Face-Work
The concept of "Face" is generally associated to Eastern cultures. In Japanese society, maintaining face is of the utmost importance. The notion of face is not unknown in Western cultures, but it is not known or understood to the same degree. Westerners recognize when people are acting in a manner that is inappropriate, give their role and situation - but lack the vocabulary to describe it correctly. We may speak of dignity, honor, manners, and the like, which are all concepts on the periphery of face.
"Face" is defined as the positive social value a person believes they derive from the line he is taking during a given contact. It is not his self-image, but the image that he assumes others have of him based on his role and behavior.
A "line" is a pattern of communication, verbal and nonverbal, that represents a person's evaluation of the participants and their relationship to himself. We generally take a line in a conversation that reflects our face in relation to other participants.
The feelings a person have about a social contact derive from the image it has had upon his face. If the contact merely sustains the image he assumes others have of him, he remains emotionally neutral. If he is treated with more esteem than he assumed that he would receive, he has positive emotions at having gained face. If he is treated with less, he has negative emotions at having lost face.
(EN: This is so only when the reaction is justified and the other parties to the encounter are regarded as people whose opinions matter. If a person is treated with disrespect that is not deserved, it has no impact on his face. If a person is treated disrespectfully by people whose opinion he does not value - whether they are members of a lower class or are disreputable and ill-mannered individuals - it likewise has no impact on his face or his feelings about the encounter.)
This is independent of the functional outcome of the encounter: a conversation may have accomplished nothing, but he may still feel that he gained face; or the conversation may lead to a successful functional outcome, but he may feel that he lost face.
The individual may also have feelings about the impact that the encounter had on the face of other participants: for an ally to gain face or an opponent to lose face, and whether the gain/loss in face was fair, regardless. And in the same way, a person may suffer a functional loss from an encounter, but feel that it has been successful if he caused an enemy to lose face.
Again, face is subjective - it is the esteem a person feels that he deserves of others. If his estimation agrees with the principles and values of a culture, others of that culture will generally agree with his estimation and act accordingly - they will give him the exact degree of esteem he believes he is owed.
(EN: perhaps this will come later, but there is the concept of "giving face" to another person as a means of gaining their compliance. Typically, one treats others to more esteem than they are believed to deserve in order to get on their good side.)
Upon any initial encounter, the lines that a person may take (and the face derived from those lines) are institutionalized: having no personal history with one another, two people initially interact as society dictates is appropriate for their roles. When the parties have no knowledge of one another, there is no reason to assume they are worthy of more or less esteem than their role implies or infers.
It is only when to parties have information about one another, whether this is from experience in personal interaction or by reference and reputation, that they deviate from societal standards.
A person is "out of face" when there is a misperception of his esteem, whether greater or lesser than he deserves.
In general, a person benefits from having more personal esteem than his role would normally afford and suffers when he has less. This is a reason that people who have very low esteem attempt to cloak themselves in their roles and titles, even though doing so puts them in peril of being humiliated by the revelation of the details that have caused them to lose face.
On the other hand, it is largely harmless and somewhat humorous for a person of great esteem to conceal their credentials - while the other party's treatment of them entails less respect that they deserved, it is because the other party was not aware that they were entitled to more esteem. If they correct their attitude once they become informed, they are customarily forgiven.
But regardless of whether a person is regarded with more or less esteem than they believe they are entitled, any encounter in which a person is out of face is at least a little bit awkward and uncomfortable - the interaction has some quality of artificiality or unreality until people are in their true faces with one another. We are generally most confident and at ease in social situations where the amount of face we are granted matches what we expect.
It is customary, in some instances, to "give face" to others, establishing for them a better line than they might have obtained for themselves - but only if they can live up to it. IT is entirely possible to undermine someone by giving them more face than they can handle, setting expectations that they cannot possibly meet, such that it is inevitable that they will lose face.
It is a societal imperative to respect face and the cultural standards from which it is derived. We are expected to present an accurate face, and to act appropriately to others based on their face. We are expected to maintain our face and help others to do the same. We are expected to personally comply and to show disfavor to others who do not. Failure to do so is considered unsociable - such a person is seen as ill-mannered, deceitful, and untrustworthy.
In most circumstances, maintenance of face is a condition of interaction, but not its objective. A person is expected to maintain their face and help others to do the same during the course of an encounter.
There are instances in which face is the point - a person seeks to gain face for himself or an ally or diminish the esteem of an opponent or enemy regardless of the functional outcome of the encounter.
The skillful handling of face is often considered to be diplomacy, etiquette, or manners. It is expected of any individual within a culture to have some level of expertise in doing so. An individual who shows ignorance or disregard for face may find himself socially cut off.
The author suggests three levels of offense:
- Gaffe - A social blunder that is unintended, the result of clumsiness rather than conscious intent. This reflects poorly on the actor, but has no effect on the esteem of the victim.
- Insult - An intentional and malicious attempt to damage the social esteem of another person. If the insult was unjust in the eyes of others, it damages the actor more than the victim.
- Incidental - An individual did something offensive in the course of accomplishing something else. It was known to be an offense, but could not be avoided without failing at the greater goal. This seldom impacts the esteem of the victim, and whether it reflects poorly on the actor depends on whether others understood its necessity.
As these examples suggest, any action undertaken in a social context has the potential to impact both one's own face and that of others.
The Basic Kinds of Face-Work
Avoidance is the most basic defense against losing face - whether an individual seeks to avoid any situation in which face may be lost, or uses intermediaries to interact with others. It is quite common for those of high social status to have a hierarchy of minions to avoid contact with those of lower social status.
Avoidance can occur within an encounter, most often by the avoidance of topics that are not germane to the encounter itself - even if he has multiple relationships with others in the group, an individual must take a line that is appropriate to the purpose of the encounter. For example, those who separate their "business" selves from their "private" selves to deal with others in the context of their business role.
Particularly when a person in an authority role must deny the request of another person, or make a decision that is not in their favor, there is often the necessity to help the "losing" party maintain face. There is likewise a social obligation on the losing party to be "a good sport" provided that he is allowed to save face.
Overlooking is another common tactic: when someone has done or said something that might be construed as an insult, the other party chooses to ignore it, carrying on as if it had not happened. This is to save their own face as much as it is to help the other party save face where the affront was unjustified or unintentional.
Control of expression is another form of avoidance. In some cultures, maintaining a stony, emotionless expression is a customary way to avoid losing face and showing emotion, even if it is an appropriate emotional response, is a sign of having lost face.
Most cultures also provide for corrective rituals: when there has been an affront to face and it cannot simply be ignored, the party that may take offense gives the offending party a chance to undo their mistake. For example, a person may simply pointedly ask "excuse me?" which prompts the other party to rephrase what they have stated in a more acceptable manner. There's a brief mention of self-castigation in which a person belittles himself in the wake of having given offense to another.
The author speaks of the challenge process as having four steps:
- The offended party calls attention to the offense, challenging whether it is valid
- The other party offers some contrition, indicating the offense was not intended
- The original party accepts their offer
- The offending party expresses gratitude for being forgiven (optional, but common)
The author mentions other ways in which the exchange can be handled, but generally to belabor the process is to cause some degree of damage to the face of one party or another.
It's also noted that face-work is generally scripted: there are templates and patterns defined within a culture that dictate how each party is expected to react, and people generally follow the scripted routines rather than trying to improvise a solution. The emotions expressed during such a sequence (the anger of the offended, the anguish of the one who has wrongly offended) are likewise staged rather than valid.
The Choice of Appropriate Face-Work
There are specific kinds of face-work and employing them successfully is necessary.
If a person reacts with verbal reproach when he was expected to overlook an infraction, he is said to have over-reacted, giving too much status to the offender or too much weight to the offense. Similarly if he merely ignores a remark when expected to confront the offender, he has not sufficiently reacted and gives the impression he does not know that he should, hence losing esteem.
The same is true on the side of the offender - if an apology is insufficient or overdone, the offender loses face and may in fact compound the offense.
This, again, assumes that the interaction is an accidental or clumsy offense and the goals of the parties engaged is to set the matter aside and pursue the functional point of the interaction. Where face is the point, the use of an inappropriate reaction may be to intentional, to draw the other party into following an inappropriate course.
Poise and restraint are almost universally the qualities modeled by the upper classes of any society. There are few instances in which an emotional outburst is considered an appropriate response.
It's further suggested that foreigners very often are mistaken for being higher in class than they are because they exercise poise - when in reality they are not culturally aware. It is not that they have exercised restraint in reaction to an offense, but that they fail to react because they do not realize an offense has occurred.
Cooperation in Face-Work
Social interaction focuses on cooperation. The point of face-work is facilitation, and this facilitation is ultimately more important than correctness.
We can often notice where a gaffe has occurred and the person who should receive an apology makes one instead, a misstep is ignored rather than addressed. People take action in order to help others save face as a method of facilitating the interaction. "A handshake that should not have been extended becomes one that cannot be declined."
We are bound by social customs not only to preserve our own face, but also to avoid giving affront to others and to help them save face. The rules of etiquette, for example, guide us to make it easy for others to react to us, even when the reaction is negative: to make a request in a manner that allows them to refuse gently. The same rules of etiquette may allow, and even require, a brusque refusal to someone who has asked in an inappropriate manner - that is, a manner that does not provide the respondent to refuse politely. In regard to face-work, tact includes not only facilitating one's own next move, but it helping others to make the next move when it can be anticipated.
There's a mention of indirect forms of communication that facilitate cooperation: innuendo, ambiguities, subtle hints, and well-placed pauses. This "hinted communication" functions either as a beckoning or a warning. It is generally considered optional - a person is not required to act as if they understood the hint. Also, hinting is "deniable communication" - because it is indirect, the sender may deny having hinted if the other party (clumsily) makes it overt.
Being accommodating to others also creates a necessity for reciprocation: people will seek to accommodate in return. It is also taken that a person who accommodates is socially adroit enough to understand the "social code."
The Ritual Roles of the Self
In any social interaction, a person's "self" is a construct, a culturally defined role that he is expected to play in the specific context of interacting with others. Where two people who have never met interact, their initial position is defined by these roles - though it may be modified by any reputation they may have that the other party is aware of. Thenceforth, each of them earns their own reputation with the other individual, which sets the tone of future interactions.
It is also true, to some degree, that the manner in which people interact is compartmentalized - that if you interact with the same person in different roles, your interaction is influenced by the role more than that of the individual person. A clergyman who is pulled over by a police officer who happens to be one of his parishioners must interact with him as the former, not the latter.
There is brief mention of the "sacred self," which is the characteristics that a person considers to be his own, independent of role. In certain interactions, a person must set aside the sacred self to properly interact, and to isolate this sacred self from any disparities that arise when the ritual role requires violating the character of the sacred self.
It is also up to others to understand the differences in the roles a person may play - to understand and accept that what might be considered an affront in one interaction is acceptable or even required in a different interaction with the same person acting in a different role.
Spoken Interaction
In every society, there is a plethora of customers and procedures for communicating with others: how a conversation is initiated, who may initiate it, what topics may be discussed, and when and where a conversation may take place are all precedents to the interaction. There are similar protocols that govern the conduct of the conversation once it has begun and how the conversation is concluded. There are separate protocols for joining and leaving a conversation in progress.
The general rules of conversation are applied to the first instance of social interaction among parties. Where there is repeated interaction, the rules of conversation change and adapt as the group forms its own culture, generally adhering to common protocols.
Adherence to protocol is necessary to maintain one's own face and protect the face of others. Where a participant in a conversation wishes to deviate from protocol in order to achieve a functional objective, he would do well to consider what impact it will have to face. This applies to initiating or joining a conversation, leaving it, changing or refocusing the topic, and maintaining the pace of the conversation as well as what is said, when, and to whom.
Inclusion of any conversation is an indication of either intimacy or legitimate purpose - and when there is an opportunity to enter a conversation, an individual must consider whether either condition is met in order to avoid the mistake of entering a conversation in which one is neither needed nor welcomed.
Any conversation can be divided into a number of interchanges in which one person offers a message and the other party reacts - then a transition to the next message-response interchanges. There is a pause between interchanges that is slightly longer than the pause between the message and the response.
The speaker who sends the message commits himself and others to the interchange: they are committed to responding, and he is committed to considering their response.
To fail to respond to a message is a clear indication that some offense has taken place, whether in the context of the message itself or in the presumption of the speaker to consider it appropriate to have stated. In such instances, an unusually long pause between statement and response, if there is a response at all, provides the speaker the opportunity to recognize his error and attempt to save face.
There is also a non-responsive response that can be given, which indicates to the speaker that the message has been heard - and nothing more. A 'message received" response may at times be entirely appropriate, and at other times may be an indication that some protocol violation has been made.
The aspects of conversation that maintain face are often functional, but can at times become dysfunctional. An action or sequence that is necessary to maintain face may prevent the functional goal of the conversation from taking place. Where someone's face has been unjustly assaulted, they may terminate the conversation immediately, foregoing any functional benefit they sought by participating in the conversation. More often, two parties who wish to accommodate one another are more focused on being agreeable to one another than on moving the conversation forward.
Face and Social Relationships
Once two people have had an interaction, there is a kind of social relationship that exists between them that will impact their future encounters. All relationships in a social network begin with an interaction, which sets the tone of the interactions that follow.
(EN: the author does not discuss the persistence of relations, but I expect it varies according to memory: two people who had a superficial and brief interaction may interact as strangers in a second encounter when one or both has forgotten their previous encounter.)
Most initial encounters take place to achieve a specific functional purpose, and that purpose tends to take precedence over any social factors, particularly when one or both parties sense that they will not have future interaction with the other. But even then, there is the sense that people will meet again, and they attempt to conduct the interaction in an inoffensive manner - they do not concern themselves with building a positive relationship, merely avoiding offense that would be recalled in case they meet again.
This perspective accounts for the minor formalities that accompany any social interaction: even something as meaningless and momentary as purchasing a newspaper has a format that both the customer and the clerk are expected to follow - and so long as they play their parts appropriately, the encounter goes smoothly and neither gives offense.
There is a brief mention of greeting and farewell rituals. Greetings often set the tone for an interaction, clarifying each party's line in the encounter, acknowledging any previous interaction, and making clear the relationship between he two parties, whether it be positive or negative. Farewells tend to sum up the effect of the encounter and set the stage for the next encounter, letting each party know what it may expect of the other.
The relationship between individuals depends largely upon the effect that the encounter has had on face. It is entirely possible for one party to have been dissatisfied by the functional outcome - that is, the other party did not help him achieve what he wanted - but if the other party helped him to save face, the relationship may be positive and congenial, and to end on a positive note.
The Nature of the Social Order
In any society, there is a natural hierarchy: people compare themselves to others in terms of their rank, which is dependent on their role. Some roles are expected to accommodate or defer to others.
Where a role is derived from a relationship to a group (an employee of a company, a member of a social club), an individual borrows the social esteem of the group and is expected to preserve it. In one sense, he is expected to maintain the dignity of the group's identity, and in another sense he is expected to remain within the restriction of that identity, regardless of his personal credentials.
In general, one is expected to acknowledge and accept their social position - to adjust to it and convince himself that he is where he belongs and, moreover, that he is content to be there. He is expected to know his station and to voluntarily stay away from the places, topics, and times where he is not wanted - as he will likely be disparaged for going outside the bounds of his place in the social order.
While it is generally desirable to improve one's social standing, no society has tolerance for those who attempt to do so by improper means: the individual who presents false credentials to gain the upper hand in an encounter will never be regarded as respectable once the cheat has been discovered, regardless of what his actual credentials are. He is, in effect, disqualified and disgraced.
In this sense, face-work, used honestly and appropriately, reinforces the social order and affirms one's place in it. The attempt to use face-work dishonestly is in the same way an affront to the social order, and an attempt to redefine one's place in the order will more often lead to excommunication from society than acceptance by it.
The social order is maintained by demanding or giving no more than is justly merited.
Conclusion
The author notes that this material has implied that people everywhere are basically the same, in spite of cultural differences. This may be an oversimplification: the roles and rules of different cultures are highly idiosyncratic, but the mechanism by which roles are defined and rules are enforced are largely the same.
Every society defines a social order, and individuals must situate themselves within that order. In interacting with others within a society, the situations of individuals impacts the manner in which they interact. This is universal.
Every individual is taught to be perceptive, to have feelings about himself and to express those through his behavior when interacting with others, and to maintain a certain level of dignity about himself and show an appreciation of the dignity of others. This, too, is universal.
Every game has an objective and rules by which a player must abide in the course of achieving it - but the precise identity of the objective and nature of the rules are not universal, and the differences among them provide for a wide array of different games.
To understand the nature of rules and objectives is necessary for success in any society, and gives us the ability to move from one society (or group within a society) to another with relative ease: knowing what rules are and how they are communicated enables us to learn the idiosyncratic rules of that group.
We need not do this in a formalized and studious manner - most people have gained an intuitive knowledge of protocol, whether by careful coaching, observational learning, or trial-and-error experimentation. It may be talent or training that enables a person to succeed - but generally, the more explicit the knowledge and the more deliberate approach, the greater the chances of success.