Sociopetal and sociofugal spaces

Let’s revisit proxemics this week, and look at a basic understanding of two kinds of spaces: sociopetal and sociofugal spaces. They can be easily defined as:

Sociopetal spaces — designed to bring people together

Sociofugal spaces — designed to minimise contact between people

There are some fairly obvious ones that spring to mind:

sociopetal — park playgrounds, cafes and restaurants, your dining table at home

sociofugal — church pews (as per first image), lecture hall seating, library and office carrels

Sometimes its not as easy to identify — this grandstand has seating in rows designed to face the sporting ground, not to interact with your neighbour. If you have been to a footy match, of course you end up cheering/shouting with/against your neighbour!

It is important to note that while it may sound like a socially inclusive idea to design more sociopetal spaces and discourage sociofugal spaces, we actually need both to function. Human beings are complex, layered with varied experiences and applied meanings, and therefore, operate in spaces differently. For example (at the risk of binarising a complex dichotomy), we are either introverts or extroverts. An introvert will move and behave in a space differently to an extrovert. They may choose to find a secluded space in a corner (reference prospect-refuge theory), and be uncomfortable in the middle of the room, whereas an extreme extrovert may gravitate towards the most amount of people to exert their presence.

The effect of cultural norms is also crucial to the success of a space for its occupants. One cannot assume a demographic will inhabit a space, so it is important to utilise a participatory design process that asks the eventual occupants how they would respond to a spatial design.

Interestingly, in a cohousing project or open plan office space, it is the CHOICE of interacting with others or withdrawing from people that is credited with its behavioural success.

Therefore, it isn’t the fact that ALL spaces are sociopetal spaces that makes it successful, but rather, that there are sociofugal spaces for people to retreat to. The private courtyard or the quiet phone room are essential to these socially inclusive spaces. The choice for people to move to a space according to their needs is a must. It might actually be quite damaging to not consider a variety of spaces — if we ever feel trapped and unable to exit a spatial situation (ie, stuck on a level in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), this may feel worse than being in the same space, yet having the option to exit according to free will.

The question for your project is: “what kinds of spaces would enhance the experience for your occupants?” rather than “what kinds of sociopetal spaces do we need?” Do some research with your target audience first, and keep an open mind to consider a combination of both sociopetal and sociofugal spaces.