Concept of Face

Concept of face: definition

The concept of face as a sociological term has been around since the 1950s and was established by the American sociologist Erving Goffman. Goffman first introduced 'face' into social theory in his 1955 article On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction and later expanded on the concept further in his 1967 book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.

Goffman defines face as 'the positive public image you seek to establish in social interactions'. He also suggests that individuals are emotionally attached to the face they have constructed for social situations and feel good when their face has been protected or maintained. In contrast, a loss of face, either through embarrassment, criticism, or disagreements, can result in emotional pain or distress.

Goffman identified three levels that influence an individual's actions in order to meet their face needs:

• An individual's need to fulfil their own wishes is described as pride.

• An individual's emotional and physical attitude in social interactions is described as dignity.

• An individual's duties towards society are defined as honour.

The Chinese concept of face: examples

Although face was established as a sociological term by Goffman, the concept itself originates from China, and it is still an important aspect of Chinese culture today. In China, there are two different words for the concept of face, Mianzi (面子) and Lian (臉) (Mianzi 面子 is the older and more common term). Although the two words have overlapping meanings, there are a few distinct differences between them.

• Mianzi (面子) = An individual's status, prestige, social position.

• Lian (臉) = A sense of shame in relation to social standards of morality and behavior.

It is possible for a person to have Mianzi and yet have no Lian. For example, a corrupt official who disregards social and moral standards has no Lian. However, if he has status and prestige, he has Mianzi.

Some theorists have suggested that the Chinese concept of face goes far beyond the narrower Western concept. Unlike the 'Western face', which is more individualistic, 'Chinese face' is more relational and affected by others in the community. Typically speaking, 'Chinese face' is more about how an individual is viewed by others, and their face can either be given and earned or taken away and lost.

Lin Yutang, an influential Chinese writer, stated that:

Example of gaining face = A parent helps and supports their child through their education and they end up getting accepted to a very good university. Not only does the parent feel happy for their child, but they also feel they have gained face through their child's achievements.

Example of losing face = Leaving a tip in a restaurant in China may seem like a kind gesture, but it could actually cause your waiter to lose face. Tipping is not a common occurrence in China and leaving money on the table may cause your waiter to feel inferior, as if they need charity to get by. In fact, when dealing with money it is always better to be discreet!

The importance of maintaining or 'saving' one's face is not only prominent in China, but also across much of Asia, especially in East Asian countries.

Concept of face: positive & negative face theory

Politeness theory is an important branch of pragmatics and was developed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in the 1970s. The theory draws heavily upon Erving Goffman's concept of face and has advanced this concept with a particular focus on how and why we are polite to others. Politeness theory works on the assumption that we each have two different examples of face: Positive face and Negative face.

Positive face is defined as an individual's desire to be liked and appreciated by others. You can think of this as a person's self-esteem.

Negative face describes an individual's desire to protect their personal rights, such as their freedom of speech and action.

When we are polite to people, we are appealing to either their Positive or Negative 'face'.

Appealing to a person's Positive Face = Making the individual feel good and positive about themselves.

Appealing to a person's negative face = Making the other person feel like they haven't been imposed upon or taken advantage of.

Brown and Levinson suggest that when we are rude to people or impede their personal freedoms, we commit face-threatening acts to the listener's face. When we admit and apologize for our own shortcomings, we commit face-threatening acts to our own (the speaker's) face. They also suggest that cooperation is needed amongst the participants during any social interaction to maintain each other's face.

Fig. 2 - The concept of face can be thought of as a mask we put on during social interactions.

The concept of face and interpersonal communication

As the concept of face is inherently linked with social interactions, we'll now look at the different ways interpersonal communication can impact face.

Face-saving acts

Face-saving involves doing or saying something to avoid embarrassment or a loss of social status. Face-saving behaviour typically occurs when an individual has made a mistake or a 'social blunder' and then acts to uphold their dignity. Face-saving acts can involve individuals attempting to save their own face and other people helping someone else maintain their face. Helping someone else save face can be done actively or passively.

Passive face-saving takes a 'do no harm' approach and means you avoid doing or saying things that would embarrass the other person. In comparison, active face-saving is where you go out of your way to help and rescue them, for example, by taking the blame for something that wasn't your fault.

Face-threatening acts

A face-threatening act is when communication can damage a person's sense of face. Face-threatening acts can be verbal (using words or language), paraverbal (conveyed in the characteristics of speech such as tone or inflexion), or non-verbal (facial expressions or body language). According to Brown and Levinson, face-threatening acts may threaten either the speaker's or the listener's positive or negative face.

Facework

Facework refers to an individual's identity in a social world and how that identity is created, reinforced, diminished, and maintained within communication. Goffman's article on face-work examines the ceremonial gestures that people use when interacting face to face. He argues that when face to face communication takes place, human beings function as 'actors' and attempt to preserve their image in the eyes of their 'audience'.

Goffman believed that a person's social world is made up of countless social interactions, which require them to choose a pattern of verbal or non-verbal gestures to express their view on any given situation and express their appreciation to those around them. Therefore, face-work refers to the way individuals choose to act and present themselves in accordance with the environment they are in.

People can often find themselves in two different faces: The 'right face' and the 'wrong face'.

Right face = An individual feels they are acting in accordance with their environment and feels self-confident.

Wrong face = An individual has been caught off-guard and is not acting in accordance with the situation or environment.

Goffman states that it is a mix of self-respect and consideration towards others that obliges us to preserve our own face and the face of others in social situations. However, he also highlights that face-work is not a natural state for human beings but rather is a 'working state' (hence why we call it face-work).

Fig. 3 - Respecting others and being respected in return helps everyone to preserve their face.

Face-negotiation theory

Stella Ting-Toomey developed Face-negotiation Theory in 1985 to address the issue of cultural differences when discussing the concept of face and face-work. Unlike Goffman's theories, Face-negotiation theory recognizes that cultural differences can influence how different people manage conflicts and that 'maintaining face' can differ according to culture.

Ting-Toomey identified two aspects of conflict styles: People belonging to individualistic cultures (think the USA, the UK and Australia) and people belonging to collectivist cultures (think China, Japan, and India). Ting-Toomey suggests that those belonging to individualistic cultures try to preserve their face for their own sake.

In contrast, people from more collectivist cultures try to maintain face for the sake of the wider society.³

Based on the recognition of the differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures, Ting-Toomey established five different conflict styles:

• Domination - An individualistic approach to making decisions by dominating or controlling.

• Avoiding - A collectivistic approach of staying away from the conflict.

• Obliging - A collectivistic approach to giving up.

• Compromising - An individualistic approach to negotiate to come to a solution.

• Integrating - An individualistic approach to work together to reach a solution.

It is important to note that Face-negotiation theory has been criticized for several reasons. Firstly, Ting-Toomey bases her theory on assumptions about how individualistic and collectivist cultures operate. These differences do not always explain how individuals behave, and the theory relies on the assumption that everyone from a certain place behaves the same way.

Ting-Toomey herself recognized these flaws and found in one study that Japanese people were more likely than Americans to try to save face for themselves. She also found that Americans partaking in a study were more willing to compromise than her initial theory suggests.