Face To Face: The Distance Between People In The Dialogue

Although technology has reduced face-to-face in dialogue, establishing good communication implies being face to face, since the language of gestures is the great silent communicator that in the rear says more – or at least completely – what that one tries to transmit by means of the word.

Non-verbal language is decisive in the transmission of a message. So what is the most appropriate distance 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, thus posed, can be considered the base unit of this type of language and that it is defined as a movement or disposition of the hands, the face or other members of the body that are used to establish communication with others. human beings in direct and immediate relationship.

Gesture can be considered as an expressive movement of tense psychic contents, that is, the gestures are muscular movements that seek to discharge them. And they do so, whether they are voluntary clothed in intention, or involuntary, the product of unconscious dynamism.

A mimicry, a gesture, in general, is presented with a complexity that escapes the possibility of being able to measure them precisely. Such is the synergy of almost imperceptible micro-movements for conscious awareness, that it is extremely difficult to make 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 target to interpret. Each interlocutor can encode the gestures of his communicational partner according to his beliefs, values, personal meanings, knowledge of the other, the context where the interaction takes place, etc.

However, the gestures of the face, trunk and extremities, the use of space and the actions with which our body behaves make paraverbal language become a spontaneous element of message transmission. A resource that is marginalized or relegated to the background in the face of verbal language.

In fact, generations of listeners have emerged who not only listen, but also observe while listening. The need to see the interlocutor while speaking is seldom aware, that is, we are not aware that we need to have our interlocutor in view to understand in all its dimensions the message that he is trying to convey to us. In general, when we communicate we say “I hear you” and not “I see you”.

Distances between communicators

The gestures, the corporal expressions, the tonality of the speech, the cadence and the rhythm, the movements that take place between volumes – more or less prominent of bodies – develop in a space between communicators that is delimited. A space that means the optimal 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 closeness. It is the distance in which a couple leads in a loving relationship, the relationship of a father who caresses his child or in the mother-child relationship. It is an approach that allows the interlocutors to merge and, to a certain extent, there is a breakdown of the limits of personal territoriality. This space invites you to express yourself affectively, such as hugging or caressing the other’s body.

• Personal distance: it is a distance of closeness, but in which the interlocutors maintain their personal boundaries. That is, personal limits are not lost and are clearly defined. It is the distance of interpersonal relationships that is tacitly established between friends, family or colleagues. Also from two people who have a common goal or interest.
• Social distance : in this type of distance there is no physical contact. The look that happens to be the only type of link prevails. It is not an impersonal relationship, but there is a protective space and distance from eventual invasions or intrusions from the interlocutor. It is the optimal distance in negotiation and sale situations. In general, the space between interlocutors is occupied with desks, shop windows, tables, objects that impose the distance between the communicators. In traditional psychiatric consultations, for example, it is the classic therapeutic distance in which the desk, the white coat, etc. is placed.

• Public distance: it is the distance from formal relationships. There is no intimacy and less a personalized bond. Any type of direct relationship is lost and it is the typical distance from the lecturer or the professor.

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

Thus, architecture expresses in a certain way styles of life and interaction. Both in the design of a house that is planned according to the particular requirements of a family or the impersonal designs in building constructions, interior doors in general are less wide than those that are structured facing the outside.

Modern interior doors, as well as corridors, are around 65 cm. wide, while the entrance doors are 80. Along the same lines, the constructions of the first half of the 20th century were characterized by wider interior doors than the current ones and double-leaf exterior ones.

It can be hypothesized that, today, despite living times of more impersonal relationships, personal, social and public distances have been reduced. While in the first decades of the last century, despite the fact that the interactions were closer and more knowledgeable (neighborhood neighbors, time for friends and family visits, etc.), a formal distance quota was imposed in which For example, physical contact did not prevail and your treatment was expected; as with gates, the relational distance was much greater than it is today.

However, the relational distance depends on each sociocultural context. Each culture imposes the type of space between communicators. 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 at the relational level and more so in cases in which the way to accompany the word is through physical contact.

The relational distance and the sociocultural context: an example

An example, referred to by Paul Watzlawick (1976), shows such differences. A series of researchers explored a phenomenon that happened at the Rio de Janeiro airport. The airport had a terrace with a not very high railing, a place where a number of people had fallen in recent years. These accidents occurred in foreigners, mainly Europeans, who were related to Brazilian people.

This terrace was constituted in a meeting center in receptions and farewells. What they discovered was that when Brazilians began a dialogue with Europeans, as their social distance was the smallest – perhaps equivalent to the intimate distance of Europeans – they began to withdraw in search of achieving the optimal space for their relationship.

Thus, the Europeans began a backward march, widening the distance, to which the Brazilians responded by advancing in search of their own social distance. In this way, many of the Europeans ended up falling off the railing to the ground floor of the airport.

Beyond the distances in the interaction imposed by culture, there are also the distances that each person in a particular way places to establish communication with the other. The standard distance of 80 cm makes it possible to centralize the gaze on the interlocutor’s face and through peripheral vision, not clearly, to observe the rest of the body with which gestural messages are permanently sent.

Finally, the gestures are indomitable. That is to say, in verbal messages, in a certain way, we have conscious control of what we want to express (despite the failed acts!), But in gestures it is impossible.

Thus, raising awareness about our communicational distance and metacommunicating when we have any doubts in the attribution of meaning that we give to the gesture of others is to increase healthy communication.