Face and Asian Culture
Theorist: Stella Ting – Toomey,
1991
Although popular Western wisdom
regards face as an Asian preoccupation,
many relational researchers consider it a
universal concern.
It is an extension of self-concept.
It is a vulnerable identity-based resource.
For example, when we blush, it’s a sign
that we feel, awkward, embarrassed, or
proud– all face-related issues (TingToomey, 1991).
DEFINITIONS of FACE
• Stella Ting-Toomey: the projected image of
one’s self in a relational situation
• Penelope Brown & Steven Levinson: the
public self-image that every member of
society wants to claim for himself/herself
• L. Yutang: a psychological image that can be
granted, lost, and fought for, and presented
as a gift. The term includes patrician concern
for dignity, honor, and status; can also include
arrogant “trash talk” (in your face)
- As a proponent of face-negotiation
theory, Ting-Toomey reminds us that
there are many places in the world
where face concerns focus on the
other person. Even in the midst of
conflict, people in collectivistic cultures
pay as much or more attention to
maintaining the other party’s face as
they do to preserving their own.
FACE WORK STRATEGIES
1. Face-Restoration: the strategy used to
stake out a unique place in life, preserve
autonomy, and defend against loss of
personal freedom. It is the typical strategy
across individualistic cultures.
2. Face Giving: the strategy used to defend
and support another person’s need for
inclusion. It means taking care not to
embarrass or humiliate the other in public.
It is the characteristic strategy for
collectivist cultures
Face-negotiation Theory suggests a
two-step causal chain with face
maintenance as the explanatory link
between culture and style of conflict
resolution:
Type of Culture -> Type of Face
Maintenance -> Type of Conflict
Management
FIVE TYPES of CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT in FACE-NEGOTIATION
THEORY
1. Avoiding (withdrawing): “I would
avoid open discussion of my
differences with the group
member.”
2. Obliging (giving in): “I would give
in to the group member’s
wishes.”
3. Compromising (negotiating): “I
would use give and take so that
a compromise could be made.”
4. Dominating (competing): “I would be
firm in pursuing my side of the issue.”
5. Integrating (problem-solving): “I would
exchange accurate information with the
group member to solve the problem
together.”
Each of the five styles vary according to
their mix of concern for self-face and
other-face.
ADDITIONAL CONFLICTMANAGEMENT STYLES
1. Emotional Expression: “Whatever my gut
and heart tell me, I would let this feeling
show.”
2. Passive Aggression: “Without actually
accusing anyone of being lazy, I’d try to
make him/her feel guilty.”
3. Third-Party Help: “I would enlist the
professor to help us in solving the
conflict.”
Collectivists adopting these styles focus on
relational-level collaboration and
concession, whereas individualists
concentrate on solving the task problem in
a way that brings closure (Ting-Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998).
Collectivists prefer seeking help from a
familiar third-party while individualists want
advice from an impartial person they may
not know. Third-party mediators are usually
people who are highly-regarded by both
parties in a dispute.
POLITENESS MODEL
(Brown and Levinson)
-Politeness defined: the expression of the
speaker’s intention to mitigate face threats
carried by certain face-threatening acts
(FTAs) toward another.
- Politeness consists of efforts to save face for
another
-Mitigate means to make less severe.
-FTAs are someone else’s behavior going
against what you want to put forward.
Brown and Levinson believe that
politeness is universal, although
different cultures have different levels
of required politeness and different
ways of being polite.
Politeness is universal is because all
people have the need to be
appreciated & protected, which Brown
and Levinson call face needs.
TYPES of FACE / FACE-NEEDS
Positive Face: the desire to be
appreciated and approved, be
liked and honored, and positive
politeness is designed to meet
these desires.
Example: showing concern,
complimenting, using respectful
forms of address.
Negative Face: the desire to be
free from imposition or intrusion,
and negative politeness protects
the other person when negative
face needs are threatened.
Example: acknowledging the
imposition upon a request.
FIVE APPROACHES when
USING FTAs
1. Deliver the FTA without polite action (blatant, no
attempt to acknowledge what the hearer’s face
wants)
2. Deliver the FTA with some form of positive
politeness (the threat to face is relatively low)
3. Deliver the FTA with some form of negative
politeness (the threat to face is relatively high)
4. Deliver the FTA indirectly (do it off-the-record, the
threat to face is very high)
5. Don’t deliver the FTA at all (the threat to face is
extremely high)
Positive face is when people want
that their goals, possessions, and
achievements are ratified,
understood, approved of, liked, or
admired.
Negative face is when we don’t
want others to take advantage of
us by threatening our face.
INDIGENOUS MODEL (Jocano, 1992)
- Based on native or traditional values and
practices
- Embedded in the deeper strata of our
individual and collective subconscious
- Non-legal and customary
- Serves as framework for local ways of
thinking, believing, feeling, and acting
outside of the bureaucracy and corporate
organizations’ formal environment
- Has the moral and ethical support of
community practices
CULTURE CLASH IN
FILIPINO FORMAL and
NON-FORMAL
ORGANIZATIONS
I. Institutional Demands
A. Non-Formal Community
• Kinship Loyalty
• Familism
• Friends
• Prompt Service
• Elderly Concern
• Strictness
B. Formal Bureaucracy
•
•
•
•
•
According to Rules
Through Channels
Individualism
Frankness
According to Merit
Cultural Demands
Non-Formal Community
Gift Giving
Social Obligation
Facilitating Things
Bahala
Sangguni
Asa
Awa
Utang na Loob
Cultural Interpretation
Formal Bureaucracy
- Nepotism
- Favoritism
- Cronies
- Personalism
- Autocratism
- Authoritarianism
Formal Community
-
Red Tape
Bureaucratic
Unconcerned
Rudeness
No Sympathy
Institutional Interpretation
Formal Bureaucracy
-Bribery
-Unreasonable
Demands
-Influence-Peddling
-Lack of Initiative
-Fatalism
-Lack of
Leadership
-Dependency
-Petty
Sentimentalism
-Corruption
The value orientations based on
these models have given us “splitlevel” orientations which have
undermined our confidence in our
system and blurred our vision for
development
If a Filipino strictly follows the
bureaucracy’s legal rules, he incurs
the community’s ire for being too
legalistic, formal and bureaucratic
If he follows the community’s moral
expectations, he is condemned by
the bureaucracy for violating
nepotism and corruption laws.
If he acts objectively in managing
people at work, he is criticized for
being too Westernized. If he is frank
and open with his criticism, he is
accused of being too rude and
without manners; if he is silent, he is
criticized for not being frank and
intellectually dishonest.
If he is too professional in his dealings, he is
criticized for being too individualistic and
lacking in human compassion; if he is soft
and understanding, he lacks leadership and
managerial capabilities
Our communication technique is euphemism,
persuasion, not ordering, is considered the
appropriate way for getting group consensus
and action.
Argumentation and debate are avoided
because the style often hurts Filipinos’
sensitivities.
How To Reconcile Modern And
Traditional Values
Go back to the basics of our culture and
rediscover its positive and inner
strengths.
Borrow the Western system’s best
elements and graph these to our
native knowledge to make
modernization possible without
breakdowns.
Preserve our national heritage,
define national values such as
ugnayan, pananagutan,
balikatan, bayanihan, and
galang.