opinion | The table and the territory: proxemics seen by Vladimir Putin

Man is a territorial being. The distances it allows, and the interactions with other members of its species, are the result of a culture. They are also a matter of choices and strategies. How to understand the distance that the Russian president established between himself and the French president in Moscow? What does it mean, and for what results?

Europe put at a distance in Moscow?

Move away to reign better, such could be the will of Vladimir Putin in this Ukrainian crisis. It has not always been so. Black belt in judo, the latter is not afraid of physical interaction. Everyone remembers Nicolas Sarkory, literally knocked out standing, following a tough interview with this same Putin during the 2007 G8.

The “big” table strategy remains politically correct. The official characters benefit from being at a distance, it is a mark of respect. But here, everyone wonders, because the distance that separates the two men seems endless. This table is “the longest in the world”, evokes a humorist from France Culture. Admittedly, the dialogue lasted five hours. The French president, who prefers proximity, may have felt isolated. The interactions are so weak at this distance that they would even be lower than those permitted by a videoconference. But to negotiate, to decide, you have to create a link.

Distances unconsciously condition exchanges

The anthropologist Edward Hall has perfectly established the distances of interactions between human beings and their essential influence on affective, emotional and relational exchanges (“The hidden dimension”).

From the intimate sphere (less than half a meter which allows you to feel your interlocutor), to that described as “personal”, then “social” (between 1.20 and 3.60 meters), the exchanges remain dense. The social sphere is one of impersonal exchanges. Formalism is required there because the people are distant. In a way, it’s relaxing, so recommended for long negotiations, since the eyes don’t have to move constantly to gauge the other.

But what about an even greater distance such as that provided for in the Kremlin? This is Hall’s “public” distance (from 3.70 to 7.50 meters and more), the one he defines as “outside the circle where the individual is concerned”. The actors know that at this distance, it is necessary to raise your voice and exaggerate your gestures to make yourself understood. We no longer distinguish the color of the eyes of our interlocutor, we no longer feel the other. The “human individual can seem very small”, what is more, when he is screwed on a chair, deprived of part of his bodily expression, and constrained in his postures. At this distance, man is helpless, it is difficult for him to gather the information he needs to decide.

The French president did not enter the “bubble” (in the sense of E.Hall) of Vladimir Putin. Only the future will tell if this meeting, and the other informal exchanges, were able to bear fruit. In the meantime, the assessments of the parties present seem to diverge since the Kremlin would have denied the French announcement of “progress” in defusing the Ukrainian crisis according to the New York Times. Negotiations must therefore be put back on the table.