1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Anthropology
  4. Volume 50, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 50, 2021

Touch and Social Interaction

Abstract

Our understanding of touch as a basic and complex sense is informed by phenomenological perspectives on our corporeal “being-in-the-world” and the notion of intercorporeality (Merleau-Ponty 1964) as well as by sociological perspectives on social life as organized and accomplished through corporeal participation and the interaction order (Goffman 1983). Intercorporeality involves sense-making of oneself and copresent others as body subjects, active in (re)producing a corporeal interaction order that is understood as tactile as well as visual and sonorous. In our review of contemporary ethnographic work, we direct our attention to touch and social interaction and discuss () ritualized supportive interchanges; () moves of compassion that calm a distressed child; () forms of control that socialize the body and gain attention, in particular to create multisensorial, instructional environments; and () forms of touch during care and bodywork in medical and therapeutic contexts.

Keyword(s): affect, body, care, intercorporeality, senses, touch
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110402
2021-10-21
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/50/1/annurev-anthro-101819-110402.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110402&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aureli F, de Waal FBM 2000. Natural Conflict Resolution Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  2. Bateson G, Mead M. 1942. Balinese Character: A Photographic Analysis WG Valentine. Spec. Publ II New York: NY Acad. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ben-Ari E 1996. From mothering to othering: organization, culture, and nap time in a Japanese daycare center. Ethos 24:1136–64
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown P. 2012. The cultural organization of attention. See Duranti et al. 2012 23–28
  5. Burdelski M, Cekaite A. 2021. Control touch in caregiver-child interaction: embodied organization in triadic mediation of peer conflict in Swedish and Japanese. See Cekaite & Mondada 2021 103–23
  6. Burdelski M. 2020a. Teacher compassionate touch in a Japanese preschool. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120248
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burdelski M, Mitsuhashi K. 2010.. “ She thinks you're kawaii”: socializing affect, gender and relationships in a Japanese preschool. Lang. Soc. 39:65–93
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burdelski MJ 2020b. Embodiment, ritual, and ideology in a Japanese-as-a heritage-language preschool classroom. Language Socialization in Classrooms MJ Burdelski, KM Howard 200–23 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke RS, Duncan J. 2016. Culturally contested corporeality: regulation of the body in New Zealand and Japanese early childhood education. Glob. Stud. Child. 6:16–16
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Casillas M, Brown P, Levinson SC. 2020. Early language experience in a Papuan community. J. Child Lang. 48:4792–814
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cekaite A. 2010. Shepherding the child: embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text Talk 30:1–25
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cekaite A. 2016. Touch as social control: haptic organization of attention in adult–child interactions. J. Pragmatics 92:30–42
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cekaite A. 2021. Touch as embodied compassion in responses to pain and distress. See Cekaite & Mondada 2021 81–102
  14. Cekaite A, Bergnéhr D. 2018. Affectionate touch and care: embodied intimacy, compassion and control in early childhood education. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 26:940–55
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cekaite A, Kvist Holm M 2017. The comforting touch: tactile intimacy and talk in managing children's distress. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50:2109–27
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cekaite A, Mondada L 2021. Touch in Social interaction: Touch, Language, and Body London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Classen C 2005. The Book of Touch Oxford, UK: Berg
  18. Classen C. 2012. The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
  19. Crossley N. 1995. Body techniques, agency and intercorporeality: on Goffman's relations in public. Sociology 2:1133–49
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cook MH. 1996. Japanese language socialization: indexing the modes of self. Discourse Process 22:2171–97
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Csordas TJ 1994. Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  22. Davidson L, Kelly B. 2021. The pragmatics of managing children's distress in Murrinhpatha, a traditional Australian language. J. Pragmatics In press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. de León L. 1998. The emergent participant: interactive patterns in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) Infants. J. Linguist. Anthropol 8:2131–61
     [Google Scholar]
  24. de León L. 2012. Language socialization and multiparty participation frameworks. See Duranti et al. 2012 81–112
  25. de León L. 2021. The soothing nursing niche: affective touch, talk, and pragmatic responses to Mayan infants’ crying. J. Pragmatics In press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. de Waal FBM. 1989. Peacemaking among Primates Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  27. Dunbar RIM. 2010. The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev 34:260–68
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Duranti A, Ochs E, Schieffelin BB 2012. The Handbook of Language Socialization Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell
  29. Ervin-Tripp S. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Lang. Soc. 5:25–66
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Finnegan R. 2014. Communicating: The Multiple Modes of Human Interconnection London: Routledge
  31. Gallace A, Spence C. 2015. In Touch with the Future: The Sense of Touch from Cognitive Neuroscience to Virtual Reality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  32. Gan Y. 2020. Choreographing affective relationships across distances: multigenerational engagement in video calls between migrant parents and their left-behind children in China. PhD Thesis Chinese Univ Hong Kong:
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gan Y, Greiffengagen C, Licoppe C. 2020. Orchestrated openings in video calls: getting young left-behind children to greet their migrant parents. J. Pragmatics 170::364–80
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Geurts KL. 2002. Culture and the Senses: Bodily Ways of Knowing in an African Community Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  35. Goffman E. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order New York: Basic Books
  36. Goffman E. 1983. The interaction order. American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:11–17
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Goodwin C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers New York: Academic
  38. Goodwin C. 2018. Co-Operative Action Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  39. Goodwin C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. J. Pragmatics 32:101489–522
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Goodwin MH. 2017. Haptic sociality: the embodied interactive constitution of intimacy through touch. See Meyer et al. 2017 73–102
  41. Goodwin MH. 2021. The interactive construction of a hug sequence. See Cekaite & Mondada 2021 27–53
  42. Goodwin MH, Cekaite A. 2013. Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. J. Pragmatics 46:1122–38
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Goodwin MH, Cekaite A. 2018. Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity New York: Routledge
  44. Guo E, Katila J, Streeck J. 2020. Touch and the fluctuation of agency and motor control in pediatric dentistry. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120249
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Heath C. 1989. Pain talk: the expression of suffering in the medical consultation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 52:2113–25
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Heath C 2006. Body work: the collaborative production of the clinical object. Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients J Heritage, DW Maynard 185–213 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Heath C, Luff P. 2013. Embodied action and organizational activity. Handbook of Conversation Analysis J Sidnell, T Stivers 281–307 Malden, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Heinonen P, Karvonen U, Tainio L. 2020. Hand-on-shoulder touch as a resource for constructing a pedagogically relevant participation framework. Linguist. Educ. 56:100795
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hertenstein MJ. 2002. Touch: its communicative functions in infancy. Hum. Dev. 45:70–94
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hertenstein MJ, Weiss SJ 2011. The Handbook of Touch: Neuroscience, Behavioral, and Health Perspectives New York: Springer
  51. Hewlett BS. 1992. Intimate Fathers: The Nature and Context of Aka Pygmy Paternal Infant Care Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  52. Hillewaert S. 2016. Tactics and tactility: a sensory semiotics of handshakes in Coastal Kenya. Am. Anthropol. 118:49–66
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Howes D. 2003. Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  54. Howes D. 2005. Empire of the Senses Oxford, UK: Berg
  55. Ingold T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill London: Routledge
  56. Katila J. 2018. Tactile intercorporeality in a group of mothers and their children: a micro study of practices for intimacy and participation. PhD Thesis Univ. Tampere Tampere, Finl: https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/104698/978-952-03-0892-6.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Katila J, Gan Y, Goodwin MH 2020. Interaction rituals and “social distancing”: new haptic trajectories and touching from a distance in the time of COVID-19. Discourse Soc 22:4418–40
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Keane W. 2017. Ethical life: Its Natural and Social Histories Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  59. Kern F. 2018. Mastering the body: correcting bodily conduct in adult–child interaction. Res. Child. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 2:2213–34
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Krummheuer A. 2015. Performing an action one cannot do: participation, scaffolding and embodied action. J. Interact. Res. Commun. Disord. 6:2187–210
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kuroshima S. 2020. Therapist and patient accountability through tactility and sensation in medical massage sessions. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120251
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Leder D. 1990. The Absent Body Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  63. Lévinas E. 1987. Collected Philosophical Papers, transl. A Lingis Dordrecht, Neth: Nijhoff
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Li X. 2020. Interpersonal touch in conversational joking. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53:357–79
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Marshall L. 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  66. Marstrand A, Svennevig J. 2018. A preference for non-invasive touch in caregiving contexts. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 1:2 http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/si.v1i2.110019
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Mauss M. 1973. 1935. Techniques of the body. Econ. Soc. 2:70–88
     [Google Scholar]
  68. McGlone F, Olausson H, Boyle JA, Jones-Gotman M, Dancer C et al. 2012. Touching and feeling: differences in pleasant touch processing between glabrous and hairy skin in humans. Eur. J. Neurosci. 35:111782–88
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Mead M. 1963. 1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies New York: William Morrow
  70. Merleau-Ponty M. 1964. The Visible and the Invisible: Followed by Working Notes C Lefort, transl. A Lingis Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press
  71. Merleau-Ponty M. 2012. 1945. Phenomenology of Perception, transl. DA Landes London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Merlino S. 2021. Professional touch in speech and language therapy for the treatment of post-stroke aphasia. See Cekaite & Mondada 2021 197–223
  73. Meyer C. 2014. Gestures in West Africa: Wolof. Body, Language, Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction C Müller, L Fricke, B McNeill 1169–75 HSK 38.2 Berlin: de Gruyter GmbH
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Meyer C. 2017. The cultural organization of intercorporeality: interaction, emotion, and the senses among the Wolof in northwestern Senegal. See Meyer et al. 2017 143–72
  75. Meyer C, Streeck J, Jordan JS 2017. Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  76. Mondada L. 2016. Challenges of multimodality: language and the body in social interaction. J. Socioling. 20:336–66
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Mondada L. 2018. The multimodal interactional organization of tasting: practices of tasting cheese in gourmet cheese shops. Discourse Stud 20:6743–69
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Mondada L. 2021. Sensing in Social Interaction Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
  79. Mondada L, Bänninger J, Bouaouina SA, Camus L, Gauthier G et al. 2020. Human sociality in the times of the Covid-19 pandemic: a systematic examination of change in greeting. J. Socioling. 24:441–68
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Mononen K. 2019. Embodied care: affective touch as a facilitating resource for interaction between caregivers and residents in a care home for older adults. Linguist. Vanguard 5:2 https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0036
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Montagu A. 1986. Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin New York: Harper and Row
  82. Nakamura K. 2013. Making sense of sensory ethnography: the sensual and the multisensory. Am. Anthropol. 115:132–35
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Nilsson E, Ekström A, Majlesi AR. 2018. Speaking for and about a spouse with dementia: a matter of inclusion or exclusion?. Discourse Stud 20:6770–91
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Nishizaka A. 2011. The embodied organization of a real-time fetus: the visible and the invisible in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41:3309–36
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Nishizaka A. 2017. The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind Cult. Act. 24:2110–28
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Nishizaka A. 2020. Multi-sensory perception during palpation in Japanese Midwifery practice. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120256
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Paterson M. 2007. The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects, and Technologies Oxford, UK/New York: Berg
  88. Pink S. 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography London: Sage
  89. Piper H. 2014. Touch, fear, and child protection: immoral panic and immoral crusade. Power Educ 6:3229–40
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Raia F, Deng M. 2014. Relational Medicine:Personalizing Modern Healthcare. The Practice of High Tech Medicine as a Relational Act Hackensack, NJ: World Sci.
  91. Raia F, Goodwin MH, Deng MC. 2020. Forms of touch during medical encounters with an advanced heart failure (AdHF) doctor who practices relational medicine. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120259
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Rasmussen S. 2006. Those who Touch: Tuareg Women in Anthropological Perspective DeKalb: North. Ill. Univ. Press
  93. Raudaskoski P. 2020. Participant status through touch-in-interaction in a residential home for people with acquired brain injury. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Hum. Soc. 3:1 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120269
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. San Roque L, Schieffelin BB. 2019. Perception verbs in context: perspectives from Kaluli (Bosavi) child-caregiver interaction. See Speed et al. 2019 347–68
  95. Solomon O. 2010. What a dog can do: children with autism and therapy dogs in social interaction. Ethos 38:1143–66
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Speed L, O'Meara C, San Roque L, Majid A 2019. Perception Metaphors Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  97. Stoller P. 1997. Sensuous Scholarship Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  98. Synnott A. 1993. The Body Social. Symbolism, Self and Society London/New York: Routledge:
  99. Tahhan DA. 2010. Blurring the boundaries between bodies: skinship and bodily intimacy in Japan. Jpn. Stud. 30:2215–30
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Takada A. 2021. Pragmatic reframing from distress to playfulness: !Xun caregiver responses to infant crying. J. Pragmatics 181:180–95
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Throop CJ. 2012. On the varieties of empathic experience: tactility, mental opacity, and pain in Yap. Med. Anthropol. Q. 26:3408–30
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Tobin JJ, Wu DYH, Davidson DH. 2009. Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China, and the United States New Haven, CT/London: Yale Univ. Press
  103. Van Dongen E, Elema R. 2001. The art of touching: the culture of ‘body work’ in nursing. Anthropol. Med. 8:149–62
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Watson JB. 1928. Psychological Care of Infant and Child New York: Norton
  105. Winnicott DW. 1973. The Child, the Family, and the Outside World Middlesex/Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books
  106. Wolkowitz C. 2002. The social relations of body work. Work Employ. Soc. 16:497–510
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110402
Loading
Touch and Social Interaction
Annual Review of Anthropology 50, 203 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110402
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110402
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110402
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error