Face To Face: Distance Between People In Dialogue

Although technology has reduced the “face to face” in dialogue, establishing good communication means being face to face, since the language of gestures is the great silent communicator that, in the background, says more – or at least complete – the that one tries to transmit through the word. Non-verbal language is crucial in transmitting a message. So what is the most appropriate distance between people to establish effective communication?

a gestural universe

The universe of gestures, micro-movements and movements is part of non-verbal language. This means that the gesture can be considered the base unit of this type of language, and it is defined as a movement or disposition of the hands, face or other members of the body that are used to establish communication with other human beings in relation direct and immediate.

Gestures can be considered an expressive movement of psychic contents in tension, that is, gestures are muscular movements that seek their release. And they conquer it, whether they are voluntary, that is, clothed in intention, or if they are involuntary, the product of an unconscious dynamism.

A mime or a gesture, in general, occur with a complexity that escapes the possibility of being able to measure them precisely. The synergy of almost imperceptible micro-movements for conscious capture is such that it is extremely difficult to achieve a comprehensive and complete perception of the gestural universe. 

The gesture in human interactions is a symbolic movement that expresses and demonstrates something that must be deciphered. In other words, gestures are a blank role to play.

Each interlocutor can encode the gestures of their communicational repertoire according to their beliefs, their values, their personal meanings, their knowledge of the other, the context in which the interaction takes place, etc.

However, facial gestures, trunk and extremities, the use of space and the actions that our body performs make the paraverbal language is constituted as a spontaneous element of message transmission. A resource that is marginalized or relegated to the background in relation to verbal language.

In fact, there were generations of listeners who not only listen, but also observe while listening. The need to see the interlocutor while speaking is rarely conscious, that is, we are not aware that we need to look at our interlocutor to understand in all its dimensions the message he is trying to convey to us.

In general, when we communicate, we are saying “I hear you”, not “I see you”.

The distance between people during communication

The gestures, body expressions, speech tone, cadence and rhythm, the movements that are produced between volumes – more or less prominent in bodies – are developed in a space between communicators that is delimited. A space that means the ideal distance for two or more people to establish a conversation.

Hall (1966) distinguishes the management of space and movement in relation to such relational proximity or distance and classifies four types of distances:

• Intimate distance: implies a distance of affective proximity. It is the distance used by a couple in a loving relationship, by a father who caresses his child, or between mothers and children. It is an approach that allows the fusion of interlocutors and, to a certain extent, there is a rupture in the limits of personal territoriality. This space invites affective expression, such as hugging or caressing the other’s body.

• Personal distance: it is a distance of proximity, but in which the interlocutors maintain their personal boundaries. That is, personal boundaries are not lost and are clearly defined. It is the distance of interpersonal relationships implicitly established between friends, family or co-workers . Or between two people who have a common goal or interest.
• Social distance: in this type of distance there is no physical contact. The look prevails and becomes the only type of bond. It is not an impersonal relationship, but there is a space and a distance of protection in relation to possible invasions or intrusions by the interlocutor. It is the ideal distance in negotiation and sales situations. In general, the space between interlocutors is established through tables, counters and all kinds of objects that impose distance between the communicators. In traditional psychiatric consultations, for example, it is the classic therapeutic distance established by the work table, the lab coat, etc.

• Public distance: is the distance of formal relationships. There is no intimacy and even less a personalized bond. Any kind of direct relationship is lost, and it is the typical distance from the speaker or the teacher.

In these last three types of distances, the length of space between the interlocutors ranges from 60 to 80 cm, which is neither more nor less than the width of doors or certain corridors.

Thus, architecture expresses, in a way, lifestyles and interaction. Whether designing a house that is planned according to a family’s particular requirements or impersonal designs in building constructions, interior doors are generally less wide than those that border the exterior.

The modern interior doors, as well as the corridors, are 65 cm wide, while the entrance doors are approximately 80 cm. Along the same lines, the constructions of the first half of the 20th century were characterized by having wider interior doors than the current ones, and the exterior ones had double doors.

It is convenient to raise the hypothesis that, nowadays, despite living in times of more impersonal relationships, personal, social and public distances have been reduced.

In the first decades of the last century, despite interactions having been closer and involving greater knowledge (neighbors on the street, time for friends and family visits, etc.), a formal distance quota was imposed in which, for For example, physical contact did not prevail and formal treatment was expected. As in the example of doors, the relational distance was much greater than today.

However, the relational distance depends on each sociocultural context. Each culture imposes the type of space between those who communicate. Certain contexts have a closer social distance, equivalent to the intimate distance for other cultures.

This can create misunderstandings between people belonging to antagonistic contexts in the relational sphere, and even more so in cases where the way to follow the words is through physical contact.

Relational distance and the sociocultural context: an example

One example, to which Paul Watzlawick (1976) refers, shows such differences. A series of researchers explored a phenomenon that happened at the airport in Rio de Janeiro.

The airport had a terrace with a not very high balcony, a place where a number of people had fallen in recent years. These accidents occurred with foreign people, mainly Europeans, who were related to Brazilian people.

This terrace was located in a meeting center and was used for receptions and farewells. What they discovered was that, when Brazilians established a dialogue with Europeans, they tended to distance themselves, seeking to stipulate an ideal space for that moment, precisely because Brazilians usually have a smaller social distance – perhaps equivalent to intimate distance of Europeans.

Thus, Europeans began to move back a little, widening the distance, to which Brazilians responded by advancing, trying to establish their own social distance. In this way, many of the Europeans ended up falling out of the balcony, on the lower level of the airport.

Far beyond the distances in interaction imposed by culture, there are also distances that each person, in a particular way, determines to establish communication with the other.

The standard distance of 80 cm allows us to center our gaze on the interlocutor’s face and, through peripheral vision – not clearly – observe the rest of the body with which we send gesture messages.

Finally, gestures are impossible to master. In other words, in verbal messages, in a way, we have the conscious domain of what we want to express (despite, of course, the flawed acts), but in gestures, this is impossible.

Thus, being aware of our communication distance and speaking when we have any doubts about the attribution of meaning we give to the gestures of others is to encourage healthy communication.