The term `proxemics' refers to the study of spatial dimension of nonverbal behavior. The understanding of occupation, cultivation, preservation and utilization of the four levels of space, with respect to the relative cultural levels, shall help one comprehend the proxemic behavior of an individual, and thus of a culture. The knowledge and application of certain skills related to proxemics have become very important today. This paper discusses some of the characteristics of proxemics, approaches in the study of proxemic behavior of an individual and culture, and also some of the strategies to be employed to make use of proxemics for effective communication.

Critics laud the brilliance of Shakespeare's (2002) imagination when he made his Romeo sing of Juliet: "She speaks, yet she says nothing; what of that?/Her eye discourses, I will answer it" (Romeo and Juliet, p. 40). They also cherish the Homeric elegance and Goethean beauty that sing in its voluminous pages the significance of the emotions that accompany the voices of their characters. However, it is not the beauty or the theatricality involved in nonverbal communication, but the very essentiality of the comprehension of the meaning that makes the nonverbal cues indispensable in a customary conversation. When the nonverbal signal is understood, its message, paired with the lexical context, makes the interpretation of the sender's meaning complete.

The significant role played by nonverbal communication in a society has been discussed from a variety of perspectives. Harrison and Crouch (1972) suggest that"in the development of each human being, nonverbal communication precedes and perhaps structures all subsequent communication" (p. 77). While commenting on the significance of nonverbal communication in the evolution of human language, Nolan (1975) notes that "nonverbal behavior precedes verbal behavior in the evolution of communication" (p. 101). Mehrabian (1968) gave a different dimension to the researches involved in the nonverbal communication. With his experiments, he was able to give "specific relative values for (each) components of a communication" (Smith, 1979, p. 632). Mehrabian (1971) further opines that "total impact (in the listener) = [0.07 verbal + 0.38 vocal + 0.55 non verbal] (of the speaker)" (p. 53). Later he suggests that "total liking or feeling = 7% verbal liking or feeling + 38% vocal liking or feeling + 55% facial liking or feeling" (p. 44). Thus, he gives primary importance to the nonverbal communication, to be specific of the facial expressions for the likability of a particular person during the process of communication. Although studies based on other settings have reached different conclusions regarding the relative weights of verbal and nonverbal messages, the importance of the nonverbal domain for communicative purposes apparently remains beyond any doubts.

Soft Skills Journal, Nonverbal Communication, Customary Conversation, Human Language, Static Nonverbal Cues, Environmental Factors, Infracultural Level, Stereotyped Proxemic Behaviors, Precultural Level, Microcultural Level, Kinesthetic Factor, Communication Process.