Hall, Edward T.
,
Birdwhistell, Ray L.
,
Bock, Bernhard
,
Bohannan, Paul
,
Diebold, Jr., A. Richard
,
Durbin, Marshall
,
Edmonson, Munro S.
,
Fischer, J. L.
,
Hymes, Dell
,
Kimball, Solon T.
,
La Barre, Weston
,
McClellan, J. E.
,
Marshall, Donald S.
,
Milner, G. B.
,
Sarles, Harvey B.
,
Trager, George L
,
Vayda, Andrew P.
Abstract
Virtually everything that man is and does is associated with space. Man's sense of space is a synthesis of many sensory inputs: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and thermal. Not only does each of these constitute a complex system (as for example, the dozen or more different ways of experiencing depth visually), but each is molded and patterned by culture. Hence people reared in different cultures live in different sensory worlds. What is more, they are generally unaware of the degree to which the worlds may differ. From the study of culture we learn that the patterning of perceptual worlds is a function not only of the specific culture but of the relationship, activity, and emotions present in a given situation. Therefore, when two people of different cultures interact, each uses different criteria to interpret the other's behavior, and each may easily misinterpret the relationship, the activity, or the emotions involved. The study of culture in the proxemic sense is the study of peoples' use of their perceptual apparatus in different emotional states during different activities, in different relationships, settings, and contexts. No single research technique is sufficient in scope to investigate this complex, multi-dimensional subject. The research technique is, therefore, a function of the particular facet under examination at the time and many call for the involvement of many disciplines. Like all basic studies of the communicative process, proxemics, as I think of it, is more concerned with how than why, and more concerned with structure than content. The work is admittedly detailed and is apt to be routine. It addresses itself to basic human situations in an area of culture that is ordinarily hidden from conscious awareness. For this reason, proxemics frequently leads to new insights about specific cultures, as well as to insights into the generalized concept of culture itself. In formulating my thinking concerning proxemics, I have maintained that culture is an extension of basic biological processes. While man's extensions as they evolve may mask the underlying relationships which maintain the equilibrium of biological systems, the relationships and systems are no less real by virtue of being hidden. In the words of Ian McHarg (1963): ...no species can exist without an environment, no species can exist in an environment of its exclusive creation, no species can survive, save as a nondisruptive member of an ecological community. Every member must adjust to other members of the community and to the environment in order to survive. Man is not excluded from this test.
Virtually everything that man is and does is associated with space. Man's sense of space is a synthesis of many sensory inputs: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and thermal. Not only does each of these constitute a complex system (as for example, the dozen or more different ways of experiencing depth visually), but each is molded and patterned by culture. Hence people reared in different cultures live in different sensory worlds. What is more, they are generally unaware of the degree to which the worlds may differ. From the study of culture we learn that the patterning of perceptual worlds is a function not only of the specific culture but of the relationship, activity, and emotions present in a given situation. Therefore, when two people of different cultures interact, each uses different criteria to interpret the other's behavior, and each may easily misinterpret the relationship, the activity, or the emotions involved. The study of culture in the proxemic sense is the study of peoples' use of their perceptual apparatus in different emotional states during different activities, in different relationships, settings, and contexts. No single research technique is sufficient in scope to investigate this complex, multi-dimensional subject. The research technique is, therefore, a function of the particular facet under examination at the time and many call for the involvement of many disciplines. Like all basic studies of the communicative process, proxemics, as I think of it, is more concerned with how than why, and more concerned with structure than content. The work is admittedly detailed and is apt to be routine. It addresses itself to basic human situations in an area of culture that is ordinarily hidden from conscious awareness. For this reason, proxemics frequently leads to new insights about specific cultures, as well as to insights into the generalized concept of culture itself. In formulating my thinking concerning proxemics, I have maintained that culture is an extension of basic biological processes. While man's extensions as they evolve may mask the underlying relationships which maintain the equilibrium of biological systems, the relationships and systems are no less real by virtue of being hidden. In the words of Ian McHarg (1963): ...no species can exist without an environment, no species can exist in an environment of its exclusive creation, no species can survive, save as a nondisruptive member of an ecological community. Every member must adjust to other members of the community and to the environment in order to survive. Man is not excluded from this test.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.