Previous research in the social sciences has shown that haptic interaction rituals are critical for maintaining social relationships. However, during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, ‘social distancing’ was encouraged in order to avoid the spread of disease. Drawing on data from self-ethnography as well as publicly available resources, in this study we explore some new, locally negotiated haptic trajectories to accomplish interaction rituals in the time of coronavirus. First, we present self-ethnographic observations of distancing in face-to-face encounters from our everyday lives. Second, utilizing methods of microanalysis of naturally occurring interaction, we investigate video recordings of the embodied negotiation of space and touch among politicians. We analyze three different ways in which politicians negotiate transitional moves in this haptic ritual when one party initiates a handshake: repairing, declining and apologizing. Our analysis shows that politicians adapt their entire bodies in conjunction with talk, gestures and laughter not only to accomplish the greeting but also to remedy the potentially face-threatening situation of not getting the greeting right. This research has implications for better understanding the spontaneous ability of human beings to invent new ways of engaging with each other. Moreover, it adds to our knowledge of how the materiality of human bodies can impact forms of sociality.
BoteroM (2016)
Tactless scientists: Ignoring touch in the study of joint attention. Philosophical Psychology29(8): 1200–1214.
3.
CekaiteA (2010)
Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text and Talk30(1): 1–25.
4.
CekaiteAKvist HolmM (2017)
The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction50(2): 109–127.
5.
de LeónL (1998)
The emergent participant: Interactive patterns in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology8(2): 131–161.
6.
de LeónL (2012)
Language socialization and multiparty participation frameworks. In: DurantiAOchsESchieffelinBB (eds) The Handbook of Language Socializations.
Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 81–111.
7.
de WaalFBMvan RoosmalenA (1979)
Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology5: 55–66.
8.
DurantiA (1992)
Language and bodies in social space: Samoan ceremonial greetings. American Anthropologist94(3): 657–691.
9.
EnfieldNJ (2009)
Relationship thinking and human pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics41: 60–78.
10.
FulkersonM (2012)
Touch without touching. Philosophers’ Imprint12(5): 1–15.
11.
Gan YM, Greiffenhagen C and Reeves S (2020) Connecting distributed families: Camera work for three-party mobile video calls. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘20), Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April. New York: ACM.
12.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology.
Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
13.
GoffmanE (1955)
On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes18(3): 213–231.
14.
GoffmanE (1963) Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings.
New York:
Free Press.
15.
GoffmanE (1971) Relations in Public: Micro-studies of the Public Order.
New York:
Harper and Row.
16.
Goffman E (1983) The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American sociological review 48(1): 1–17.
17.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk.
Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
18.
GoodallJ (1986) The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior.
Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
19.
GoodwinC (2000)
Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489–1522.
20.
GoodwinC (2018) Co-operative Action.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
21.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (2004)
Participation. In: DurantiA (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology.
Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, pp. 222–244.
22.
GoodwinMH (2017)
Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In: MeyerCStreeckJJordanJS (eds) Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 73–102.
23.
GoodwinMHCekaiteA (2018) Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity.
Oxford; New York:
Routledge.
24.
GoodwinMHCekaiteAGoodwinC (2012)
Emotion as stance. In: PeräkyläASorjonenML (eds) Emotion in Interaction.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 16–63.
25.
HaddingtonPMondadaLNevileM (2013)
Introduction. In: HaddingtonPMondadaLNevileM (eds) Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion.
Berlin; Boston, MA:
Walter de Gruyter, pp. 3–61.
26.
HeathC (1988)
Embarrassment and interactional organization. In: DrewPWoottonA (eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order.
Cambridge:
Polity Press, pp. 136–160.
27.
HeritageJ (1984)
A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.
28.
HillewaertS (2016)
Tactics and tactility: A sensory semiotics of handshakes in coastal Kenya. American Anthropologist118(1): 49–66.
29.
HymesD (1971)
Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking. In: ArdenerE (ed.) Social Anthropology and Language.
London:
Tavistock, pp. 47–93.
30.
IngramM (2018) The mimesis of character in political rally speeches: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Academic Dissertation, Texas Scholar Works, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX.
31.
JeffersonGSacksHSchegloffEA (1987)
Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In: ButtonGLeeJRE (eds) Talk and Social Organization.
Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–205.
32.
KatilaJ (2018a) Tactile intercorporeality in a group of mothers and their children: A micro study of practices for intimacy and participation.
Academic Dissertation, Tampere University Press,
Tampere.
33.
KatilaJ (2018b)
Touch between mother and child as affective practice: (Re)producing bodies in haptic negotiations of intimate space. In: JuvonenTKolehmainenM (eds) Affective Inequalities in Intimate Relationships.
London; New York:
Routledge, pp. 201–217.
34.
KatilaJPhilipsenJS (in press)
The intercorporeality of closing a curtain: Sharing similar past experiences in interaction. Pragmatics and Cognition.
35.
KaukomaaTPeräkyläARuusuvuoriJ (2015)
How listeners use facial expression to shift the emotional stance of the speaker’s utterance. Research on Language and Social Interaction48(3): 319–341.
36.
KendonA (1986)
Behavioral foundations for the process of frame attunement in face-to-face interaction. In: GinsburgGPBrennerMvon CranachM (eds) Discovery Strategies in the Psychology of Action.
London:
Academic Press, pp. 229–253.
37.
KendonAFerberA (1973)
A description of some human greetings. In: MichaelRPCrookJH (eds) Comparative Ecology and Behaviour of Primates.
London:
Academic Press, pp. 591–668.
38.
KinnunenTKolehmainenM (2019)
Touch and affect: Analysing the archive of touch biographies. Body & Society25(1): 29–56.
39.
LevinsonSC (2006)
On the human ‘interaction engine’. In: EnfieldNJLevinsonSC (eds) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction.
Oxford; New York:
Berg, pp. 39–69.
40.
McIlvennyPBrothMHaddingtonP (2014)
Moving together: Mobile formations in interaction. Space and Culture17(2): 104–106.
41.
MalinowskiB (1936 [1923])
The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: OgdenCKRichardsIA (eds) The Meaning of Meaning.
New York:
Kegan Paul, pp. 296–336.
42.
MandelbaumJ (2003)
Interactive methods for constructing relationships. In: GlennPLeBaronCDMandelbaumJ (eds) Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper.
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 207–219.
43.
Merleau-PontyM (1968) The Visible and the Invisible (trans. A Lingis).
Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
44.
Merleau-PontyM (2003) Nature: Course notes from the Collège de France (ed D Séglard; trans. R Vallier).
Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
45.
MeyerCStreeckJ (in press)
Ambivalences of touch: An epilogue. In: CekaiteAMondadaL (eds) Touch in Social Interaction: Touch, Language, and Body.
Amsterdam:
Benjamins BV, pp. 311–326.
46.
MondadaL (2013)
Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In: AuerPHilpertMStukenbrockA., et al (eds) Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional and Cognitive Perspectives.
Berlin:
De Gruyter, pp. 247–275.
47.
MondadaL (2014)
The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics65: 137–156.
48.
MontaguA (1986) Touching: The Human Significance of Skin.
New York:
Harper and Row.
49.
ParviainenJvan AerschotLSärkikoskiT, et al. (2019)
Motions with emotions? A phenomenological approach to understanding the simulated aliveness of a robot body. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology23(3): 318–341.
50.
Raia F, Goodwin, MH and Deng MH (in press) Forms of Touch during Medical Encounters with an Advanced Heart Failure (AdHF) Doctor who Practices Relational Medicine. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality.
51.
SacksHSchegloffEJeffersonG (1974)
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language4(50): 696–735.
52.
SchegloffEA (1998)
Body torque. Social Research65(3): 535–596.
53.
SchützA (1962) Collected Papers,
vol. 1.
The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
54.
SlaterA (2002)
Visual perception in the newborn infant: Issues and debates. Intellectica1(34): 57–76.
55.
StreeckJGoodwinCLeBaronC (2011)
Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world: An Introduction. In: StreeckJGoodwinCLeBaronC (eds) Embodied Interaction: Language and the Body in the Material World.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26.
56.
TahhanDA (2013)
Touching at depth: The potential of feeling and connection. Emotion, Space and Society7: 45–53.
