Skip to main content
Codex Mundi A scholarly atlas of the senses lost when crossing borders
Codex MundiEyes and eye contactMaking eye contact in the street (USA / Southern Europe)
e0190Eyes and eye contact · regard-direct

Making eye contact in the street (USA / Southern Europe)

Staring at a stranger in the street: in New York, it reads as a challenge; in Southern Europe, a sustained gaze is better tolerated. The same gaze, two rules - Anglo-American "civil inattention" versus greater tolerance in the south.

✓ Target directionIn Southern Europe, a somewhat sustained gaze between strangers in the street is ordinary and non-threatening: a form of public-space sociability.
⚠ Interpreted meaningIn the United States and Northern Europe, staring at a stranger breaks "civil inattention" and reads as a challenge or a threat; the visitor's quick look-away, in turn, can come across as awkwardness or contempt.

01"Civil inattention": the Anglo-American rule

In large Anglo-American and Northern European cities, meeting a stranger's gaze in the street follows a tacit rule that sociologist Erving Goffman called "civil inattention" (Behavior in Public Places, 1963): each person allows a brief glance of acknowledgment, then looks away - seeing without staring, to signal that one poses no threat. Staring at a stranger breaks this contract. Ellsworth, Carlsmith and Henson (1972) demonstrated this experimentally: a fixed, sustained gaze functions as a flight stimulus - people who are stared at leave the scene faster. There, a prolonged gaze is read as a challenge, a provocation, or an intrusion.

02"Contact" cultures and "non-contact" cultures

Where the rule loosens is in part of Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. Proxemics researchers Edward Hall (The Hidden Dimension, 1966) and Michael Watson (Proxemic Behavior, 1970) contrasted "contact" cultures (Mediterranean, Latin American, Arab: shorter distances, more direct gaze) with "non-contact" cultures (Northern European, North American). In this model, a sustained gaze between strangers is less automatically decoded as a threat in Naples or Madrid than in New York. One caveat, though: this 1960s-1970s model is coarse. A large 42-country study (Sorokowska et al., 2017) found no clean "warm South / distant North" divide - Romania and Hungary rank among the largest preferred distances, Argentina among the smallest. It is a tendency, not a law.

03The misunderstanding

The clash arises when each person applies their own rule to the other. The Anglo-American tourist in Naples looks away quickly (civil inattention): this hasty look-away can come across as embarrassment, flight, or contempt. Conversely, the Southern European traveler in New York holds the gaze a little longer and sometimes meets a hostile reaction - there, a sustained gaze is received as an aggression. This is not a lapse in politeness on either side: it is a mismatch in the rules for what "looking at a stranger" means.

04The gaze is not neutral

Two clarifications are needed. First, the valence of a gaze depends on context: the same fixed stare does not always trigger flight - depending on how clear the situation is, it can instead invite help or approach (Ellsworth & Langer, 1976). Second - and this is a distinct matter - a man's insistent gaze at a woman in public space belongs to a different register, that of street harassment, governed by its own norms and, increasingly, by law. Southern tolerance for gazing between strangers should not be confused with any license for this kind of pointed, sexualized staring.

05How to adjust

The practical rule is simple: modulate duration and intent. In the United States and Northern Europe, brief eye contact followed by a polite look-away is the norm; do not stare at a stranger in a prolonged, blank way. In Southern Europe, do not mistake a slightly more sustained gaze for a provocation. When in doubt, a slight smile resolves the ambiguity either way: it turns a potentially threatening gaze into a social signal. And remember that these norms vary as much by individual, neighborhood, or moment as by country.

Geography of misunderstanding

Offensive

  • usa
  • canada

Neutral

  • spain
  • portugal
  • italy
  • greece
  • malta

Historical origins

Croiser le regard d'un inconnu dans la rue obéit à la « civil inattention » (Goffman 1963) dans les villes anglo-américaines et nord-européennes : bref coup d'œil puis détournement. Fixer se lit comme un défi ou une menace (Ellsworth et al. 1972). Le modèle cultures de contact / non-contact (Hall 1966, Watson 1970) situe l'Europe du Sud du côté d'une plus grande tolérance au regard, mais ce modèle est grossier et nuancé par les données récentes (Sorokowska et al. 2017).

Practical recommendations

To do

  • Aux États-Unis et en Europe du Nord, s'en tenir à un contact oculaire bref suivi d'un regard détourné poli (la « civil inattention »).
  • Dans le doute, accompagner le regard d'un léger sourire : il transforme un regard potentiellement menaçant en signal social, dans les deux sens.

Avoid

  • Ne pas fixer un inconnu de façon prolongée et inexpressive aux États-Unis ou en Europe du Nord — c'est reçu comme un défi ou une menace.
  • Ne pas prendre, en Europe du Sud, un regard un peu plus soutenu pour une provocation ; et ne pas confondre cette tolérance avec une licence pour le regard appuyé et sexualisé (harcèlement de rue).

Neutral alternatives

Sources · 7

AcademicErving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, The Free Press, 1963 : concept de « civil inattention » (bref regard de reconnaissance puis détournement entre inconnus).
AcademicPhoebe C. Ellsworth, J. Merrill Carlsmith & Alexander Henson, « The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects: A series of field experiments », Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21(3), 1972, 302-311 : un regard fixe soutenu accélère la fuite (stimulus de menace, mais dépendant du contexte). —
AcademicEdward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday, 1966 : proxémique ; cultures « de contact » (méditerranéennes, latino-américaines, arabes) vs « de non-contact » (nord-européennes, nord-américaines).
AcademicO. Michael Watson, Proxemic Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study, Mouton, 1970 : test empirique de la dichotomie de Hall (les cultures de contact interagissent plus près, avec un regard plus direct) — échantillons petits et masculins, à manier avec prudence.
AcademicAgnieszka Sorokowska et al., « Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison », Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 48(4), 2017, 577-592 (42 pays) : pas de partage net Sud « proche » / Nord « distant » — le modèle de contact/non-contact est une tendance, pas une loi. —
AcademicMichael Argyle & Mark Cook, Gaze and Mutual Gaze, Cambridge University Press, 1976 : ouvrage fondateur sur les fonctions du regard dans l'interaction.
AcademicPhoebe C. Ellsworth & Ellen J. Langer, « Staring and approach: An interpretation of the stare as a nonspecific activator », Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33(1), 1976, 117-122 : le regard fixe est un activateur non spécifique dont la valence (approche ou évitement) dépend du contexte. —