Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
For example, the diverse conceptual i sati ons of face used in Western and Asian culture are seen as being based essentially on different conceptual isations of the self (Mao, 1994). Brown and Levinson's conceptual isation of the self is seen as being an overly individualistic conceptual isati on, one that is in the last analysis, a self-image (Mao 1994). As Mao describes it, the self is in this sense '... the principal constituent that informs and contextualizes the content of face; it acts like an 'epicenter' towards which others... converge, and against which they are measured. The self is 'public' only to the extent that it depends on other's face being maintained... it is 'negotiated' with others via discourse activity. The self 'appropriates' the public only to preserve its own interest... it only concerns the individual's 'wants' and 'desires' (ibid. 459). Converse to this, Mao posits Asian conceptual i sations of the self and face as 'intimately linked to the views o-I the community and to the community's judgement and perception of the individual's character and behaviour ... to quote Goffman... it is "on loan ... from society",.. it belongs to the individual or to the self only to the extent that the individual acts in full compliance with that face' (Mao 1994,460). Rather than 'self-image' then, face as it operates in Asian cultures is equated more to a Goffmanian notion of 'image of self' in the eyes of others. Further highlighting the fundamental relationship between cultural readings of the self and conceptual isati ons of face is the work which has conceptualised cultural selfhood as variously overlapping with the self boundaries of other selves. For example, Scollon and Scollon (1995) show how Asian notions of selfhood extend beyond the boundaries of the individual to include others in the wider community. (see fig. 1.6). Key Fig. 1.6 The Individualistic and Collectivist Self 6 Wider mat,, i. 1 culture 5 Intimate society and culture ------------ 4 Eapressible conscious 3 Inexpressible conscious 2 Pre-conscious ("Freudian") I Interior unconscious S6 Key 6 Wider m2terial culture 5 Intimate society and culture 4 Expr-ible consaous 3 Inexpressible conscrous, 2 Pre-conscious ("Freudim") I Interior unconscious Adapted from Scollon and Scollon (1995,132-133) 6 34
Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) employ the term 'self-construals' to encapsulate these cultural variations, with western cultures being characterised by independent self-construals (essentially autonomy of the self from others), and Asian ones by interdependent self-construals (essentially 'connectedness of the self to others'). Thus, a culture, or individual, may sit somewhere on the independent-interdependent dimension (see fig. 1.7). Fig. 1.7 Predominance of Independent and Interdependent Self- Construal Types Independent -4 Interdependent mo- us JAPAN Derived from Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) Face is seen as being located in these construal, and facework as reflecting the concerns associated with each construal of self. In short, in predominantly12 independent cultures, persons engaged in interaction will base facework primarily on concern for both self- and other- independent face, whilst in interdependent cultures, persons will work to mutually support interdependent face. A summary of characteristics of each is given in table 1.4 These readings of cultures as being characterised in their beliefs, attitude, and communicative behaviours as individualist or collectivist, and of the related conceptual isations of self as a basis for ho face is perceived seem to provide for an understanding of East - West differences in face and facework practices. However, rather than employing these readings to account for and amplify cultural dichotomy in face and facework, some scholars have suggested a more fluid and dynamic application. 35
- 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 and 30: Fig. 1.1 Goffman's Model of Ritual
- Page 31 and 32: distribution of his feelings, and t
- 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: Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and C
- 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
- Page 81 and 82: specific communicative practices, a
- Page 83 and 84: Brown and Levinson (1987). Indeed,
- Page 85 and 86: Notes to Chapter 2 11 use the term
- Page 87 and 88: This chapter then can be regarded a
- Page 89 and 90: asic irreducible sociological varia
- Page 91 and 92: Fraser (1990) who, in also attempti
- Page 93 and 94: particularly amenable to such a heu
For example, the diverse conceptual i sati ons <strong>of</strong> face used in Western and<br />
Asian culture are seen as being based essentially on different<br />
conceptual isations <strong>of</strong> the self (Mao, 1994). Brown and Levinson's<br />
conceptual isation <strong>of</strong> the self is seen as being an overly individualistic<br />
conceptual isati on, one that is in the last analysis, a self-image (Mao 1994). As<br />
Mao describes it, the self is in this sense '... the principal constituent that informs<br />
and contextualizes the content <strong>of</strong> face; it acts like an 'epicenter' towards which<br />
others... converge, and against which they are measured. The self is 'public'<br />
only to the extent that it depends on other's face being maintained... it is<br />
'negotiated' with others via discourse activity. The self 'appropriates' the public<br />
only to preserve its own interest... it only concerns the individual's 'wants' and<br />
'desires' (ibid. 459). Converse to this, Mao posits Asian conceptual i sations <strong>of</strong><br />
the self and face as 'intimately linked to the views o-I the community and to the<br />
community's judgement and perception <strong>of</strong> the individual's character and<br />
behaviour ... to quote G<strong>of</strong>fman... it is "on loan ... from society",.. it belongs to the<br />
individual or to the self only to the extent that the individual acts in full<br />
compliance with that face' (Mao 1994,460). Rather than 'self-image' then, face<br />
as it operates in Asian cultures is equated more to a G<strong>of</strong>fmanian notion <strong>of</strong><br />
'image <strong>of</strong> self' in the eyes <strong>of</strong> others.<br />
Further highlighting the fundamental relationship between cultural<br />
readings <strong>of</strong> the self and conceptual isati ons <strong>of</strong> face is the work which has<br />
conceptualised cultural selfhood as variously overlapping with the self<br />
boundaries <strong>of</strong> other selves. For example, Scollon and Scollon (1995) show how<br />
Asian notions <strong>of</strong> selfhood extend beyond the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the individual to<br />
include others in the wider community. (see fig. 1.6).<br />
Key<br />
Fig. 1.6 The Individualistic and Collectivist Self<br />
6 Wider mat,, i. 1 culture<br />
5 Intimate society and culture<br />
------------<br />
4 Eapressible<br />
conscious<br />
3 Inexpressible conscious<br />
2 Pre-conscious ("Freudian")<br />
I Interior unconscious<br />
S6<br />
Key<br />
6 Wider m2terial culture<br />
5 Intimate society and culture<br />
4 Expr-ible consaous<br />
3 Inexpressible conscrous,<br />
2 Pre-conscious ("Freudim")<br />
I Interior unconscious<br />
Adapted from Scollon and Scollon (1995,132-133)<br />
6<br />
34