Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Mao (1994) addresses this tension between the autonomy of the
individual and the sub-ordination of the self to wider society by drawing on two
cultural ideals which shape interactional behaviour: 'ideal social identity' and
'ideal individual autonomy'. Underlying these are two competing forces: a
centripetal force, where social recognition and interdependence inform
behaviour, as in Asian communities; and a centrifugal force, spiralling outwards
from individual desires or wants, as characteristic of Anglo-American settings.
Where ideal individual autonomy is oriented to, individual's behaviour will be
geared to establishing and maintaining personal territory, whilst orientation to
the ideal social identity will see interactants engaging in almost total communion
with other group members. Importantly, Mao argues that in interaction,
I ... speakers are constantly in the process of pursuing one ideal or the other'
(1994,472).
In terms of cultural differences, Mao goes on to state that, although the
face'orientation of cultures may differ, with one or the other orientation being
privileged, and the other essentially diminished, although not precluded as
'... the other'eclipsed' ideal does not always remain in the background, and it
may ... be represented, in some discourse activities within the same community'
(ibid., 473)'. Similarly, Ho (1976) notes that, although western treatment of face
is cited frequently as being based generally on individualism, whilst Asian face
is based on collectivism, and associated obligations such as reciprocity of
obligations and esteem protection, the two frameworks are not mutually
exclusive. As Ho (1976,883) noted, 'these two orientations need not, and
should not, be regarded as mutually exclusive. Rather they are complementary.
Neither, when taken alone, is capable of yielding a complete account of the total
complexity of [face]. These comments on face as based on two competing
dynamics seem to reflect what Scollon and Scollon (1995) referred to as a 'false
dichotomy' between East and West.
These latter comments are interesting in that they suggest not a
dichotomous either / or reading of - in this particular case - East-West
differences in the attitudes, values and behaviours, the status of the self, and
face and facework in interaction, but rather a more dynamic one with both
propensities present in both cultures. This is an interesting idea which, although
37