Range: proxemics and dilution of experiential connectivity

Local Reality of Overcrowding -- Global Unreality of Overpopulation (Part #3)

Intensity of connectivity: As the human experience of degrees of proximity or closeness, an understanding of "proxemics" was first introduced by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall (The Hidden Dimension, 1966) and has engendered an extensive literature regarding non-verbal engagement between people. The chart on the left below depicts Hall's human interpersonal distances, and the associated spaces so defined (with an indication of radius in feet and meters).

For the purpose of this argument, an analogous chart can be suggested to reflect an understanding of the corresponding dilution of experiential connectivity and engagement -- from "local" experience to the "global" extreme. To be clear, framed in this way, the dimensions on the right are not a preoccupation of proxemics.

Experiential comprehension of "distance"
Separation of individuals	Separation of global from local

Reproduced from Wikipedia	Adapted from image on the left

"Distances": The 4-fold "horizontal" distances in the image on the left are further articulated by Hall into a pattern of 8, as follows:

Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering: close phase (less than 1 to 2 cm); far phase (15 to 46 cm)
Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family: close phase (46 to 76 cm); far phase (76 to 122 cm)
Social distance for interactions among acquaintances: close phase (1.2 to 2.1 m); far phase (2.1 to 3.7 m)
Public distance used for public speaking: close phase (3.7 to 7.6 m); far phase (7.6 m, or more).

A set of "vertical" distances is also recognized -- as in hierarchical social structures -- possibly to be compared with the image on the right.

Overcrowding? Proxemics has offered a framework for consideration of forms of crowding in contrast with those more obviously associated with physical proximity. For Hall:

As more and more is learned about both men and animals, it becomes clear that the skin itself is a very unsatisfactory boundary or measuring point for crowding.

and elsewhere:

When crowding becomes too great after population buildups, interactions intensify, leading to greater and greater stress. As psychological and emotional stress builds up and tempers wear thin, subtle but powerful changes occur in the chemistry of the body. Births drop while deaths progressively increase until as state known as 'population collapse' occurs. Such cycles of build-up and collapse are now generally recognized as normal for the warm-blooded vertebrates and possibly for all life. Contrary to popular belief, the food supply is only indirectly involved in these cycles. (As cited by Dave Pollard, More Unpalatable Thoughts on Overpopulation, How to Save the World, 13 February 2004).

Cross-cultural comparisons have been explored (Agnieszka Sorokowska, et al, Preferred Interpersonal Distances: a global comparison, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 2017, 4; O. Watson, Proxemic Behavior: a cross-cultural study, 1970). However Gary W. Evans, et al, argue that:

It is widely believed that cultures vary in their tolerance for crowding. There is, however, little evidence to substantiate this belief, coupled with serious shortcomings in the extant literature. Tolerance for crowding has been confused with cultural differences in personal space preferences along with perceived crowding. (Cross-Cultural Differences in Tolerance for Crowding: fact or fiction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 2000, 2, pp. 204-210).

The authors conclude that:

First, we should be careful not to equate perceived crowding with psychological health impacts of high density living.
Second, from a policy perspective, it is misguided to presuppose that some cultural groups can better tolerate high-density living space, as advocated by some planners

Crowding, in contrast to "overcrowding" can even be understood as a beneficial intensification of human interaction (Jonathan Freedman, Crowding and Behavior: the psychology of high-density living, 1975; Susan Saegert, Effects of spatial and social density on arousal, mood and social orientation, University of Michigan, 1974; Wendy Schuman, Crowding: Is It Always Harmful?; No, New Behavioral Studies Indicate, There Are Times When It May Even Be Good, The New York Times, 30 January 1977).

"Global" engagement? Hall's distinctions offer a means of framing degrees of "closeness" or "intimacy", for which "connectivity" is another experiential descriptor. This can be usefully understood in the light of the argument of Tamara Trownsell, et al (Recrafting International Relations through Relationality, E-International Relations, 8 January 2019):

How we relate to others should be a central concern of the field of International Relations. However, independent political communities -- states -- and their interrelations have historically been the focus of the discipline of International Relations (IR), thus limiting the forms of interaction that potentially constitute the field.

The image on the right above then frames the question as to how close is "local" to be experienced in contrast with "global" -- a matter of increasing importance to many in promoting the credibility of local initiatives and the motivation they can engender.

The question is of some relevance to the experience of those promoting global strategies, who may identify themselves as "global citizens", perhaps to be understood in terms of calls for "global citizenship" (Sharon B. Cohen, Proxemics and Personal Space: Global Citizens What is your Comfort Zone? 2013).

Any such labelling is of course problematic in the context of this argument in which it is the nature and quality of the engagement experienced which is of relevance -- a consideration to be distinguished from the attribution of labels and definitions. The quest here is for greater clarity on the nature of local engagement as it may be distinguished from the many urgent appeals for engagement with the problematic conditions of those elsewhere, or with the global condition as a whole. What does "engagement" mean from that perspective?

As noted by Roland Barthes:

Polemics belong to a typology of subjective spaces in that the subject inhabits them affectively (How to Live Together: novelistic simulations of some everyday spaces. Columbia University Press, 2013 p. 111)

The adaptation of proxemics to local-global, suggests a further adaptation -- potentially of wider implication. The distinction specific-general can be explored with respect to knowledge and information. The "reality" of specific information can be readily recognized -- in contrast with the "unreality" of generality. Of greater interest however is the insight offered by the distinctive "distances" of proxemics. Corresponding distances can be recognized with regard to references in an argument, especially those of "global" generality being "a link too far".

This can be explored in the light of the experiential meaningless of the "small world hypothesis" (Are There Really Six Degrees of Separation Between Everyone? 28 January 2019). Other "distance constraints" on meaning are evident from Dunbar's number, the Miller number, the Spreadthink number, the Span of control, and the Hayflick limit (Comprehension of Numbers Challenging Global Civilization, 2014). The Erdös number, in which mathematicians indulge, offers a related perspective. Others can be speculatively explored (Zen of Facticity: Bull, Ox or Otherwise? Herding facts and their alternatives in a post-truth-era, 2017; Imminent Collective Communication "Info-death"? Collapse of global civilization understood otherwise, 2018).