Response to Hall's Proxemics

In reading the paper on Proxemics (Hall, 1968), Hall makes the reader aware of how proximity plays a role in the usage of space, and that this concept of spatial distance is more than just the physical distance. For example, culture plays a role in the conceptualization (verbalization) and interpretation of spatial distance between individuals. Notably, the paper is quite vague in what proxemics actually is, and the answer is partly because theories do not have to explain all phenomena, only a subset of the phenomena.

I believe this work could be made stronger by relating the high-level abstract concepts presented by Hall with the prescriptive results of William Whyte’s study of the public plaza, which incidentally started in 1969 and cumulated into the book City: Rediscovering the Center (1988). Whyte prescribes several factors for a sociopetal plaza including places for people to sit, sunlight, water, trees, food, a busy street, and a focal point. Whyte makes use of descriptive methods such as naturalistic observation with photography to identify these factors. What is relevant to proximity is where people sit. People will sit where it is most convenient for them. A fixed feature such as a ledge works; a semi-fixed feature such as a chair is better because people will rearrange the space to suit their sociopetal requirements (for example, by placing chairs in a circle) or to become sociofugal (for example, to draw a lone chair in an unoccupied area of space). The actual distance prescribed in Whyte’s research is simple: people will occupy a plaza until they think it is too crowded. Whyte makes no attempt to prescribe an actual distance, and the reasons are found in Hall’s research; namely, culture influences the perception of crowdedness.

Hall’s Proxemics provides vignettes about the role of proximity in the use of space, but these vignettes are provided too briefly to extract a meaningful interpretation. I have drawn upon an ethnographic-styled piece of research to make the concepts more practical for the reader.

---

In a meta-analysis of the paper, comments from other readers are provided along with the paper, which gives the reader an opportunity to hear critique, expand in detail, and extend the existing work. What would be useful to HCI research is to have the same level of openness in papers reported.

---

Miaosen and I would like to bring the following points to the discussion:

(1) Space bubbles: the personal space surrounding a person can be described by discrete zones as Hall suggests or continuously (e.g., voice loudness) as indicated in the commentary
(2) Space and time relationship: the meaning of proximity changes depending on temporal factors such as duration
(3) Contribution of the paper: brings awareness to the community that proximity should be taken into analyses
(4) Fixed, semi-fixed, and dynamic features
(5) Perception of space, nurture (language, culture, subculture, clique) vs. nature (territoriality), individual factors, language, mental model (in art, literature)