1.                          The intimate distance (up to 0.5 metres): for comforting, embracing, or whispering. Sometimes for threatening. This distance is usually maintained between people who are in love: between lovers, small children and parents, etc.

2.                          The personal distance: for conversations among good friends (0.5 to 1.25 metres)

3.              The social distance for conversations among acquaintances and impersonal business (1.25 to 3.5 metres)

4.                          The public distance used for addressing a crowd, public speaking (more than 3.5 metres)

Analogously, one can speak of intimate, personal, social, and public territories. They are areas around a person, where intimate, personal, social, and public inter-human relations can be maintained, and their proper distance can be preserved.

The innovative value of this paper consists in elucidating hidden philosophical assumptions of proxemics, and in detecting some practical consequences of proxemics (especially, the role of media for changes in experience of the distance between people).

1. Some philosophical assumptions of proxemics: the bodily component in social relations

a.     Relativity and universality of proxemics distances

If the interpersonal distances were purely conventional, one would be able to conceive a convention that would decide that the intimate distance is 3 meters and the public distance is less than 0.5 m. Yet, such examples seem to be absurd. For lovers need the vicinity and people who make business presentations need more distance. Even without such an intention, proxemics proves a proof of the thesis of analogous universality of the difference between the four distances. Although Hall and other proxemics writers stress that the measure of the distance may vary depending from cultures,[3] their empirical investigations prove that in all known cultures analogous four distances re-appear. Although the exact measure of the proper distance may be very different in different cultures, in all known cultures, the intimate distance is smaller than personal distance, and personal distance is smaller than social distance and the public one. In this sense, the distinction between intimate, personal, social and public distances are analogously universal.

Proxemics suggests a couple of principles that can justify the thesis of the analogous universality of the proper distance. Let us recall some of them. These principles show why the real presence of the human body is very important for social bonds.

b.     Territorial instinct

In order to explain the analogous universality of the meaning of distance, proxemics, scientists point to the territorial instinct of animals. As Vargas points out, people as well as animals claim territories to protect themselves from invasion. For example, in class, students usually choose a place and keep it for the rest of the year; and if another student sits there, a problem may arise. The father usually has a place at the table, and other family members do not sit there.[4] In this sense, the social distance is respecting territories of two persons: When one makes business one should respect the territory of the other and remain on the borderline of his/her territory. In the public distance several social territories are to be respected (for this distance appears in assembly) that is why this distance is the longest one.

The social space (distance) has been defined as "an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person's body into which intruders may not come."[5] Only people who are friends are allowed to come closer. They are allowed to enter "our" territory because we trust them. Yet, if an illegitimate person violates this distance, the individual feels aggression and may attack. The personal territory is the minimum distance that the "human animal" allows the other individual to approach without intimate intentions. The intimate space is needed to preserve the bodily integration of the self, to reproduce or to contact with one's own children, etc. Therefore, the only intimate relations justify entering this space.

c.     Senses

Another very important principle is determined by the role that senses play for the inter-human relations. The kinds of sensory involvement that are possible at different distances are significant in delimiting the kinds of interaction that they may be associated with. For example, the high level of sensory involvement at intimate distance makes it appropriate for highly intimate interactions; a good visibility by a group indicates that the public distance is to be longer one. Etc.

Notice that to some extent, the proper sensual contact depends from culture. For example, in some cultures friends like to be close enough to smell one another: in American culture, friends tend to avoid smelling one another and the smell contact is rather preserved for very intimate relations. Yet, there are some essential elements of the sensory involvement for some kinds of the social bonds. In order to explain this claim one should investigate more carefully the anthropological assumptions of proxemics.

d.     Anthropology of proxemics

Notice that the distinction between and the descriptions of the intimate, personal, and social distances surprisingly resemble the classical distinction between love, friendship, and utility inter-human relations, as it was already elaborated by classical philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and their followers. [6] Even if representatives of proxemics do not much worry about ancient philosophy, their distinctions and analyses assume the above distinction.

As classical philosophy shows, the human body co-constitutes social bonds. The space belongs to the body. Therefore, the space between people is the bodily element that co-constitutes and expresses the spiritual relation between people. Let us investigate more careful this observation in the context of official relations, friendship and love.[7]

e.     Official relations, utility, public life, business

In social and public distance, the corporal element is relatively small. Usually public and social distances are designed for business. In business, people aim at some use, they collaborate in order to profit from this collaboration. Their distance is fixed by the kind of work they do. They do not come close than their work demands from them. Usually in business, people need to hear words of the other and to see the rituals, such as greeting, gesticulations, and involuntary movements (that may reveal hidden intentions of the partner). Therefore, the best distance for business is 1.25 to 3.5 metres.

The public distance is longer than that for practical reasons. This distance occurs when an individual communicates to the group of people. In such a case, he has to stand a bit further in order to be visible to all of them.

f.       Friendship

  According to the classical philosophy, friendship is a selfless (disinterested) concern about personal life and well being of another person. Friends intend to know the feelings and thoughts of each other. Therefore, in friendship, communicating is more intensive than in business. For in business, communication is needed only inasmuch as it is needed for the sake of utility. In friendship, communication takes place for its own sake. Moreover, in business, communication is mostly operational - it concerns the business that is to be "done." In friendship, the very personal thoughts and feelings are in the focus of attention (what is rather not necessary in business).

Of course, friendship should respect borders of intimacy. Nevertheless, there is no friendship without mutual understanding between two people.

Personal contents are more difficult to communicate by words. Therefore, in friendship more than in business, words need to be accompanied by body language. In order to communicate very personal contents, people need to see and to hear each other very well. For the personal contents are communicated not only by words. Personal contents primarily are expressed by nuances of intonation and mimicry. In order to perceive them, one needs less distance. This is why the distance of friendship is closer than in business. Proxemics calls it "personal distance."

g.     Love

              Typical love relations occur between lovers and between parents and children. According to classical philosophy, love is a very specific kind of friendship. Yet, friends do not come so close as lovers. For love assumes unique forms of the bodily involvement. As classical philosophy shows, love is a tendency of unification between two people. In love, one has to do with a unique psychic, social, and symbolic personal identification with the other. In a sense, in love two persons become ONE. This interpersonal unity in love is expressed and co-constituted by signs that express and co-constitute the oneness between people. Culture produces artificial symbols expressing this oneness by the signs of unity: children receive the name of their parents; lovers who constitute the family receive their common family name, etc. Nevertheless, most decisive are bodily signs: An intercourse is one of the most meaningful natural signs of body language that express and co-constitutes the unity between lovers. There are also other uniting symbols in body language, such as embracing or hand in hand walking, etc. the spatial vicinity is one of the most powerful symbols of the psychic mutual identification between people. That is why the vicinity is so crucial for love. For example, sexual love, pregnancy, birth, care about the child are defined in terms of concrete bodily expressions and actions where spatial proximity is essential. In this sense love assumes that there either has been or is intended a spatial proximity and bodily contact between people who are in love.

h.     "Physical" versus "spiritual" space

As proxemics and classical philosophy show, the proper distances between people are proportional to the level of the psychological proximity between them: lovers are "closer" than friends and friends are "closer" than people which whom one makes business. They are "closer" psychologically, and at the same time, they usually are spatially closer. Spatial distance between human bodies expresses and co-constitutes the spiritual distance between them, and vice versa. Classical anthropology and proxemics show that intensive psychic relations indicate less distance. Less intensive psychic relations participation indicates more distance. Of course, one can find exceptions from this rule - for example, so-called "platonic love" may put up with the spatial distance. Yet, even in such cases, there must be an additional reason for that agreement, such as, a conflict between that love and other commitments, to recall a tragic example of Abelard and Eloisa. Yet, in such cases there must be additional reason that is stronger than love. Without it, love tends towards vicinity.

Notice that "space," as a term, is usually understood as a physical measure, as the Cartesian scientific tradition suggests. This paper contrasts physical space -- understood as a measurement of the distance (in meters, centimetres, kilometres, etc.) with interpersonal space that involves a personal language of  "psychic distance," "nearness," "vicinity," "unity," etc. This ambiguity of "space" can easily be detected in language. For relations that are more intimate are called "near" or "close"; less intimate relations are called "remote" or "far." The spatial language predicates of the very spiritual phenomena.

Spiritual and physical distances express and co-constitute each other. People who like each other will diminish the distance between each other. The change in the psychic distance can cause the change in the type of their relation, and - consequently - it can change the spiritual distance between people. For example, family psychologists dissuade too long parting between couples, for the distance can corrupt the spiritual vicinity between them. On the contrary, the old trick of matchmaking is to make people to stay for some time at the same place. The closer distance often generates love. Etc.

The above remarks should not be understood in a naïve way that in friendship or love have to have fixed distance in all situations. In order to know what is the proper distance, one should take in account many elements of the concrete situations. One should also remember that often non - spatial signs co-constitute spiritual vicinity or distance. For example, facial expressions of friendship (friendly smile, etc.) can diminish the spiritual distance between people and negative facial expressions (anger, ironical smile, etc.) can create spiritual distance between them. For the whole domain of interpersonal communication decides about mutual participation and the spiritual vicinity between people. Therefore, it is possible to be physically far, yet spiritual close, due to the mutual understanding and acceptance between people.

Yet, some types of inter-human relations demand physical vicinity. Without it, they are imperfect. For example in love and in some kinds of friendship, vicinity is essential and without it, these relations are imperfect and may easily be deformed or corrupted. Let us investigate some practical consequences following from the above remarks.

3. Some "geographic" conclusions

a.     Necessity of proxemic education

In order to maintain good social relations, one should take in account cultural differences between people in their sensitivity to the space. On the one hand, for a good intercultural communication people should also be well educated in these differences in order to be capable of accommodating the distance to the type of sensitivity of their interlocutors that come from different cultures. On the other hand, the proxemics education should take in account the analogous universality of the proxemics rules.

b.     Arranging the space: proxemics and social bonds

In the context of proxemics, it becomes visible that healthy and well-developed societies preserve the meaning and social function of proxemics distances. For without it, some fundamental social bonds may be destroyed. Therefore, societies need to arrange the space in such a way that the proper distance between people can be maintained.[8]

For official relations, there should exist and be accessible places where people can preserve a sufficient distance to make business (offices, shops, etc) or to perform other public roles. The friendly distance is to be preserved in pubs and other public places, where friends can talk in a partial isolation from the others and in the distance that is proper for friendship in a give culture. Finally, cultures should generate stereotypes that help for the physical intimacy to express love.

The very measure of the distance much depends from culture. Yet, when the distance is fixed, the society should arrange places where the proper distances can be performed. When it is not the case, it usually is a symptom of a crisis and causes a deficit of some type of the social bond.

For example, totalitarian regimes usually either directly or indirectly act against public places where people can meet and talk. For such places were considered being sources of an independent thought. Perhaps it is not an accident that for example in Poland during the former regime, friendship moved home, towards the intimate area of a family that could not be infiltrated by a government. Pubs usually were considered being places for drinkers, who did not want to go home. Due to this reason (at least in some regions of Poland) up to now we have the unwritten rule that if someone has never been invited home, that means that he/she is probably not considered being a good friend. It is not an accident that after the political breaks in the eighties, people increasingly have learned the habit of meeting and talking at the public places, and the above "unwritten rule" is disappearing. The "explosion" of such places may be a proof of this thesis. Analogously, it is usually a symptom of a process of pauperization of intimate inter-human relations, when intimacy ceases indicating love or when lovers do not need intimacy.[9] For example, contemporary discos for many people plays the role of a substitute of real intimacy. Of course, there are manifold reasons why people attend discos (my reason is to dance). But probably one of the most popular (although not clearly expressed) motives is a sensation of intimacy. As the discos are usually crowded, people touch and hobnob with each other. They feel together. But this togetherness is not real. It is just a feeling. The discos deliver a feeling of vicinity without indicating the "rest." In this sense, discos play the role of illusion or surrogate of real intimacy between people (as I said it is not the only one social functions that the discos play).

Notice that the proxemics distance is a dynamic reality. For example, when official relations turn to be friendly, the distance should become shorter. This is why very often in their office prudent negotiators besides a large desk that magnifies the distance between them and their customers, have also a small table that shorten the distance for those negotiations that assume a more friendly atmosphere.

c.     Proxemics and media

Culture educates people in many ways. One of the most powerful tools of such education is the media of remote communication. For media show patterns of proper behavior and media modify our sense of the distance. Many authors have already criticized the former influence of media. This paper section is to explain the later one.

     The thesis of this paper is obviously not against media. They can play many positive roles for all kinds of inter-human relations. Primarily in business-relations, the web-chats or videoconferences can even be better than real meetings that assume transport and other discomforts. For friendship and love, media can also be very helpful. Yet they cannot substitute all essential elements of friendship and love. And this is the point of this section.

In friendship the sense of hearing is crucial. For in friendship people communicate thoughts, feelings and attitudes. First of all, they talk; they mainly use the auditive channel of their communication. This is why sometimes the telephone conversation is sufficient for friendship. Yet, notice that not the only verbal concepts are communicated in friendship. For example facial expression and the intonation is the main medium of communicating the subjective contents, which are the most characteristic contents of communication in friendship. This is probably why in the new Internet chatting language there have been developed signs that attempt to substitute facial expressions. Moreover, the ultimate meaning of the words (written or spoken) depends from body language - mimicry, gestures or nuances of intonation. Usually, body language interprets the meaning of words. For example, facial expression, posture, gesticulation and nuances of intonation ultimately decide of the meaning of words.[10]

Due to the quality of sound and vision the contemporary media of communication loose a lot of non-verbal information. And this surely is their shortcoming.

Of course, if we can have a good quality sound and vision in the videoconference, we can easily have an illusion of a real meeting. Yet even in such a case, media cannot substitute all essential elements of friendship. For some bodily expressions assume the direct bodily contact. For example, shaking hands or patting on the shoulder, may be very important in friends' communication. Moreover, there is no electronic sign that can effectively substitute the real presence of the other.

Vicinity and real presence of another person is even more necessary in love than in friendship. All lovers experience it, when they travel and miss the beloved person by calling, chatting or video-conferencing.  It is so, because media cannot substitute the real living presence of another person.

First, media cannot cause sensation of the real presence. Media can only cause some sensations (vision, voice) of the presence of another person. But media cannot (yet) generate multi dimensional experience of the real presence of another person including all sensations (such as touch or smell, for example).

Yet, one can imagine that one day, we will be able to generate all such sensations. But - as it seems - even in such a case, the real meeting of people will much differ from a virtual one. And this is the second point: For the very knowledge about the virtuosity of the meeting will create an essential emotional difference between virtual and real meetings between people. Most probably, people who could make such remote "conferences" would still like to meet each other (if they love each other). The only people who were deceived and not aware about illusory character of such vicinity, he/she would be happy with it. Persons who were aware about the physical distance would still miss and tend towards a real meeting with the beloved person.

Yet one never knows if lovers will always prefer real meetings than the virtual ones, where sensations are reinforced and purified. Notice that is such cases, one will also be capable of modifying the sensations perceived by the other. For example, one can improve one's own outlook. Will then people prefer meeting artificial images in a virtual reality to real meetings with imperfect real human beings? It seems that such possibilities may be very attractive.[11] Yet if it happens that would also be an essential change in the meaning of love. Love would be substituted by something else that is similar to love and that could also be very noble and beautiful but it would not be love in the sense that we understand it today. For there is essential difference in loving a virtual illusion and loving a real person.[12]

At the moment, such investigations reach out of real technical possibilities and can be postponed for unknown future. Yet this imaginary example helps to understand that the real bodily presence of the other person is an aprioric assumption of love.

But if concerning the present situation, one already can have an impression that sometimes the Internet substitutes personal meetings. For example, many people prefer the Internet chats than talking to their friends; many people look for love in the Internet instead of noticing it around them in reality, etc. Beyond ethical dangers out coming from anonymity and irresponsibility of the Internet expression, one should also mention the psychic consequences of such a situation.

As it has been mentioned, audio-visual media can be effective in these forms of communication where the bodily presence is not crucial: for business and for official relations. But in love and friendship they may evoke unhealthy processes, similar to some forms of neurosis, where the body is neglected and suppressed. A wrong use of media in communication can lead towards the corruption for the sensitivity for the real presence (obecnosc, Dabaeisein) of another being (human and non-human), towards a lack of capacity of livingly experiencing real presence of another person. This can easily corrupt the content of love and friendship. These are not fictional dangers. Already now, there is a well-known psychological symptom of some children who very often play computer games. Sometimes they have problems in distinguishing real beings from virtual ones. Sometimes they ask - is it real or virtual? If the perception of reality is modifiend in such a way, there is no experiential difference between whether one has friends constructed by a computer program or real ones (similarly to a very personal attitude of some people towards virtual pets). This process can be called a "de-corporating" or "a-corporeating" interpersonal relations. Perhaps this can to some extend explain (but not justify) cruel murders committed by teenagers, who seem to do it without mean intentions or unbelievable waste of time of many valuable people who prefer endless chatting with unknown people instead of going for a walk with their friend…

Of course, the dangers mentioned above do not have to take place. For avoiding it, one has among others to understand and experience that the human body is a constitutive element of the human person and of the inter-human relations. Unfortunately, since many years we can witness a tremendous success of dualistic visions of men, where the human body is the only a "tool," a "something."[13] Such conceptions reinforce a virtual experiencing reality. They are often indirectly expressed or have some other labels. Yet, they can easily be identified by their assumption that the body is the only "means" of our actions; it is not a person. Consequently, the body is not a value. Therefore one can freely and without any limits manipulate the human body or neglect its role for establishing social bonds. Such a dualistic standpoint has many shapes and names and has become an object manifold criticism.[14] Yet, in spite of it, the dualistic vision of the human being remains being attractive for many thinkers and managers of culture.

Proxemics shows that the human body co-constitutes social bonds. Empirical evidences of proxemics purport the thesis of the psychophysical unity of the human being. Proxemics shows that human beings are their bodies. This is in turn the ultimate reason why the human body is involved into the constitution of the most personal social bonds.