Gesture, Race and Culture

A comparative experimental study

of Eastern Jews and Southern Italians

in New York City(Efron 1941, 1972)

Motivation

Central claim:

“both the amount and the manner of gesticulation of an individual are basically determined by racial descent” (Efron 1941, p.21)

• criticism wrt propositions made by Günther, Lenz & Co.:– based on vague impressions, a subconscious intuitive capacity

– claims/observations purely speculative, no empirical foundation

– biological/hereditary vs. socio-psychological factors

– (often racist approach)

• attempt to challenge the strongly stereotypical approach

The NYC study: The problem

(1) Is there something like standardized group differences

in gestural behavior of two different racial groups?

(2) What becomes of these gestural patterns in members

and descendants of the same groups under the impact

of social assimiliation?

The NYC study: The subjects

Why Eastern Jews & Southern Italians?

• both “racial” groups strongly associated with frequent and lively gesticulation

• regardless of ethnic background and social status: utilization of bodily movement as adjunct to spoken word

• applies only to particular subgroups:– “traditional” Lithuanian and Polish Jews

– “traditional” Neapolitans and Sicilians

The NYC study: The subjects cont‘d

Two Jews and one Englishman sail together on a business trip. Being unskilled in swimming, the former become at once entangled in a heated argument as to what they should do in case the boat sinks. The discussion takes place with such a great display of manual movement that the Englishman finds it necessary to retreat to a certain distance in order to save his physical integrity. All of a sudden the boat collides with a rock and starts sinking. With the exception of the Jews, who, confounded by the panic, manage only to increase the number and speed of their gestures, all the passengers jump overboard. After an arduous effort, the Englishman reaches the shore. To his great astonishment, the two Jews, whom he had thought irremediably drowned, welcome him there with exhalted gestural merriment. Stupefied by the miracle, he asks them how in the world they managed to save themselves. “We haven’t the slightest idea,” answers one of the Jews; “we just kept on talking in the water.”

(ibid, p.60)

The NYC study: The subjects cont‘d

• “Neapolitans can be made mute by tying their hands behind their backs.”

• “Un Sicilien ne peut pas dire une parole, même la plus insignifiante, sans l’accompagner tout de suite d’un geste expressif.”

~

• in Sicily: development of gestural signs and symbols has been attributed to the tyrannical suppression of the freedom of speech by Hieronimus of Syracuse

The NYC study: The subjects cont‘d

4 groups:

• traditional Jewish and Italian subjects:

both foreign-born and American-born individuals who have retained the language and mores of the original group, remaining relatively impervious to influence of American culture

• assimilated individuals of the same descent

• settings: spontaneous situations in everyday environment, people unaware of being subjects of investigation

The NYC study: The methods I

• direct observation

• sketches drawn by an American painter

• rough counting

• motion pictures studied by– observations and judgments of naive observers

– graphs and charts (frame by frame projected on coordinate paper as a representation of fluent gestural movement)

The NYC study: The methods II

• 5,000 feet of film

• 2,000 sketches

• 2,810 subjects (850 TEJ, 700 TSI, 600 AEJ, 400 ASI)

• examinations with regard to:– spatio-temporal aspects (= gesture as movement)

– referential aspects (= gesture as language)

Gestural behavior of traditional Eastern Jews

Notes (on spatio-temporal aspects) from field-work notebook:

“The radius of the gestures of the ghetto Jew seems to be much more confined than that of the Southern Italian. ... A great deal of his gestural activity appears to be taking place within the immediate area of his chest and face. ... Whereas in the Italian the gestural sweep often coincides within his arms’ length, in the Jew it very seldom reaches a limit above his head or below his hips. ... The axis of gestural motion is often centered at the elbow.”

(ibid, p.68)

TEJ: Spatio-temporal & formal aspects

• spatial confinement of gestural movement

• displacement of axis of gesture from shoulder to elbow and wrist (18:74)

• exceptions to this limited mobility: pointing motions

• TEJs rarely “let their gestures go”

• rare use of expansive and forceful gestures

• if under emotion, gestures tend to become rather more confined in area, more punctilious in form– growing excitement > larger movements

– more careful developing of a point > smaller, more precise movements

TEJ: Spatio-temporal & formal aspects cont’d

• ~ 20.9 unit motions per minute

• more complex formal design than other groups studied

• predominant: angular changes in direction (zigzag-like)

• however: also sinuous transitions

• “gestures look like entangled thread”

• “the hand of this fellow jumps around like a squirrel”

• punctuation appearing in jabs

• conclusions often dug up with extended thumb brought upwards

TEJ: Gestural plane

• tendency to gesticulate chiefly in vertical and frontal planes > up-and-down movements, and towards interlocutor (vs. TSI: motions in a latero-transversal space segment, i.e. at either side of his body)

• movement seldom deviates from medial plane of human figure (vs. TSI: gesticulates centrifugally in a surface plane away from his body)

TEJ: Employment of body parts

• tendency to use the various parts of the body in a more or less functionally differentiated way (vs. TSI: relative synergy of the three parts of his arm)

• additionally, frequent motions of the neck and fingers– head tends to accompany the hand and arm gestures in quick and

minute motions

– some head gestures used in substitution of hand gestures (may re-enact pauses, accents and inflections of corresponding speech process) > highly picturesque

• rare: simultaneous use of both arms for same movement (if bilateral, then sequential rather than simultaneous)

TEJ: Tempo

• very irregular tempo > movements seem to pass jerkily from one tempo to another

• appears slightly puppet-like > comic character

TEJ: Interlocutional aspects I

• TEJs often touch their interlocutor– interrupting the other one’s discourse

– capturing the other one’s attention

• e.g. grasping coat lapel, holding wrist, boring index finger through buttonhole of the other one’s coat, or even gesticulating with the other one’s arm

• despite all the touching: TEJ rarely comes in contact with his own body (vs. TSI), except for cases of “symbolic” movements (e.g. plucking beard, etc.)

TEJ: Interlocutional aspects II

• TEJs often converse in a chorus of divergent monologues rather than verbal inter-course

• consequentially: “...not exceptional to see several hands moving contemporaneously, trying to catch each other, and becoming entangled every once in a while.” (ibid, p.92)

• inspection of 200 TEJ conversational groups > 17% of simultaneous gesturing

• regardless of available space: tendency to stand closely together in compact groups

• tendency to gesture with a physical object in hand: “additional weapon of gestural persuasion” (p.94)

TEJ: Interlocutional aspects III

• rare display of physiographic or symbolic gestures > instead: ideographic movements

• gestures used – to trace train of thought rather than to depict things (the “how”

rather than the “what”), or

– to beat the tempo of his mental locomotion

• most conversational bodily motions carry some emphatic weight

• scarcity of truly symbolic elements

Gestural behavior of traditional Southern Italians

Notes (on spatio-temporal aspects) from field-work notebook:

“In general, the radius of the gestures of the traditional Italian appears to be quite ample. ... The spatial confinement observed in the gestures of the Eastern ghetto Jew is very seldom present in those of the Neapolitan or the Sicilian. ... Not only are the Italians likely to utilize freely the entire space at their command, but on occasions they even seek to transcend the possible perimeter of manual movement, as, for example, when the gesturer is found bending his body in the direction of a far distant object at which he is pointing, or when he is seen standing up on his toes while depicting an object the size of which is larger than the one his arms can embrace.”

(ibid, p.107)

TSI: Spatio-temporal & formal aspects

• no spatial confinement of gestural movement

• axis of motion centered at the shoulder

• movement from elbow very rare, even more so from the wrist

• use of the full sweep of arms in all and every direction, from knees to over the head, from in front of the body as far back as the arm will reach

• TSI tend to get carried away by robustness and amplitude of their gestures

• hallmark: use of grandiose gestures in manifestation of ideational or affective processes

TSI: Spatio-temporal & formal aspects cont’d

• ~ 17.2 unit motions per minute

• relative simplicity of movements (vs. TEJ) > due to tendency to gesticulate chiefly within a single plane of motion

• movements round (elliptical, quasi-circular), appear mostly fluid and harmonious

TSI: Gestural plane

• gestural performance in a spherical surface plane, away from his body as well as that of his interlocutor

• motions in a latero-transversal space segment, i.e. at either side of his body)

• vertical and frontal gestures (cf. TEJ) rather rare

• tendency towards “centrifugality”

TEJ: Employment of body parts

• relative synergy of the three parts of his arm: upper arm, forearm and hand move in a concerted manner

• point of leverage centered at the shoulder

• differentiated wrist and finger movements as well as separate head movements relatively rare

• less differentiated (non-pictorial) hand shapes

• movements often bilateral: simultaneous, often identical or similar movement (“twin gestures”)

TSI: Tempo

• unit motions flow one into another with more or less even speed > effect of temporal congruity

• characterized by smoothness and regularity

• movements wind or unwind themselves gradually in a “crescendo” or “diminuendo”

• causal attribution: “musicality” of the Italian language (in contrast to Yiddish)

TSI: Interlocutional aspects I

• despite the large gestural sweep, barely any touching of conversational partner

• rare exception: touching the interlocutor’s shoulder (as a sign of confidence)

• barely any simultaneous gesturing > “monogesticulation” (vs. “plurigesticulation” in the TEJ)

• conversational grouping of TSI shows a certain kind of spatial consideration for the body of the interlocutor > enough space for manoeuvring

TSI: Interlocutional aspects II

• relatively high degree of physiographic forms

• markedly low number of ideographic forms

• gestures appear to be related more to objective content of discourse than to its logical trajectory

• literally: talking with the hands

• not only illustrative with regard to depiction of objects and activities, but also expository in nature (marking paces and strides of corresponding speech sequence)

• ~ 151 manual “words” (some of which can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome)

TSI: Interlocutional aspects III

• gestural accents and exclamations used for energetic conclusions of discourse

• accentuation of words by an increase of radius and/or gestural force (vs. change of direction in TEJ)

• dogmatic style

• when gesturing with one arm only, TSI is likely to add the other arm in case of need for emphasis

Intermediate conclusion

• initial problems:

(1) Is there something like standardized group differences

in gestural behavior of two different racial groups?

(2) What becomes of these gestural patterns in members

and descendants of the same groups under the impact

of social assimiliation?

• problem # 1: existence of such standardized group differences affirmed

• what about problem # 2?

Gestural behavior of AEJs & ASIs

• Assmiliated Eastern Jews (AEJ): – out of 410, 122 obvserved to use gesture sporadically

– out of 85 in NYC, 22 used gesture in conversation

– ~ 5 unit motions per minute

• Assimilated Southern Italians (ASI): – out of 160 in NYC, 58 were found to be gesturing in conversation

– ~ 6 unit motions per minute

AEJ: similarities & differences I

• barely any spatial confinement of gestural movement

• shoulder as axis of movement

• due to increased social freedom? (see p.135)

• no longer zigzag type of form > straight or roundish movements

• tendency to gesticulate in a lateral plane (no longer towards interlocutor)

• barely any head movement (vs. “turtle-like” manner of TEJ)

AEJ: similarities & differences II

• movements still predominantly unilateral

• lower frequency of movement in general

• very little gestural manipulation of the conversee

• not a single case of simultaneous (choral) gesturing observed

• less compact conversational grouping

• increase in pictorial and well-placed emphatic gestures

• however: no system of emblematic gestures (except for the “thumbs-up” sign)

AEJ: similarities & differences III

• frequency of gesticulation varies according to social status, not according to foreign-born vs. American-born

• the higher on the social ladder, the lower the frequency of and the more restrained the movements

ASI: similarities & differences I

• compass of motion seemed more circumscribed

• short, rather confined movements chiefly centered at the shoulder

• lower frequency of movement

• unlike the Jew, no consciousness with regard to escape from centuries of oppression; however: embarrassment by gestural voluminousness of his forebears

• very rare head use

• less frequent double-hand gestures (esp. initial double-hand gesture)

ASI: similarities & differences II

• tempo appeared as regular as observed in TSI subjects

• use of descriptive gestures (however, less frequent)

• almost complete absence of “gesture-words”

• HOWEVER: results on ASI behavior only tentative due to restricted number of subjects examined

The hybrid gesture

• “hybrid gesture” =def. combination of elements peculiar to the gestures of traditional individuals of Jewish or Italian extraction with elements found in the gestures of Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent

• apparent in people who have only partially parted from their traditional culture

• hybrid gesturer may be compared to a bilingual person

Summary

AEJs and ASIs in NYC appear to

• differ greatly from their traditional groups

• resemble each other

~

• gestural characteristics found in the traditional groups seem to disappear with the social assimilation of the individual into the Americanized community

• the more assimilated, the less the typically racial traits

• assimilation due to social status rather than to place of birth

• socio-psychological factors vs. factors of biological descent