The “abstinence” from hugs after isolation makes itself felt and the social distancing precludes being really close to us. Is physical contact essential? Yes, but (fortunately) not too!
After a period of relative isolation, people have returned to live outside the walls of the house, but the social distancing still requires them to give up that physical contact to which they were so obviously used to with relatives, friends and even acquaintances.
Skin Hunger is a term coined precisely to allude to this “skin hunger” that would characterize post-lockdown social interactions . Physical contact is certainly important for human beings, but fortunately, at least for adults , it is not always essential: “safety distances” do not prevent us from benefiting from the physical presence of the other… one meter away from us!
Skin Hunger: abstinence from hugs
Hugs, caresses, handshakes … The physical manifestations of sociability and affection are very varied both on the basis of individual differences (there are those who are very expansive and those who are more reserved and tend to feel invaded by the touch of others) and cultural ( we Italians are certainly more “physical” than Chinese and Japanese for example).
It is also on the basis of this, as well as of their own housing conditions (living alone or with others), that people can suffer differently from social distancing. made necessary since the beginning of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic .
If it is true that after the lockdown almost all human activities have seen a restart , it is also true that you can start doing everything (or almost everything) again, but in a substantially different way.
And the biggest difference is certainly the social distancing that seems to upset the sense that we humanly assign to interpersonal distances : a virus that is transmitted above all between close contacts requires us to keep our distance not only from strangers, but also (and we could say above all) close friends, family members, people with whom you have a significant emotional bond but who are outside your circle of cohabitants .
And, some say, the “skin hunger” is felt at this point: after the phase of video chat, now everyone would like to return to feel the caress of the other.
Does Skin Hunger therefore signal a worsening of interpersonal relationships? Not necessarily, avoiding hugs (for the moment) does not mean giving up benefiting from the physical presence of the other …
Skin Hunger and psychobiological regulation
The physical contact has a regulatory power and beneficial on psychobiological balance of humans and animals. The reason why we seek contact and derive comfort from it is in fact written in our DNA: both newborns and puppies of other mammals must be able to regulate their biological rhythms (sleep / wakefulness, thermoregulation, hunger / satiety, growth staturale etc.) precisely to the physical proximity to the body of one’s mother.
The Harlow spouses (Hanry Frederick and Clara Mears) first demonstrated this in an experiment destined to make history of psychology in which it was documented how, for macaque puppies, physical contact was as vital as the administration of food . Subsequent studies found confirmation of this (Spitz, 1972; Hofer, 1995) highlighting the important link between the sensory stimulation aroused by hugs and caresses and the regulation of physiological processes. fundamental of the organism of puppies and newborns (which as such do not yet possess the ability to self-regulate independently neither from the physical nor from the emotional point of view).
Therefore a newborn, like a puppy, can hardly survive and adapt to the environment without receiving hugs and caresses. And an adult? How long can he “last” without hugs?
Skin Hunger and Adult Relationships
Many great scientists and intellectuals have come up with important discoveries or groundbreaking theories by observing seemingly trivial episodes around them. Sigmund Freud is among these: his grandson used to play with a spool of thread by rolling it under a piece of furniture and then waiting to see it reappear before his eyes.
This “game of the spool” enlightened Freud for its high symbolic significance; the child used this expedient to train himself to have an “experimental” proof of a fact that is only apparently trivial: an “object” (the mother in the case of the child) continues to exist , even if it disappears from our sensory perception.
This means that we can “keep in mind” the people we care about, continue to love them and feel loved, dedicate a thought to them, imagine we want to share future projects, find ourselves buying them a gift and much more, even without having them in front of our eyes. or under our skin …
And, last but not least, we can deal with their temporary absence (a trip, a missed phone call, a delay, etc.) without necessarily fearing that they will cease to exist or abandon us.
This important faculty of the mind takes the name of object constancy (the object alludes to the mental representation of the other) and allows us to keep relationships – and our identity counterparts – alive by freeing them from the contingent and entrusting them to a trust of basis : the other remains in our mind as well as in the mind of the other remains a place for us, even when we do not see each other or do not touch skin to skin.
This is, in short, one of the fundamental differences that makes hugs and caresses “differently” important between a newborn and an adult.
Skin Hunger and mentalization
The ability to mentalize interpersonal relationships makes it possible to establish relationships that are also very significant regardless of direct physical contact .
Think of all those types of relationship between teacher and pupil, for example, between faithful and spiritual guides, between patient and therapist, between the actor and his audience … All certainly peculiar conditions, certainly different from more familiar and everyday relationships, which they show us, however, how the minds of adults can create a great intimacy (intellectual, affective, spiritual, etc.) even without considering (in whole or in part) direct contact, but still participating in the physical presence of each other , a presence that in any case alludes to a sensoriality of the bodies called to (gestures, postures, mimics), to co-coriate together a particular “climate” share the same space , to accompany the communication of a whole series of paraverbal signs of communication, often indecipherable on a cognitive-rational level, but captured with immediacy on an emotional and “visceral” level.
All this “sense-emotional” kit derived from the joint presence of two (or more) people can be such even in a momentary absence of physical contact without necessarily limiting intimacy and depth of the relationship (separate discussion should be done for couple relationships) .
At Skin Hunger we can therefore try to respond with the typically human capacity of us adults to listen to the presence of the other , both in the room where we are (one meter away), and in our mind, to perhaps grasp signs more indirect, less “concrete”, of his person. This could be a period – which still remains temporary even if not short – in which, forced to suspend hugs and handshakes for the moment, try to listen to each other, talk to each other, look at each other with greater attention and gratitude .
