Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Semiotics</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Beginners</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>Daniel</strong> <strong>Chandler</strong><br />
The duration of the gaze is also culturally variable: in 'contact cultures' such as those of the Arabs,<br />
Latin Americans and southern Europeans, people look more than the British or white Americans,<br />
while black Americans look less (ibid., 158). In contact cultures too little gaze is seen as insincere,<br />
dishonest or impolite whilst in non-contact cultures too much gaze ('staring') is seen as threatening,<br />
disrespectful and insulting (Argyle 1988, 165; Argyle 1983, 95). Within the bounds of the cultural<br />
conventions, people who avoid one's gaze may be seen as nervous, tense, evasive and lacking in<br />
confidence whilst people who look a lot may tend to be seen as friendly and self-confident (Argyle<br />
1983, 93). Such codes may sometimes be deliberately violated. In the USA in the 1960s, bigoted<br />
white Americans employed a sustained 'hate stare' directed against blacks which was designed to<br />
depersonalize the victims (Goffman 1969).<br />
Codes of looking are particularly important in relation to gender differentiation. One woman reported<br />
to a male friend: ‘One of the things I really envy about men is the right to look’. She pointed out that in<br />
public places, ‘men could look freely at women, but women could only glance back surreptitiously’<br />
(Dyer 1992, 103). Brian Pranger (1990) reports on his investigation of 'the gay gaze':<br />
Gay men are able to subtly communicate their shared worldview <strong>by</strong> a special gaze that seems<br />
to be unique to them... Most gay men develop a canny ability to instantly discern from the<br />
returned look of another man whether or not he is gay. The gay gaze is not only lingering, but<br />
also a visual probing... Almost everyone I interviewed said that they could tell who was gay <strong>by</strong><br />
the presence or absence of this look. (in Higgins 1993, 235-6)<br />
Just as with codes of looking, there are 'codes of<br />
touching' which vary from culture to culture. A study <strong>by</strong><br />
Barnlund in 1975 depicted the various parts of the body<br />
which in<strong>for</strong>mants in the USA and Japan reported had<br />
been touched <strong>by</strong> opposite-sex friends, same-sex friends,<br />
their mother and their father (Barnlund 1975, cited in<br />
Argyle 1988, 217-18). The resulting body-maps show<br />
major differences in cultural norms in this regard, with<br />
body areas available <strong>for</strong> touch being far more restricted<br />
in Japan than in the United States. An earlier study of<br />
American students showed differences in the patterns <strong>for</strong><br />
males and females in the amount of touching of different<br />
areas of the body <strong>by</strong> the various others (Jourard 1966,<br />
cited in Argyle 1983, 37). The students reported that they<br />
had been touched most <strong>by</strong> their mothers and <strong>by</strong> friends<br />
of the opposite sex; their fathers seldom touched more<br />
than their hands. Social codes also govern the frequency<br />
of physical contact. Jourard also reported the following<br />
contacts per hour in different cities: San Juan (Puerto<br />
Rico) 180; Paris 110; Gainesville (Florida) 2; London 0<br />
(cited in Argyle 1969, 93). We will allude to the related work of Edward T Hall on the topic of proximity<br />
when we discuss 'modes of address'.<br />
Codes are variable not only between different cultures and social groups but also historically. It would<br />
be interesting to know, <strong>for</strong> instance, whether the frequency of touching in various cities around the