Difference Between Face And Facework Theory

1960 Words4 Pages

Background Face and facework: concepts and theories The concept of face was developed in Asian countries, mostly, in China, where this term involved two different meanings. According to Ho (1976), the first one, lien, stands for positive views of others on the behavior of a person, whose face is under consideration. The second one, mien-tzu, characterizes prestige and reputation valuable in the country and gained by a person during his/her life (Ho, 1976). Face in its meaning is not related to how a person perceives him- or herself, but what he/she thinks others may think of him/her. It implies that face is not a personal trait but a characteristic that goes beyond the person and is meaningful only when others are involved (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, …show more content…

In general, it was stated in the refined face-negotiation theory that people from small power distance cultures would apply verbally direct and aggressive facework strategies (from the part of supervisors) and defensive strategies (from the part of subordinates). On the other hand, those from large power distance cultures would tend to use indirect strategy and third-party (for the boss) and obliging, respectful and apologizing strategies (for subordinates). As to face-concern, the patterns of relationship were the following: in small power distance cultures people were supposed to be self-face concerned, while people in high power distance cultures – other- and mutual-face …show more content…

People with high independent self-construal were claimed to be oriented towards personal achievement and self-direction. Those high on interdependent self-construal, in contrast, were proposed to be oriented toward the group, have a strong sense of relational connectedness and accept restraint of actions that may harm others. In addition to this, the authors of the face-negotiation theory suggested to distinguish two more types of self-construal – biconstrual type (high level of both independent and interdependent self) and ambivalent type (low level of both two “classical” self-construal types) (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi,

Open Document