "I cannot be reasonable sure," to "I can be reasonably sure that there is none." If guests find that too much friction to understand and accommodate, one might argue for a different set of guests who are less accepting of an allowable amount of pigshit in their wine.
I'm going to disagree with your law of "conservation of filth" on the grounds that it's pushing things too far. Whatever amount of feces comes into your system via walking downtown on a regular day and then bringing the shoes inside pales in comparison to the amount of fecal matter that enters via your toothbrush if you keep it in the bathroom. At some point a small amount of dirt is just fine, as evidenced by my immune system not even visibly reacting whenever I pick up and eat something that fell on the floor (as long as I follow the five-seconds rule). And people do go out to restaurants or, even worse, picnics, where all that separates their food from a much filthier surface is a piece of cloth.
I'm not going to say that every type of floor is to be walked on, with rugs and tatami mats being perfect counter-examples. But if a five-star restaurant doesn't ask me to take my shoes off (not evening Japan, AFAIK) then keeping them on is, from a sanitary point of view, probably okay.
The toothbrush analogy is weird, and untrue in most cases. And regardless, just one time stepping in crap, would make up for a lifetime of a few molecules hitting a brush at random intervals.
And of course, toothpaste is a cleaner, so it's not relevant.
But I find this all amusing, because wherever you take your shoes off? That's where all this supposed crap sits from all these shoes left outside. Which means you are walking in your socks in that area, after shoe removal, and entering the house.
So unless you levitate out of that area, your feet are still covered in this supposed crap.
The shoe rule in Japan stems from damaging floors. And checking your feet, shoes or not, is just prudent. But your feet or clean looking shoes?
When I grew up a half of century ago in East Europe, keeping your shoes on when entering a house was still considered as an unacceptable behavior.
However, later this changed, in good part because much of the population moved from bigger rural houses to smaller apartments in the cities. In a small apartment, there was not enough space to have at the entrance a big enough wardrobe with dedicated places for the visitors to store their shoes, and to provide slippers for them. Moreover, a small apartment was easier to clean after the visitors left.
Thus the customs changed, and it became normal when visitors came and attempted to remove their shoes, according to tradition, to assure them that there is no need to do that. Nowadays I think that few remember that in the past it was really mandatory to never enter a house with your shoes on.
I'm the same way but if I pass out in my house I absolutely do not give a shit about any of that and don't want the EMTs wasting time taking their shoes off to save my ass.
I've lived in both shoes on and shoes off households and I'm sorry, but shoes are filthy. I wipe my dogs paws when they comes in from walks and their paws are filthy and I wipe them every single time they come back in from walks. Shoes are never wiped.
Take a second, get a tissue, and go wipe the bottom of your shoe.
Your feet do not need support, they were evolved over millions of years to support themselves. Someone who habitually wears shoes indoors might lose the muscle strength in their feet in the same way someone who drives everywhere loses leg strength, but this isn't natural or optimal.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. The muscular support is its own thing (and I agree with you) but your soles don't deal well with hot summer asphalt surfaces, glass shards or even small pebbles surfaces.
I agree, but those bits of glass shards and pebbles end up wedged in shoes and released indoors. Shoes outdoors are important, but the exact stuff they are protecting you against is the stuff you don't want in your carpets.
Agreed. But you have to go shoeless throughout your youth so that the bones and muscles of the foot grow strong. This is true, for example, with kids in some African countries. There was a trend of barefoot running in the US in the 2010's (see Barefoot Sensei), but most people who tried this ended up quitting it as it's hard to shift to this style in, say, your 40's, after a lifetime of wearing shoes.
People in shoes off houses tend to have slippers or house shoes, which never go outside. They also tend to have bathroom slippers, which are only ever used in the toilet areas.
That is not the primary function of shoes. The function of shoes is to support your feet, protect them from harsh surfaces, keep them dry.
Unlike the commenter above you, I don’t really agree that it’s completely sanitary, though. I’m just saying that keeping you clean is actually pretty far down the list.
Another thing about whether the floor is sanitary: that changes a lot based on how you use your floor. If you eat, sleep, or sit on the floor often like in a traditional Japanese home, keeping the floor clean is a lot more important.
The "support your feet" argument came from the belief that everyone is supposed to have a prominent arch and that shoes could force your feet into that shape, but as far as I knew had been thoroughly refuted over the past 15-20 years. Forcing your feet into having an arch when it's not your natural form can actually cause problems further down the line. Soles not being flexible also changes how you use your ankle and IIRC how you balance while walking, possibly contributing to back problems.
Keeping your feet clean and protecting them from surfaces are the primary purposes of shoes. Some people need them for support after having worn shoes too often (my parents are in this situation and have a separate set of "indoor shoes" just for this), or some sort of disability that needs those super-wide-sole shoes, but in general they are not for supporting your feet.
It depends what you do outside. Historically shoes/boots/foot wraps were to protect your feet from the cold and from sharp things e.g. rocks, stones, spiky plants, spiders, snakes, ticks etc etc. Surely some of these conditions would still exist today even if outside was clean.
Having grown up in South Africa, moving to the states was the first time I ever heard of such a thing as a peanut allergy, or shrimp allergy, or gluten allergy, or any kind of allergy that wasn't having to wear a medic-alert bracelet to indicate an allergic reaction to penicillin.
Removing one's shoes before entering a house isn't a thing in South Africa.
Every country is different. I’m in China right now and while there isn’t much rubbish - it is still pretty dirty. Whereas in New Zealand you can walk barefoot all day and your feet will stay clean (matter of fact thats my kids do literally all the time).
Then sanitation itself is a but of a moot. Bacteria can spread million different ways, it’s mostly futile fight. If you wear flip-flops all day and don’t wash your feet, don’t shower after using public bathrooms, etc - whats the point?
More Japanese obsessed hacker news posts. What's up with this? There's a daily post on HN of various topics, usually something obscure, about Japan. Why?
I think it’s just that Japanese culture represents a very sophisticated antithesis to many western cultural pillars. Collectivism over individualism, incredible development of the aesthetics of simplicity and emptiness compared to the ostentatious and sometimes baroque western aesthetics, neat and tidy compared to cluttered, the fanatical emphasis on mastery of technique, or things that can’t be produced via shortcuts, etc etc. Overall I think the Japanese are viewed as much more disciplined and conscientious which is valued in the west. And a lot of these things seem like wizardry to Americans because we’re lacking the routines and building blocks that lead to it. In essence the Japanese are very process oriented, and Americans see the results and want them but don’t understand the process side of things as it’s not intrinsic to our culture. Yet the results are admirable… whether or not Americans would actually want to live the process that leads to those results is another story. That’s the gist of it I think.
Cultural differences, especially with increased tourism in Japan lately. There's a lot we can learn from each other and people like to share their experiences. Is it really that surprising these topics come up more often?
As I understand it, Japan is seen to be like a parallel universe where the American South successfully seceded but became technologically advanced, even surpassing the North in some areas (by adopting a Meiji type constitutional monarchy)
Having been to Japan several times… and actually studying Japanese studies… I can see why you're saying this but it's very superficial. None of the southern "essence" that caused the split & war is there in Japan at this point. Or do you mean it's as if the South seceded, then proceeded to lose anyway due their policies being a natural disadvantage, and then developed, out-northing the North?
What is characteristic of "the American South" here?
When I lived in Japan and was asked "Why are you interested in Japan?", I used to respond "It is the only non-Western country(at the time) where I have seen an extremely high level of technical/economic development and it is interesting to see similiarities/differences". (This is of course, long long before the rise of modern China)
The society is based so strongly on group cohesion and de-emphasis of the individual, the experience of living there is very, very different than the West.
I think that this "deep cultural difference" is what the original comment was trying to get at. Sadly the reference point of "American South" ended up triggering a different (less useful) trajectory for the responses.
The kind of group cohesion you have in Japan tiday wasn't quite all there during the Meiji era (they'd just come out of a civil war, after all. Then there were also sporadic uprisings for decades after
That does actually kinda make sense, but it works very differently... the politeness is anything but superficial (even counters the racism and xenophobia to a limited degree, but also hides it, coming out to ±0), and the latter two are indeed present but coded as to be ashamed of rather than proud… (unfortunately the coding of shame is also different and doesn't spurn action).
It actually makes it harder to tackle the discrimination, since it's not openly admitted. Glass walls and ceiling.
You may think that because of the nationalism, but that's a superficial similarity. Outside western europeans, almost everyone is nationalistic, so that's not a useful characteristic in comparing societies. Aside from that, the American south is more like the Arab world/India--disorderly, combative, face-saving culture, and food-, family-, and faith-centric. The Japanese are much more like Mormons.
The biggest historical commonality between the American South and Japan - or, at least, the Tokugawa shogunate that was ruling around the same time as the South - was that both of them were at one point ruled by a cabal of essentially feudal lords. There is a lot of convergent social evolution that happens when your country's economic elite all make their money by owning land - lots of strange social titles, honorifics start floating around, people start talking around problems, and the like. However, this comparison is only skin deep, and there's plenty of things the Tokugawas did that have no parallel, or even worked backwards, to what happened in the historically contemporaneous American south:
- Sakoku (the policy of keeping Japan completely closed to trade and immigration).
- While America generally has had a long streak of veneration of the police, they never reinvented anything close to the samurai in terms of being a hereditary warrior class with a tax stipend.
- Likewise, the American South did not have a caste system; Japan did (and so did France?!?)
This makes more sense when you remember that the Tokugawa shogunate itself is the time reversal of the American South: the Tokugawas were born out of a long civil war and ended with a foreign invasion (from America) while the American South was born from foreign invasion (of Americans) and ended with a civil war.
The American South is also, interestingly enough, a mirror of Japan in other dimensions as well. The reason why the Tokugawas shut the country's borders for hundreds of years was because they understood that Christian missionaries were a front for a larger invasion force that would pillage the country's resources and abduct people to become slaves in other countries. Of course, the South was buying slaves abducted in other countries in massive quantities.
Going back to the convergent social evolution I mentioned before, you can see some of this in Japan today. Kyoto is notorious for doing exactly the same kind of backhanded compliment bullshit the South loves doing. But even then, that's one part of Japan, that was formerly the capital city. One stop on the Shinkansen takes you to Osaka where people are about as open and outgoing as Americans are.
It is mind blowing to me that the shoes-off-inside rule is so deeply entrenched that emergency responders remove their shoes at the front door
When I was a child in India, I was taught (not by my parents, by the societal milieu I suppose) to not let the (soles of?) my feet touch a book or a bag that contains books of knowledge. In any case, the behavior is a strongly trained habit so I feel compelled to do it. I do not choose or or not choose to do it. It is close to an automatic behavior, something like wrinkling one’s nose at a bad smell or so on.
I was not brought up in a religious household and have never been a follower of any known religion. And I do not have any belief tied to this behavior. It is an oddity of my being that I accept.
Isn’t it interesting how one can be conditioned so? I sometimes wonder if alcoholics or drug addicts feel this way.
Perhaps the Japanese feel this way about their cultural quirk in the way I feel about mine.
Most (literate, educated) Indians have been trained the same, and it has very little to do with religion. When you do accidentally step on a book though, each religion has their own format - Hindus touch the book then touch their head then chest in penance, Muslims lightly kiss the book or touch the book/bag and kiss their hand, Christians touch the book and cross themselves.
This is something I've noticed is uniquely culturally Indian, and transcends all religions. Which is beautiful.
I was once whacked in the head by a teacher for throwing a book onto the shelf, and rightly so.
In Dutch culture it is far more common to keep shoes on literally everywhere, so perhaps I'm biased, but I would think that in an emergency where every second counts, these people can be forgiven for not adhering to the strictest etiquette?
I'm not surprised the person last mentioned in the article, who suggests exactly that, got 800 likes on their comment. I am surprised that it even needed to be said.
Now I'm suddenly wondering (probably stupidly) whether firefighters also take their shoes off when entering a burning building.
I think we can roughly split paramedic visits into “patient needs to get out ASAP” and patient can’t get out alone or with help of friends and family”, so I would hope they keep their shoes on for the first type.
But ambulances in with full sirens begging over their speaker-system to have pedestrians at Shibuya crossing let the vehicle through, is probably the worst thing about Japan.
As for your second question, I’m reminded of Bob Mortimer in Would I lie To You: “… then the fire brigade came and ruined the whole house” - “Bob, surely the fire was ruining the house” - “No, water damage”. Maybe if those darn firefighters had taken their boots off, there had been a bit more left of Bobs childhood home.
> “No, water damage”
Bob should have used some of his Fuji 9, that fixes everything!
I've known enough people who worked in EMS to know that it's very common for there to be little alignment between 1a)what the dispatcher is told 1b)what comes from dispatcher 2)what they see when they walk in the door and 3)what the person actually needs.
I suspect that there are several levels of severity in an emergency and that when appropriate the responders forego removal of shoes. It's a low depth article, they didn't go into details.
So, I can’t honestly personally understand taking your shoes off in an emergency, however I am sure they have gotten very efficient at it.. I can say that if they didn’t it would cause damage to the home, many Japanese homes, especially traditional but also in general just aren’t built to take shoes. Tatami mats, and even hinoki floors despite being “hard” for a softwood, is still a softwood, so some level of genuine damage would occur. Again of-course versus the emergency in saving a human life, I’m not quite sure I can understand it.
Most shoes have rubber soles, to do damage to the floor it would have to be softer than rubber.
more like(ly) polyurethane, not rubber. however any sand would scratch wooden floors
You can quite easily have small rocks wedged in the tread of your shoes which will scratch floors.
Here in America, EMS personnel generally wear tall, reinforced boots; they are considered protective/safety equipment. We would never take them off just to enter a home
Probably the same in most Western countries. It's self reinforcing though; if you were expecting to take them off you'd never pick those shoes by default, rather leave them in the back of the car (which presumably/hopefully is what they do in Japan, in case they *do* need them? idk…)
if you do need them you're not going to have time to go get them as an Emergency Responder. I think the pragmatic course then is to disregard etiquette and tradition for safety and practicality in a general sense.
Everyone except the driver has ample time to swap boots during the drive to the location. (In cases where not, I'd also default to robust safety boots.)
Depending on the boots, you might not want to wear them while "idle"¹ in any case, though that's mostly a non-concern with modern safety shoes.
¹ mandatory note: most emergency responders have tons of work while "idle", I just mean "not actively responding"
You don't always know what the location is like though. You are called to an apartment: maybe it is spotlessly clean, maybe the floor is littered with used needles
A friend of mine who was a paramedic told me that getting people out of a building is actually heavy, dangerous work. "They always die on the crapper, up 3 flights of stairs."
Also, in my town, the firefighters are also paramedics. The first people who showed up in my Moment of Need came in a fire truck. The ambulance came a couple minutes later.
For particularly heavy patients, on occasion the only way is to knock down a wall.
That would be very unlikely in Japan, maybe it would happen a handful of times in your career and you could indeed put on safer boots.
Anyway I’m not against paramedics wearing boots in my apartment, in an emergency very few people would care about that even in Japan.
How certain are you that it is so rare? EMS are disproportionately called to the poorest and most miserable.
Got posted a couple times recently. This one got a couple comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49474734
> Another user attracted more than 800 likes for suggesting that strict etiquette could perhaps be forsaken at such times: “It’s an emergency. I would just tell them: ‘Please step inside with your shoes on!’”
This seems like the best policy in an emergency where 30 seconds actually matters. And I actually like the East Asian custom of taking one's shoes off before entering a house and adopt it myself.
Where I grew up (suburbs in the Midwest in the US) it was common and expected all around that you'd leave your shoes just inside the door and walk around in your socks, at least for family/friends/guests. Can't remember about service workers.
Is this how most of the world operates? :-)
In the Nordics (SE, FI, NO, DK) it is pretty much the same. A large part of the year your shoes are a mess and you don’t want that indoors.
Yeah! Same for finland, the baltic states, or poland, or russia, or any country really where there is any kind of serious winter happening.
Firefighters in Japan wear boots and keep them on, but fire is generally cause for demolition anyway due to the way most homes are constructed.
The Japanese shoe taboo is about purity. It's not about protecting the floor but about the idea of cleanliness. Walking in with outdoor shoes is the equivalent of deliberately walking into a western home with dogshit all over your shoes, or (since most Japanese homes have small family altars inside) spiritual desecration.
People in the west tend to overthink spirituality.
Having been to houses/flats across all of eurasia, uk to hong kong, vietnam to lithuania, the majority prefers taking shoes when entering a house, but can be as practical as necessary when the need arises.
> Another user attracted more than 800 likes for suggesting that strict etiquette could perhaps be forsaken at such times: “It’s an emergency. I would just tell them: ‘Please step inside with your shoes on!’”
Does everyone in Japan wear slip-on shoes?
No
um, pretty much, yes.
Even when it looks like a laced up tennis shoe, closer examination of an 'outdoor' shoe will show that it has been stomped into and slipped out of many times.
If it is a sports use, i.e. basketball or other gymnasium, or indoors in a professional setting like at a busy office there will be a changing area and people etiher change into provided slippers (town hall and community centers, schools, and other public spaces have many cubicles and slippers) or will change into 'indoor shoes' brought for the purpose.
There is a strong cultural 'habit' that can be interpreted as 'manners' such that when visiting someone's house and switching from outdoor shoes the host will then either turn the shoes toward the outdoors such that they are easier to step into on the way out, or will arrange them facing out but no longer in the main path of the entry way.
It is this 'manners' which the EMT is requesting to stop. The indoor slippers are used for hard floor and rug covered areas, but not tatami mats. A quality tatami mat can be damaged and require actual replacement if stepped on with a hard soled shoe even once.
So the 'taking off of shoes on the way in my EMT is quite appropriate, and the time to 'unshoe' and reshoe on the way in and out is cumulatively not more than 5 to 7 seconds total - if the emergency case is that close to failure, the low speed ambulance ride through narrow streets is going to be the failure, not the shoes. But rearranged and relocated shoes becomes much more complex when the crew have a person in a stretcher (which is faster AND safer than a rolling gurney) - they can step into their own shoes without really even looking if the shoes are left exactly as they were placed on the way in - and this is what the original article is requesting.
The intent of the article in original Japanese is: "Don't slow down the exit process by moving our shoes in an effort to be 'mindful of good manners'. We really wont think poorly of your manners if you neglect this small gesture"
tangential, but I don't understand why keeping your shoes on in your house is a thing. It's so unsanitary. The bottom of your shoes are in contact with things like the floor of public bathrooms, animal feces (when walking on grass), dirt, mud, etc.
And it's so much more comfortable to be in your house barefoot, with socks or with slippers.
So much cleaner. I'm disgusted when people try to walk in my house with their shoes on.
Coming from a shoes-on culture I can give a couple points.
First, in the rare cases you describe (when was the last time you stepped on feces?) one would indeed leave their shoes outside. But in the day-to-day your shoes have some dust on them and that's it - you won't even notice it's there when compared to the dust that already accumulates daily. If you live in a climate where this assumption doesn't hold (snowy areas come to mind) then the equation changes.
Second, the floor is usually stone and therefore designed for being walked on with shoes. I would feel awkward walking on some polished wood, but if the difference between inside and outside is "this one is less coarse but just as hard" then I wouldn't see a good reason for taking my shoes off. I would probably avoid the rug, but that's me.
As for comfort, keeping your shoes on also means one less thing to do when going in and out. Do not underestimate the path with less friction.
I have seen in Switzerland that people leave their shoes at the entrance and switch to house shoes. Or they use a shoe cover when they enter house with shoes. Probably because houses are mostly wooden floored.
So shoes on is not universal in the West.
Most of the west outside of the US takes shoes off or swaps 'em for indoor shoes.
Just not for emergency services!
> when was the last time you stepped on feces?
Try this , when was the last time you stepped somewhere that had previously been stepped on by someone who had walked on a spot which had been stepped on by someone who may have stepped on a spot trod on by ... go far enough back and it's all had feces on it to some small degree.
An easy way to keep this concept clear and understand the reasoning behind a 'leave the outside shoes out of the house' is something learned as a child.
Just like there is a Law of Conservation of Mass, and a Law of Conservation of Energy, and these two are the same law as defined by Einstein, there is also a Law of Conservation of Filth. The law may be stated as: "A spoonful of wine in a barrel of pigshit is a barrel of pigshit. A spoonful of pigshit in a barrel of wine is... a barrel of pigshit."
Taking off the outdoor shoes to come indoors changes the "is there trace amount of feces on my dining room tatami floor?" risk from "I cannot be reasonable sure," to "I can be reasonably sure that there is none." If guests find that too much friction to understand and accommodate, one might argue for a different set of guests who are less accepting of an allowable amount of pigshit in their wine.
I'm going to disagree with your law of "conservation of filth" on the grounds that it's pushing things too far. Whatever amount of feces comes into your system via walking downtown on a regular day and then bringing the shoes inside pales in comparison to the amount of fecal matter that enters via your toothbrush if you keep it in the bathroom. At some point a small amount of dirt is just fine, as evidenced by my immune system not even visibly reacting whenever I pick up and eat something that fell on the floor (as long as I follow the five-seconds rule). And people do go out to restaurants or, even worse, picnics, where all that separates their food from a much filthier surface is a piece of cloth.
I'm not going to say that every type of floor is to be walked on, with rugs and tatami mats being perfect counter-examples. But if a five-star restaurant doesn't ask me to take my shoes off (not evening Japan, AFAIK) then keeping them on is, from a sanitary point of view, probably okay.
The toothbrush analogy is weird, and untrue in most cases. And regardless, just one time stepping in crap, would make up for a lifetime of a few molecules hitting a brush at random intervals.
And of course, toothpaste is a cleaner, so it's not relevant.
But I find this all amusing, because wherever you take your shoes off? That's where all this supposed crap sits from all these shoes left outside. Which means you are walking in your socks in that area, after shoe removal, and entering the house.
So unless you levitate out of that area, your feet are still covered in this supposed crap.
The shoe rule in Japan stems from damaging floors. And checking your feet, shoes or not, is just prudent. But your feet or clean looking shoes?
Equally dirty.
When I grew up a half of century ago in East Europe, keeping your shoes on when entering a house was still considered as an unacceptable behavior.
However, later this changed, in good part because much of the population moved from bigger rural houses to smaller apartments in the cities. In a small apartment, there was not enough space to have at the entrance a big enough wardrobe with dedicated places for the visitors to store their shoes, and to provide slippers for them. Moreover, a small apartment was easier to clean after the visitors left.
Thus the customs changed, and it became normal when visitors came and attempted to remove their shoes, according to tradition, to assure them that there is no need to do that. Nowadays I think that few remember that in the past it was really mandatory to never enter a house with your shoes on.
Most prople I kmow live in appartment and take off shoes. It does not take much space.
Plus walking barefoot in your home is a good way to sense when you need to sweep or vacuum.
I’d say it’s a good way to tell when you should have swept up a few days ago.
Do you have a pet dog or cat?
An indoor cat would still be consistent with this philosophy. They do their business indoors, but so do humans.
Anecdote, I recall reading about older family members being disgusted by the removal of outhouses and the idea of shitting indoors.
I'm the same way but if I pass out in my house I absolutely do not give a shit about any of that and don't want the EMTs wasting time taking their shoes off to save my ass.
There's nothing unsanitary about it. The bottoms of your shoes simply are not that dirty unless you're walking through abnormally dirty situations.
I've lived in both shoes on and shoes off households and I'm sorry, but shoes are filthy. I wipe my dogs paws when they comes in from walks and their paws are filthy and I wipe them every single time they come back in from walks. Shoes are never wiped.
Take a second, get a tissue, and go wipe the bottom of your shoe.
That's the whole function of shoes though. If outside was as clean as my floors at home, I wouldn't need shoes.
I have to imagine the person who leaves their shoes on either never goes outside, or just has filthy floors.
> That's the whole function of shoes though.
Nah, the main function of shoes is (to support your feet and) prevent injury. Cleanliness is second on the list.
[ed.: added braces]
Your feet do not need support, they were evolved over millions of years to support themselves. Someone who habitually wears shoes indoors might lose the muscle strength in their feet in the same way someone who drives everywhere loses leg strength, but this isn't natural or optimal.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. The muscular support is its own thing (and I agree with you) but your soles don't deal well with hot summer asphalt surfaces, glass shards or even small pebbles surfaces.
I agree, but those bits of glass shards and pebbles end up wedged in shoes and released indoors. Shoes outdoors are important, but the exact stuff they are protecting you against is the stuff you don't want in your carpets.
Agreed. But you have to go shoeless throughout your youth so that the bones and muscles of the foot grow strong. This is true, for example, with kids in some African countries. There was a trend of barefoot running in the US in the 2010's (see Barefoot Sensei), but most people who tried this ended up quitting it as it's hard to shift to this style in, say, your 40's, after a lifetime of wearing shoes.
We didn't evolve to walk on concrete and asphalt, though.
> they were evolved over millions of years to support themselves.
But not on hard floor.
People in shoes off houses tend to have slippers or house shoes, which never go outside. They also tend to have bathroom slippers, which are only ever used in the toilet areas.
That is not the primary function of shoes. The function of shoes is to support your feet, protect them from harsh surfaces, keep them dry.
Unlike the commenter above you, I don’t really agree that it’s completely sanitary, though. I’m just saying that keeping you clean is actually pretty far down the list.
Another thing about whether the floor is sanitary: that changes a lot based on how you use your floor. If you eat, sleep, or sit on the floor often like in a traditional Japanese home, keeping the floor clean is a lot more important.
The "support your feet" argument came from the belief that everyone is supposed to have a prominent arch and that shoes could force your feet into that shape, but as far as I knew had been thoroughly refuted over the past 15-20 years. Forcing your feet into having an arch when it's not your natural form can actually cause problems further down the line. Soles not being flexible also changes how you use your ankle and IIRC how you balance while walking, possibly contributing to back problems.
Keeping your feet clean and protecting them from surfaces are the primary purposes of shoes. Some people need them for support after having worn shoes too often (my parents are in this situation and have a separate set of "indoor shoes" just for this), or some sort of disability that needs those super-wide-sole shoes, but in general they are not for supporting your feet.
I’m really not talking about arches, just talking about easing uneven terrain and enhancing grip and things like that.
Hiking boots can significantly enhance stability and of course walking over sharp rocks becomes trivial.
I also forgot to mention steel toed boots, no slip restaurant shoes, and other injury-protective shoes.
Then you’ve got temperature: hot pavement, cold snow.
It depends what you do outside. Historically shoes/boots/foot wraps were to protect your feet from the cold and from sharp things e.g. rocks, stones, spiky plants, spiders, snakes, ticks etc etc. Surely some of these conditions would still exist today even if outside was clean.
Like outside? It's so wild to me how some can step into their living space (or even bedroom) with the same shoes they use outside.
Having grown up in South Africa, moving to the states was the first time I ever heard of such a thing as a peanut allergy, or shrimp allergy, or gluten allergy, or any kind of allergy that wasn't having to wear a medic-alert bracelet to indicate an allergic reaction to penicillin.
Removing one's shoes before entering a house isn't a thing in South Africa.
Filth can sometimes be a good thing.
Every country is different. I’m in China right now and while there isn’t much rubbish - it is still pretty dirty. Whereas in New Zealand you can walk barefoot all day and your feet will stay clean (matter of fact thats my kids do literally all the time).
Then sanitation itself is a but of a moot. Bacteria can spread million different ways, it’s mostly futile fight. If you wear flip-flops all day and don’t wash your feet, don’t shower after using public bathrooms, etc - whats the point?
More Japanese obsessed hacker news posts. What's up with this? There's a daily post on HN of various topics, usually something obscure, about Japan. Why?
I think it’s just that Japanese culture represents a very sophisticated antithesis to many western cultural pillars. Collectivism over individualism, incredible development of the aesthetics of simplicity and emptiness compared to the ostentatious and sometimes baroque western aesthetics, neat and tidy compared to cluttered, the fanatical emphasis on mastery of technique, or things that can’t be produced via shortcuts, etc etc. Overall I think the Japanese are viewed as much more disciplined and conscientious which is valued in the west. And a lot of these things seem like wizardry to Americans because we’re lacking the routines and building blocks that lead to it. In essence the Japanese are very process oriented, and Americans see the results and want them but don’t understand the process side of things as it’s not intrinsic to our culture. Yet the results are admirable… whether or not Americans would actually want to live the process that leads to those results is another story. That’s the gist of it I think.
> neat and tidy compared to cluttered
People who think this have actually never been to Japan, most Japanese homes and offices are incredibly messy.
Reality should never stand in thr way of a good export-oriented myth :-)
I could be mistaken but I think most of those posts seem to show up around business hours in Japan. My guess is it is coming from expats living there.
Because Japan is amazing. Probably especially so for a crowd that tends towards orderly-minded engineering types like HN.
Cultural differences, especially with increased tourism in Japan lately. There's a lot we can learn from each other and people like to share their experiences. Is it really that surprising these topics come up more often?
I expect the simplicity of the site's design appeals to the Japanese.
As I understand it, Japan is seen to be like a parallel universe where the American South successfully seceded but became technologically advanced, even surpassing the North in some areas (by adopting a Meiji type constitutional monarchy)
Having been to Japan several times… and actually studying Japanese studies… I can see why you're saying this but it's very superficial. None of the southern "essence" that caused the split & war is there in Japan at this point. Or do you mean it's as if the South seceded, then proceeded to lose anyway due their policies being a natural disadvantage, and then developed, out-northing the North?
What is characteristic of "the American South" here?
When I lived in Japan and was asked "Why are you interested in Japan?", I used to respond "It is the only non-Western country(at the time) where I have seen an extremely high level of technical/economic development and it is interesting to see similiarities/differences". (This is of course, long long before the rise of modern China)
The society is based so strongly on group cohesion and de-emphasis of the individual, the experience of living there is very, very different than the West.
I think that this "deep cultural difference" is what the original comment was trying to get at. Sadly the reference point of "American South" ended up triggering a different (less useful) trajectory for the responses.
Does the American South actually have that kind of group cohesion?
The kind of group cohesion you have in Japan tiday wasn't quite all there during the Meiji era (they'd just come out of a civil war, after all. Then there were also sporadic uprisings for decades after
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichibu_incident)
The following may help--- if you think of Othello as a kind of ideal southern gentleman, as the Japanese sort of did
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Othello-in-Tokyo%3A-Pe...
Now a Alt-Dixie readaptation of that adaptation must of course be the story of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest
(Taiwanese would be negroes loyal to the Cause, and Ainu would be the native Americans)
Presumably the characteristic being referred to is superficial politeness mixed with racism or xenophobia.
That does actually kinda make sense, but it works very differently... the politeness is anything but superficial (even counters the racism and xenophobia to a limited degree, but also hides it, coming out to ±0), and the latter two are indeed present but coded as to be ashamed of rather than proud… (unfortunately the coding of shame is also different and doesn't spurn action).
It actually makes it harder to tackle the discrimination, since it's not openly admitted. Glass walls and ceiling.
(Recommended read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
'There is a "virtual taboo" in the Japanese media against discussing the topic, leading to widespread public ignorance.')
You may think that because of the nationalism, but that's a superficial similarity. Outside western europeans, almost everyone is nationalistic, so that's not a useful characteristic in comparing societies. Aside from that, the American south is more like the Arab world/India--disorderly, combative, face-saving culture, and food-, family-, and faith-centric. The Japanese are much more like Mormons.
The “became technologically advanced” part of this hypothetical is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Yes and no.
The biggest historical commonality between the American South and Japan - or, at least, the Tokugawa shogunate that was ruling around the same time as the South - was that both of them were at one point ruled by a cabal of essentially feudal lords. There is a lot of convergent social evolution that happens when your country's economic elite all make their money by owning land - lots of strange social titles, honorifics start floating around, people start talking around problems, and the like. However, this comparison is only skin deep, and there's plenty of things the Tokugawas did that have no parallel, or even worked backwards, to what happened in the historically contemporaneous American south:
- Sakoku (the policy of keeping Japan completely closed to trade and immigration).
- While America generally has had a long streak of veneration of the police, they never reinvented anything close to the samurai in terms of being a hereditary warrior class with a tax stipend.
- Likewise, the American South did not have a caste system; Japan did (and so did France?!?)
This makes more sense when you remember that the Tokugawa shogunate itself is the time reversal of the American South: the Tokugawas were born out of a long civil war and ended with a foreign invasion (from America) while the American South was born from foreign invasion (of Americans) and ended with a civil war.
The American South is also, interestingly enough, a mirror of Japan in other dimensions as well. The reason why the Tokugawas shut the country's borders for hundreds of years was because they understood that Christian missionaries were a front for a larger invasion force that would pillage the country's resources and abduct people to become slaves in other countries. Of course, the South was buying slaves abducted in other countries in massive quantities.
Going back to the convergent social evolution I mentioned before, you can see some of this in Japan today. Kyoto is notorious for doing exactly the same kind of backhanded compliment bullshit the South loves doing. But even then, that's one part of Japan, that was formerly the capital city. One stop on the Shinkansen takes you to Osaka where people are about as open and outgoing as Americans are.
it's related to fascist ideas of japanese people being unique and people in the west joining that stupid 'philosophy'.
[flagged]