Cultural Proxemics and the Immediacy of Interpersonal Communication

Posted on by

Humans are territorial species, even though their notions of territorial space and proxemics are different from many other animals and vary between hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies. Humans, as social animals, tend to form a sense of in-groups and out-groups, as well as in-group space. People identify certain territorial spaces as “ours” and “mine,” whereas they identify other spaces as “theirs.”

Furthermore, social evolution has been changing how people in different cultures understand basic territorial ideas (Hall & Hall, 1990; Karandashev, 2021).

In another post, I briefly explained the typical Western interpretations of proxemics and immediacy. However, the cultural norms of appropriate spatial distance in relationships and the ideas of personal, in-group, and out-group space vary across societies (Karandashev, 2021).

Proxemics, Personal and Public Space Across Cultures and Individual Differences

How close is too close? It depends on where people live. The cultural traditions of some societies make people sensitive to crowds and situations when others intrude on their personal bubble. They may consider the larger space their personal one. In other societies, people can be less sensitive to crowding and view their personal bubbles as smaller.

Cultural Sensitivity to Personal Space

The cultures of different countries also vary in their territorial concepts and sensitivity. People may feel uncomfortable, anxious, or even aggressive when others invade their personal space or in-group territory. Some can be tolerant of such an intrusion, but only for a short period of time. Others can be totally intolerant. Individual differences in personality, as well as cultural traditions, play a role in all these cases.

Such differences, for instance, are evident in rural and urban cultural settings. Across many societies, women value more personal space from strangers than do men. Older people tend to spatially distance themselves from others. On the other hand, young people prefer closer distances in communication (Sorokowska et al., 2017).

Researchers thought that variations in climate and the availability of air conditioning could cause cultural proxemics in spatial behavior. People in warmer climates tend to keep a shorter distance from others than those in colder climates (Andersen, 1988; Sorokowska et al., 2017; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982).

These preferences can differ in different types of relationships. Those living in colder climates often prefer to be quite near their friends, perhaps to stay warm. A warm room makes people socially closer. However, those living in warm climates often get closer to strangers.

Cultural Preferences for Interpersonal Distance

People’s preferences for interpersonal distance vary across societies around the world.

For instance, people in Peru, Argentina, and Bulgaria tend to stay spatially close to strangers, whereas those from Hungary, Romania, and Saudi Arabia want to keep the most space. Americans are different from both groups of those countries; they are somewhere in the middle of the range between these two opposite types of cultures (see Sorokowska et al., 2017).

Personal bubbles of people are relatively small in several South American and South European countries, such as Argentina, Peru, Spain, southern France, Greece, and Italy. They are able to communicate easily across a short distance. For example, in Argentina, many people tend to be “close-talkers” and stand about 1 meter, or a little less, away from strangers when chatting.

In general, people in many South American and South European countries expect less personal space in communication than people in Asia. Some exceptions may occur. For example, people in Romania prefer more personal space, standing a spacious 1.5 meters away from strangers. 

Personal bubbles are bigger in North America and many northern European countries, such as England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. People tend to preserve their personal distance at all times. People in northern Europe generally feel uneasy when someone touches them or brushes their overcoat sleeve, which is related to their cultural feature of interpersonal spatial communication. For people in the north, the conversational distance that is typical of southern European cultures can be viewed as overly close and intimate.

For example, in some cultures, people may crowd instead of standing in line in front of ATMs or waiting for other public services.

Cultural Proxemics Depend on the Types of Interpersonal Relationships

How close we are to our partners, friends, coworkers, and strangers differs greatly across societies.

It appears that we all understand that our relatives and friends may stay closer to us than strangers. Strangers are expected to keep a public distance, while friends naturally stay closer. For example, in Romania, strangers are expected to keep their distance, but friends can creep up on you.

Surprisingly, however, Saudi Arabians are more distant from their friends than Argentinians are from strangers. Hungarians like to keep strangers and loved ones at arm’s length, or at least 75 centimeters apart. Norwegians want their close friends to be close to them (expected to be about half a meter away), even though they prefer a farther distance with strangers.

Proxemics of High-Contact and Low-Contact Cultures

The American anthropologist Edward Hall (1966) proposed grouping societies into contact and noncontact cultures. Their cultural norms define the social distance that people should prefer in interpersonal communication. Accordingly, people from high-contact cultures favor immediate nonverbal behaviors compared to those from low-contact cultures. They may interpret the same distance differently. It depends on their typical cultural norms of spatial behavior. In non-contact cultures, people stand farther apart and don’t touch as much as in contact cultures. We saw some examples of these social norms above.

All societies across the world have been classified into “contact cultures” (South America, the Middle East, and Southern Europe) and “non-contact cultures” (Northern Europe, North America, and Asia). Generally, those in high-contact cultures communicate with a shorter interpersonal distance and greater touch, whereas people in low-contact cultures prefer to keep their distance and avoid touch. Those from high-contact cultures favor tactile and olfactory ways of communication over people from low-contact cultures (Andersen, 1988; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982).

Arabs, Latin Americans, and southern and eastern Europeans are the people of high-contact cultures. They tend to keep interpersonal immediacy in relationships. They do this by increasing sensory input, interacting at closer distances, maintaining more direct body orientations, and touching more frequently. Asians, North Americans, and northern Europeans tend to be relatively low in such spatial behavioral tendencies as people of low-contact cultures (Andersen, 1988; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982).

Certain patterns of interpersonal special behaviors of people from high-contact and low-contact cultures are visible in many other situations of everyday life and affective relationships (Karandashev, 2021; Patterson, 1983).

Proxemics and Immediacy in Interpersonal Communication

Posted on by

In this article, I define what proxemics and immediacy in interpersonal communication are. I also explain what the proxemic zones and immediacy of communication tell us about relationships. Cultural variations in the use of proxemics and immediacy still exist.

What Is Proxemic Communication?

Proxemics (distance), kinesics (body language), and haptics (touch) are important nonverbal messages that we use in our communication.

Proxemics is a form of nonverbal communication in which personal and social spaces of interaction convey specific meanings about interpersonal relationships. Such spatial signs and behavioral indicators express, tacitly or explicitly, certain cultural connotations.

Proxemic communication relies on the spatial distance that we keep with others around us during interaction, conversation, or just passing by. The space we leave between the other person and ourselves can signal many things about our relationships.

The American cultural anthropologist Edward Hall proposed the proxemic theory (Hall, 1966). He characterized proxemics as the hidden dimension that focused on how people in different cultures used physical space in their communication with others.

Edward Hall outlined spatial zones that characterize typical interpersonal distances that people in Western cultures tend to maintain in different kinds of social relations.

Proxemic Zones

Proxemics describe the relative distances between people in communication. These are the four proxemic zones of social interaction. E. Hall classified and defined them as public space, social space, personal space, and intimate space.

  • “Public distance” is the distance typical for public speeches and interactions. This distance is approximately greater than 210 cm. At this distance, there is little eye contact between the people who are talking, and their voices sound at a high volume. 
  • “Social distance” is the distance that is maintained during formal interactions. This distance is approximately 122-210 cm. At this distance, communicators use only visual and auditory messages.
  • “Personal distance” is the distance that is maintained during informal interactions with friends. This distance is about 46–122 cm. At this distance, communicators rely on visual and auditory contact. Facial expressiveness and vocalizations increase.
  • “Intimate distance” is the distance that is maintained in close relationships. This distance is approximately 0 to 46 cm. At this distance, communicators’ visual perceptions are blurred. A voice is low-pitched, soft, and quiet. Perception of temperature, olfactory, and touch senses play a greater role.

What Is Immediacy?

I call these territorial and spatial facets of communication “immediacy.” This cultural concept characterizes the preferred proximity of interpersonal relationships, psychological closeness, and behavioral closeness between people that is prevalent in a society (Karandashev, 2021).

The psychological concept of immediacy is closely associated with communicative concepts of proxemics.

Immediacy is an invisible psychological bubble we feel beyond our bodies. We can call it “personal space.” Individuals tend to prefer a certain personal space with other people depending on what kind of relationship they are in and how culturally appropriate it is.

The immediacy is evident in interpersonal interactions ranging from proximity to spatial distance.

What Does Immediacy Tell Us About Relationships?

Western scholars and laypeople often interpret physical closeness as a sign of accessibility, approach inclination, and warmth, while a physical distant space is interpreted as a sign of inaccessibility, avoidance inclination, and psychological detachment. Initiating and maintaining a certain distance in interpersonal communication can be evident in several expressions of nonverbal behavior (Andersen, 1985; Andersen & Andersen, 1984).

Psychological immediacy of interaction is characterized by close proximity in interaction, open body positions, eye contact, smiling, more vocal animation, touching, and expressiveness. When people have a relaxed or positive relationship with each other, they are more likely to reciprocate such behaviors.

Psychological distant interaction is characterized by greater distance in interaction, close body positions, a lack of eye contact, a lack of smiling, less vocal animation, a lack of touching, and less expressiveness. When people have a tense or negative relationship, they tend to reciprocate such immediate behaviors.

Cultural Variations in the Understanding of Proxemics and Immediacy

Due to cultural evolution, social ideas of territoriality and appropriate territorial space evolved. The territorial spaces that are identified as “ours” and “mine” vary across human societies and depend on several cultural factors (Hall & Hall, 1990; Karandashev, 2021).

Therefore, the Western psychological interpretation of proxemics and immediacy may be inadequate from a cross-cultural perspective. Explanations of spatial distance can vary across cultures (Karandashev, 2021).

Cultural connotations of proxemics and immediacy are closely associated with corresponding understandings of intimacy in close relationships in different cultures (see another article).

Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

Posted on by

Individualism and collectivism have been among the central concepts of cross-cultural research. The division between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern societies is probably the best-known cultural parameter distinguishing the West and East. At least, that is the most common framework that many researchers use when they study different cultures.

Let us take a closer look at what these parameters of individualism and collectivism are.

What Are Individualism and Collectivism in Societies?

Individualism and collectivism is among the earliest cultural constructs that social psychologists identified to characterize differences between Western and Eastern societies (e.g., Hofstede, 1980/1984; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Marsella et al., 1985; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

These constructs define the relations between an individual and a group in the structure of societal relations. The societal characteristics of individualism and collectivism describe the extent to which individuals in a society are integrated into groups. If most people in a society have individualistic or collectivistic value orientations, researchers call the society “individualistic” or “collectivistic.”

On the one hand, personal freedom, personal initiative, personal autonomy, and self-reliance are the cultural values linked with individualism in a society. On the other hand, family unity, family integrity, and family loyalty are the cultural values linked to collectivism. 

Individualistic cultures have norms and values that stress how important individual goals and personal freedom are for people’s functioning.

“People are supposed to look after themselves and their immediate family only”.

The values and norms of collectivistic cultures emphasize that the importance of group goals and relations with other shall be higher than individual goals.

“People belong to in-groups or collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty”

(Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419).

Individual Variation of Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

It is worthwhile to note that within a society (either individualistic or collectivistic), individuals can vary in these cultural value orientations. People can also be collectivistic and individualistic to varying degrees within different areas of their relationships. They can differ in the degree of individualism (or collectivism) in their relations with their kin, family members, neighbors, co-workers, or friends.

Therefore, I would suggest that cultural researchers be careful. They should not be too straight-forward and simplistic in attributing their observations of any individual to their individualism or collectivism, especially in any area of their relationships with others.

Individualism in Western Societies

The cultural values and norms in individualistic societies elevate personal independence, actions, autonomy, the primacy of personality uniqueness, self-realization, and individual initiative. The values and norms also emphasize the individual’s rights rather than duties, the high value of one’s independence rather than interdependence, and the priority of one’s self-interest with less concern for other people’s interests.

People in individualistic societies feel quite independent and autonomous in both in-group and out-group relationships. So, their attitudes and behaviors toward people from both their in-group and out-group are quite similar. 

The personal identity of an individual is recognized through the individual’s attributes. The ties between individuals are loose. In motivation, people subordinate the goals of collectivities to their personal goals. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark represent the typical examples of individualistic societies. One can easily notice that these are largely Western countries (Hofstede, 1984; 2011; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Gelfand, et al., 2000; Kashima, et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Collectivism in Eastern Societies

In collectivistic societies, cultural norms highly praise relational values that foster cooperation within an in-group and the harmony of interpersonal relationships. The norms encourage subordinating a person’s self-assertion. Cultural values and norms of collectivistic societies emphasize that people are the natural parts of strong, cohesive in-groups, such as extended families. An individual’s loyalty to a group and the need to protect the interests and well-being of others in their in-group as opposed to other groups are of high importance. So, group norms encourage people to take part in social activities that help and share with each other.

People in collectivistic societies are highly embedded in their in-group relationships. Such relations with family as unity, loyalty, and integrity are collectivistic beliefs. These are values and rules that emphasize people’s interpersonal bonds, a sense of interconnectedness, solidarity, duty to the group, obligations, in-group harmony, and awareness of the needs of others. These values and rules are called “collectivistic.”

People in collectivistic societies have different standards of behavior for the members of their in-groups and out-groups. They are collectivistic in their interactions with their in-group members (family, friends, etc.). Yet ,in their interactions with out-group members (strangers, people from other cultural groups), they are in-group biased. They strongly distinguish their attitudes and behavior towards those from their in-group versus their out-group.

A personal identity centers on one’s place and role in one’s group. Personal privacy is abridged. In motivation, people subordinate personal goals to the goals of their in-group. Collectivistic values highlight in-group beliefs rather than individual beliefs. The value of in-group views is higher than individual views. Collective responsibility to the in-group precedes individual pleasure in importance.

Independent Individualistic and Interdependent Collectivistic Cultures

Despite being a classical cultural concept distinguishing individualistic and collectivistic societies, individualism and collectivism turned out to be more complex and multifaceted than they appeared at first sight (see Karandashev, 2021).

Researchers use the concepts of interdependent and independent cultures to explain Western and Eastern social structures and relationships between people. The concepts are especially important in the contexts of the mind, emotions, and self of a person. Western societies are characterized by an independent model of culture and self. And Eastern societies are characterized by an interdependent model of culture and self (See more in another article).

Personal Identity in Independent and Interdependent Cultures

Posted on by

The concept of interdependent and independent cultures tells us something about the internal structure of society and relationships between people, as well as how they are deemed in the mind and self of a person. These are personhood conceptions and construals of the self and others and how the self and others are related. People perceive themselves and others as interdependent or independent from each other based on their cultural values, norms, and people.

An interdependent model of culture and self characterizes Eastern societies, while an independent model of culture and self characterizes Western societies.

Western Analytical and Eastern Holistic Perception

Social perceptions of people in Eastern and Western cultures are more or less dependent on a specific context of perception. Different cultural factors can affect their perceptual and communicative processes through different cognitive mechanisms.

The perceptual processes of people in Western societies are analytical and independent of the context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person by focusing on their salient features independently of their context.

The perceptual processes of people in Asian societies are holistic. Perceptiondepends on the full context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person in the specific context of a situation, depending on the specifics of the situation and relations.

The social Perceptions that Are either Independent or Dependent on Context

Another study was conducted in accordance with the same idea of cultural differences in perception being interdependent or interdependent on the context (Masuda, Ellsworth, Mesquita, Leu, & Veerdonk, 2008). Researchers investigated the observers’ perceptions of emotional situations when they looked at a situation depicting a person surrounded by four other people. The European-American and Japanese participants rated the emotions of the central person, who appeared either happy, sad, or angry. The other four people, who surrounded the central person, displayed various emotions.

In such experimental situations, European-American participants estimated the emotion of the central person only by his or her facial expression. They did not take into account the emotions of other people around them. Such a characteristic of their assessment of the emotional experience of the central person is in accord with their perception of the central person independently of the context of the situation. They paid attention solely to a salient object—the central person.

In contrast to this, Japanese participants assessed the emotional experience of the central person, taking into account not only his or her facial expression but also the emotions of other people portrayed in the situation. Such a quality in their evaluation of the emotional experience of a central person corresponds with their perception, which is associated not only with the central person but also dependent on the context of the situation. They paid attention to the whole situation and the context in which the central person was.

In other experimental studies, participants assessed the emotions of a person in the context of a situation while researchers recorded the location where they looked using eye tracking. The results were similar. Americans focus mostly on the central person. In contrast to this, the Japanese and Taiwanese distributed their attention, looking not only at the central person but also at the other people in the situation.

The Western perception is independent of a situational context, and the Eastern perception is interdependent on a situational context

So, several studies demonstrated that people in Western cultures, with their perception independent of a situational context, consider the emotions of a person only from their own perspective, independent of the context. They perceive emotional experiences from an individual perspective.

People in Eastern cultures, with their perception interdependent on a situational context, perceive the emotions of a person depending on the contextual perspective and all those involved in the situation. They perceive emotional experiences from a relational perspective. In their judgment of emotions, all people who are present in a situation and their relations with each other are considered, whether they belong to the same group or are related to the person. (Masuda et al., 2008; Tsang & Wu, 2005).

Self-focused Versus Other-focused Perception and Emotions

Social perception, whether independent or interdependent on relationship contexts, is directly related to self-focused and other-focused perceptions and emotional experiences.

Studies found that individuals in Western cultures (i.e., European Americans, British people, and Germans) are characterized by prevalent self-focused perception along with corresponding emotional experiences. They are more likely than people from other cultures to experience socially disengaging emotions such as superiority, pride, anger, and frustration. They generally feel such emotional experiences as being friendly, guilty, ashamed, and connected with others less frequently and less intensely than people in Eastern cultures.

On the other hand, people in Eastern cultures (e.g., Japan, China, as well as Asian Americans) are characterized by the prevalent other-focused perception and associated emotional experiences. They tend to experience and express their emotions more frequently and intensely when they think of family members and other relationships compared to situations when they think of themselves.

They more frequently and intensely experience such socially engaging emotions as being friendly and connected with others, as well as feeling guilty and ashamed. On the other hand, they less frequently and less intensely experience such socially disengaging emotions as the feelings of being proud, superior, angry, or frustrated.

For example, Japanese tend to face situations associated with feelings of shame more frequently than Americans. On the other hand, Americans tend to encounter situations linked to anger more frequently than Japanese.

(For a review of all these studies, see Karandashev, 2021).

Western versus Eastern cultures

Posted on by

The division between societies of Western and Eastern cultures is widespread in world scholarship and is most typical in cultural and cross-cultural studies. Why is it that this division, though quite simplistic, has become so popular among researchers?

The Tendency Towards Dichotomous Cognition

One reason is just a gnoseological one, and it comes from the philosophy of cognition. This is a reflection of the scholars’ tendency toward simplicity. The use of dichotomous and binary thinking is very convenient and easy to understand. A dichotomous view of the world seems natural: black and white; good and bad; right and left; pleasant and unpleasant, etc.

It is especially convenient for scholars. Such a division is often a valid assumption. The dichotomous division of the world into the West and East, into Western and Eastern cultures, is reasonable and applicable for research.

Western Cultures versus Eastern Cultures

The first questions are: (1) what is Western culture and (2) what is Eastern culture.

Over the years, Western scholars have attributed Western culture to the United States of America, Canada, and some western European countries. On the other hand, they attributed Eastern culture to China and Japan. Why so?

Modern scholarship in history has traditionally been of western origin—the place where most well-known scholars have resided. According to this scientific tradition, Western cultures have their origins in the ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

All other societies would be called “non-western cultures.” Later in history, scholars discovered China and Japan and found that their cultures were substantially different in many regards. They were located to the east of the west, where explorers lived. So, they called them the Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures presumably have their origins in the ancient Confucian and Buddhist cultures.

Such a division was simple and easy. The West is “we” and “us”—relatively understandable for us, Westerners, while the East is “they” and “them”—unknown and not well understandable for us Westerners. The dichotomy of in-group (West) versus out-group (East) worked very well for comparison.

Moreover, this comparison has been valid in many respects. Scholars, in their research, have identified many cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies.

The Differences in Philosophical Views between Western and Eastern Cultures

Epistemology (the Philosophy of Cognition)

In Western societies, linear folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Western culture is characterized by dichotomous thinking. Logical beliefs admit the opposition of binary things, such as human emotions, being either positive or negative.

In Eastern societies, dialectical folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Eastern cultures tend to have a holistic worldview and naturally accept changes. Dialectical beliefs admit the complementarity of opposite emotions and contradictions as they are.

Dualistic Versus Monistic Views of the World and Mental Life

Western and Eastern societies differ in their views on the relationship between mind and body as well as on the relationship between the heart (emotional part) and the mind (the rational part) of mental life. Their cultural beliefs follow either dualistic (in Western cultures) or monistic (in Eastern cultures) models of mental life. Those models reflect the human experience of emotions.

Dualistic views are characteristic of Western culture. According to this view, the mind and body are in dualistic relationships, and the mind (rational) and the heart (emotional) are in a dichotomous relationship with each other. People can rely more on their reasoning (mind) or on their emotions (heart). People guided by their hearts are those guided by their emotions rather than their reasoning.

Eastern cultures are characterized by a monistic view. According to this view, the mind and body are in monistic and wholistic relations, and the mind (rational) and heart (emotional) are not dichotomous with each other. Eastern cultural beliefs integrate the rational and emotional parts of mental life.

(See Karandashev, 2021a for a more in-depth discussion of these distinctions.)

Modern and Traditional Models of Relationships in Spain

Posted on by

Interest in love studies has been on the rise among Spanish researchers in recent decades. Scholars explored the general processes of love relationships and culturally specific aspects of Spanish cultural models of love (Karandashev, 2019, 2022). Let us look at the modern and traditional models of relationships in Spain, considering the examples of Spanish couples and Moroccan immigrants’ couples.

The recent article “Love, Relationships, and Couple Happiness: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Among Spanish Couples and Moroccan Couples in Southern Spain” by Encarnación Soriano-Ayala, Verónica C. Cala, Manuel Soriano Ferrer, and Herenia García-Serrán recently reported the study of multicultural models of love in Southern Spain (Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021).

Modernized Spanish Culture and Relationships in Spain

The authors show that love relationships are sociocultural constructions, and the differences in cultural models of relationships in Western and Arab countries play their roles. Moroccan immigration comes from Arab society. It is Spain’s largest foreign cultural group that brings with it the Arab culture of relationships. Due to this large immigration, people in Spanish society observe the coexistence of two models of relationships: modernized Spanish and traditional Moroccan cultures.

Modernized Spanish culture has changed along with the country’s social and economic changes. There is less religious influence and more open public discussion to support freedom of choice in relationships. Attitudes towards relationships and love have become more liberal, flexible, and open to diversity. Spanish men and women tend to have a greater number of partners, with a shorter relationship duration and less predisposition to marriage. The more fluid forms of love govern these patterns of relationships. Despite such modernization of relationships in Spain, “familism” is quite distinctive to Spanish culture. Some estimates indicate that Spain is the most family-centered country in the European Union. Nevertheless, only one-third of the Spanish stated that their family had a strong influence on them. This fact can reflect the loss of the importance of the family as an institution among the Spanish.

Traditional Arab Islamic Culture and Relationships in Spain

Traditional Islamic societies have remained largely conservative in these regards. In their cultures, religion defines many of the normative prescriptions for love relationships. Although Arab Islamic societies have traditionally valued eroticism, pleasurable sexuality, and love, they considered them separate from marital relationships. In the matter of marriage, their views were opposite, with the restriction on freedom of choice and sex being focused on its reproductive function and the maintenance of social roles and status. Moroccan immigrants tend to have more stable and lasting relationships in which marriage plays an important role. Moroccan couples residing in Spain have the highest marriage rates. Marriages continue to serve a social status that immigrant Islamic communities highly value. According to some estimates, more than 90% of the Moroccans stated that their family had had a strong influence on them.

How Happy Are Spanish Couples and Moroccan Immigrant Couples in a Relationship?

Based on their analysis of earlier research, the authors identified some sociocultural differences in how happy couples feel in their relationships. They claimed that:

“The enormous changes in affective-emotional relationships in Europe and the United States have been accompanied by decreased marital happiness and satisfaction within the couple, particularly among groups with low socio-educational levels and minority ethnic groups. These groups experienced the lowest satisfaction.” “Conversely, family, sexual and matrimonial forms in Arab countries have experienced transformations in affective relationships that are tempered by the role of religion, thus maintaining greater stability in family, marital and gender structures, although younger generations are beginning to demonstrate changes in that stability.”

Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021

So, from these two excerpts, we see two main tendencies, which are difficult to judge in terms of good or bad. In the first case, it is about relationship satisfaction, while in the second case, it is about marital stability—two incomparable parameters of relationships.

Acculturation in Relationships

A main question for this study is, “What happens to couples from non-western countries, such as Morocco, when they migrate to Western countries, such as Spain?”

The authors reviewed a few studies that examined post-migratory changes in couple relationships when they migrated from traditional to modernized cultures. Those studies showed that couples continue to maintain their own cultural norms while adopting the new cultural norms of the society from which they migrated. They gradually develop a hybrid cultural model of relationships. Some immigrants acculturate to a new cultural model of love sooner than others.

The change in the affective and relational models of couples shifts the immigrants’ attitudes in favor of the romantic model of love, towards more freedom of choice and less dependency on family ties.

Couple Relationships in Morocco

In Morocco, such basic cultural values as honor, religion, traditional gender roles, and family stability significantly influence couple relationships. However, the gradual transformations in Moroccan society, such as the modernization of interpersonal relationships, continue.

Among those are legislative measures such as the “Moudawana” family code, which allowed divorce, set a minimum legal age for marriage, and started to punish sexual harassment.

A liberal romantic understanding emerged that recognizes marriage as a choice and the fruit of love. This new cultural value admits new forms of intimacy.

All these mixtures of modern norms and practices with traditional ones evolve into ambivalent and contradictory modern models of relationships. Some people experience a liberalization of their lifestyles linked to modernized sexual and social patterns. The other people tend to preserve their traditional Arab Islamic norms and practices, which are linked with puritanism and conservatism in gender and sexual relationships. Scholars also consider controversial interpretations of these changes (see for review, Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021).

Some speak of a Moroccan sexual and democratic revolution due to Western ethnocentrism. They explain the changes that occur as the result of progressive steps forward for the family, romanticism, and intimacy. Many scholars, however, focus on more traditional and folk ways of life, which give rise to rigid stereotypes about sentimental relationships in Arab and Muslim couples.

How Are the Relationships in the Couples of Spaniards and Moroccan Immigrants in Spain?

A recent survey study showed that Spaniards perceive their relationships as less stable. The relationships are influenced by a variety of factors. However, they reported spending a greater amount of time with their partners than Moroccan couples. The relational patterns of Spaniards reinforce the new, discontinuous forms of couple relationships. Those patterns are consistent with a weakening of interpersonal connections in Western societies (Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021).

Spanish women tend to highly value love in their lives. They consider intimacy especially important and rate their happiness in couple relationships highly. The Spanish women felt happier and more satisfied. However, the Moroccan women did not feel this way. Moroccan women tend to be in favor of romantic love. They give high priority to commitment, intimacy, and passion. However, someone may doubt the validity of such self-reports from Spanish and Moroccan women considering the other findings described above.

The results of a recent survey study found that the Moroccans in Spain are more influenced by religion and family. Despite the migration to different societies, they consider religion a very important factor of socialization for the Moroccan communities. They tend to maintain more stability in relationships (Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021).

For Moroccan men and women, the maintenance of social relations and communities, such as family or religious practice, is of high importance. These social values displace the importance they place on couple relationships. Couple relationships for Muslim women are based more on socio-economic materiality than on intangible sentimentality, such as love and couple relationships. Even among immigrants, love does not occupy the vital role in their lives that is culturally attributed to it. They would rather establish strong emotional bonds with other women. The stereotype of the submissive woman may not be quite adequate.

Gender-unequal stereotypical roles are considered

the “feminine mystique” and represent women as “emotional beings who are responsible for giving and expressing love to men”

(Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021, p.82)

In summary,

“The Spanish love style appears as a transitional style between the romantic model of the twentieth century and new neo-liberal forms linked to love, sexual poly-consumption and female empowerment.” “The love model presented by the Moroccan people corresponds to the traditional forms of love. In immigrant couples, the liberalisation of love that is taking place in large Moroccan cities is not observed to any significant extent”

(Soriano-Ayala et al., 2021, p. 84).

Cultural Features of Mangaian Romantic Love

Posted on by

Early anthropological studies portrayed the sexual culture of Polynesian love. Those studies downplayed the love and emotions of indigenous people in the South Seas. For example, the cultural anthropology of Mangaian love presented the freedom of sexual intimacy and love among Mangaian people of Polynesia.

Later anthropological studies of the 20th century, as I noted in another article, showed that Polynesian women’s and men’s emotional experiences demonstrated that their feelings and relationships were romantic, according to the Western concept of romantic love (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

Six Things Make Mangaian Love Romantic

Anthropological studies of the 1980s and 1990s showed that romantic love was present in Polynesian cultures (see Jankowiak, ed., 1995), in particular in the Mangaian culture (e.g., Harris, 1995). The word “inangaro” (loving and liking) comes in different forms and contexts, and it is used in many ways, which conveys several core meanings of romantic love.

In other articles, I explained the six key things that made Polynesian love in Mangaia “romantic.” These were

  • (1) intrusive thinking about the partner,
  • (2) a romantic perception of the beloved as an exceptional person,
  • (3) a romantic idealization of the partner and the relationship,
  • (4) a reordering of motivational hierarchies,
  • (5) emotional dependency in romantic love, and
  • (6) care and concern for the other.

See more about these in:

Three Things Make Mangaian Love “Romantic”, and

Three Other Things That Make Mangaian Love Romantic

What Is Culturally Special about Mangaian Love?

In the 1980s, an extensive anthropological field study revealed culturally specific characteristics of Mangaian romantic love. Cultural anthropologists proposed that the Mangaian pattern of heterosexual romantic love differs from the American model of romantic love in its emphasis on specific features of love. The significant differences between these two cultural models of love are in the relative weighting of those features (e.g., Harris, 1995).

The Mangaian cultural model of romantic love is different in many ways from the American model of romantic love

Open Expression of Sexual Love

The two cultural models have different patterns of sexual attitudes and sexual relations. In particular, the Polynesian pattern emphasizes sexual expressiveness while the American pattern minimizes sexual expressiveness.

Polynesian cultures perceive free and open sexual expressions and behaviors as common and central features of sexual relationships and love.

Love Emerges Involuntarily “From the Bowels”

Women and men understand the Mangaian word “inangaro”, with its flexible denotation as “wanting, needing, liking, or loving,” in its specific meaning in the context of heterosexual relationships. It conveys the meaning of “the real love from within, the feeling inside you, from your heart, for someone.” More specifically, love is an involuntary emotional feeling that emerges “from the heart”, even though it literally means “comes from the bowels”. Mangaians believe that the inangaro is “not a choice, but suddenly it is a feeling” that overwhelms a person. Such an involuntary process as falling in love can have both positive and negative consequences. For instance, sometimes relationships that should have been were not because “that feeling” just wasn’t there.

Let us look at one case of this kind,

“Ani was energetically courted by a “good and loving” man who wanted to marry her but for whom she did not feel inangaro. Instead, she fell in love with a man who turned out to be unfaithful to her after they were mar­ried, causing her considerable unhappiness. As she reflected on her life, Ani regretted not being able to love her first suitor, who, in hindsight, would have been a better spouse.”

(Harris, 1995, p.121).

Physical Beauty Is a Powerful Force of Love

Mangaians understand that physical beauty is a powerful driving force of love in heterosexual relationships. Mangaians, like other Polynesians, have a great appreciation for the aesthetics of the human body. They believe that the human physique is the vital trigger of passionate love.

The Mangaian cultural standards of sexual beauty, however, are substantially different from western conventions of physical attractiveness. Different physical features ignite Polynesian love.

For many Mangaians, love at first sight prevails in their culture. The decisive role of physical beauty and the idea of love as an involuntary process are crucial in this regard. Here is an example of how Mangaians described their experiences of sudden and intense attraction to a person they had just met (Harris, 1995, p.122):

“I was in the shop buying some food and I turned and saw him. I got a feeling inside me that I had never felt before with anyone. I had already had a boyfriend and a baby and other boys had come around too. But when I saw this man, I wished that he would be my husband, and this feeling was a surprise because I had never seen him before. Although I had that feeling, I didn’t expect that the feel­ing would come true.”

Mangaian Love as Fate and Destiny

While in North America, “looks count” and “love for beauty” are important factors in falling in love (Tennov, 1979), in Mangaian culture, these factors are recognized as superficial and insubstantial foundations for a relationship (Harris, 1995).

Love and attraction derive from something more important. This is the fate of a supernatural power that is beyond a person’s control.

In American culture, people are generally ambivalent about love “at-first-sight.” They think that physical attraction cannot be the exclusive ground for a “serious” relationship, although they admit that such occurrences exist. As opposed to this, Mangaians perceive such immediate and intense reactions of attraction to a person of the opposite sex as natural when they speak about such experiences.

People in societies that are not affected by cultural discomfort and suspicion of the body are more willing to admit the power of physical attraction. They have a strong belief in “love-at-first-sight” occurrences. In Mangaia, men and women believe that the feeling of love is God’s (or nature’s) way of bringing and keeping people together (1995, p.122).

Three Other Things That Make Mangaian Love “Romantic”

Posted on by

As noted elsewhere, Polynesian sex and love are more complex emotional phenomena than people in Western culture previously thought. Mangaian love presents an example of this.

Early anthropological research distorted the nature of Polynesian heterosexual relationships. They portrayed men and women as sexually obsessed and permissive in their sexual attitudes and behaviors. The stereotypical western picture, which downplayed the affectionate, emotional, and romantic feelings of the Pacific islanders, was quite inadequate.

Polynesian love in Mangaian culture was not only sexual but also romantic.

Anthropological studies in the later decades of the 20th century revealed a psychologically more complex notion of Polynesian love. Anthropologists found a clear indication that romantic features of emotional experience are evident, for example, in the case of Mangaian culture (e.g., Harris, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2017).

The Three Main Attributes that Made Mangaia Love “Romantic”

In another article, I explained the three key things that made Polynesian love in Mangaia romantic. These were

  • (1) intrusive thinking about the partner,
  • (2) a romantic perception of the beloved as an exceptional person, and
  • (3) a romantic idealization of the partner and the relationship.

Here are the other three attributes that made Polynesian Mangaian love “romantic.”

4. Reordering of Motivational Hierarchies in Mangaian Love

Romantic love transforms the motivational priorities guiding the lover’s perception, thinking, and actions. The lovers make choices and decisions based on a new set of values in which everything related to the beloved and the relationship takes precedence over almost everything else. Romantic love overshadows many other things that looked valuable before (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

According to the interviews with many Mangaians, young men and women often felt a controversy between their own aspirations for a free choice of mate, based on their romantic ideals, on the one hand, and honor and respect for their parents, on the other hand. The young men and women often chose to pursue their love relationships despite the risk of losing their valuable family connections and support (Harris, 1995, p. 119).

In the case where parents oppose their own mate choices, young women and men frequently describe significant emotional distress. The conflicts between their romantic feelings on the one hand and their long-standing status in their kinship, family, and lineage on the other tore them apart.

The occasional cases of fatal consequences due to forced separation from the loved one and even the cases of suicide explain the romantic idea of placing love above life itself in Mangaian love. These instances represent the ultimate reordering of motivational hierarchies.

5. Emotional Dependency in Mangaian Love

If romantic love is reciprocal and mutual, its passionate fascination and admiration evolve into romantic closeness and emotional dependency. Lovers want to know each other better and deeper, to be physically and emotionally closer. They want more and more physical and psychological intimacy. The emotional states of lovers are often closely associated, reciprocated, and synchronized.

In the Mangaian language, an intense emotional response to separation from a beloved is called atingakau, meaning broken heart. The common symptoms of atingakau are a loss of appetite, an inability to sleep, and social isolation. In the case of men, it could be heavy drinking.

Young Mangaian women and men recognize that certain predictable emotional states arise in response to the status of a love relationship. Love can bring both happiness and sadness. Non-reciprocal affection, unrequited love, geographic distance, threats of separation from the beloved, or parental interference could cause their distressed emotions.

6. Care and Concern for the Other in Mangaian Love Relationships

Many western love scholars consider taking care of the loved one, caring about her or him, and expressing concern for the welfare of the beloved among the central features of romantic love (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

It was also the case for many Mangaians, especially women (Harris, 1995). They believe that being in love means worrying about the well-being and safety of the beloved. Love also means the desire to contribute to their happiness.

For Mangaian women and men, care and concern in romantic love are related to the desire for union and intimacy (Harris, 1995, p. 120–121):

“Caring is not sim­ply an abstract concern for the welfare of the beloved but rather a concern connected to the desire to prevent separation and loss of access. Caring is ultimately defined by how it contributes to maintaining access, increasing intimacy, and fostering reciprocation. Underlying a deeply felt anxiety over the welfare and happiness of a lover is an understanding that the safety and happiness of the beloved are fundamental to maintaining proximity.”

Harris, 1995, p. 120–121

Thus, we can conclude that the field ethnographic study in Mangaia was among the first to discover a basic pattern of feelings characterized by romantic love in Polynesian Mangaian culture (Harris, 1995).

The pattern turned out to be quite like the Western scholarly conceptualization of romantic love (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

Three Things Make Mangaian Love “Romantic”

Posted on by

How romantic is Mangaian love? Mangaians are the Polynesian people living in the Cook Islands in the South Seas. The early studies of Polynesian love misrepresented Polynesian heterosexual relationship culture as sexually energetic and sensually obsessive, along with free sexual attitudes and behaviors.

In a stereotypical western picture, observers depicted Polynesians as the most sexually motivated people in the world. They fit the old expression,

“There is no sin below the equator.”

In another article, I describe What Polynesian love is.

Early observations downplayed affection and gave the wrong impression that people in the Pacific Islands did not experience emotional and romantic feelings. Recent studies from the 20th and 21st centuries document a more accurate picture of love in Polynesia. I presented it in the article what Polynesian love in Mangaia was.

Here is the case of Mangaian romantic love. What are the three key things that made Polynesian love in Mangaia romantic?

1. Intrusive Thinking About the Partner

The first key sign of passionate and romantic love is the cognitive preoccupation and intrusive thinking about the beloved and the relationship. Harris (1995), as well as other anthropologists, showed that Mangaian men and women often indicated such a state of mind when they talked about their lovers and love relationships.

It is typical for those in the early stages. Being cognitively preoccupied with the beloved, men and women tended to think about their loved ones again and again. The intrusive thoughts about the loved one interfered with the normal course of their daily life. The same intrusive thinking occurred during a forced separation. Their longing during separation made them compelled to seek proximity. 

2. The Romantic Perception of the Beloved as a Unique Individual

Western scholarship traditionally defines that the beliefs in the uniqueness of the beloved and the perception of him or her as distinctive from others, as a special and exceptional individual, are the essential features of truly romantic love (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

Despite misrepresented early anthropological observations of “What Polynesian love is“, Harris (1995) and others discovered indirect and direct evidence that Mangaian men and women recognize their loved ones as especially attractive individuals who are distinct from others. Strong love attraction evolves between certain men and women rather than between others. They believe that their romantic liaisons are exceptional.

Young men may seek sexual opportunities whenever possible. Nonetheless, cautious young women look for a sign of “real love” (inangaro kino, etc.). Women recognize this “real love” as a man’s willingness to forsake all other sexual liaisons. Marriage is viewed as the ultimate manifestation of such exclusivity.

3. Romantic Idealization of the Partner and Relationship

Traditionally, Western scholars present romantic idealization as another defining quality that makes love truly romantic (Karandashev, 2017, 2019). This is the tendency of a lover to focus on the good qualities of the person they love and to ignore, pay less attention to, or make excuses for the bad qualities. 

According to anthropological observations, the Mangaian culture tends to publicly segregate boys and girls. Young men usually initiate secret relations, courtships, and premarital heterosexual relationships (e.g., Harris, 1995, see for review Karandashev, 2017).

How Do Young Mangaian Men Idealize Women?

Due to the segregated nature of intergender relationships, young Mangaian men often fall in love with young women by simply seeing them and conversing with them on rare occasions.

Therefore, physical beauty is what initially attracts many men to young women. A woman’s attractive face, flowing hair, and full hips charm a man, while he usually fills in the blanks about the other woman’s qualities. They were supposed to be as enchanting as their physical appearance.

The woman, however, generally thinks that her boyfriend was attracted to her because of her good nature and character. For example, here is how Harris (1995, p. 117) illustrates such an early idealization:

“Maara came to talk to me. He had been waiting, waiting for me to return from Rarotonga. He didn’t forget the time we were in school together. He said to me, “You know what? I’ve been looking at you. I’ve seen you going around.” Then he said that he loved me. He said he had fallen in love with me. Yes, seeing me all around, day and night, waiting for me. I asked him, “Why me?” He said he had seen how I was at school; how we laughed, how I shared with people. I’m just the one he’s looking at. He said his heart was hurting for me.”

How Do Mangaian Young Women Idealize Women? 

Mangaian women tend to be less idealistic and more practical in their heterosexual relationships. In the early stages of relationships, they are less prone to such romantic idealization in their perception of men. Their attitude of idealization toward the man often develops later, after the beginning of the courtship.

They are also inclined to ignore, neglect, or diminish, in their perception, the man’s imperfections and flaws. Interviews show that women tend to think positively about their men and their courtships. They focus on their appearance, skills, talents, and personality attributes:

“He was a very good fisherman; he was the best planter; he was a fine musician; he was kinder than the other men”.

Some women acknowledged that their men had the characteristics of womanizers. Nevertheless, they suspended their mistrust and perceived him as having a good image, despite their public reputation.

There are also The three other things that made the love of the Polynesian Mangaians “romantic”

Polynesian Love in Mangaian Culture

Posted on by

Is Polynesian love the same as that in Western European and North American cultures? For a long time, love was considered an exclusively Western concept. According to Western European and North American scholars, ethnographic studies of love add little value to understanding “Western” culture and behavior in love.

However, the purpose of cultural anthropology is to challenge the conventional Western understanding of love. As anthropologists Nelson and Jankowiak noted,

“A principle objective of anthropology is to challenge cultural stereotypes and, through participant observation, bring to light the differences between what people do and what they claim to do.”

Jankowiak, W., & Nelson, A. J. (2021). The state of ethnological research on love: A critical review. In  Mayer, C. H., & Vanderheiden, E. (eds). International handbook of love: Transcultural and transdisciplinary perspectives, 23-39.

Cultural Anthropology of Love in the South Seas

Cultural anthropologists began to pay attention to Mangaia and Samoa in the South Seas in the second half of the 20th century. These two islands are in the Central Pacific in the South Seas. Mangaian culture was interesting in many regards.

Unfortunately, the population of those islands and the number of people representing those cultures have been diminishing in recent decades. Nonetheless, such a comparison with other cultures, which we regard as modernized societies, is necessary in order to better understand the cultural diversity of love. 

Let us consider the case of Mangaian love. The early studies of American cultural anthropologists Margaret Mead and Marshall Sahlins and the Swedish anthropologist Bengt Danielsson documented the cultural life of Polynesians in the South Seas.

How Anthropologists Portrayed Sexual Love in Early Polynesian Studies

Those studies sent the message that the islanders didn’t seem to have romantic ideas or emotional experiences of love. Those anthropological observations downplayed affection in Mangaian men’s and women’s relationships. They tend to minimize love emotions in accounts of Polynesian life (see for review, Karandashev, 2017).

Mangaian’s intimate relationships were reduced to sexual obsession and a series of one-night stands. Endleman (1989) summarized those findings as follows:

“Sexual activities [on Mangaia] approach being a national pleasure, in which both males and females participate enthusiastically…. There is no indication whatev­er of anything at all like romantic love involved, only sexual attraction. All the Mangaians place great value on erotic technique, none on any affection or caring between sexual partners, preceding sexual encounter.”

(p. 57).

What Was Real Love in Polynesian Mangaia?

The later studies of the 1970s through 1990s showed that love among Polynesian Mangaians was more complex and sophisticated (e.g., Gerber, 1975; Freeman, 1983; Harris, 1995; Levy, 1973). 

The authors recorded the diverse lexicon of love words that the Mangaians had:

“Maoris have heaps of words for falling in love, but the Europeans have only one”

(Harris, 1995).

As I noted in another post, the Mangaian word inangaro is interpreted broadly as “needing, liking, wanting, and loving.” Referring to a male-female relationship, the word “inangaro” expresses the feelings that inside you. It is the real love for someone from within, from your heart. These feelings make young boys and girls want to get married. A premarital period gives them an opportunity to know this.

Freedom of Sexual Intimacy in Polynesian Mangaian Love

Mangaians, in their heterosexual relationships, are free and open in their sexual expression both before and after marriage. Polynesian attitudes toward sexual freedom and the pursuit of sexual pleasure are culturally normative. For example, when girls and boys like each other, they usually sleep together. They want to enjoy themselves.

Western missionaries made vigorous and sustained efforts to indoctrinate the opposite disposition toward love. Nevertheless, indigenous people in Mangaia and other Pacific societies retained their cultural views on sexual pleasure. Religious missionaries were able to convert them to Christianity. Nevertheless, Polynesians followed their ancestors’ beliefs that sex is a natural and pleasurable aspect of life. They believed that premarital sex, if it is practiced discreetly, is an appropriate part of post-adolescent and premarital times.

The Courtship of the Young Mangaian Boys and Girls

Ethnographic observations showed that the Mangaians’ courtship was not just the practice of experimenting with physical and sexual intimacy. During that time, girls and boys were establishing close emotional relationships. The courtship process could remain chaste for weeks or months, while the development of emotional intimacy in many cases precedes sexual engagement.

It was essential that the interest, desire, emotions, and sexual intimacy be reciprocated. Mangaians believed that intimacy could be achieved only with the willingness of both a girl and a boy to consent to physical and emotional contact. In many conversations during courtship, boys and girls focus on how each person feels about their relationship. Such communication gave the lovers a chance to see how real and strong their feelings were between them (Harris, 1995).