Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

usir.salford.ac.uk
from usir.salford.ac.uk More from this publisher
23.03.2013 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!