FACE AND FACEWORK (Stella Ting-Toomey)

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 418.

The final cultural pattern was developed by intercultural communication scholar Ting-Toomey, whose work highlights the role of “face” and “face-work” in intercultural communication. Here we use the term face as a metaphor for the self-image you want to project to other people; face is your public identity. Since face is how others see you, it is acquired, maintained, and lost through social interaction. This process is referred to as facework, which Domenici and Littlejohn define as “a set of coordinated practices in which communicators build, maintain, protect, or threaten personal dignity, honor, and respect” [109]. In other words, facework consists of those actions you engage in to acquire or maintain face for yourself or give face to someone else. For a job interview, you will probably wear your best suit and arrive a few minutes before the scheduled time. During the interview, you will remember to sit erect, maintain eye contact, respond to questions with thoughtful answers, use formal terms of address, and avoid slang. These efforts amount to self-directed facework because you want to make a positive impression. As the old saying goes, you will try to “put on your best face.” Complimenting a friend's new clothes, on being accepted to graduate school, or for landing a new job are examples of other-directed facework.

Ting-Toomey and her colleagues have conducted extensive research into the role of face and facework in intercultural communication, especially in conflict situations. Her work assumes that people from all cultures strive to “maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations” [110].

Face and facework, however, are influenced by cultural values and vary across cultures [111]. In individualistic cultures, for example, a person's face is usually derived from his or her own self-effort and is normally independent of others. Accordingly, people from individualistic groups are more concerned with maintaining their own face. Because U.S. Americans do not normally rely on group affiliation for their identity or social support, they are less concerned with how they influence someone else's face. This results in a direct, forthright communication style. Common expressions in the United States such as “tell me what you really think,” and “don't hold anything back” demonstrate the value placed on open, candid communication. In some instances, harmonious interpersonal relations may become secondary to frankness.

In collectivistic cultures, group membership is normally the primary source of identity and status. Considerable value is placed on establishing and sustaining stable, harmonious relationships with in-group members. This is evident in what constitutes face in collectivistic societies. Among the Japanese, face involves “honor, appearance of propriety, presence, and the impact on others” [112]. Among the Chinese, according to Gao and Ting-Toomey, “gaining and losing face is connected closely with issues of social pride, honor, dignity, insult, shame, disgrace, humility, trust, mistrust, respect, and prestige” [113]. As you might expect, extreme politeness and positive interpersonal relations is an important part of face-saving in collective social groups. “The preference for harmony in collectivistic groups is focused around anticipating and forestalling any loss of face within one's dyad or group. The focus upon context and upon indirect styles of communication can therefore be seen as forms of preventive facework” [114].

Varying attitudes as to what represents face and how facework is conducted have a very noticeable impact on how a culture views and approaches conflict. Kim tells us that in collective cultures, in-group conflict “is viewed as damaging to social face and relational harmony, so it should be avoided as much as possible” [115]. As a result, in collectivistic cultures maintenance of mutual and other-face receives greater emphasis than self-face.

The different values placed on face, what constitutes face, and how it is managed have a very noticeable influence on facework. Drawing on the individualism/collectivism cultural pattern, Ting-Toomey posits that when confronted with the potential for conflict, collectivists will be more inclined toward avoidance and obligating measures [116]. This is a result of concern for both mutual face and others' face, and how one's actions may affect others. Individualists, however, are concerned primarily with self-face and tend to favor confrontational and solution-oriented approaches to resolve conflicts [117]. This attitude toward problem solving by individualistic cultures is evident in the number of U.S. lawyers, frequency of law suits, and the requirement to sign a lengthy contract for such basic services as cable TV or a mobile phone account. Collectivistic nations, such as Japan, have far less lawyers and prefer to resolve disputes through intermediaries.

These contrasting attitudes toward conflict give rise to quite different culturally based communication styles. During intercultural communication events, these divergent styles can result in confusion, misinterpretation, or even animosity among the participants. Adherence to an indirect communication style to sustain amicable relations, as used in high-context cultures, can actually produce the opposite effect among individualistic participants. Conversely, the use of open, direct, forthright communication, common in low-context cultures, can be perceived as rude and inconsiderate by collectivistic participants, who will likely consider the interaction as face threatening.

The differences between face and facework across cultures are a function of different cultural values.