Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
effectively consensual facework, could be seen to operate within the wider sustainable framework of ritual equilibrium, Goffman pointed to a marked preference for the latter - at least within the Anglo-American cultural milieu within which Goffman forged his framework and from which his data were drawn. The potentially ethnocentric foundation for Goffman's framework of equilibrium may appear prima facie to undermine the analytical usefulness and general validity of the notion of ritual equilibrium and supporting facework practices therein. However, although not personally extending his analysis and propositions beyond the Anglo-American shores, Goffman was certainly aware of the issue of cultural variation in equilibric facework practices. An interesting and oft neglected aspect of Goffman's exposition of facework was comments made in respect of cultural variation in facework practices and, by implication, the nature of ritual equilibrium in various cultures. Although these were largely conjectural, his comments did point to the world outside the cultural context in which his work was forged to suggest fertile ground for cross-cultural consideration of facework practices and the nature of ritual equilibrium. For example, Goffman recognised that, even though face and facework as formal concepts were posited as universal, the nature of talk as it was played out as equilibric activity may be subject to considerable cultural variation. Although'lip service'was posited as a prevailing ethos in Anglo-American society, Goffman did intimate to the fact that this may not apply universally: Each person, subculture, and society seems to have its own characteristic repertoire of face-saving practices. It is to this repertoire that people partly refer when they ask what a person or culture is "really" like. And yet the particular set of practices stressed by particular persons or groups seems to be drawn from a single logically coherent framework of possible practices (ibid p. 13). Thus, taking into account the universal propensities for face and facework and the maintenance of ritual equilibrium, and the existence of cross- cultural variation, Goffman surmised that: Universal nature is not a very human thing. By acquiring it, the person becomes a kind of construct, built up not from inner psychic propensities but from moral rules that are impressed upon him from without. These rules, when followed, determine the evaluation he will make of himself and of his fel I ow-partici pants in the encounter, the 20
distribution of his feelings, and the kinds of practices he will employ to maintain a specified and obligatory kind of ritual equilibrium... And if a particular person or group or society seems to have a unique character of its own, it is because its standard set of human-nature elements is pitched and combined in a particular way... if an encounter or undertaking is to be sustained as a viable system of interaction organized on ritual principles, then these variations must be held within certain bounds and nicely counter-balanced by corresponding modifications in some of the other rules and understanding. Similarly, the human nature of a particular set of persons may be specially designed for the special kind of undertakings in which they participate, but still each of these persons must have within him something of the balance of characteristics required of a usable participant in any ritually organized system of social activity. (ibid., 45). Unfortunately, little work has been directed at addressing the 'unique character' of a particular culture, even though it does seem plausible that such cultural character can be interpreted within the equilibric framework advanced by Goffman (see Fig. 1.2). Fig. 1.2 Goffman's Equilibric Facework society i L; UltUre A ITUALEQUILIBRIUM Lip Service Single Matrix of Practices Avoidance Facework Coffective Facework (Mutual face maintenance) , 10 Point scoring R Eq C ... n R Eq Goffman's contribution to our understanding of the concept of face and its relevance to equilibric practices in everyday face to face encounters has been invaluable. In giving primacy to the recognition and need for support of face, and normative facework practices engaged in to achieve and sustain ritual 21
- Page 1 and 2: FACEWORK IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN SOCI
- Page 3 and 4: CHAPTER 4: DOING SOCIA(B)L(E) SCIEN
- Page 5 and 6: Table List of Tables 1.1 Archetypal
- Page 7 and 8: Conversational Excerpts Excerpt Pag
- Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgments Acknowledgements se
- Page 11 and 12: The 'Research Problem' Introduction
- Page 13 and 14: Taking these problematics as a star
- Page 15 and 16: At the time, this proposal seemed e
- Page 17 and 18: the self and its relationship to on
- Page 19 and 20: activity of sociable conversation,
- Page 21 and 22: including the application of the fa
- Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER I FACE AND FACEWORK: CONCEP
- Page 25 and 26: 1.1 Foundational Texts In order to
- Page 27 and 28: communicative action could be seen
- Page 29: Fig. 1.1 Goffman's Model of Ritual
- Page 33 and 34: empirically difficult' phenomenon (
- Page 35 and 36: etween self and other). Conversatio
- Page 37 and 38: allowing in effect a speaker to cri
- Page 39 and 40: as an equilibric practice, allowing
- Page 41 and 42: universality, particularly in studi
- Page 43 and 44: Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and C
- Page 45 and 46: Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) emplo
- Page 47 and 48: Mao (1994) addresses this tension b
- Page 49 and 50: Tannen's work (1981 a; 1981 b) perh
- Page 51 and 52: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- Page 53 and 54: facework operates on an underlying
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER 2 ANGLO-SAXON CHALK AND TEU
- Page 57 and 58: impolite. However, I soon came to r
- Page 59 and 60: in potential or actual conflict sit
- Page 61 and 62: salient differences. For example, G
- Page 63 and 64: Watts observed that German conversa
- Page 65 and 66: Finally, although Watts argued that
- Page 67 and 68: elatively little overlap, and a gen
- Page 69 and 70: contributions, with the former set
- Page 71 and 72: fully and substantively, what was r
- Page 73 and 74: oriented to unmitigated disagreemen
- Page 75 and 76: 2.3 Communicative Underpinnings The
- Page 77 and 78: service but by more confrontational
- Page 79 and 80: Finally, additional explanatory dim
distribution <strong>of</strong> his feelings, and the kinds <strong>of</strong> practices he will employ to<br />
maintain a specified and obligatory kind <strong>of</strong> ritual equilibrium... And if a<br />
particular person or group or society seems to have a unique<br />
character <strong>of</strong> its own, it is because its standard set <strong>of</strong> human-nature<br />
elements is pitched and combined in a particular way... if an<br />
encounter or undertaking is to be sustained as a viable system <strong>of</strong><br />
interaction organized on ritual principles, then these variations must<br />
be held within certain bounds and nicely counter-balanced by<br />
corresponding modifications in some <strong>of</strong> the other rules and<br />
understanding. Similarly, the human nature <strong>of</strong> a particular set <strong>of</strong><br />
persons may be specially designed for the special kind <strong>of</strong><br />
undertakings in which they participate, but still each <strong>of</strong> these persons<br />
must have within him something <strong>of</strong> the balance <strong>of</strong> characteristics<br />
required <strong>of</strong> a usable participant in any ritually organized system <strong>of</strong><br />
social activity. (ibid., 45).<br />
Unfortunately, little work has been directed at addressing the 'unique<br />
character' <strong>of</strong> a particular culture, even though it does seem plausible that such<br />
cultural character can be interpreted within the equilibric framework advanced<br />
by G<strong>of</strong>fman (see Fig. 1.2).<br />
Fig. 1.2 G<strong>of</strong>fman's Equilibric Facework<br />
society i L; UltUre A<br />
ITUALEQUILIBRIUM<br />
Lip Service<br />
Single<br />
Matrix <strong>of</strong> Practices<br />
Avoidance Facework C<strong>of</strong>fective Facework<br />
(Mutual face maintenance)<br />
, 10 Point scoring<br />
R Eq<br />
C<br />
... n<br />
R Eq<br />
G<strong>of</strong>fman's contribution to our understanding <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> face and<br />
its relevance to equilibric practices in everyday face to face encounters has<br />
been invaluable. In giving primacy to the recognition and need for support <strong>of</strong><br />
face, and normative facework practices engaged in to achieve and sustain ritual<br />
21