By Olivia Hahnemann-Gilbert
The space between individual human beings is a peculiar and noteworthy social phenomenon which often goes undiscussed. One is rarely conscious of the significance of the varying amounts of space between oneself and other people, yet spatial norms are often deeply symbolic of larger social concepts. This notion is especially relevant during modern-day conditions under the COVID-19 pandemic; many people are exceptionally cognizant of the amount of space between oneself and other people as a result of the fear of contracting the virus. How much space from other people represents safety from the virus? Does a distance of six feet or more represent caution or paranoia? Through our class field work, a recurring theme is the seemingly random variance of social norms surrounding space; in some social situations, strict social distancing seems to be encouraged and lack thereof is judged, while in other social situations, the opposite seems to be true. I will be drawing from both our class field work and Edward T. Hall’s Distances in Man to further speculate upon the odd paradox regarding the inconsistencies in spatial norms in today’s American society.
Primarily, two of my classmates’ observations illustrate this phenomenon. One classmate wrote about his experience grocery shopping with his mother, describing the store’s environment as lacking caution in that the vast majority of people did not observe social distancing measures. They seemed to be nonchalant in their movements and behaviors, standing closer than six feet to others as they normally would. My classmate even noted that he and his mother felt judged by many people around them for wearing masks and for maintaining space between themselves and others. Meanwhile, another classmate of mine had a contrasting encounter. He described his experience grocery shopping with his step mom, emphasizing that he and his step mom do not appear to be related, and thus other people tend to assume that they are not related. While in the store, my classmate noted that the majority of the people occupying the area that day seemed to be extra-cautious and compliant with social distancing protocol; almost everyone stayed at least six feet away from each other and most wore masks. As the people around them did not assume a familial relationship between him and his step mom, my classmate noted that he felt judgement from others in the store for a perceived lack of social distancing.
Clearly, a strange and thought-provoking inconsistency is occurring in regards to unspoken spatial norms in different social scenarios and locations: alluding to the aforementioned observation, the classmate perceived judgement from those around him in response to a compliance with social distancing norms, while the classmate in the latter observation perceived judgement from others in response to a suspected non-compliance with these norms. Varying amounts of space symbolize vastly opposing ideas in different situations. What could this mean? Throughout my analyses of the various observations and interviews provided by my peers, I have noticed these seemingly random inconsistencies several times; however, I have been unable to conclude any noticeable pattern. Perhaps, through specific happenings in the news and on social media, one may make a connection between these compliances/non-compliances and political views: it seems to me that those who lean left might be more likely to take social distance protocol more seriously, and those who are more conservative may be less likely to comply. However, there is not enough data to prove that such a correlation exists, and there are contradictions to this theory.
Additionally, Edward T. Hall’s work, Distances in Man, provides a sort of background to this spatial phenomenon. Hall studied physical distances between people and what they usually represent, concluding that there are four distinct distance zones which can exist between people. He determined that the distance zones are intimate distance, ranging from touching to 8 in, personal distance, ranging from 1.5 ft. to 4 ft., social distance, ranging from 4-12 ft., and public distance, which consists of a distance of at least 12 ft. Within each of these four categories, Hall described subcategories of “close phase” and “far phase,” breaking the zones down to demonstrate the variety of spaces between people and what they can symbolize (Hall, 1969).
Alluding to Hall’s theories to elaborate upon spatial norms under the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing has caused shifts in some of these zones in some places, while others have essentially stayed the same. In the events of compliance with emergent social distancing norms, Hall would argue that, in public social settings (such as grocery stores), intimate and personal distance zones have been eradicated. The intimate distance zone would normally not be relevant in such settings, however, personal distance zones are common in these settings, whether it is waiting in line or reaching over someone to grab an item from the shelf. Now, in a scenario such as that in which my classmate felt judged for a perceived lack of social distancing with his step mom, we solely exist in the social and public distance zones in relation to other people. However, as I previously illustrated, in situations within which there is a greater amount of non-compliance with emergent social distancing norms, there is not a shift of distance zones. In my classmate’s experience grocery shopping with his mother in the midst of mostly non-compliant people within the grocery store, those around them seemed to continue to exist in personal distance zones without a second thought, just as they normally would prior to COVID-19. Hall’s distance zones can help one to better understand the intensity of the differences in compliance and non-compliance in different environments. Although it still seems to me that there is no concrete pattern in these vast inconsistencies, Hall provides a way to elaborate upon them.
In conclusion, along with the closing down of entire countries and thousands of deaths around the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought new sets of varying spatial norms, symbolizing varying interpretations of the virus. Although there is no proof of pattern, the ostensible randomness of compliance vs. non-compliance illustrated by field work gathered by my classmates and theories of distance zones described by Edward T. Hall is nevertheless a thought-provoking idea; as the pandemic continues, perhaps more tangible connections may be made regarding these inconsistencies.
References Cited
Hall, Edward T. 1969. “Distances in Man.” In The Hidden Dimension, 113-129. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
