FACE NEGOTIATION THEORY. INTRODUCTION The theory was first developed by Stella Ting- Toomey in 1985 to explain how different cultures manage conflict.

FACE NEGOTIATION

THEORY

DPC 111- Introduction to Communication

Theory, University of GuyanaGroup E

INTRODUCTION

The theory was first developed by Stella Ting- Toomey in 1985 to explain how different cultures manage conflict and communication.

Face is clearly an important feature of life, a metaphor for self-image that David Ho (1976) believes pervades all aspect of social life.

The concept of face has evolved in interpretation over the years. It originates with the Chinese, who, as Ho argues, have two conceptualizations of face: lien and mien-tzu, two terms describing identity and ego.

INTRODUCTION

Face : a metaphor for the public image people display.

The theory deals with the idea of “face” as a representative of the identity a person has and how the culture someone is in places importance on the individual on society.

Face-negotiation theory can be interpreted in two primary ways :

1.Face needs 2.Face concern Face needs : refers to an inclusion-autonomy

dichotomy. That is, “Do I want to be associated with others (inclusion) or do I want dissociation (autonomy)?”

Face concern : may relate to either ones own face or the face of another. In other words, there is a self-concern and an order-concern. Face concern answers the question, “Do I want attention drawn toward myself or toward another?”

INTRODUCTION

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978) drew from over a dozen different cultures around the world and discovered that two types of universal needs exist :

1.Positive face needs 2.Negative face needs

Positive face : is the desire to be liked and admired by significant others in our lives.

Negative face : refers to the desire to be acting independently and unconstrained.

INTRODUCTION

Facework: actions used to deal with face needs/wants of self and others.

When communicators’ positive or negative face is threatened, they tend to seek a way to restore their or their partner’s face. Ting-Toomey, following Brown and Levinson, defines this as ‘facework’.

Leeva Chung and Ting-Toomey also comment that facework is about the ‘verbal and non-verbal’ strategies that we use to maintain, defend or upgrade our own social self-image and attack or defend (or ‘save’) the social image of others.

Facework pertains to how people make whatever they’re doing consistent with their face.

Types of facework includes: 1. Tact facework: extent to which a person respects another’s autonomy. 2.Solidarity facework: accepting another as a member of an in-group. 3.Approbation facework: focusing less on the negative aspects of another and more on the positive aspects.

INTRODUCTION

Face Negotiation TheoryTHEORY AT A GLANCE

Face Negotiation Theory is based on face management, which describes how people from different cultures manage conflict negotiation to maintain face.

Self-face and other-face concerns explain the conflict negotiation between people from various culture.

ASSUMPTIONS OF FNT

Face and facework are a part of everyday life, but the frame of reference on how one manages face individually and on a cultural level is what Face Negotiation Theory tries to capture. To that extent, the theory has seven assumptions:

1. Communication in all cultures is based on maintaining and negotiating face.

2. Face is problematic when identities are questioned.

3. Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic and small vs. large power distance cultures profoundly shape face management.

ASSUMPTIONS OF FNT

4. Individualistic cultures prefer self oriented facework, and collectivistic cultures prefer other oriented facework.

5. Small power distance cultures prefer an “individuals are equal” framework, whereas large power distance cultures prefer a hierarchical framework.

6. Behaviour is also influenced by cultural variances, individual, relational, and situational factors.

7. Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination of knowledge and mindfulness.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT

Face-Negotiation Theory takes into consideration the key components of the theory: face, conflict and culture.

Self-identity : is the personal attributes of another.

Self-identity is important in interpersonal interaction, with individuals negotiating their identities differently across cultures

William Cupach and Sandra Metts (1994) observe that when people meet, they present an image of who they are in the interaction.

The image presented in “an identity that he/she wants to assume and wants others to accept”.

Self identity vary across cultures and includes a person’s collective experiences, thoughts, ideas, memories and plans.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT

Delores Tanno and Alberto Gonzalez (1998) note that there are “sites of identity”, which they define as “ the physical, intellectual, social and political appearance where identity develops its dimensions”.

Self-identity is influenced by time and

experience. E.g. the self-identity of a student as he is

assigned to be the head prefect of his school. He would most likely be excited and perhaps frustrated by his new position and the responsibilities that goes along with it. With experience that frustration will be replaced with confidence and a new perspective on his identity as a role model to the other students.

Individuals in all cultures hold a number of different self images and they negotiate these images continuously.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT

Conflict Another assumption of Face- Negotiation

Theory relates to conflict, which is a central component of a theory.

The management of conflict is mediated by face and culture.

For Ting-Toomey (1994) conflict can damage the social face of individuals and can serve to reduce the relational closeness between two people.

Conflict threatens both partners’ face and when there is an incompatible negotiation over how to resolve the conflict (i.e. insulting the other, imposing one’s will and so forth), the conflict can cause a bad situation.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)

Ting-Toomey (1988) asserts that face-threatening acts (FTAs) threaten either the positive or the negative face of the interactants.

FTAs can either be direct or indirect and can occur when people’s desired identity is challenged.

Direct FTAs are more threatening to the face of others, whereas indirect FTAs are less so.

Two actions that make up the face-threatening process are:

Face-saving: involves efforts to avoid embarrassment or vulnerability. For instance, one of your best friend primary language is Creoles, although he does speak fluent English, he sometimes uses Creoles phrases in his conversation with others. Since other people are not prepared for this, you introduce him as someone whose primary language is Creoles. In this example, you are using a face-saving technique.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT

Face Restoration: occurs after the loss of face has happened. Ting-Toomey and Cole observe that people attempt to restore face in response to the events. For instance, people’s excuses are face-restoration techniques when embarrassing events occur.

Examples : Excuses such as ( I thought it was her job ) and justifications like (I’m not a morning person) are commonplace in face-restoration.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT

Culture can be organized around two ends of a continuum : Individualistic Culture Collectivist Culture

Individualistic Cultures are those that plays greater importance on the individual face on the group face.

Collectivist Culture are those that plays the importance of the group face above the individual faces.

By using face negotiation theory to understand the nature of a particular culture, it is often easier to understand how conflict can best be resolved in that culture.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF FNT

When people emphasize the individual over the group, they are articulating an individualistic perspective.

Individualism refers to the tendency of people to highlight individual identity over a group identity, individuals rights over group rights and individual needs over group needs. Individualism is the “I” identity (I want, I need etc.).

Collectivism is the emphasis of group goals over individual goals, group obligation over individual rights and in-group needs over individual wants.

Collectivism is the “we” identity (we can do this, we are a team etc.).

Face Threatening Acts

Face-Restoration

(offer excuse for

embarrassment)

Face –Saving(prevent or

stop embarrassme

nt)

Face Maintenance Framework

Ting-Toomey's research focuses on establishing a link between the faceconcerns of different cultures and people's predominant style of dealing with conflict and based on the work of M. Afzalur Rahim. Ting-Toomey identified five distinct responses to situations in which there is an incompatibility of needs, interests or goals:1. Avoiding- staying away from disagreements.

2. Obliging- satisfying the needs of others.

3. Compromising- using give-and-take to achieve a middle road resolution.

4. Dominating- using influence or authority to make decisions.

5. Integrating- collaborating with others to find solutions.

Linking Culture and Conflict Management

The five styles vary according to their mix of concern for self-face and other face.1. Obliging shows concern for other-face2. Dominating shows concern for self-face Ting-Toomey's theory predicted that different cultures would favour different conflict management styles:l. Collectivistic cultures would favour avoiding, obliging" andcompromising2. Individualistic cultures would favour dominating and integrating

Linking Culture and Conflict Management

Rigorous testing has confirmed a strong relationship between type of culture and face concern.* As the theory predicts, individuals from individualistic cultures preferred dominating strategies, whereas individuals from collectivistic cultures were more likely to avoid or obligeSurprisingly, results about the integrating and compromising styles of conflict were mixed, apparently because different cultural and ethnic groups ascribe their own meanings to the terms "integrate" and "compromise."

Linking Culture and Conflict Management

Critiques

The current challenge to face-negotiation theory comes from its leading

advocate – (Ting-Toomey and Oetzel) Ting-Toomey recognizes that people within a

culture differ on the relativeemphasis they place on self-face and other-face. She discusses the dimension of self-construal

(of self-image) in terms of theindependent and interdependent self, or the degree to which people conceiveof themselves as relatively autonomous from, or connected to, others.

Critiques

The independent self is more self-face oriented and is thus prevalent within individualistic cultures, while the interdependent self is more concerned with other face and is thus closely aligned with collectivism.

However" individuals within a culture-particularly one that isethnically diverse-differ in these images of self and concerns withface. Recently, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey have found that self-construal is a better predictor of conflict styles then ethnic cultural background.Face-negotiation theory is in progress and needs to be more complex.