Anthropologist Edward Hall used the term “proxemics” to describe “set measurable distances between people as they interact.” Hall then came up with four distinct distances, each having a close and a far phase. These are Intimate at less than 6 inches and 6 to 18 inches, Personal at 1.5 to 2.5 feet and 2.5 to 4 feet, Social at 4 to 7 feet and 7 to 12 feet and Public at 12 to 25 feet and 25 feet or more. While different cultures use varying standards of personal space, all tend to follow the above model. Is this model accurate and should it be accepted? If you say ‘yes’ to Hall’s theory, then your social distance, that space where you will be comfortable among acquaintances and also with any person in public has a 12 foot border. A circle surrounding you becomes that space. Sure you want just anyone 12 feet away? Are you comfortable with that?

Realistically in this society, distances from one person to another can’t always be controlled, but the distances can be noted and understood. I read somewhere that this spatial circle isn’t a circle with some members of society (or non-members depending on your viewpoint): ex-convicts and outlaw bikers have oval-shaped personal space extending much farther to the rear and correspondingly closer to the front. It would seem that these two groups (and likely others) are more concerned with what is behind them – a good choice if your goal is self-protection.

Zoologist Heini Hediger studied animal behavior and also postulates that there are four distances or boundaries: Flight (run away), Critical (attack), Personal and Social. Flight distance can be quite large, where the animal will move away if encroached upon, then once that distance is decreased, the animal will attack. Inside the attack range, the animal has to know the other animal or species to accept it into personal or social distances. Not that the animal will attack before anything unknown reaches either a social or personal distance. Using Hall’s ranges, that puts an attack response at 12 feet.

Why don’t humans do this? Hall comments that (with extremely few exceptions) “flight distance and critical distance have been eliminated in human reactions…” Humans can’t move around through daily life and attack everyone who gets within 12 feet of them, just as they can’t run from everyone they see in the distance. Yet I don’t think that animal behavior should be ignored either. Animals are innately survivors, not duct taped to odd social conventions like being polite and observing some rules about getting along with others. Understand where your critical distance is and how it is shaped. Then as you have other people inside that distance (in circumstances where you can choose to have them there), it becomes your option to accept them, prepare to attack them if that becomes necessary, or to just back up.

People seem to forget those last two words. Back up. If someone is in your space and you are not in imminent danger, you can always regain your space by moving away from that person. Your space is not a fixed geographic territory, it moves with you. This is not retreat. If the possible threat believes you are retreating and then advances into your space again, you can always decide to physically damage the threat – and since the threat pursued you, there’s no confusion about intent at that point. I like using this tactic. My personal space is rather large and I will always try to gain some distance to better evaluate what is happening. If the threat doesn’t advance, then it is probably not a threat anyway and the situation has resolved itself without having to bring force in to resolve it.