The work boot has become a hot item for many girls and young women. This artifact of appearance may reveal a lot about American culture and society in the 1990's. By applying E. M. Fleming's "Model of Artifact Study", I will analyze this artifact in an attempt to shed some light on the values, priorities, and ideals of our society.

Just like Fleming's model suggests, this paper will be broken down into four major sections: Identification, Evaluation, Cultural Analysis, and Interpretation.

The Eastland work boot that I am referring to in this paper is shown below. It was manufactured in Freeport, Maine. Click on the picture for a catalog description from JCPenney.

This is a wheat-colored, waterproof, plain-toe (as opposed to steel-toe) boot made for women. The soft Nubuck leather feels almost velvety. It has a thick rubber sole which looks like a gum eraser with a complicated traction pattern. The boot seems to be put together mainly by stitching and in most places, only one row of stitching is used. The only area that looks as if it may have the additional help of glue, is where the sole meets the leather-upper. It is clearly stitched here as well, but the stitches are coated with glue (possibly to help keep these stitches dry).

The shoe-strings, which look like yellow and brown cords, are laced through a total of twelve holes (called "eyes") on each boot. There are six "eyes" lined up vertically on each side of the tongue. In this way, the shoe-strings can be laced in the traditional criss-cross pattern forming five "X's", one above the next, up the front of the boot. These "X's" are located in front of the tongue. The ends of each shoe-string are tied in a bow which lies flush against the highest "X".

At the top of the boot, there is padding built into the collar that wraps around the back of the calf, just above the Achilles' tendon. This area doesn't seem to be made entirely of leather. Instead, it seems as if this cushion is made from a very thin, darker brown, soft leather lining stuffed with foam.

Overall, the boot is very light-weight, weighing only 2.8 lbs.

It is interesting to compare this boot, worn for fashion, to the ones worn by construction workers, for durability and foot protection. These real work boots, designed for men, are shown in the picture to the right. Click on the picture to see a Sears catalog description of these work boots.

The boots described in the above "Identification" section are made for women, therefore they are cut smaller and narrower. But besides this size difference, there are many other differences.

If you take a men's and a women's boot that will fit the same size foot (for example: a size 9 1/2 women's and a size 8 men's), the women's boot will be considerably more light-weight. In order to make the boot more light-weight and therefore more comfortable for a woman to wear as a fashion statement, the leather used is thinner and not as durable as that used in the men's work boot. The manufacturer can get away with this because they know that the women are walking down the street in the boots, not chopping wood. Therefore, the boots don't have to be as durable. Likewise, the women's boot does not have as many rows of stitches because the shoe simply does not need them. Another major difference is that the boots do not even have steel-shanks in the toes like the men's work boots. Indeed this allows the boot to be much lighter, but the boot is also not nearly as protective as the men's boot. Why would a "work-boot" be designed this way? Again, the designer knows he can get away with selling this lower quality boot to women because the majority of women are wearing the boot for fashion not function. The woman is not concerned with dropping hammers on her feet. She is more concerned with comfort and style.

So, in essence, I believe the manufacturers have down-graded the durability of the women's boots mainly so that they may be produced more cheaply and therefore reap bigger profits for the company. All the while, this motive for making "cheaper" boots has been cleverly disguised as simply making more comfortable boots. Now, I agree that the thinner leather is easier to break in and that it is more light-weight (the women's boot weighs 2.8 lbs., whereas the comparable sized men's version weighs in at 4.25 lbs.). However, doesn't it make sense that if the women's boots are made with considerably less material (from the amount of leather all the way down to having less eye-holes and therefore shorter shoe-strings), cheaper materials (the soles are simply rubber instead of gasoline resistant polyurethane), and less labor (don't have as many rows of stitches as the men's boots), then they should also cost less than the men's boots? I find it suspicious then, that the women's work boot costs $87 while the men's boot is priced at $73.

In the article,"Body Ritual Among the Nacirema", Horace Miner implies that every society casts its own particular ideals about appearance as "natural". This is readily shown by the following example. There was a time in this country when women were expected to always wear dresses and certain types of "lady's" shoes. I just recently saw the movie The Scarlet Letter, and I was amazed that even when the colonial women were working in the field or riding a horse, they still wore dresses. This was considered "natural" in their society even though it seems pretty silly and impractical to us today.

Today, in contrast, it is considered perfectly natural for women to wear "men's" clothes such as blue-jeans and work boots. Even though a woman may put on a pair of work boots to do nothing more strenuous than drive her car, this is considered "natural" today. As fellow classmate Scott Caruthers points out in his paper, hunting boots have also become a fashion item among men and women. Many people wearing these boots are equally as inactive as the woman described above wearing the work boots. In addition, as Scott points out, some of these people may even be dead-set against hunting, yet they wear hunting boots anyway to walk along paved streets. With this hypocrisy and impracticality in mind, we must try not to be so quick to label past fashion rules as silly.

In Fashion, Culture, and Identity, Fred Davis presents two theories, the Trickle-Down Theory (p.110) and Blumer's Collective Selection Theory (p.115), which attempt to explain what drives the fashion cycle. When trying to identify the driving force of this particular fashion cycle, it seems rather obvious that Blumer's theory could hold true. Women may be wearing the boots simply because other members of her subculture are wearing them. But this doesn't explain how the boots entered her circle of peers in the first place.

At first I felt that the the Trickle-Down Theory presented in Davis' book was being completely contradicted by the emergence of this fashion trend. I agreed with Davis in being suspicious of a theory which says that a fashion cycle is driven by the "lower class" trying to emulate the "upper class". Clearly, this could not be the case, because the women are wearing work boots. The "upper class" does not work! Rather, I should say that the "upper class" is not employed in such blue-collar jobs that require them to wear work boots. Therefore, the women who wear these boots could not possibly be emulating the upper class.

However, complications arise in this argument when one considers that the trickle-down theory does not state why the "upper class" chooses certain items as fashionable. The fact is, work boots have been defined by the "upper class" as rather fashionable among women. Therefore, it could be argued that the cycle is being driven by women wishing to emulate a fashion defined by a "higher class". This does not explain why the upper class would consider work boots fashionable in the first place, but it seems to explain why a good portion of society has followed suit.

Now, why would the "upper class" consider these boots fashionable in the first place? My interpretation is that, today, society in general has an increased interest in "the outdoors" and rugged activities which introduce an element of danger. More and more people are going hiking, camping, mountain biking, rock-climbing, sky-diving, etc. They are attracted by this variety to their otherwise inactive lives. Indeed, because of the computer and technological explosion, people are spending more of their lives sitting at a terminal clicking away. Kids spend less time playing "Smear the Queer" outside, and more time playing "Doom" on their home computers. Because of this, anyone who embarks on a real adventure (as opposed to the virtual adventures one can find in computer games) is highly regarded. We are envious of the man who is able to enjoy the earth and all her beauty why we sit in our offices and look out the window.

So, in wearing work boots, or the hunting boots that Scott Caruthers talks about, the "upper class" may be trying to emulate a class of people that they look up to. Again, the Trickle-Down Theory hasn't been totally contradicted here. One group of people wants to imitate another group that they hold in high regard.

Some people may not be in the condition to actually undertake the adventurous activities. They may not have the "guts" or simply may not be able to take time out of their busy schedules to participate. However, if they still want to project the image of a person who lives, what they deem, a more exciting life, they may decide to wear some article of clothing that represents adventurous or rugged activity. Therefore, as the yuppie prepares for her journey to the mall to buy a new cellular phone, she straps herself into her "work" boots. Still sound strange? Not if you consider that maybe she'd rather be outside doing something more exciting.


Davis, Fred, Fashion, Culture, and Identity. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. 1992.

Miner, Horace, (1956). "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema", American Anthropologist, 58, 503-507, American Anthropological Association.



Return to Homepage