Face (sociological concept)

Last updated

Face is a class of behaviors and customs, associated with the morality, honor, and authority of an individual (or group of individuals), and its image in social groups.

Contents

Face refers to a sociological concept in general linked to the dignity and prestige that a person has in terms of their social relationships. This idea with different nuances is observed in many societies and cultures such as Chinese, Arabic, Indonesian, Korean, Malaysian, Laotian, Indian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Thai, Russian and other Slavic cultures.

Face has particularly complex dynamics and meanings within the context of Chinese culture, and its usage in the English language is borrowed from Chinese. [1]

Definitions

Although Chinese writer Lin Yutang claimed "face cannot be translated or defined", [2] these definitions have been created:

By culture

Chinese

In China, in particular, the concepts of mianzi, lian and yan play an extremely important role in the fabric of society.

In Chinese culture, "face" refers to two distinct concepts, although linked in Chinese social relations. One is mianzi (面子), and the other is lian (臉), which are used regularly in everyday language although not so much in formal writing.

Two influential Chinese authors explained face. The Chinese writer Lu Xun [4] referred to the American missionary Arthur Henderson Smith's interpretation. [5]

The term "face" keeps cropping up in our conversation, and it seems such a simple expression that I doubt whether many people give it much thought. Recently, however, we have heard this word on the lips of foreigners too, who seem to be studying it. They find it extremely hard to understand, but believe that "face" is the key to the Chinese spirit and that grasping it will be like grabbing a queue twenty-four years ago [when wearing a queue was compulsory] – everything else will follow. [6] [7]

Lin Yutang considered the psychology of "face":

Interesting as the Chinese physiological face is, the psychological face makes a still more fascinating study. It is not a face that can be washed or shaved, but a face that can be "granted" and "lost" and "fought for" and "presented as a gift". Here we arrive at the most curious point of Chinese social psychology. Abstract and intangible, it is yet the most delicate standard by which Chinese social intercourse is regulated. [2]

The concept of face has a significant role in Chinese diplomacy. [8] : 123 

Miàn (面) "face; personal esteem; countenance; surface; side" occurs in words like:

Hsien-chin Hu says “face”

can be borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded, — all terms indicating a gradual increase in volume. It is built up through initial high position, wealth, power, ability, through cleverly establishing social ties to a number of prominent people, as well as through avoidance of acts that would cause unfavorable comment. [10] : 61 

Liǎn (臉) "face; countenance; respect; reputation; prestige" is seen in several face words:

Hu contrasts méiyǒu liǎn (沒有臉; 'without face') "audacious; wanton; shameless" as "the most severe condemnation that can be made of a person" and bùyào liǎn (不要臉; 'don't want face') "shameless; selfishly inconsiderate" as "a serious accusation meaning that ego does not care what society thinks of his character, that he is ready to obtain benefits for himself in defiance of moral standards". [10] : 51–52 

Yán (顏) "face; prestige; reputation; honor" occurs in the common expression diū yán丟顏 and the words:

English

The English semantic field for "face" words meaning "prestige; honor" is smaller than the corresponding Chinese field. English face meaning "prestige; honor, respect, dignity, status, reputation, social acceptance, or good name. The lose verb in lose face means "fail to maintain", while the save in save face means "avoid loss/damage". The country begins to feel that Government consented to arrangements by which China has lost face; the officials have long been conscious that they are becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the people, seeing that where a foreigner is concerned they can neither enforce a Chinese right, nor redress a Chinese grievance, even on Chinese soil. [11]

Several American newspapers from 1874 listed the concept in a column of "Chinese Proverbs" or "Facts & Fancies" stating "The Chinese, be it observed, are great sticklers for propriety and respectability, and are very much afraid of what they term "losing face"." [12] [13] Loss of face occurs in The Times (August 3, 1929): "Each wishes to concede only what can be conceded without loss of 'face'". [14]

Save face was coined from lose face applying the semantic opposition between lose and save (Chinese :保面子; pinyin :bǎo miànzi; lit.'guard/save face'; when successful, it's called 保住面子; bǎozhu miànzi; 'saved/guarded face').

Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines Save 8 as: "To keep, protect or guard (a thing) from damage, loss, or destruction", and elaborates,

8f. to save one's face: to avoid being disgraced or humiliated. Similarly, to save (another's) face. Hence save-face adj. = face-saving ... Originally used by the English community in China, with reference to the continual devices among the Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace. The exact phrase appears not to occur in Chinese, but ‘to lose face’ (diu lien), and ‘for the sake of his face’, are common. [15]

Among the English words of Chinese origin, lose face is an uncommon verb phrase and a unique semantic loan translation. Most Anglo-Chinese borrowings are nouns, [16] : 250  with a few exceptions such as to kowtow , to Shanghai , to brainwash , and lose face. English face, meaning "prestige" or "honor", is the only case of a Chinese semantic loan. Semantic loans extend an indigenous word's meaning in conformity with a foreign model (e.g., the French realiser, lit. 'achieve' or 'create' or 'construct', used in the sense of English realize). The vast majority of English words from Chinese are ordinary loanwords with regular phonemic adaptation (e.g., chop suey < Cantonese tsap-sui 雜碎 lit. 'miscellaneous pieces'). A few are calques where a borrowing is blended with native elements (e.g., chopsticks < Pidgin chop "quick, fast" < Cantonese kap 急 lit. 'quick' + stick). Face meaning "prestige" is technically a loan synonym, owing to semantic overlap between the native English meaning "outward semblance; effrontery" and the borrowed Chinese meaning "prestige; dignity".

When face acquired its Chinese sense of "prestige; honor", it filled a lexical gap in the English lexicon. Chan and Kwok write,

The Chinese has supplied a specific "name" for a "thing" embodying qualities not expressed or possibly not fully expressed, by a number of terms in English. The aptness of the figurative extension has probably also played a part [17]

Carr concludes,

The nearest English synonyms of the apt figurative face are prestige, honor, respect, dignity, status, reputation, social acceptance, or good name. [18] [19] : 847–880  [20] explains how "face" is a more basic meaning than "status", "dignity", or "honor". "Prestige" appears to be semantically closest to "face", however a person can be said to have face but not prestige, or vice versa. Prestige is not necessary; one can easily live without it, but hardly without "face". [18]

Russian

Russian Orthodox concept of face (лик, лицо, личина) is different from the Chinese concept of face in regards to different emphasis on sacricety and individualism, and in regards to different understanding of the opposites.[ citation needed ] However, both Russian and Chinese concepts of "face" are close to each other in their focus on person being, first and foremost, part of larger community. In contrast to co-existence of personal individualism with their simultaneous participation in community affairs within Western culture, individuality is much more toned-down in both Russian and Chinese cultures in favour of communality; both Russian and Chinese cultures are lacking in stark Western dichotomy of "internal" vs. "external", and also lacking in Western focus on legal frameworks being foundation for individualism; and instead of it, in both Russian and Chinese cultures ritualism in public relations is much more highly regarded than in Western culture, where in the West ritualism is thought of to be mostly dull and empty of content. [21]

The importance of the concept of face in Russia may be seen imprinted into amassment of proverbs and sayings, where the word лицо is used as a reference to one's character or reputation, for instance упасть в грязь лицом (lit. 'to fall face down into mud') meaning "to lose reputation", двуличие (lit. 'two-facedness' or 'the absence of a well-defined face') denoting a negative trait, потерять лицо, similarly to упасть в грязь лицом, but stronger, meaning to "lose reputation or social standing", and личина meaning both "face" and at the same time "the essence", when being used to describe a person, showing that there is high expectation of "inner self" and "outer self" of a person being in high accord with each other, looking from the framework of Russian culture.[ citation needed ]

South Slavic

Among South Slavs, especially in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, the word obraz (образ) is used as a traditional expression for honor and the sociological concept of face. Medieval Slavic documents have shown that the word has been used with various meanings, such as form, image, character, person, symbol, face, figure, statue, idol, guise and mask. The languages also have a derived adjective bezobrazan (безобразанlit. 'without face'), used to associate shame to a person. [22]

Arabic

In Arabic, the expression hafiẓa māʼ al-wajh ( حفظ ماء الوجه , lit. 'save the face's water', is used to mean save face. The entire Arab culture of social and family behavior is based around Islamic concepts of dignity, or "face". For Shia Islam, face is based on the social and family ranking system found in the Treatise of Rights, Al-Risalah al-Huquq, Shia Islam's primary source for social behaviors. [23]

Persian

In Persian, expressions like "Aab ro rizi" (آبروريزی, lit. 'losing the face's water'), is used to mean save face and "Dou roi" (دورويی, lit. 'two-facedness'), "Ro seyahi" (nq, lit. 'Black-facedness') meaning "ashamed and embarrassed" and "Ro sepidi" (روسپيدی, lit. 'white-facedness') meaning "proud" (opposite of Ro seyahi) are used. In Iranian culture the meaning of linguistic face is much closer to the meaning of character. So Persian speakers use some strategies in saving the face or character of each other while they communicate.

Thai

The Thai word for face is naa (หน้า, lit. 'face'). There are basically two main ways of expressing loss of face: One, sia naa (เสียหน้า), translates literally as 'lose face.' Another term, khai naa (ขายหน้า) means 'sale of face'. The actual connotation of khai naa is that the person who lost face did so through fault of self or through the thoughtless action of another. As in China and other regions where loss of face is important, the Thai version involves sociodynamic status.

Khmer (Cambodia)

The Khmer word for face is muk (មុខ, lit. 'face'). Bat muk (បាត់មុខ) translates literally as 'lose face'. Tuk muk (ទុកមុខ) translates literally as 'save face' or 'preserve face'. This concept is understood and treated much the same in Cambodia as elsewhere in Asia.

Korean

The concept of "face" or chemyeon (Korean : 체면 Hanja : 體面 , Korean: [/t͡ɕʰe̞mjʌ̹n/] ) is extremely important in Korean culture.[ citation needed ]

Academic interpretations

Sociology

"Face" is central to sociology and sociolinguistics. Martin C. Yang [24] analyzed eight sociological factors in losing or gaining face: the kinds of equality between the people involved, their ages, personal sensibilities, inequality in social status, social relationship, consciousness of personal prestige, presence of a witness, and the particular social value/sanction involved. [25]

The sociologist Erving Goffman introduced the concept of "face" into social theory with his 1955 article "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction" and 1967 book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. [26] [27] According to Goffman's dramaturgical perspective, face is a mask that changes depending on the audience and the variety of social interaction. People strive to maintain the face they have created in social situations. They are emotionally attached to their faces, so they feel good when their faces are maintained; loss of face results in emotional pain, so in social interactions people cooperate by using politeness strategies to maintain each other's faces.[ citation needed ]

Face is sociologically universal. People "are human", Joseph Agassi and I. C. Jarvie believe, "because they have face to care for – without it they lose human dignity." [28] : 140  Hu elaborates:

The point is that face is distinctively human. Anyone who does not wish to declare his social bankruptcy must show a regard for face: he must claim for himself, and must extend to others, some degree of compliance, respect, and deference in order to maintain a minimum level of effective social functioning. While it is true that the conceptualization of what constitutes face and the rules governing face behavior vary considerably across cultures, the concern for face is invariant. Defined at a high level of generality, the concept of face is a universal. [19] : 881–882 

The sociological concept of face has recently been reanalyzed through consideration of the Chinese concepts of face (mianzi and lian) which permits deeper understanding of the various dimensions of experience of face, including moral and social evaluation, and its emotional mechanisms. [29]

Face saving in collective action

The value of "saving face" has been seen in application of a Confucian form of protest and collective action. [30] Evidence of face saving has been seen in a labor strike by Chinese railroad worker in 1867 in the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, where Chinese workers protested peacefully and negotiated for an outcome in a way that demonstrated face-saving behavior. [30]

Marketing

According to Hu, mianzi stands for "the kind of prestige that is emphasized...a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation", while face is "the respect of a group for a man with a good moral reputation: the man who will fulfill his obligations regardless of the hardships involved, who under all circumstances shows himself a decent human being". [10] The concept seems to relate to two different meanings, from one side Chinese consumers try to increase or maintain their reputation (mianzi) in front of socially and culturally significant others (e.g. friends); on the other hand, they try to defend or save face.[ citation needed ]

Mianzi is not only important to improve the consumer's reputation in front of significant others, but rather it is also associated with feelings of dignity, honor, and pride. [31] In consumer behaviour literature, mianzi has been used to explain Chinese consumer purchasing behaviour and brand choice [32] and considered it as a quality owned by some brands. Some consumers tend to favour some brands (and their products and services) because of their capacity to enable them to gain mianzi, which does not mean simply increase their reputation but also to show achievements and communicate these achievements to others in order to be more accepted in social circles, especially upper class circles. [33] Chinese consumers tend to believe that if they buy some brands it is easier to be accepted in the social circles of powerful and wealthy people. Connections are particularly important in Chinese culture as people use social connections to achieve their goals.[ citation needed ]

However, mianzi has also an emotional facet. [33] Consumers feel proud, special, honoured, even more valuable as individuals if they can afford to buy brands that can enhance their mianzi. Therefore, some branded products and services, especially those that require conspicuous consumption (e.g. smartphones, bags, shoes), are chosen because they foster feelings of pride and vanity in the owner. [32] [33]

A brand that enables an individual to achieve such goals in life, in branding literature, it is labelled as 'brand mianzi', which is the capacity of a brand to provide emotions and self-enhancement to its owner. [32] [33]

Scholars have proved that brand mianzi affects consumer purchase intentions [32] [33] and brand equity. [31]

In summary, mianzi is a cultural concept that relates to the social, emotional and psychological dimension of consumption and has an impact on consumers’ perception of their self and purchase decisions. Purchase and consumption of brands (but also other activities, like choosing a specific university), in Chinese culture, are profoundly affected by mianzi and different brands can be more or less apt to enhance or maintain mianzi, while others can cause a loss of face.[ citation needed ]

Politeness theory

Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson (1987) expanded Goffman's theory of face in their politeness theory, which differentiated between positive and negative face (p. 61). [34] [35] [36] [37]

In human interactions, people are often forced to threaten either an addressee's positive and/or negative face, and so there are various politeness strategies to mitigate those face-threatening acts.[ citation needed ]

Communication theory

Tae-Seop Lim and John Waite Bowers (1991) claim that face is the public image that a person claims for himself. Within this claim there are three dimensions. "Autonomy face" describes a desire to appear independent, in control, and responsible. "Fellowship face" describes a desire to seem cooperative, accepted, and loved. "Competence face" describes a desire to appear intelligent, accomplished, and capable. [38] [35] [ page needed ] Oetzel et al. (2000) defined "facework" as "the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or challenge another person's face". In terms of interpersonal communication, Facework refers to an individual's identity in a social world and how that identity is created, reinforced, diminished, and maintained in communicative interactions. [39]

Facework

Facework [40] represents the transition from the real self of the individual to the image he or she represents to society for communicative or leadership purposes. This concept is all about presentation of the dignified image which soon will become as an authority for other individuals. Facework is a skill of constantly maintaining the face in order to deserve the respect and honor from it. For instance, Individualistic cultures like United States, Canada, and Germany are standing for the position of protecting the self-face of the individual while collectivist cultures such as China, South Korea, and Japan support the idea of maintaining the other-face for self-dignity and self-respect

There are also exist other facework strategies not always basing on the culture strategies like face-negotiating, [41] face-constituting, face-compensating, face-honoring, face-saving, face-threatening, face-building, face-protecting, face-depreciating, face-giving, face-restoring, and face-neutral. [40]

Intercultural communication

Face is central to intercultural communication or cross-cultural communication. Bert Brown explains the importance of both personal and national face in international negotiations:

Among the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in negotiation are the intangible issues related to loss of face. In some instances, protecting against loss of face becomes so central an issue that it swamps the importance of the tangible issues at stake and generates intense conflicts that can impede progress toward agreement and increase substantially the costs of conflict resolution. [42]

In terms of Edward T. Hall's dichotomy between high context cultures focused upon in-groups and low context cultures focused upon individuals, face-saving is generally viewed as more important in high context cultures such as China or Japan than in low-context ones such as the United States or Germany. [43]

Face-negotiation theory

Stella Ting-Toomey developed Face Negotiation Theory to explain cultural differences in communication and conflict resolution. Ting-Toomey defines face as:

[...] the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation. [44]

Psychology

The psychology of "face" is another field of research. Wolfram Eberhard, who analyzed Chinese "guilt" and "sin" in terms of literary psychology, debunked the persistent myth that "face" is peculiar to the Chinese rather than a force in every human society. Eberhard noted

It is mainly in the writings of foreigners that we find the stress upon shame in Chinese society; it is they who stated that the Chinese were typically afraid of "losing their face". It is they who reported many cases of suicide because of loss of face, or of suicide in order to punish another person after one's death as a ghost, or to cause through suicide endless difficulties or even punishment to the other person. But in the Chinese literature used here, including also the short stories, I did not once find the phrase "losing face"; and there was no clear case of suicide because of shame alone. [45]

The Chinese University of Hong Kong social psychologist Michael Harris Bond observed that in Hong Kong,

Given the importance of having face and of being related to those who do, there is a plethora of relationship politics in Chinese culture. Name dropping, eagerness to associate with the rich and famous, the use of external status symbols, sensitivity to insult, lavish gift-giving, the use of titles, the sedulous avoidance of criticism, all abound, and require considerable readjustment for someone used to organizing social life by impersonal rules, frankness, and greater equality. [46]

Political science

"Face" has further applications in political science. For instance, Susan Pharr stressed the importance of "losing face" in Japanese comparative politics. [47]

Semantics

Linguists have analyzed the semantics of "face". Huang used prototype semantics to differentiate lian and mianzi. [48] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphors We Live By emphasizes "the face for the person" metonymy. [49] : 37  Keith Allan (1986) extended "face" into theoretical semantics. He postulated it to be an essential element of all language interchanges, and claimed: "A satisfactory theory of linguistic meaning cannot ignore questions of face presentation, nor other politeness phenomena that maintain the co-operative nature of language interchange." [50]

See also

Related Research Articles

Guanxi is a term used in Chinese culture to describe an individual's social network of mutually beneficial personal and business relationships. The character guan, 关, means “closed” and "caring" while the character xi 系 means “system” and together the term refers to a closed caring system of relationships that is somewhat analogous to the term old boy's network in the West. In Western media, the pinyin romanization guanxi is more widely used than common translations such as "connections" or "relationships" because those terms do not capture the significance of a person's guanxi to most personal and business dealings in China. Unlike in the West, guanxi relationships are almost never established purely through formal meetings but must also include spending time to get to know each other during tea sessions, dinner banquets, or other personal meetings. Essentially, guanxi requires a personal bond before any business relationship can develop. As a result, guanxi relationships are often more tightly bound than relationships in Western personal social networks. Guanxi has a major influence on the management of businesses based in mainland China, Hong Kong, and those owned by Overseas Chinese people in Southeast Asia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mores</span> Customary behaviour

Mores are social norms that are widely observed within a particular society or culture. Mores determine what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable within any given culture. A folkway is what is created through interaction and that process is what organizes interactions through routine, repetition, habit and consistency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politeness</span> Practical application of good manners or etiquette so as not to offend others

Politeness is the practical application of good manners or etiquette so as not to offend others and to put them at ease. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honour</span> Abstract concept entailing a human quality of worthiness and respectability

Honour or honor is a quality of a person that is of both social teaching and personal ethos, that manifests itself as a code of conduct, and has various elements such as valour, chivalry, honesty, and compassion. It is an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or of institutions such as a family, school, regiment, or nation. Accordingly, individuals are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions with a specific code of honour, and with the moral code of the society at large.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Erving Goffman</span> Sociologist, writer, and academic (1922–1982)

Erving Goffman was a Canadian-born American sociologist, social psychologist, and writer, considered by some "the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social status</span> Position within social structure

Social status is the relative level of social value a person is considered to possess. Such social value includes respect, honor, assumed competence, and deference. On one hand, social scientists view status as a "reward" for group members who treat others well and take initiative. This is one explanation for its apparent cross-cultural universality. On the other hand, while people with higher status experience a litany of benefits--such as greater health, admiration, resources, influence, and freedom--those with lower status experience poorer outcomes across all of those metrics.

Dignity in some of its modern usages has come to mean the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically. In this context, it is of significance in morality, ethics, law and politics as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. The term may also be used to describe personal conduct, as in "behaving with dignity".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Respect</span> Feeling of regard for someone or something

Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or deferential action shown towards someone or something considered important or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. It is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Status symbol</span> Object that denotes ones social position

A status symbol is a visible, external symbol of one's social position, an indicator of economic or social status. Many luxury goods are often considered status symbols. Status symbol is also a sociological term – as part of social and sociological symbolic interactionism – relating to how individuals and groups interact and interpret various cultural symbols.

Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. It was first conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1959 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and then was expanded upon in 1967.

An honorific is a title that conveys esteem, courtesy, or respect for position or rank when used in addressing or referring to a person. Sometimes, the term "honorific" is used in a more specific sense to refer to an honorary academic title. It is also often conflated with systems of honorific speech in linguistics, which are grammatical or morphological ways of encoding the relative social status of speakers. Honorifics can be used as prefixes or suffixes depending on the appropriate occasion and presentation in accordance with style and customs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Labeling theory</span> Labeling people changes their behavior

Labeling theory posits that self-identity and the behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. Labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent in an act, but instead focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms. The theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and some modified versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular. Stigma is defined as a powerfully negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dramaturgy (sociology)</span> Sociological perspective

Dramaturgy is a sociological perspective that analyzes micro-sociological accounts of everyday social interactions through the analogy of performativity and theatrical dramaturgy, dividing such interactions between "actors", "audience" members, and various "front" and "back" stages.

<i>The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life</i> Book by Erving Goffman

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a 1956 sociological book by Erving Goffman, in which the author uses the imagery of theatre to portray the importance of human social interaction. This approach became known as Goffman's dramaturgical analysis.

Dignitas is a Latin word referring to a unique, intangible, and culturally subjective social concept in the ancient Roman mindset. The word does not have a direct translation in English. Some interpretations include "dignity", which is a derivation from "dignitas", and "prestige", "charisma" and "power from personal respect".

Personal branding is the conscious and intentional effort to create and influence public perception of an individual by positioning them as an authority in their industry, elevating their credibility, and differentiating themselves from the competition, to ultimately advance their career, widen their circle of influence, and have a larger impact.

Politeness theory, proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, centers on the notion of politeness, construed as efforts on redressing the affronts to a person's self-esteems or effectively claiming positive social values in social interactions. Such self-esteem is referred as the sociological concept of face to discuss politeness as a response to mitigate or avoid face-threatening acts such as requests or insults. Notable components in the framework of the theory include positive and negative faces, face threatening act (FTA), strategies for doing FTAs and factors influencing the choices of strategies; each described below.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bian lian</span> Ancient Chinese dramatic art

Bian Lian is an ancient Chinese dramatic art that is part of the more general Sichuan opera. Performers wear brightly colored costumes and move to quick, dramatic music. They also wear vividly colored masks, typically depicting well known characters from the opera, which they change from one face to another almost instantaneously with the swipe of a fan, a movement of the head, or wave of the hand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Face negotiation theory</span> Theory in social science

Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the next, the theory poses a cross-cultural framework to examine facework negotiation. It is important to note that the definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework. According to Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Eastern and Western cultures, and her theory accounts for these differences.

Political linguistics is the study of the relations between language and politics. It argues that language gives origin to the state. The reason is that when humans perform linguistic communication, they use media. Media extend the distance of linguistic communication. Humans interact with one another on a large scale. They form a large community. This leads to the dissolution of the tribes and the formation of the state. Language plays a role in the growth of the state in every aspect. Language plays a role in the formation of the state, in the governance of the state and in the building of the spirit of the state. That is, language is used as a means to form a state and is enacted in various ways that help achieve political objectives. Language allows for people in a very large number to communicate with each other on a large scale to the effect that a state is formed. As language forms the basis of communication, politics is thus affected by language.

References

  1. ↑ Qi, Xiaoying (2017-12-20). "Reconstructing the concept of face in cultural sociology: in Goffman's footsteps, following the Chinese case". The Journal of Chinese Sociology. 4 (1): 19. doi: 10.1186/s40711-017-0069-y . ISSN   2198-2635.
  2. 1 2 Yutang, Lin (1935). My Country and My People. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. pp. 199–200.
  3. ↑ Grimm, Joe (May 16, 2019). "Saving face: What does it mean? | Bias Busters: Cultural competence guides". Michigan State University . Retrieved October 17, 2022.
  4. ↑ "Lu Xun: China's Greatest Modern Writer". afe.easia.columbia.edu. Columbia University. Retrieved 2018-12-12.
  5. ↑ Smith, Arthur Henderson (1894). Chinese Characteristics. Fleming H. Revell. pp. 16–18.
  6. ↑ Lu Xun (1933). Zai tan baoliu[More mental reservations]. p. 129.
  7. ↑ Lu Xun (1959). "On 'Face'". Selected Works of Lu Hsun. Translated by Yang Xianyi; Gladys Yang. Foreign Language Press. pp. 129–132.
  8. ↑ Brown, Kerry (2023). China Incorporated: The Politics of a World Where China is Number One. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN   978-1-350-26724-4.
  9. ↑ "These Taiwanese Pineapple Cakes Are the Only Pineapple Cake Worth Eating". www.vice.com. 10 October 2018. Retrieved 2023-05-08.
  10. 1 2 3 Hu, Hsien Chin (1944). "The Chinese Concepts of 'Face'". American Anthropologist. 46: 45–64. doi: 10.1525/aa.1944.46.1.02a00040 .
  11. ↑ Hart, Robert (1901). "Appendix II". "These from the land of Sinim." Essays on the Chinese question. Chapman & Hall. p. 225.
  12. ↑ "Chinese Proverbs". Iowa County Democrat. 1874-11-05. p. 4. Retrieved 2022-08-26– via Newspapers.com.
  13. ↑ "Facts and Fancies". Public Ledger. 1874-12-22. p. 4. Retrieved 2022-08-26– via Newspapers.com.
  14. ↑ Benson, Phil (2002-01-08). Ethnocentrism and the English Dictionary. Routledge. ISBN   9781134599585.
  15. ↑ "Save face" . Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press.(Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  16. ↑ Yuan Jia Hua. (1981). "English Words of Chinese Origin," Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9:244–286.
  17. ↑ Chan, Mimi; Kwok, Helen (1985). A Study of Lexical Borrowing from Chinese into English with Special Reference to Hong Kong. University of Hong Kong Press. pp. 61–62.
  18. 1 2 Carr, Michael (1993). "Chinese 'Face' in Japanese and English (Part 2)". The Review of Liberal Arts. 85: 87–88. hdl:10252/1585.
  19. 1 2 Ho, D.Y.F. (1976). "On the concept of face". American Journal of Sociology. 81 (4): 867–884. doi:10.1086/226145. S2CID   145513767.
  20. ↑ Ho, David Yao-fai (1974). "Face, Social Expectations, and Conflict Avoidance". In Dawson, John; Lonner, Walter (eds.). Readings in Cross-cultural Psychology; Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Hong Kong, August 1972. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 240–251.
  21. ↑ Prosekov, Sergey (2020). ""ЛИЦО" КИТАЙЦА: СОДЕРЖАНИЕ ПОНЯТИЯ". ЗНАНИЕ. ПОНИМАНИЕ. УМЕНИЕ (in Russian) (3): 191–201. doi:10.17805/zpu.2020.3.15 (inactive 31 January 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link)
  22. ↑ Stoianovich, Traian (1994). Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe. USA: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 48–49. ISBN   978-1-56324-032-4.
  23. ↑ Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin. Risalat al-Huquq (in Arabic).
  24. ↑ Redfield, Margaret Park (1946). "A Chinese Village: Taitou, Shantung Province. Martin C. Yang". American Journal of Sociology. 51 (5): 502. doi:10.1086/219875.
  25. ↑ Yang, Martin C. (1945). A Chinese Village; Taitou, Shantung Province (1967 ed.). Kegan Paul Reprint. pp. 167–179.
  26. ↑ Strodtbeck, Fred L. (1970). "Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Erving Goffman". American Journal of Sociology. 76: 177–179. doi:10.1086/224921.
  27. ↑ Goffman, Erving (1955). "On Face-Work". Psychiatry. 18 (3): 213–231. doi:10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008. PMID   13254953.
  28. ↑ Agassi, Joseph; Jarvie, I.C. (1969). "A Study in Westernization". In Jarvie, I.C. (ed.). Hong Kong: A Society in Transition. Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 129–163.
  29. ↑ Xiaoying Qi (2011). "Face". Journal of Sociology. 47 (3): 279–295. doi:10.1177/1440783311407692. S2CID   220270450.
  30. 1 2 Ryan, Patrick Spaulding. "Saving Face Without Words: A Confucian Perspective on The Strike of 1867". International Journal of Humanities, Art and Social Studies. 2 (10). doi:10.2139/ssrn.4067005. S2CID   248036295.
  31. 1 2 Filieri, Raffaele; Lin, Zhibin; d'Antone, Simona; Chatzopoulou, Elena (2018). "A cultural approach to brand equity: The role of brand mianzi and brand popularity in China" (PDF). Journal of Brand Management. 26 (4): 376–394. doi:10.1057/s41262-018-0137-x. S2CID   169153592.
  32. 1 2 3 4 Filieri, Raffaele; Lin, Zhibin (2017). "The role of aesthetic, cultural, utilitarian and branding factors in young Chinese consumers' repurchase intention of smartphone brands". Computers in Human Behavior. 67: 139–150. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.057.
  33. 1 2 3 4 5 Filieri, Raffaele; Chen, Wenshin; Lal Dey, Bidit (2017). "The importance of enhancing, maintaining and saving face in smartphone repurchase intentions of Chinese early adopters". Information Technology & People. 30 (3): 629–652. doi:10.1108/ITP-09-2015-0230.
  34. ↑ Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-31355-1.
  35. 1 2 Miller, Katherine (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.[ page needed ]
  36. ↑ Longcope, Peter (1995). "The Universality of Face in Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory: A Japanese Perspective". Working Papers in Educational Linguistics. 11 (1): 69–79.
  37. ↑ Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday. ISBN   978-0-8446-7017-1.
  38. ↑ Lim, T.S.; Bowers, J.W. (1991). "Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact". Human Communication Research. 17 (3): 415–450. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00239.x.
  39. ↑ Oetzel, John G.; Ting-Toomey, Stella; Yokochi, Yumiko; Masumoto, Tomoko; Takai, Jiro (2000). "A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers". Communication Quarterly. 48 (4): 397–419. doi:10.1080/01463370009385606. S2CID   144835800.
  40. 1 2 Fletcher, Vail (2016-04-05). "Facework and Culture". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.165. ISBN   9780190228613.
  41. ↑ Rofiq, Hasniar. "an Overview of Face Negotiation Theory".
  42. ↑ Brown, Bert (1977). "Face Saving and Face Restoration in Negotiation". In Druckman, D. (ed.). Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Sage. p. 275.
  43. ↑ Cohen, Raymond (1977). Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy. United States Inst of Peace Pr (September 1, 1991). ISBN   978-1878379085.
  44. ↑ Ting-Toomey, Stella (1990). A Face Negotiation Perspective Communicating for Peace. Sage.
  45. ↑ Eberhard, Wolfram (1967). Guilt and Sin in Traditional China. University of California Press. pp. 119–120.
  46. ↑ Bond, Michael Harris (1991). Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Oxford University Press. p. 59. ISBN   978-0-19-585116-8.
  47. ↑ Pharr, Susan J. (1989). Losing Face, Status Politics in Japan. University of California Press.
  48. ↑ Shuanfan Huang (1987). 基型意义之研究："孝"与"面子"[Two studies on prototype semantics: xiao 'filial piety' and mei mianzi 'loss of face']. Journal of Chinese Linguistics (in Chinese). 15 (1): 55–89.
  49. ↑ Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
  50. ↑ Allan, Keith (2014). Linguistic Meaning (RLE Linguistics A: General Linguistics). Routledge. p. 10. ISBN   9781134742448.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.