Content uploaded by Mai Nguyen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mai Nguyen on Jul 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Intercultural Communication, ISSN 1404-1634, issue 36, November 2014.
URL: http://immi.se/intercultural
Revisiting Facework with a new
analysis instrument
Face strategies and face negotiation in
intercultural communication
Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, Cees Terlouw & Albert Pilot
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Saxion University, Utrecht University
Corresponding author
Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
Dr.nguyenphuongmai@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper introduces the Analysis Framework of Face Interaction (AFFI) which is developed
based on a new face dimension termed Face Confirmation − Face Confrontation at two levels:
Individual level within the group and Collective level between groups. This proposed framework
of face analysis reveals a dearth of research on face confrontation as essential communication
strategies. It also points out how the mainstream research on facework has been limited on the
collective level of analysis. The authors argue that using AFFI will help researchers reduce cultural
over-generalisation; enable them to involve more specific cultural, contextual and situational
characteristics of each face case to analyse face negotiation from a more holistic perspective.
Keywords: Face strategy, Face negotiation, Asian culture, Between group, Within group, Face
Confirmation, Face Confrontation
Introduction
The concept of face is Chinese in origin. It was firstly mentioned by Arthur Smith (1894), an
American missionary, who, after 24 years of investigation in China, found that the concept of face
is central to Chinese identity and characteristics. Smith inspired other researchers to reflect on the
thousands-year-old concept. Face was firstly treated as a topic for academic inquiry by Hu (1944),
highlighted by Goffman (1967) and claimed by Brown and Levinson (1978) to be universal. Since
then, these studies have given enormous impetus to three decades of face research. Yet challenges
as well as applications continue to appear, and critique has focused increasingly upon the cultural
perspective of the face construct (Jia, 2001; Mao, 1994; Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
In this paper, we first give an overview of face literature with widely mentioned face characteristics
and face strategies. We then introduce the dimension of Face Confirmation − Face Confrontation
with a spectrum of one extreme referring to face as being secured, and the other referring to face
as being challenged. This new face dimension reveals the dearth of research into face confrontation
in contrast to a plethora of face confirmation strategies. Next to the introduction of the new face
dimension, we place this dimension in a framework of face at two levels: individual level within
the group and collective level between groups. The former refers to my face or your face (singular)
and this is most of the time the level of analysis in face study. The later refers to our/their
face or your face (plural) and has not been sufficiently discussed in face literature.
In the last section, we introduce the Analysis Framework of Face Interaction as a result of
combining the proposed face dimension (Face Confirmation − Face Confrontation) at two levels
of analysis: Within-group face and Between-group face. We argue that this analysis model will
assist researchers to reduce cultural over-generalisation and enable them to look at a specific case
of face interaction taking into account its particular cultural/situational characteristics and
interaction.
An overview of facework: concepts, characteristics and strategies
The concept of face
The definition of face is imprecise. Even in its homeland, face appears to be a term almost
impossible to define (Lin-Yutang 1935: 202). Face is a literal translation of the
Chinese lien and mien-tzu. The former refers to something to which everyone is entitled by virtue
of their membership in society. The later stands for the prestige and the reputation achieved
through getting on in life, being successful and ostentatious (Hu, 1944).
Yang (1945) defines face as social esteem accorded by others (p.167). He suggests that face is a
concept that is broader than prestige, honour or reputation. Ho (1976) defines face as the
respectability and/or deference which a person can claim from others by virtue of the relative
position that this person occupies in the social network and the degree to which he is judged to
have adequately performed his function.
Goffman (1967) conceptualises face as a positive social value that a person effectively claims for
him/herself by the line others assume he/she has taken during a particular contact. Brown and
Levinson (1987) define face as a public self-image that every member wants to claim, either
negative face with claim to autonomy or positive face with claim to inclusion. There are also other
definitions of face. However, the definitions formulated by these authors are the most referred to
when face is discussed.
Characteristics of face along the cultural construct of Individualism -
Collectivism
Although face is accepted as a universal concept and every individual is motivated to present
him/herself positively to others in various social situations, it has been argued that face is employed
in culturally specific ways (Jia, 2001; Mao, 1994; Markus and Kitayama, 1991). One of the most
widely-used constructs in cultural theory, individualism – collectivism (IC), is often used as a
framework to analyse face, arguably because the essence of this concept is strongly woven in the
context of the collective.
The first characteristic of face along the IC cultural construct, according to Brown and Levinson
(1987), is negative face vs. positive face. Negative face is the maintenance and defence of one’s
territory and freedom from imposition. Positive face, on the other hand, indicates a claim for the
recognition and appropriate validation of one’s social self, social image, and personality by others.
Ting-Toomey (1988) and Kim (1993) argue that freedom and autonomy are likely to be the
primary concern of individualists while inclusion and approval are said to be the primary concern
of collectivists.
The second characteristic of face with regard to the IC construct is self vs. other, with individualists
tend to use more self-oriented face saving and collectivists tend to use more other-oriented face
saving and face-honouring (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998; Trubisky et al. 1991). Furthermore,
individualists tend to use self-face autonomy preserving interaction and self-face approval-seeking
interaction, while collectivists tend to use other-face non-impositional approach and other-face
approval-enhancing interaction (Kim and Wilson, 1994; Kurogi, 1996, 1997; Lindsley and
Braithwaite, 1996).
Face strategies and their cultural orientations
Since confirmation of a positive face is essential, a rich line of research has been examining
different types of facework strategies and the cultural factors affecting the choice of strategies.
Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) argue that when one’s face is being threatened individualists are
more likely to use retroactive strategy, i.e. repairing damage as a result of lost face. In contrast,
collectivists would tend to use a more self-effacing, proactive strategy to ward off potential face
threats.
The second type of face strategy is situational and internal attribution. Kitayama et al. (1997)
observe that individualists tend to use situational accounts (i.e. external causes such as blaming
others or the situation generally) to save face while collectivists tend to use internal dispositional
accounts to accept face loss (i.e. negative personality traits).
The third type of face strategy is face enhancement and face effacement (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi,
1998),the former is more likely used by individualists to distinguish the self from others (e.g. “I
believe I can do it!”), the later is more likely used by collectivist to defuse the self (e.g. “I don’t
know much but I can learn”).
In times of conflict, individualists tend to use a more direct face-threatening style such as
domination whereas collectivists tend to use a more indirect face-saving style such as avoidance,
obligation or use of mediation (Diamant, 2000; Holtgraves, 1997; Trubisky et al., 1991).
Further, Brown and Levinson (1987) propose five politeness strategies: (1) Do not perform a face-
threatening act, (2) Do it off-record, (3) Negative politeness,(4) Positive politeness, and (5) Do it
boldly on-record.
From this brief overview of the research on face, we can see that the concept of face has been
mostly described as a vulnerable self- or other-image that should appear positively. In general,
when in interaction with others, face is a value that must be constantly attended to in interaction,
should always be secured, confirmed and reconfirmed, for it can be lost, gained, maintained, and
enhanced.
The proposed dimension of face: Face Confirmation − Face Confrontation
Thus the history of face research seems to be dominated by a notion that face is a public esteem
that needs protection. The literature on facework is cluttered with situations in which one’s face
might risk violation and diverse strategies to restore or avoid face loss. With healthy academic
scepticism, one could consider this being a sweeping position and may require further examination:
Does face always need confirmation? Does the face loss always bring negative consequences? Is
there any benefit from face confrontation? This aspect of facework seems to have been ignored by
the mainstream of face research as being insufficiently worthy of study. This is probably because
this concept is likely pre-assumed as a social value that only demands protection, preservation and
reassurance while any threats or confrontation may not desirable, put aside the possibility of
bringing any advantages. Of all the theories, only Brown and Levinson (1987) and a few others
mentioned some face strategies that dubiously indicate practices of face confrontation (do it boldly
on record/ dominate while in conflict). Even then, “do it boldly on record”, according to the Brown
and Levinson, is merely a strategy to protect self-face’s autonomy, i.e. to confirm an individual’s
right for private sphere, irrespective of his/her social class, age, gender, status, etc.
However, a journey into other realms of social studies conducted by a number of Asian scholars
shows that the confrontation of face can be efficient. Drawn on the body of literature that aims at
bringing out the important practice of face, we found evidence that supports the hypothesis that
face does not always need to be saved and confirmed. We gathered studies and that actually used
strategies that aim to confront, if not even destroy face.
Face confrontation: All-out challenging
It is important to note that past definitions of face treat this concept as either positive or neutral.
Face is viewed by Goffman as a positive social value (1967:5); by Brown and Levinson as a public
self-image (1987: 62); and by Hu as a respect of the group for a man with good moral reputation
and prestige that is accumulated by means of personal effort or clever manoeuvering (1944: 45).
Zai (1995, cited in Jia 2001), in response to such bias, argues that face can be moral or immoral,
sincere or hypocritical, decent or indecent. Being aware of both thedesirable and the undesirable
consequences of face practices, Cheng (1986: 341) notes that face can become a disguise and
cover-up intrigue, conspiracy, arbitrariness, wilfulness, and personal self-assertion at the expense
of public good, as well as true virtue and law. It is argued that the practice of face masks and
reinforces a social hierarchy and ingroupness that may breed inequality, injustice and close-
mindedness. Since the time that the concept of face was researched, this social practice has been
confronted and criticised, especially in its land of origin.
For example, Li-Zongwu (1917 [1989], cited in Jia, 2001: 70) suggests that for face loss amongst
the common people is but the effect of a manipulation by a small gang of the ruling class who
exploit the common people’s fear of face loss. He encourages people to be thick-faced and black-
hearted in order to be successful like those powerful few in Chinese history. Similarly, Lu-Xun
(1921 [1960]) through his classic work, “The true story of a Q”, claims that face is a tool of
oppression for the ruling class and a tool of self-deception for the oppressed class. Lin-Yutang
(1935) goes further by pointing out that face acts as a major obstacle to justice and democracy. He
suggests that:
when face is lost at the law courts, then we will have justice. And when face is lost in the ministries,
[…] then we will have a true republic (p.195).
If Lin proposes to confront face in exchange for righteousness and law, Mao Tse-tung endeavoured
to confront it in exchange for faith in the Communist ideology. One popular slogan used during
the Cultural Revolution and after is “be iron-faced and be feelingless”. Here, the masses and the
cadres are commanded to relinquish their own concerns about losing face; about disrespecting the
face of others; and become sufficiently cruel and heartless enough to identify, criticise, and
mutilate their class enemy, many of whom include their closest relatives and friends (Jia, 2001:
72). A similar philosophy was witnessed in Vietnam when a radical land reform programme was
enacted (Jamieson, 1995: 262). It meant primarily the eradication and punishment of the capitalist
class. The brutal way of handling and Communist party’s prescription of “direct action and
initiative” for new citizen are seen as merely official efforts to overcome some important
weaknesses in Asian society (Chen, 1964). The Communist Party considers sensitivity to self-face
and other-face as either a weakness or as a tool to be used by the ruling class and that face should
be confronted for the benefit of a greater good. Jia (2001) argues that the result of this confrontation
is either to ignore concerns about face (Li-Zongwu) or to eradicate concerns about face and to
replace it with either law (Lin-Yutang) or faith (Mao Tse-tung).
In the current process of China’s rapid modernisation, concern for face is sometimes argued to be
an obstacle to modernisation and prevent democratic process. It is argued that Chineseness is
something to be overcome and Chinese people should give up their concerns for loss of face and
identity and be bold enough to become un-Chinese or westernised (Yu, 1990, cited in Jia, 2001).
In the same vein, Bo-Yang, in his renowned book “The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese
Culture” (1991), describes every Chinese as an ugly China man and Chinese culture as the “soy
paste vat”. The goal of Bo-Yang’s biting criticism is to expose and confront the Chinese’s face
and, by so doing, to encourage every citizen to be aware of their weakness and to cultivate
themselves into a better man.
No matter how effective it has been, this approach that postulates that face should be strongly
confronted and barely exposed for the greater good has also brought its advocators fierce critiques
at times. Mao Tse-tung’s Cultural Revolution involved bloodshed and left serious scars that did
not heal among the Chinese who either lost face or violated the face of others. In Vietnam, the
brutal execution of a land reform programme resulted in fierce resentment and Ho-Chi-Minh
himself had to sacrifice his face to offer apologies and to admit that an error had been committed
(Jamieson, 1995: 262). Both Bo-Yang and “The Death song of the Yellow River” stirred up waves
of anger and drew severe counterattacks from the audience in the claim to restore the national face
loss (Jia, 2001). Despite the good intention of the authors and the government to have face strongly
confronted for self-reflection and improvement, face being exposed, confronted or uprooted has
lead to a situation whereby the need to protect face was powerfully reinforced.
A strategy of combination: Yin-yang balance
A less pervasive approach is also emerged from a very small number of studies and cases,
suggesting that since the mores of face are a powerful manipulation of human behaviour, they
should be retained and used as conflict-preventive and harmony-building mechanism in
interpersonal and intergroup interactions (Joo-Yup-Kim and Sang-Hoon-Nam, 1998).
The origin of face comes from Confucius (500 BC) with the main aim to reach harmony in society,
and that face is a social control mechanism in the Chinese context, preventing conflicts and
building harmony when there is a balance of face in social interaction (Smith, 1894, p.17). When
the balance of face is maintained, whole interaction overflows with mutual respect (Jia, 1997-
1998). When the dynamics of face are unbalanced, social harmony is disrupted by escalating social
unrest (Hwang, 1997-1998; Stelzer, 1998). Thus, the mores of face are neither to be completely
confirmed nor confronted but rather to be balanced. It is a sophisticated way of both confirming
and confronting face in order to reach a desirable result.
An example can be drawn from organisational context. The tendency that Asian workers appear
to work harder than their Western counterparts (Lincoln and Kallerberg, 1990; Steers et al. 1989)
is often attributed to employee's commitment to the organisation, but a study by Janelli (1993)
observes that Koreans often attribute their hard work to the social pressures that areever present in
the organisation such as expectation by their boss and by their peers that they should work long
hours. It suggests that even when Asians do not attribute a strong attachment to an organisation,
long working hours are still expected under two conditions: (1) workers are concerned about
maintaining a positive face and they associate a positive face with the hard work that is necessary
to achieve the goals assigned to them; and (2) The employers, being aware of this willingness on
the part of the employees to save face, manipulate the effort of their employees through such
motivational strategies as appropriate level of face confrontation to threaten a loss of face and
thereby trigger a willingness to work harder to (re)confirm face (Joo-Yup-Kim and Sang- Hoon-
Nam, 1998).
In this line of combination in face strategies, it is of utmost importance to emphasise that a threat
to one's face should be applied appropriately, i.e. with a good balance of face confirmation so that
one would not feel too much pressure and back off. For instance, sending a message of high
expectation (e.g. “I am sure you are going to win again!”) or by sending a message that hints some
disappointment (e.g. “I have expected this to be your best work…”), can threaten a (potential) face
loss and thereby provoke an employee's eagerness to restore face by working even harder.
However, keep using this face confrontation too frequently, using it inappropriately (e.g. in public),
or without the complementary combination of face confirmation, the result can be
counterproductive. In other words, when the confrontation and the confirmation of face are
unbalanced, the consequences thereof can be disastrous and may result in conflicts, powerlessness,
withdrawal, social isolation, or self estrangement.
Chinese tactics of negotiation offer another good example. Despite the Confucian approach to
social face in China, i.e. more face confirmation, business researchers have argued that Chinese
people can also take a highly strategic approach to conflict and face in particular. Chinese
negotiators, taking a zero-sum perspective, employed “mobile warfare” where they alternatively
harassed, de-stabilised, exhausted, and squashed the opposing partner (Faure, 1998, 2000), using
the “face-derogation” strategy with humiliation and shaming to weaken the opponents’ resolve.
Further, they combined this with another strategy of feigning offence when the other criticises
(Blackman, 1997; Pye, 1982) − effective Chinese strategy of maximising ingroup face and “thick-
face” (Chu, 1992) where they have the confidence not to take offence with a shield to attack
fiercely and flexibly. Ancient and modern Chinese texts have urged negotiators to use strategies
to transform opponent’s strengths into weaknesses and to take advantage of other’s misfortune in
the search for total victory (Tung, 1994). Chinese negotiation presents a complex perspective of
strategic and interactive face confirmation and confrontation to achieve their goal. On the one hand,
they genuinely practice value giving and protecting face (face confirmation). On the other hand,
they can use face manipulatively by challenging face of the negotiators, provoking the need to
avoid or cover face loss (face confrontation), and by doing so, they hope see certain actions being
taken as a consequence.
At this point, we argue that this balance of face to how the Asians philosophically view the world
as being made up of yin and yang. These two elements are not dichotomous but mutually
complementary; not fixed and clearly demarcated but two constantly shifting and interpenetrating
dimensions with each becoming the other at the same time. From this perspective, confirmation
and confrontation of face can be seen as two horns complementing each other in a causal circle
that is continually being re-constructed and re-negotiated in the course of human interaction. In
another words, the former can be the cause or the effect of the later. Too much yin will
provoke yang, too much yang will provoke yin, and with a good proportion of yin and yang a
harmonious balance will ensue. Thus face can be confronted just well enough to provoke the need
to confirm (which may result in higher work rate and healthy competition), but not too confronting
because it may lead to face loss and extreme confirmation (e.g. withdrawal). Similarly, face can
also be confirmed just well enough to nurture the possibilities to confront (e.g. feeling safe enough
to criticise and challenge), but not too confirmed because it will evoke irresponsibility and unrest
(feeling too secured, being lazy or acting out). In the spirit of yin-yang, balance is the key. Both
confirmation and confrontation are reactions on each other. The effect of the one can only be
understood by considering how the other plays a role. Therefore, it is argued that both strategies
should be studied together, and both confronting and confirming acts should be discussed when
analysing a face case
In the light of this argument, we propose a new approach to facework which sees face as an
essential social more rather than a cultural barrier. With its role as a negotiation agent, we argue
that a new dimension of facework should be established that employs both confirmation and
confrontation of face, given that these strategies are complimentary and interactive by nature. From
this perspective, we can see an enormous gap between what has been achieved regarding
confirmation strategies and what has been done to understand confrontation strategies. While
studies on the former are abundant, the latter suffers from neglect. Tjosvold, Hui and Sun
(2004:353) slightly touched on the issue, but there has been little follow-up discussion since then.
We argue that by putting face in the new framework, researchers will benefit from a more thorough
approach of analysis, allowing both confirmation and confrontation of face to be seen truly as a
powerful mechanism to control social interaction and productivity.
Two levels of face: Within-group face and Between-group face
The notion of collective face or between-group face
In one of their face studies, Joo-Yup-Kim and Sang-Hoon-Nam (1998) cite two examples of face.
The first is an article entitled “Saving face or saving lives?”, in which it is remarked that rescue
work could have begun earlier and more lives could have been saved at the crashsite of the Japan
Airlines Flight 123 in August 1985, if efforts had been made to avoid the embarrassment of the
Japanese authorities. The second example is an article from the Economist (1994) in which the
author argues that China struggled to be a founding member of the World Trade Organisation in
order to save face even though it was widely predicted that liberalising trade would do more harm
than good to China’s economy. Both examples involve the face of a group. In the one, it is a
government. In the other, it is a nation.
Surprisingly, however, throughout the research on facework, little distinction has been made
between the concept of face when referring to an individual's public esteem and the concept of
face when referring to a collective social image. Some universal face characteristics such as that
of Goffman or Brown and Levinson analyse face exclusively at individual level. This individual
analysis framework is the result of face studies being conducted mainly in the West, focused
heavily on individualistic needs and rely upon the individualistic nature (Gu, 1990; Kasper, 1997:
379; Mao, 1994; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; for review see Vilkki, 2006). To be more specific,
Jia (2001: 58−61) criticises that Goffman’s notion of face centres around self, suggesting that face
is an individual’s end value and facework is just a set of rational strategies to help an individual
overcome barriers in order to achieve the end value. He further notes that the politeness theories
of Brown and Levinson does not see face as a group concept and value and without identifying
the connections of face to personhood, the nature and order of society. Jia concludes that from
what these authors describe as their model person, “one can infer that this person is exactly a
modern western white middle-class man, not a western woman or person of colour, let alone a
Chinese or Russian”.
Whilst the definition of face is usually centred upon an individual's concept of face, interestingly
but incongruently, researchers often cite examples and reach conclusions that also involve the face
of a collective, as showed in the two examples above. The “collective” characteristic of face thus
has been embedded in many face studies. However, only recently it is made stand out in a
multidisciplinary study of Spencer-Oatey (2007) who set more insight into the conceptualisation
and analysis of face by connecting it with identity theories. Based on Brewer and Gardner’s (1996)
three-level perspective on self-representation, Spencer-Oatey proposes that it is useful to analyse
face not only at individual level (self-face and other-face concern), but also collective level (group-
face concern) since human beings can attribute face to a community they belong to, i.e. our face
instead of my face. Hereafter, this notion of collective face in intergroup context will be labelled
as “between-group” face, distinguishing it from the notion of individual face in intragroup context,
which will be labelled as “within-group” face. The following sections will move on to gather
related studies to bring further insight into the issues of face at this newly proposed analysis level.
Two characteristics of Between-group Face
A rich line of intergroup research proves that the level of competition is significantly higher
between groups than within groups, a phenomenon termed “interindividual-intergroup
discontinuity effect”, referring to the tendency for relationships between groups to be more
competitive than the relationship between individuals of the same group (Wildschut et al. 2003).
We interpret the finding as an indication that in competitive environment, between-group face is
easier to be triggered and provoked than within-group face, that at between-group level, group face
is likely to be more salient.
Next, research also shows that between-group competition exerts significant influence on group
output by enhancing productivity and within-group cooperation (Bornstein et al., 2002;
Gunnthorsdottir and Rapoport, 2006; Nalbantian and Schotter, 1997; Tan and Bolle, 2007). This
finding is argued to have deep evolutionary roots. Melotti (1985) points out that both Darwin and
the co-discoverer of natural selection Wallace stressed that it was not “individual selection” but
“group selection” or “between group competition” that played an important role in human beings
development. Darwin further remarks that competition between groups had to be combined with
cooperation within group. By this, Darwin emphasises the group-basis of evolution and contradicts
the notion of the Hobbesian war of each against all as the normal state of existence. Between-
group competition holds account for fostering the growth of creative intelligence, and group
behaviours, notably those which promote within-group cooperation (McGregor, 1987; Melotti,
1985). With a rich supporting line of research in organization, regarding to face issue, we interpret
these findings as an indication that superior productivity can be expected as a result of between-
group face competition as each group makes attempts to protect their group image.
The characteristics of between-group face’s characteristics along the IC
construct
In the previous section, research has indicated that at within-group face level, collectivists tend to
orient themselves towards the positive face and other-face end whilst individualists tend to orient
themselves towards the negative face and self-face. In other words, at individual level, group
members from collectivistic cultures are more concerned with inclusion, approval and the face of
others, whilst group members from individualistic cultures are more concerned with exclusion,
autonomy and the face of self.
However, at the group level, we found that this position tends to reverse. In a study of Chen et al.
(1997, 2002), the authors show that when individuals perform well but the rest of the group do not,
Americans show a more positive attitude toward other group than toward their own group (i.e.
giving face to other group: other-face oriented), whereas the Chinese show a positive ingroup
attitude despite the group’s poorer performance (i.e. giving face to self group: self-face oriented).
Furthermore, collectivistic values indicate that people from this culture have the tendency to create
their group structure more tightly and tensely with less flexible borders separating them from other
groups. Group memberships are normally inherited and more difficult to earn. This indicates a
tendency more towards negative-face group orientation rather than positive-face group orientation.
Thus at between-group level of face concern, collectivists tend to focus more on negative group
face and self group face. In comparison with collectivists, individualists may be less pervasive with
a certain degree of orienting more toward positive group face and other group face than
collectivists – a situation that is the reversal of what was previously understood at within-group
level of face concern (table 1).
Table 1: The reversed characteristics of face along IC construct at two levels: within group and
between group
Within-group
Between-group
Individualistic
negative face / self face
positive face / other face
Collectivistic
positive face / other face
negative face /self face
To the best of our understanding, no prior studies have taken notice of this reversal, arguably
because, despite Spencer-Oatey’s initiatives, little studies followed up, and face has never been
thoroughly analysed at two distinguished levels. Again, we take indication from intergroup studies
and propose that this reversal is probably caused by much stronger ingroup favouritism, outgroup
deterioration and interpersonal-intergroup discontinuity among collectivists (Chen et al., 2002;
Triandis, 1995; Triandis, McCusker, and Hui, 1990). In this culture, between-group face is so
much more competitive and so much more salient than within-group face that its significant impact
can “switch” perception and practice of face at group level.
This striking salience of face at between-group level among collectivists can be better understood
through a case study presented in Jia (2001). In a Chinese bowling alley, after a customer made a
big fuss out of a trivial incident and threatened to punish the bowling centre with his political
power, the Chinese manager chose to sacrifice her face by kneeling down to offer a cup of tea to
this customer. This was an act of apology to the customer. The kneeling took place in front of all
the bowling staff and all of the customer's colleagues.
Jia (2001), by presenting this case study, argues that for collectivists, face at group level is far
more sensitive than face at individual level. The customer might not have so rudely demanded that
the manager kneel down before him if his subordinates had not been present and they had not
encouraged him to defend their face. By this time, the face involved in this situation was no longer
the individual face of the boss but the group face of the company as a whole. Similarly, the manager
might not have knelt down had she been concerned only for her own face and not that of the
bowling centre. Stronger even, she supported between-group face at the expense of within-group
face. While the face of her own company and the customer’s company is saved, her self-face was
dramatically exposed and destroyed. This case study shows that group dynamics can exaggerate
the importance of an interpersonal face conflict and help escalate it into an intergroup face conflict
with severe face loss.
Another illustration of the remarkable salience of face at between-group level among collectivists
is the term itself in Vietnamese language. Face in this culture never stands alone. It should always
be accompanied by another word addressing whose face it is referring to. Thus we have “individual
face” (thể diện cá nhân),and numerous other group faces such as “family’s face” (thể diện gia
đình), “company’s face” (thể diện cơ quan), or “national face” (thể diện quốc gia). Before every
international contest, the Vietnamese athletes would take a vow in front of the national flag to do
their best to honour their “national face” in the competition with other nations. It is not attributed
to personal face.
The salience of between-group face in collectivistic cultures also partly explains why communism
achieved such great success in collective nations and still controls China, Vietnam, North Korea
and Cuba. Jia (2001: 82) argues that the goal of the communist party is to transform the clan or
family-based face system into the political class-based face system. In a sense, this switch from
one group-based face to another group-based face is likely to be more consistent with the host
culture than the switch from a group-based face system to an individual-based face system that
democracy may require.
The proposed Analysis Framework of Face Interaction (AFFI)
Building on the new dimension of Face Confirmation − Face Confrontation and the two levels of
face Within group and Between groups, we propose the Analysis Framework of Face Interaction
(AFFI) that is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Analysis Framework of Face Interaction (AFFI) with map of illustrative / hypothesised
positions of presented cases.
We argue that this new framework resolves some shortcoming in the theoretical research of
facework. Firstly, face is recognized as a cultural element that perpetually exists rather than a
cultural barrier that should always be protected or overcome, as usually portrayed by mainstream
studies. From this standpoint, face is seen as a dynamic motivation for social interaction, and face
strategies can be studied more objectively with a broader, more wholesome spectrum from
confirmation to confrontation, with both orientations to be given due weight, since both are
essential and either can be undermined in the course of communication. With this new face
dimension, numerous face strategies that have been identified in previous studies and summarised
in earlier section can be systematically located along the spectrum, creating logics of continuity
with underlying consistency and connectedness.
Secondly, AFFI provides a more thorough framework of analysis in which both levels of face is
taken into account instead of a bias towards individual face as it has been the case in the
mainstream research. When the within-group/between-group nexus is incorporated with
confirmation – confrontation, the confusing reversal of face characteristics as pointed out in table
1 does not exist anymore. AFFI enables researchers to decode face cases that engage a complexity
of individual/intergroup relationship which cannot easily be understood otherwise. One example
of such case is a widely practiced solution called xử lý nội bộ (Viet-Anh and Anh-Thu, 2006) in
Vietnam, which literally means “punishment internally within the group”. When confronted with
an accusation, group’s face is confirmed by ignoring the incident, or making an unspecified
announcement, or denying the responsibility. However, at the same time, because the sinner has
to be held accountable, face confrontation can be made within the group in which the accused
individuals will be charged. This solution prevents a collective loss of face and an escalation of
the conflict to an intergroup confrontation. On AFFI, this case is situated on the far left upper
corner: Highly confirmed between-group face and highly confronted within-group face. The new
framework enables analysis at both individual and collective levels, with interaction of face
strategies from both extremes, providing a more holistic view of the case study.
Thirdly, as can be seen in Figure 1, culture is not classified in dimensions but denoted as a context
in which each face case is operated. Face confirmation and confrontation do not associate
themselves anymore with IC, that is to say this spectrum of face strategies can be claimed to be
universal and can be seen as vigorously used in both collectivistic and individualistic culture, as a
matter of fact, any cultures, any interaction of cross-cultures, co-cultures, or sub-cultures. The
omitting of IC as a dominant analysis dimension helps to bring insight into complex face cases
that contradict the age-old established assumptions derived from this cultural construct. One good
example is the competitive nature of a traditional Asian classroom which has puzzled researchers
since it seems to contradict the overall understanding of IC, and it does not sit comfortably with
the collaborative notion of Asian collectivism. In this context, group work hardly exists, study is
organised individually with each student measuring him/herself against others and not against
him/herself (Pong-Wing-Yan and Chow, 2002), the structure of the system for educational
selection and job assignment placed classmates in direct face-to-face competition with one another
(Shirk, 1982: 161). Within-group face confrontation is intense as individual grades are the main
sources of recognition. However, by using AFFI and breaking free from the IC construct, the two
levels of face analysis will soon reveal the big picture. It appears that this within-group face
confrontation is often combined with a strong between-group face confrontation by means of
interclass competition. By attending a weekly flag saluting ceremony in many Vietnamese schools,
one will see that the “the best class of the week” announcement is an important part of the weekly
routine where the class who wins the top position cheers and jumps while the others vow silently
to overthrow the new champion, surprisingly by competing even harder with their own classmates.
In fact, within-group confrontation in Asian classes can be very intense, hardened by the
examination-driven nature of education systems and high parental expectation. The tipping point
does happen in such a learning environment, to the level of depression or even suicide. The later
is basically an extreme form of attempts to cover face loss (Pong-Wing-Yan and Chow, 2002;
Pueng-Vong, 2007; Wong and Halgin, 2006), both at within-group level (individual’s self-
perceived dignity), and between-group level (family’s honour).
Such a complexity of facework challenges the very core of the IC construct that tends to
conceptualise the dynamic of culture in terms of dichotomies. Historically, these dichotomies have
been formulated as contrasts between Western and non-Western cultures (the Rest), with the
geographically localized cultures as its basic units and starting point (Hermans and Kempen, 1998).
While risking eurocentrism, these frameworks of cultural dichotomies perpetuate the notion that
cultures are internally homogeneous and monolithic, thus undermine the immense diversity of sub-
cultures, hybrid cultures; or moving away from the cores, i.e. cultures at peripheral levels and
contact zones. More importantly, in an increasingly interconnected global society, people do not
deal with cultures as a spectrum of independent, coherent and stable characteristics. People wake
up every day and communicate with other individuals, each of these individuals may come from a
complete different culture and may or may not bring along his/her typical cultural baggage, let
alone he/she is completely capable of multiple identities, adapting, adjusting, changing,
manipulating, creating myriad tactics and strategies in the course of communication to fit in, either
consciously or sub-consciously.
We argue that cultural dichotomies oversimplify and are insensitive to the social processes of
facework which are complex and laden with tension. Breaking free from the constrain of IC
construct and the like, it is more likely for us to gain insight into the intricate nature of face cases
if they are to be analysed with a more holistic framework, taking into account the specific and
unique cultural, contextual and situational characteristics that shape a particular face interaction.
On this account, we argue that AFFI helps researchers to reduce simplistic cultural over-
generalisation such as “collectivists prefer other-face” and enables them to examine each face case
with less risk of pre-assumption. In this way, for example, the stereotypic notion that a Japanese
business partner is likely to give face to their counterparts will be reconsidered and questioned
with a reliability check. The issue will instead be scrutinised from different perspectives with
different analytic questions in mind: Does this Japanese negotiation partner represent a group?
Which issues should we discuss with our partners in a two-person meeting and not in a group
meeting? What is his/her position in the group and how far can he/she go to confirm his/her face
within the group? Should we confirm his/her face in front of his/her own ingroup to give him/her
honour, and at the same time strategically confront his/her face mildly in a one-on-one meeting to
create some incentive for him/her to prove him/herself?...etc
At this stage of development, many hypotheses are based on predictions and assumptions.
Therefore all the cases indicated in AFFI should be considered as a means of illustration. We hope
that researchers will see the practicability in AFFI and develop different qualitative and
quantitative measurements so that AFFI will be useful to map the interaction of various cases of
facework. It is also our hope that with further research interest, common features and patterns of
facework may emerge. Such findings will certainly add more insights to the realm of face study.
To conclude, quoting the arguments of Hermans and Kempen (1998), values and cultural
dimensions don’t exist. They are constructs, which have to prove their usefulness by their ability
to explain and predict behavior. The moment they pose problems of doing that, we should be
prepared to challenge them and seek alternatives.
References
Blackman, C. 1997. Negotiating China: Case studies and Strategies.St. Leonards: Allen and
Unwin.
Bo-Yang. 1984. Speech given at Iowa University. Retrieved 26 January 2008 from:
http://diendan.svvn-dresden.org/showthread.php?t=847
Bo-Yang. 1991. The ugly Chinaman and the crisis of Chinese culture. In D.J. Cohn and J. Qing
(Trans., Eds.), North Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Bornstein, G., Gneezy, U., Nagel, R. 2002. The effect of intergroup competition on group
coordination: an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior,41, 1-25.
Brewer, M.B., Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this ‘we”? Levels of collective identity and self
representations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1) 83-93.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Y., Brockner, J., Katz, T. 1997. Individual primacy and collective primacy as bases for
ingroup bias. Evidence from the United States and the people’s republic of China. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston.
Chen, Y., Brockner, J., Chen, X. 2002. Individual-collective primacy and ingroup favoritism:
enhancement and protection effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 482-491.
Cheng, C. 1986. The Concept of Face and Its Confucian Roots. Journal of Chinese
philosophy, 13(3) 329–348.
Chu, N. 1992. Thick face Black heart: The path to Thriving, Winning and Succeeding. Beaverton:
AMC Publishing.
Diamant, N. 2000. Conflict and conflict resolution in China: Beyond mediation-centered
approaches. The journal of conflict resolution, 44(4) 523-546.
Economist. 1994. China: Saving face, Nov 19, 36-37.
Faure, G.O. 1998. Negotiation: The Chinese concept. Negotiation Journal, 14(2)137-148.
Faure, G.O. 2000. Negotiations to set up joint ventures in China, International Negotiation, 5(1)
157-189.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. NY: Pantheon Books.
Gu, Y. 1990. Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2) 237-257.
Gunnthorsdottir, A., Rapoport, A. 2006. Embedding social dilemmas in intergroup competition
reduces free-riding. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 101(2) 184-199.
Hermans, H., Kempen, K. 1998. The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing
society. American Psychological Association, 53(10), 1111-1120
Ho, D.Y. 1976. On the concept of face. The American Journal of Sociology. 81(4) 867-884.
Holtgraves, T. 1997. Styles of language usage: Individual and cultural variability in conservational
indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(3) 624-637.
Hu, H.C. 1944. The Chinese concepts of Face. American Anthropologist, 46, 45-64.
Hwang, K. 1997-1998. Guanxi and Mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. In G. Chen
(Ed.), Conflict resolution in Chinese (Special issue), Intercultural Communication studies, 71(1)
43-61.
Japan Time Weekly International Edition. 1995. Saving face or saving lives? Sept 4-10, 4.
Jamieson, N. 1995. Understanding Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Janelli, R.L. 1983. Making capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jia, W. 1997-1998. Facework as a Chinese conflict-preventative mechanism. A cultural/discourse
analysis. Intercultural Communication studies, 7(1) 53-62.
Jia, W. 2001. The remaking of the Chinese character and identity in the 21:st century. London:
Ablex Publishing.
Joo-Yup-Kim., Sang-Hoon-Nam. 1998. The concept and Dynamics of face: Implications for
Organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9(4) 522-534.
Kasper, G. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2) 223-
248.
Kim, M.S. 1993. Culture-based conversational constraints in explaining cross-cultural strategic
competence. In L. Wiseman and J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication
competence, Newbury Park , CA: Sage, 132-150.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Matsumoto, H., Norasakkunkit, V. 1997. Individual and collective
processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the US and self criticism in
Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6) 1245-1267.
Kurogi, A. 1996. Face-negotiation process in Japanese instructor-US Students’ interaction in
Japanese language instruction classrooms. Paper presented at the Culture and Communication
convention, Fullerton. CA.
Kurogi, A. 1997. An analysis of Japanese language and communication: A face negotiation
perspective. Paper presented at the Individualistic and Collectivistic Perspectives on
Communication convention, Fullerton. CA.
Lin-Yutang. 1935. My country and my people. NY: Reynal and Hitchcock.
Lincoln, J.R., Kallerberg, A. 1990. Culture, Control, and Commitment: A study of work
organization and work attitudes in the United States and Japan,Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lindsley, S., Braithwaite, C. 1996. You should wear a mask: facework norms in cultural and
intercultural conflict in Maquiladora. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2) 199-
225.
Lu, Xun. 1921 [1960]. The true story of Ah-Q/ Selected Stories of Lu Hsun, Peking: Foreign
Languages Press. Retrieved 26 January 2008 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/lu-
xun/1921/12/ah-q/index.htm
Lu, Xun. 1960. On “face”. In H. Yang and G. Yang (Trans.), Selected works of Lu Xun, Vol.
4. Beijing: Foreign Language Press.
McGregor, A. 1987. Evolution, Creative intelligence and intergroup competition, The mankind
Quarterly, 27(4) 492-494.
Mao, L.M. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics, 21(5) 451-486.
Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2) 224-253.
Melotti, U. 1985. Competition and Cooperation in human evolution. The mankind Quarterly, 25(4)
223-252.
Nalbantian, H.R., Schotter, A. 1997. Productivity under group incentives: an experimental
study. American Economic review, 87, 314-341.
Penman, R. 1994. Facework in communication: Conceptual and moral challenges. In Ting-
Toomey, S. (Ed.), The challenge of facwork, Albany: State University of New York Press, 15-45.
Pong-Wing-Yan, and Chow, J. 2002. On the pedagogy of examination in Hong Kong. Teaching
and teacher education, 18, 139-149.
Pueng-Vongs. 2007. Inside the Asian Pressure Cooker. Pacific news Service. 15 Oct 2007.
Pye, L.W. 1982. Chinese commercial negotiating styles: Commercial approaches and Cultural
principles. NY: Quorum Books.
Shirk, S. 1982. Competitive Comrades: Career incentives and student strategies in
China. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Smith, A. 1894. The Chinese characteristic. NY: Fleming H. Revell Company.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of pragmatics. 39,
639-656.
Steers, R., Shin, Y., Ungson, G. 1989. Chaebol: Korea’s New industrial might, NY: Harper Row.
Stelzer, L. 1998. Trust and Law in China’s socialist market economy. Asian American
Review, 16(4) 137-147.
Tan, J.H.W., Bolle, F. 2007. Team competition and public goods game. Economics letters, 96,
133-139.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim and
W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural communication,Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 213-
235.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1994. Face and Facework: An introduction. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The
challenge of facework. Albany: State University of New York and New York Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., Kurogi, A. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated
face-negotiation theory. International journal of Intercultural relation. 22(2) 187-225.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C and Sun, H. 2004. Can Chinese discuss conflict openly? Field and
experimental studies of face dynamics in China. Group decision and Negotiation, 13, 351-373.
Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westviews
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., Lin, S.L. 1991. The influence of Individualism-Collectivism and
self monitoring on conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 15(1) 65-84.
Tung, R. 1994. Strategic management thought in East Asia, Organizational Dynamics, 22(4) 55-
65.
Viet Anh., Anh Thu. (2006). Phan lon can bo tham nhung chi bi xu ly noi bo [Most of the corrupted
officers get internal charge].Retrieved 9 August 2007 at
http://vnexpress.net/Vietnam/Xa-hoi/2006/11/3B9EFE0F/
Vilkki, L. 2006. Politeness, Face and Facework: Current Issues. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 19,
322-332. Retrieved 19 January 2008 from
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/SKY2006_1/1.4.7.%20VILKKI.pdf
Yang, M.C. 1945. A Chinese village: Taitou, Shatung Province, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J.L., Insko, C.A., Schopler, J. 2003. Beyond the group mind: A
quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 698-722.
Wong, F., Halgin, R. 2006. The model minority: Bane or Blessing for Asian Americans? Journal
of multicultural counselling and development, 34, 38-49.
About the Authors
Nguyen-Phuong-Mai started her career as a journalist in Vietnam. She holds a PhD in Intercultural
Communication from Utrecht University and currently teaches Cross-Cultural Management at
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands. She has lived, worked, and visited
more than 100 countries, and she continues to publish frequently as a freelance writer. Her most
recent research interests include Middle East studies after conducting a 9 month field trip through
the Middle East, tracing the expansion of Islam from where it began, city by city, westwards to
Africa and eastwards to Asia. The result of this trip will be her up-and-coming book “Alone, Asian,
and Atheist in the Middle East”. More of her writing and direct contact at www.culturemove.com
Cees Terlouw is the director of ELAN educational institute at Twente University, the Netherlands.
His research interest includes multicultural education, problem solving, instructional design,
curriculum and ICT development. He is an experienced consultant in cultural diversity.
Albert Pilot is the professor emeritus at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. His research interest
includes pedagogy, teacher education and multicultural education.
Authors’ Address
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Fraijlemaborg 133
1102 CV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
dr.nguyenphuongmai@gmail.com
Tel: +31 645 092 105
