Discourses in place are fundamentally dependent on perception and communication of meaning. It is imperative that we be able to perceive the outside world and that we be able to identify what we perceive as meaning something in order for any discourse to take place. If what we perceive means nothing to us then it is impossible to have a reaction to it. Something as trivial as feeling hot causes in us a reaction, whether conscious or unconscious, of, inter alia, either seeking shade or of activating sweat glands. In order to survive in our environment we rely on our senses, our sensorial stimuli, and on the semiotic relationships that these stimuli have with meaning, i.e., the relationship between signifier and signified. The same is true in geosemiotics regarding discourses in place: we must have a sense of the space within which discourse is taking place, and a sense of the meaning communicated by what is happening in that space. We rely on our vision, audition, olfaction, tact, and taste, to sense the space or objects around us. In geosemiotics, the spaces that these senses open in our minds are called perceptual spaces, and they are listed thusly: visual, auditory, olfactory, thermal, and tactile. (Scollon and Scollon, 52) Here we will investigate the different roles of each perceptual space in given social situations, and their meanings in social relationships.
Visual perceptual space can be understood metaphorically as our camera to the world. The image that we see, given there are no barriers, has a visual field of 120 degrees horizontal and 60 degrees vertical, giving us 576 megapixels of data, or of visual stimuli. (http://cosassencillas.wordpress.com/2007/03/20/la-vision-humana-equivale-a-576-megapixeles/) Instead of analyzing every piece of data, our conscious perception of this image is that of a whole picture. We can then zoom in, as it were, to a given portion, object, or anything within that picture. Whatever in the composite image draws our attention does so because it has meaning, even if that meaning is “I don’t know what it means,” i.e., we identify it as a signifier but are curious as to what it signifies. Likewise, sensation or feeling or emotion acts in a very similar way. Take the signifier to be stimulus, and the signified the effect of that stimulus. So, we may encounter a pretty lady or hansom chap, their visual appearance, the raw stimulus of their image, produces an effect of attraction, which presents itself as a pleasurable experience to us (sometimes so much that it hurts, but that is beyond the point). There is a physical manifestation in our eye when we feel pleasure, whether bodily or psychological pleasure, consisting of the pupil dilating. (http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_spot_lies_and_tell_if_someo) In turn, we may engage in discourse with this visual perceptual space by directing a smile to the attractive person, or by staring with our head in the clouds. Then, the attractive person may look away, smile back, or produce a glare of disapproval. At any rate, this can serve as an example of the discourse taken place within the visual perceptual space, where gestures or body language, aesthetics, accepted or unaccepted social behaviors all play a role. We may say then that the visual perceptual space is very pertinent in our social relations with strangers on the street. Upon contact, however, other perceptual spaces key in.
Suppose you draw up the courage to stop the attractive stranger and say hello. Suddenly, two new perceptual spaces open in your mind with regard to the stranger; now you may be able to smell the person, and if responded in kind, you will hear the person’s voice. Auditory and olfactory stimuli open the possibility for new discourses, new meanings. When we meet people for the first time we are usually very open and attentive to all the sensorial cues given by the person we meet. Our perceptions and reactions depend on the nature of these cues, their social implications, and our own personal dispositions, which will determine how we interact with the other. If we smell a certain perfume or cologne on the person, we will immediately asses whether we like it, whether it is too strong or too soft, whether the person uses too much, too little, or just the right amount, etc. These impressions, however, are not socially determined but correspond to our personal fancies. Similarly, we will make assessments regarding the person’s tone, pitch, and use of words, expressions, etc. Imagine you walk by a vagrant asking for money on the street. If you sense an intense smell of alcohol, and a slurred enunciation, you may be less likely to give the vagrant any money. The predisposition to not give money to alcoholics who are also vagrants results from social circumstances. A society in question may disapprove of alcoholics because they are deemed to be a dysfunctional member of society. Realize, however, that it may be that the vagrant became an alcoholic after becoming homeless, and that becoming homeless may have had little to do with the functional or dysfunctional character of this particular socialite. The smell and voice of the vagrant tells us nothing about these things; but we nonetheless have these predispositions towards alcoholic breath and slurred speech, especially when we are asked for money. Auditory and olfactory cues can be seen to influence our social relationships with strangers, when we have no idea of their personal histories, nor does anything we can sense directly tell us about them, by way inferring from socially derived and or socially accepted notions.
Say that you and the stranger hit it off, so to speak, and decide to have coffee together. As the stranger opens the door of the coffee shop you may place your hand on their back so as to indicate that you wish them to enter first, and to introduce, from the outset, a sense of confidence in the other person. You have now entered in the tactile perceptual space. You may notice that the person is either tense or relaxed; you may pick up on the person’s reaction to your physical approach; or you may be responded in kind as the person places their hand on your back returning the courtesy. Now at the table hands may meet, and a number of things can happen. Again, you may be responded in kind, or, more interesting for our purposes, the person may withdraw their hand from yours. You will judge by the speed at which the person withdraws their hand, by where he or she places it after withdrawing it, or even by the temperature of the hand what the person is feeling, how they perceive you, and in which way you should adopt your behavior accordingly. A third person, who saw the whole thing, from their visual perceptual space can judge that both of you are strangers and that there has been some sort of transgression; or that you are old lovers and that your attempts at physical contact are not welcome; or that the person didn’t expect your hand and was surprised, etc. We can then see that depending on whose perspective we adopt, all perceptual spaces can be relevant in a single space.
It is clear that the perceptions drawn from the different senses play a significant role in social discourses in place. That the perspective of each individual will call for drawing from one or another of these perceptual spaces, and that our judgments of the sensuous stimuli depends on personal as well as social dispositions and influences.
