Sneakers, Their Story is Our Own
Part 3: Intimacy and the Sneaker
This is the third article by designer and recent PJAIT graduate Stanislav Sergeichuk, in it he explores the role intimacy plays in our relationship with material culture.
How can intimacy be used to explain the continued relevance and reverence of the sneaker? To avoid listing countless definitions of intimacy I will focus on the American Psychological Association’s definition. From there I will introduce three other relevant theoretical definitions that I have identified: Situational Intimacy, Linguistic and Semantic Intimacy, Emotional and Physical Intimacy.
As defined by American Psychological Association: “Intimacy — an interpersonal state of extreme emotional closeness such that each party’s personal space can be entered by any of the other parties without causing discomfort to that person. Intimacy characterizes close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationships and requires the parties to have a detailed knowledge or deep understanding of each other.” [1]
The concept of “intimacy” comes from the Latin intimus, which translates as personal, internal, secret and intimate, soulful (if we are talking about the relationship of people, and especially people of different genders).[2] This word is often used when it comes to an individual, his or her personal life and relationships with loved ones. Intimacy also includes the realm of feelings: profoundly personal and emotional experiences. When this word is used to indicate relationships between friends or relatives (with or without a sexual context), lack of restrictions and strict formality, the presence of openness and sincerity is implied.[3] In addition to friendships, this concept describes relationships with romantic connotations, intimacy, trust and love.
Linguistic studies of the concept of “intimacy” reveal key nodes associated with the semantic meaning of the word. This is, firstly, the positive emotional relationship between the subject and the object, which arises based on motivational and value attitudes towards the rapprochement between the individual; and, secondly, the transformation of the relationship between the subject and the object from neutral or pronounced negative to positive. [4]
We can say that intimacy, in its essence, involves the exchange of feelings, thoughts and secret information, subject to trust on the opposite side. Intimacy does not always imply a romantic or sexual relationship, as shown by situational intimacy and the initiation of a stranger into personal feelings and information.[5] According to the Medical Dictionary, situational intimacy is described as intimate emotions induced by close contact to another person or a mutual circumstance, rather than by affection or any other strong emotional relation.[6] Sexual relations are not necessarily linked to the exchange and disclosure of other intimate aspects of personal life. Intimacy is closely linked to the concept of confidentiality and privacy.[7]
In social interactions, it occurs as intimization, when subjects individualize, stand out from the masses, and don’t become just another nameless member of society, but turn into equivalent producers of information.[8] On the Oxford Reference website, intimization is defined as “a trend in journalism where a public figure’s private life is considered likely to appeal to the target audience”.[9] Thus, until the other person is perceived as an important and valuable partner for social interaction, the mechanism of intimacy and the formation of intimate and personal relationships does not take place.
The psychic, emotional, physical, social and spiritual components of intimacy are integrally interlinked. In the search for intimacy, a person hopes for the constant satisfaction of his desires and is often bound up with the physical component of intimacy. This is due, in particular, to the fact that physical proximity is often more easily attainable than other components which make up its structure.
It is worth noting, however, that for each person, intimacy can take on different meanings, which are also expressed in the commitment to certain inanimate objects. In this case, some individuals consider owning certain things to be a very intimate process.
Therefore, we can relate these statements to shoes. Sneakers are an extremely intimate item in our life. Their intimacy starts from the point where we physically empower them to be our daily life tool, and continues with the social aspects where sneakers play a key role in building relationships in the community.
That is very important to understand what connects people to the objects that surround them and the things they wear. Often, there are always subjective reasons why certain objects have a very intimate meaning for a person, why he chooses this particular thing, and it is very important to pay attention to these factors. They are the key to understanding human psychology and will help to correctly identify key functions when creating any new things.
Things that take a deep intimate meaning for a person cease to be just things and become something more — an extension of their personality.[10]
[1]APA Dictionary of Psychology, accessed on 01.09.20, https://dictionary.apa.org/intimacy
[2]Vocabulary.com, accessed on 01.09.20, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/intimacy
[3]Kanwal Gurmeet, Akhtar Salman, Intimacy: Clinical, Cultural, Digital and Developmental Perspectives(Routledge, 2018), p. 18–20.
[4]Karen J. Prager, The Psychology of Intimacy(The Guilford Press, 1995), p. 17.
[5]Lisa A. Phillips, The Radical Thrill of Intimacy, accessed on 01.09.20,https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201701/the-radical-thrill-intimacy
[6]Medical Dictionary, accessed on 01.09.20, https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/situational+intimacy
[7]Kanwal Gurmeet, Akhtar Salman, Intimacy: Clinical, Cultural, Digital and Developmental Perspectives(Routledge, 2018), p. 167.
[8]Ibid., 46–47.
[9]Oxford Reference, accessed on 01.09.20, https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100008829(accessed on 01.09.20)
[10]Anne Louise Bang, Trine Højbak Møller Gøttsche, Intimacy in Accessories, Cumulus — Open Design for Everything (At Hong Kong, China, 2016), p. 6–8.
