Facial Expressions Gestures and Body Language

A few years ago, Cosmopolitan magazine
featured an article advising female readers on “how to reduce otherwise evolved
men to drooling, panting fools.” Basing his analysis on the work of several psychologists,
the author of the article first urged readers to “delete the old-school seductress
image (smoky eyes, red lips, brazen stare) from your consciousness.” Then, he wrote,
you must “upload a new inner temptress who’s equal parts good girl and wild child.” The
article recommends invading a man’s personal space and entering his “intimate zone”
by finding an excuse to touch him. Picking a piece of lint off his jacket ought to do the
trick. Then you can tell him how much you like his cologne (Willardt, 2000). If things
progress, another article in the same issue of Cosmopolitan explains how you can read his
body language to tell whether he’s lying (Dutton, 2000).
Whatever we may think of the soundness of Cosmopolitan’s advice or the images
of women and men it tries to reinforce, this example drives home the point that social
interaction typically involves a complex mix of verbal and nonverbal messages. The face
alone is capable of more than 1,000 distinct expressions, reflecting the whole range of
human emotion. Arm movements, hand gestures, posture, and other aspects of body
language send many more messages to an audience (Wood, 1999 [1996]).
Despite the wide variety of facial expressions in the human repertoire, most researchers
believed until recently that the facial expressions of six emotions are similar
across cultures. These six emotions are happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, fear,
and surprise (Ekman, 1978). However, since the late 1990s, some researchers have
questioned whether a universally recognized set of facial expressions reflects basic
human emotions. Among other things, critics have argued that “facial expressions
are not the readout of emotions but displays that serve social motives and are mostly
determined by the presence of an audience” (Fernandez-Dols, Sanchez, Carrera, and
Ruiz-Belda, 1997: 163). From this point of view, a smile will reflect pleasure if it
serves a person’s interest to present a smiling face to his or her audience. Conversely,
a person may be motivated to conceal anxiety by smiling or to conceal pleasure by
suppressing a smile.
Similarly, gestures and body postures may mean different things in different societies.
In our society, people point with an outstretched hand and an extended finger. However,
people raised in other cultures tip their head or use their chin or eyes to point out
something. We nod our heads “yes” and shake “no,” but others nod “no” and shake “yes.”
Finally, we must note that people in all societies communicate by manipulating
the space that separates them from others (Hall, 1959, 1966). Sociologists commonly
distinguish four zones that surround us. The size of these zones varies from one society
to the next. In North America, an intimate zone extends about 18 inches from the
body. It is restricted to people with whom we want sustained, intimate physical contact.
A personal zone extends from about 18 inches to 4 feet away. It is reserved for friends
and acquaintances. We tolerate only a little physical intimacy from such people. The
social zone is situated in the area roughly 4 to 12 feet away from us. Apart from a handshake,
no physical contact is permitted from people we restrict to the social zone. The
public zone starts around 12 feet from our bodies. It is used to distinguish a performer
or a speaker from an audience.
Aside from facial expressions, gestures, and body language, nonverbal
communication takes place by means of status cues, or visual indicators of other
people’s social position. Goffman (1959 [1956]) observed that when people come into
contact, they typically try to acquire information that will help them define the situation
and make interaction easier. That goal is accomplished in part by attending to
status cues.
Although status cues can be useful in helping people define the situation and
thus greasing the wheels of social interaction, they also pose a social danger; status
cues can quickly degenerate into stereotypes, or rigid views of how members
of various groups act, regardless of whether individual group members really behave
that way. Stereotypes create social barriers that impair interaction or prevent
it altogether. For instance, police officers in some places routinely stop young black
male drivers without cause to check for proper licensing, possession of illegal goods,
and other similar violations. In this case, a social cue has become a stereotype that
guides police policy. Young black males, most of whom never commit a crime, view
the police practice as harassment. Racial stereotyping therefore helps perpetuate the
sometimes poor relations between young black men and law enforcement officials
(Anderson, 1990).
As these examples show, social interaction may at first glance appear to be straightforward
and problematical. Mostly, it is. However, sociology asks you to probe beneath
appearances and see the many taken-for-granted cultural assumptions, unconscious
understandings, nonverbal cues, careful calculations, and socially grounded emotions
that make social interaction possible (see Concept Summary 4.1).
In the second half of this chapter, we ask you to make a second conceptual leap. We want
you to see that it is not just other individuals but entire social collectivities that influence your
actions. In particular, we examine the influence of networks, groups, and organizations.