PROXEMIC (Wikipedia.

com)
Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on
behaviour, communication, and social interaction.[1]
Proxemics is one among several subcategories in the study of nonverbal communication,
including haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage),
and chronemics (structure of time).[2]
Edward T. Hall, the cultural anthropologist who coined the term in 1963, defined proxemics as
"the interrelated observations and theories of humans use of space as a specialized elaboration
of culture".[3] In his foundational work on proxemics, The Hidden Dimension, Hall emphasized
the impact of proxemic behavior (the use of space) on interpersonal communication. According
to Hall, the study of proxemics is valuable 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".[4] Proxemics remains a hidden component of interpersonal
communication that is uncovered through observation and strongly influenced by culture.
Interpersonal distance
Hall described the interpersonal distances of man (the relative distances between people) in
four distinct zones: (1) intimate space, (2) personal space, (3) social space, and (4) public
space.
Horizontal

A chart depicting Edward T. Hall's interpersonal distances of man, showing radius in feet and
meters

 Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering

 Close phase – less than 1 to 2 cm
 Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm)
 Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family
 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.
The distance surrounding a person forms a space. The space within intimate distance and
personal distance is called personal space. The space within social distance and out of personal
distance is called social space. And the space within public distance is called public space.
Personal space is the region surrounding a person which they regard as psychologically theirs.
Most people value their personal space and feel discomfort, anger, or anxiety when their
personal space is encroached.[5] Permitting a person to enter personal space and entering
somebody else's personal space are indicators of perception of those people's relationship. An
intimate zone is reserved for close friends, lovers, children and close family members. Another
zone is used for conversations with friends, to chat with associates, and in group discussions. A
further zone is reserved for strangers, newly formed groups, and new acquaintances. A fourth
zone is used for speeches, lectures, and theater; essentially, public distance is that range
reserved for larger audiences.[6]
Entering somebody's personal space is normally an indication of familiarity and sometimes
intimacy. However, in modern society, especially in crowded urban communities, it can be
difficult to maintain personal space, for example when in a crowded train, elevator or street.
Many people find such physical proximity to be psychologically disturbing and
uncomfortable,[5] though it is accepted as a fact of modern life. In an impersonal, crowded
situation, eye contact tends to be avoided. Even in a crowded place, preserving personal space
is important, and intimate and sexual contact, such as frotteurism and groping, is unacceptable
physical contact.
The amygdala is suspected of processing people's strong reactions to personal space violations
since these are absent in those in which it is damaged and it is activated when people are
physically close.[7] Research links the amygdala with emotional reactions to proximity to other
people. First, it is activated by such proximity, and second, in those with complete bilateral
damage to their amygdala, such as patient S.M., lack a sense of personal space boundary.[7] As
the researchers have noted: "Our findings suggest that the amygdala may mediate the repulsive
force that helps to maintain a minimum distance between people. Further, our findings are
consistent with those in monkeys with bilateral amygdala lesions, who stay within closer
proximity to other monkeys or people, an effect we suggest arises from the absence of strong
emotional responses to personal space violation."[7]
A person's personal space is carried with them everywhere they go. It is the most inviolate form
of territory.[8] 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.
Vertical
The distances mentioned above are horizontal distance. There is also vertical distance that
communicates something between people. In this case, however, vertical distance is often
understood to convey the degree of dominance or sub-ordinance in a relationship. Looking up at
or down on another person can be taken literally in many cases, with the higher person
asserting greater status.[9]
Teachers, and especially those who work with small children, should realize that students will
interact more comfortably with a teacher when they are in same vertical plane. Used in this way,
an understanding of vertical distance can become a tool for improved teacher-student
communication. On the other hand, a disciplinarian might put this information to use in order to
gain psychological advantage over an unruly student.[9]

Biometrics
Main article: Biometrics
Hall used biometric concepts to categorize, explain, and explore the ways people connect in
space. 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.
 Haptic code: This behavioral 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 odor 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.
Neuropsychology
Main article: Neuropsychology
Whereas Hall's work uses human interactions to demonstrate spatial variation in proxemics, the
field of neuropsychology describes personal space in terms of the kinds of "nearness" to an
individual body.

 Extrapersonal space: The space that occurs outside the reach of an individual.
 Peripersonal space: The space within reach of any limb of an individual. Thus, to be
"within arm's length" is to be within one's peripersonal space.
 Pericutaneous space: The space just outside our bodies but which might be near to
touching it. Visual-tactile perceptive fields overlap in processing this space. For example, an
individual might see a feather as not touching their skin but still experience the sensation of
being tickled when it hovers just above their hand. Other examples include the blowing of
wind, gusts of air, and the passage of heat.[10]
Previc[11] further subdivides extrapersonal space into focal-extrapersonal space, action-
extrapersonal space, and ambient-extrapersonal space. Focal-extrapersonal space is located in
the lateral temporo-frontal pathways at the center of our vision, is retinotopically centered and
tied to the position of our eyes, and is involved in object search and recognition. Action-
extrapersonal-space is located in the medial temporo-frontal pathways, spans the entire space,
and is head-centered and involved in orientation and locomotion in topographical space. Action-
extrapersonal space provides the "presence" of our world. Ambient-extrapersonal space initially
courses through the peripheral parieto-occipital visual pathways before joining up with vestibular
and other body senses to control posture and orientation in earth-fixed/gravitational space.
Numerous studies involving peripersonal and extrapersonal neglect have shown that per
personal space is located dorsally in the parietal lobe whereas extrapersonal space is housed
ventrally in the temporal lobe.

Organization of space in territories

Two people not affecting each other's personal space

Reaction of two people whose regions of personal space are in conflict

While personal space describes the immediate space surrounding a person, territory refers to
the area which a person may "lay claim to" and defend against others.[2] 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.[12]
In addition to spatial territories, the interpersonal territories between conversants can be
determined by "socio-petal socio-fugal axis",[13] or the "angle formed by the axis of the
conversants' shoulders".[2] Hall has also studied combinations of postures between dyads (two
people) including lying prone, sitting, or standing.
Cultural factors
Personal space is highly variable, due to cultural differences and personal preferences. On
average, preferences vary significantly between countries. A 2017 study[14] found that personal
space preferences with respect to strangers ranged between more than 120 cm in Romania,
Hungary and Saudi Arabia, and less than 90 cm in Argentina, Peru, Ukraine and Bulgaria.
The cultural practices of the United States show considerable similarities to those in northern
and central European regions, such as Germany, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom.
Greeting rituals tend to be the same in Europe and in the United States, consisting of minimal
body contact—often confined to a simple handshake. The main cultural difference in proxemics
is that residents of the United States like to keep more open space between themselves and
their conversation partners (roughly 4 feet (1.2 m) compared to 2 to 3 feet (0.6–0.9 m) in
Europe).[15] European cultural history has seen a change in personal space since Roman times,
along with the boundaries of public and private space. This topic has been explored in A History
of Private Life (2001), under the general editorship of Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby.[16] On
the other hand, those living in densely populated places likely have lower expectations of
personal space. Residents of India or Japan tend to have a smaller personal space than those
in the Mongolian steppe, both in regard to home and individual spaces. Different expectations of
personal space can lead to difficulties in intercultural communication.[5]
Hall notes that different culture types maintain different standards of personal space. The
Francavilla Model of Cultural Types,[17] also known as The Lewis Model, lists the variations in
personal interactive qualities, indicating three poles:[18]

 linear-active cultures, which are characterized as cool and decisive (Germany, Norway,
U.S.)
 reactive cultures, characterized as accommodating and non-confrontational (Vietnam,
China, Japan), and
 multi-active cultures, characterized as warm and impulsive (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico,
Italy).
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).
Adaptation
People make exceptions to and modify their space requirements. A number of relationships may
allow for personal space to be modified, including familial ties, romantic partners, friendships
and close acquaintances, where there is a greater degree of trust and personal knowledge.
Personal space is affected by a person's position in society, with more affluent individuals
expecting a larger personal space.[19] Personal space also varies by gender and age. Males
typically use more personal space than females, and personal space has a positive relation to
age (people use more as they get older). Most people have a fully developed (adult) sense of
personal space by age twelve.[20]
Under circumstances where normal space requirements cannot be met, such as in public transit
or elevators, personal space requirements are modified accordingly. According to the
psychologist Robert Sommer, one method of dealing with violated personal space
is dehumanization. He argues that on the subway, crowded people often imagine those
intruding on their personal space as inanimate. Behavior is another method: a person
attempting to talk to someone can often cause situations where one person steps forward to
enter what they perceive as a conversational distance, and the person they are talking to can
step back to restore their personal space.[19]
Implementing appropriate proxemic cues has been shown to improve success in monitored
behavioral situations like psychotherapy by increasing patient trust for the therapist (see active
listening).[21] Instructional situations have likewise seen increased success in student
performance by lessening the actual or perceived distance between the student and the
educator (perceived distance is manipulated in the case of instructional videoconferencing,
using technological tricks such as angling the frame and adjusting the zoom).[22]Studies have
shown that proxemic behavior is also affected when dealing with stigmatized minorities within a
population. For example, those who do not have experience dealing with disabled persons tend
to create more distance during encounters because they are uncomfortable. Others may judge
that the disabled person needs to have an increase of touch, volume, or proximity.[23]
 Galleria di
Diana in Venaria Royal Palace, an example of Classical architecture. The Classical Language is
an example of an "extremely successful form language". Image Courtesy ofSHUTTERSTOCK
.com
As you may have seen, ArchDaily has been publishing UNIFIED ARCHITECTURAL THEORY,
by the urbanist and controversial theorist Nikos A. Salingaros, in serial form. However, in order
to explain certain concepts in greater detail, we have decided to pause this serialization and
publish three excerpts from another of Salingaros’ books: A THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE.
The following excerpt, the first, explains the terms “Pattern Language” (as well as“antipatterns")
and “Form Language.”
Design in architecture and urbanism is guided by two distinct complementary languages:
a pattern language, and a form language.
The pattern language contains rules for how human beings interact with built forms — a
pattern language codifies practical solutions developed over millennia, which are appropriate to
local customs, society, and climate.
A form language, on the other hand, consists of geometrical rules for putting matter together. It
is visual and tectonic, traditionally arising from available materials and their human uses rather
than from images. Different form languages correspond to different architectural traditions, or
styles. The problem is that not all form languages are adaptive to human sensibilities. Those
that are not adaptive can never connect to a pattern language. Every adaptive design method
combines a pattern language with a viable form language, otherwise it inevitably creates alien
environments.
Architectural design is a highly complex undertaking. Heretofore, the processes at its base have
not been made clear. There have been many attempts to clarify the design process, yet we still
don’t have a design method that can be used by students and novices to achieve practical,
meaningful, nourishing, human results.

In the absence of a design method and accompanying criteria for judging a design, things have
become very subjective, and therefore what is built today appears to be influenced largely by
fashion, forced tastes, and an individual’s desire to garner attention through novel and
sometimes shocking expressions.

This Chapter puts forward a theory of architecture and urbanism based on two distinct
languages: the pattern language, and the form language.
The pattern language codifies the interaction of human beings with their environment, and
determines how and where we naturally prefer to walk, sit, sleep, enter and move through a
building, enjoy a room or open space, and feel at ease or not in our garden. The pattern
language is a set of inherited tried-and-true solutions that optimize how the built environment
promotes human life and sense of wellbeing. It combines geometry and social behavior patterns
into a set of useful relationships, summarizing how built form can accommodate human
activities.
The importance of a pattern language for architecture was originally proposed by Christopher
Alexander and his associates. A fairly general pattern language was discovered and presented
by Alexander, who emphasized that, while many if not most of the patterns in his pattern
language are indeed universal, there actually exist an infinite number of individual patterns that
can be included in a pattern language. Each pattern language reflects different modes of life,
customs, and behavior, and is appropriate to specific climates, geographies, cultures, and
traditions. It is up to the designer/architect to extract specific non-universal patterns as needed,
by examining the ways of life and tradition in a particular setting, and then to apply them to that
situation.
Living architecture is highly dependent on patterns, which shape buildings and spaces
accordingly. A pattern is a set of relationships, which can be realized using different materials
and geometries. Architects, however, confuse patterns with their representation, i.e., what an
arrangement looks like. Patterns are not material, though we experience them with our
senses. It is far more difficult to understand them intellectually, and almost impossible to grasp
patterns from within a world-view that focuses exclusively on materials.
A pattern language for work environments can be put together by examining the components of
successful emotionally-comfortable work environments from different cultures and periods
around the world. A software developer today has many requirements in common with a distant
ancestor looking for a comfortable place to sit and carve a bone or paint a piece of pottery.
Being able to work in an emotionally-supportive environment boosts morale and productivity,
and cuts down on workplace errors.
For several decades, however, architects and interior designers have insisted on applying
formal design rules to office environments. Such rules tend to give a standard compromise that
satisfies almost none of the fundamental requirements for a good working environment. Their
occupants usually characterize them as ranging from sterile to oppressive. Here is a
fundamental disconnect between what architects imagine office space should look like, and the
characteristics of the kind of space that users actually require to be productive in.

In the theory of pattern languages — actually developed more extensively in computer

architecture than in buildings architecture — the concept of “antipattern” plays a central
role. An antipattern shows how to do the opposite of the required solution. An ineffective
solution is often repeated because the same forces that gave rise to it in the first place recur in
other similar situations. Assuming that the futility and counterproductive nature of such a
solution is evident (which is not always the case), its occurrence can be studied to see what
went wrong.
Antipatterns do not comprise a pattern language, just as a collection of mistakes do not
comprise a coherent body of knowledge. It is therefore not appropriate to talk of a language of
antipatterns, but simply a collection of antipatterns. Nevertheless, antipatterns could (and often
do) substitute for, and displace a genuine pattern language, with very negative consequences.
Documenting an antipattern can save future designs from the same mistakes by identifying a
problematic solution before it is adopted. However, knowing the antipattern does not
automatically indicate the pattern, since the solution space is not one-dimensional. Doing the
opposite of the antipattern will not give the pattern, precisely because there can be many
different “opposites” going out in many different directions in the solution space.

Pattern languages have evolved, and, as with all evolved systems, they have developed an
extraordinary degree of organized complexity. It is not possible to understand all this complexity,
let alone replace it by a design method based on deliberately simplified rules. And yet, that has
been the basic assumption of twentieth-century architects: that we can simply replace all the
evolved architectural solutions of the past with a few rules that someone has made up (and
which don’t even have the benefit of experimental verification).
The form language, on the other hand, is strictly geometrical. It is defined by the elements of
form as constituted by the floors, the walls, the ceiling, the partitions, and all the architectural
components or articulations, which together represent a particular form and style of
building. A form language is a repertoire of forms and surface elements that can be combined
to build any building, and so it represents more than just a superficial style.
The form language depends on an inherited vocabulary of all the components used in the
assembly of a building; rules for how they can be combined; and how different levels of scale
can arise from the smaller components. It is a particular and practical conception of tectonic and
surface geometry. One extremely successful form language, the “Classical Language”, relies on
a wide range of variations of the Classical style of building based on Greco-Roman ancestry.
After centuries of Classical buildings, even with varied and successful adaptations to local
climates, conditions, and uses, the Classical form language remains intact. Every traditional
architecture has its own form language. It has evolved from many different influences of
lifestyle, traditions, and practical concerns acting together to define the geometry that structures
take as the most natural visual expressions of a particular culture. A form language is a set of
evolved geometries on many different scales (i.e., ornamental, building, urban) that people of a
particular culture identify with, and are comfortable with. It is highly dependent on traditional and
local materials — at least that was the case before the global introduction of nonspecific
industrial materials.

My present aim is to be able to discern whether a pattern language is genuine, so that it can
be connected to a form language and thus define an adaptive design method. It is imperative
not to be fooled by a collection of antipatterns, otherwise our resulting design process will be
non-adaptive, even though this may not be known at the beginning of the process. We will
eventually see it in the non-adaptivity of the results, at which time it will be too late to do
anything about it (i.e., after an unnatural city such as EUR, Milton Keynes, or la Défense has
been built).