Proxemics

Diagram of Edward T. Hall's personal reaction bubbles (1966), showing radius in feet

Proxemics is a subcategory of the study of nonverbal communication along with haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics (structure of time).^[1] Proxemics can be defined as "the interrelated observations and theories of man's use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture".^[2] Edward T. Hall, the cultural anthropologist who coined the term in 1963, emphasized the impact of proxemic behavior (the use of space) on interpersonal communication. Hall believed that the value in studying proxemics comes from its applicability in evaluating not only the way people interact with others in daily life, but also "the organization of space in [their] houses and buildings, and ultimately the layout of [their] towns.^[3]

In animals, Swiss zoologist Heini Hediger had distinguished between flight distance (run boundary), critical distance (attack boundary), personal distance (distance separating members of non-contact species, as a pair of swans), and social distance (intraspecies communication distance). Hall reasoned that, with very few exceptions, flight distance and critical distance have been eliminated in human reactions, and thus interviewed hundreds of people to determine modified criteria for human interactions.

In his work on proxemics, Edward T. Hall separated his theory into two overarching categories: personal space and territory. Personal space describes the immediate space surrounding a person, while territory refers to the area which a person may "lay claim to" and defend against others.^[1] His theory on territoriality has been applied to animal behaviors as well; defending territory is said to be a means of "propagation of the species by regulating density".^[1]

Personal Space

The most portable types of space. A person's personal space is carried with them everywhere they go. It is the most inviolate form of territory. ^[4] Body spacing and posture, according to Hall, are unintentional reactions to sensory fluctuations or shifts, such as subtle changes in the sound and pitch of a person's voice. Social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the delineations below. Hall did not mean for these measurements to be strict guidelines that translate precisely to human behavior, but rather a system for gauging the effect of distance on communication and how the effect varies between cultures and other environmental factors.

• Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering
  • Close phase – less than 6 inches (15 cm)
  • Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm)
• Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family members
  • Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 cm)
  • Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 122 cm)
• Social distance for interactions among acquaintances
  • Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m)
  • Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m)
• Public distance used for public speaking
  • Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m)
  • Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more.

In addition to physical distance, the level of intimacy between conversants can be determined by "socio-petal socio-fugal axis", or the "angle formed by the axis of the conversants' shoulders".^[1] Hall has also studied combinations of postures between dyads (two people) including lying prone, sitting, or standing. These variations in positioning are impacted by a variety of nonverbal communicative factors, listed below.

kinesthetic factors

This category deals with how closely the participants are to touching, from being completely outside of body-contact distance to being in physical contact, which parts of the body are in contact, and body part positioning.

touching code

This behavioural category concerns how participants are touching one another, such as caressing, holding, feeling, prolonged holding, spot touching, pressing against, accidental brushing, or not touching at all.

visual code

This category denotes the amount of eye contact between participants. Four sub-categories are defined, ranging from eye-to-eye contact to no eye contact at all.

thermal code

This category denotes the amount of body heat that each participant perceives from another. Four sub-categories are defined: conducted heat detected, radiant heat detected, heat probably detected, and no detection of heat.

olfactory code

This category deals in the kind and degree of odour detected by each participant from the other.

voice loudness

This category deals in the vocal effort used in speech. Seven sub-categories are defined: silent, very soft, soft, normal, normal+, loud, and very loud.

Cultural Factors

Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. The Lewis Model of Cultural Types indicates the variations in personal interactive qualities, indicating three poles: "linear-active" cultures, which are characterized as cool and decisive (Germany, Norway, USA), "reactive" cultures, characterized as accommodating and non-confrontational (Vietnam, China, Japan), and "multi-active" cultures, characterized as warm and impulsive (Brazil, Mexico, Italy).^[5] Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive).

Territory

There are four forms of human territory in proxemic theory. They are:

public territory

a place where one may freely enter. This type of territory is rarely in the constant control of just one person. However, people might come to temporarily own areas of public territory.

interactional territory

a place where people congregate informally

home territory

a place where people continuously have control over their individual territory

body territory

the space immediately surrounding us

These different levels of territory, in addition to factors involving personal space, suggest ways for us to communicate and produce expectations of appropriate behavior.^[6]

Proxemics in applied research

Much research in the fields of Communication, Psychology, and Sociology, especially under the category of Organizational Behavior, has shown that physical proximity enhances peoples' ability to work together. Face-to-face interaction is often used as a tool to maintain the culture, authority, and norms of an organization or workplace.^[7][8] An extensive body of research has been written about how proximity is affected by the use of new communication technologies. The importance of physical proximity in co-workers is often emphasized.

In developing new communication technologies, the theory of proxemics is often considered. While physical proximity cannot be achieved when people are connected virtually, perceived proximity can be attempted, and several studies have shown that it is a crucial indicator in the effectiveness of virtual communication technologies.^{[9][10][11][12]} These studies suggest that various individual and situational factors influence how close we feel to another person, regardless of distance. The mere-exposure effect originally referred to the tendency of a person to positively favor those who they have been physically exposed to most often.^[13] However, recent research has extended this effect to virtual communication. This work suggests that the more someone communicates virtually with another person, the more he is able to envision that person's appearance and workspace, therefore fostering a sense of personal connection.^[9] Increased communication has also been seen to foster common ground, or the feeling of identification with another, which leads to positive attributions about that person. Some studies emphasize the importance of shared physical territory in achieving common ground,^[14] while others find that common ground can be achieved virtually, by communicating often.^[9]

Proxemics and cinema

Proxemics is an essential component of cinematic mise-en-scène, the placement of characters, props and scenery within a frame, creating visual weight and movement.^[15] There are two aspects to the consideration of proxemics in this context, the first being character proxemics, which addresses such questions as: How much space is there between the characters? What is suggested by characters who are close to (or, conversely, far away from) each other? Do distances change as the film progresses? and, Do distances depend on the film's other content?^[16] The other consideration is camera proxemics, which answers the single question: How far away is the camera from the characters/action?^[17] Analysis of camera proxemics typically relates Hall's system of proxemic patterns to the camera angle used to create a specific shot, with the long shot or extreme long shot becoming the public proxemic, a full shot (sometimes called a figure shot, complete view, or medium long shot) becoming the social proxemic, the medium shot becoming the personal proxemic, and the close up or extreme close up becoming the intimate proxemic.^[18]

• 

  A long shot -- the public proxemic

• 

  A full shot -- the social proxemic

• 

  A medium shot -- the personal proxemic

• 

  A close-up -- the intimate proxemic

Film analyst Louis Giannetti has maintained that, in general, the greater the distance between the camera and the subject (in other words, the public proxemic), the more emotionally neutral the audience remains, whereas the closer the camera is to a character, the greater the audience's emotional attachment to that character.^[19] Or, as actor/director Charlie Chaplin put it: “Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long shot.”^[20]

See also

References

Further reading

• T. Matthew Ciolek (September 1983). "The Proxemics Lexicon: a first approximation". Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 8 (1): 55–75. doi:10.1007/BF00986330. 
• Edward T. Hall (1963). "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behaviour". American Anthropologist 65 (5): 1003–1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020. 
• Robert Sommer (May 1967). "Sociofugal Space". The American Journal of Sociology 72 (6): 654–660. doi:10.1086/224402. 
• Lawson, Bryan (2001). "Sociofugal and sociopetal space". The Language of Space. Architectural Press. pp. 140–144. ISBN 0-7506-5246-2. 

External links

• Proxemics Research at the Wayback Machine
• STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM (November 16, 2006). "In Certain Circles, Two Is a Crowd". New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2011. 
• Wąs, J. A.; Gudowski, B. O.; Matuszyk, P. J. (2006). "Social Distances Model of Pedestrian Dynamics". Cellular Automata. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4173. p. 492. doi:10.1007/11861201_57. ISBN 978-3-540-40929-8.