Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

A fundamental concept to emerge out of a cross-cultural reading of
facework is that of the self. I began the review by quoting Goffman's reading of
facework as one oriented essentially to supporting selves presented as images
over the flow of talk. It has also been shown that variability in the
conceptual isation of self had directly informed facework practices. Although the
arguments based on cultural variations in selfhood have drawn upon this for
explaining East-West differences in facework practices, work has also
suggested that facework based on the prevailing notion of the self may be a
more dynamic issue, with propensities for, for example individualist and
collectivist orientation being omni-present ones in all cultures. There appears
than to be a direct relationship between culturally specific conceptualisation of
the self from both a Goffmanian perspective and what was classed as a self-
construal reading, and the normative communicative practices routinely
engaged in to achieve equilibrium - that is, face ratificatory and face supportive
interaction. I shall further develop these suggestions below.
1.4 Summary
At the beginning I described this chapter as a 'primer' and issued a
caveat about its 'non-encyclopaedic' status. For this reason, there is much that
has been omitted. However, the preceding discussion can now be summarised.
First, face is a universal phenomenon. It can be seen to exist, albeit in its
various nuances, across all cultures. Second, face consists of both the needs
for solidarity with and independence from others. Again, striking cultural
differences have been shown in various cultures, none more so than Asian
versus Western societies. However, these two essentially competing forces
should not be regarded as mutually exclusive, but rather two ends of a
dimension which applies equally to all societies. These first two points lead on
to the third, namely that face as a concept, and facework as a practice can be
subject to cross-cultural variation. Fourth, face is closely associated with the
concept of the self. Indeed, it is the self as mobilised in talk which allows
participants to claim aspects of face. Fifth, face resides in discourse, that is, it is
only manifest in the communicative practices as facework which work to index,
ratify and support it. Finally, and perhaps fundamentally, the practice of
42