Is “Face” and “Facework” a necessary relational strategy and why?

The issue of Face in communication is familiar to all Chinese as one of the significant

strategies in social interaction. In order to develop a socially-accepted self-image

and show propriety, “Face” is actually used to describe and manage

relationship-related issues (Legge, 1960a). The theory of face from Goffman (1955)

is widely applied to illustrate the attitudes of face in social interaction. Goffman

(1955) suggests that once people establish and practise socially accepted behaviour,

they may receive positive comments from others and claim their social value. Face

seems to be constituted in the communication style in Chinese culture and is always

broadly defined as behaviour which aims for a positive image through daily human

interaction (Ting-Toomey, 1988).

In clinical supervision, the professional authority of the supervisor is beyond

question. Student counsellors experience a sense of inadequacy when confronted by

supervisors. It is interesting to know how the supervisee deals with the challenges

115

from the authorities. How is face managed in the supervision relationship and how

does it affect the supervision process? Research in this area is really scarce.

Van Ginkel (2004) points out five Face concerns (see below Figure 3.11) which are

significant in understanding the supervisory relationship or management of

supervisory issues, including resisting unfair intimidation; reflecting a person’s

chaotic psychological status due to fear of losing social approval; refusing to step

back from a high-esteem position in a hierarchical system; suppressing conflict

issues by applying defensive and protective strategies when encountering

face-threatening conditions; and fake face concerns. The dimension of face provides

a framework to explain the social complexity on why and how the potential hierarchy

impacts the dynamic supervisory relationship. The face concern is one of the

solutions to human relational difficulties.

Figure 3.11 Five Face concerns by Van Ginkel (2004)

116

Direct confrontation is considered inappropriate in Chinese populations (Bond, 1991;

Sun, 2008). Chinese mainly focus on social comments while Westerners focus on the

self-comment and less on social comment (Oetzel et al., 2001). Chinese people may

show their superficial acceptance based on propriety rather than real acceptance

(Bond, 1991; Sun, 2008). From the Chinese, this is regarded as, Li, maintaining

Face and respect in the relationship. Chinese students seldom challenge their

teachers. If Chinese teachers are challenged by the students, this is regarded as

invasive, impolite, a lack of Li and not accepted by society. This is a form of

other-evaluation. Communication in Chinese tends to protect and avoid losing self

or other face and Western culture tends to be competitive with others and they want

to act more superior than other parties (Oetzal et al., 2001).

Facework refers to the strategies practised in interpersonal communication to enact

self-face, to sustain, support or challenge another person’s face (Ting-Toomey and

Kurogi, 1998; Sun, 2008). Goffman (1959) also states that face can be granted,

saved, lost and pursued. There are many strategies in facework, such as acting

passively to prevent the loss of face; avoiding the expression of one’s own

viewpoints until others have done so and agreeing conformably with that idea

afterwards; ignorance of others’ opinions is also a facework for Chinese to protect

face. Gaining admiration, appreciation and respect from others are the most

117

common motives of face-gaining acts (Sun, 2008). People who gain face will feel

more confident, and view themselves as more valuable and accepted by others. By

doing things like avoiding conflicts, paying respect to others and maintaining social

harmony, gaining face can achieve benefits like enhancing group reputation,

self-esteem, honour and dignity, status and power, networking, and a sense of

vanity (Lin, 2001).

Figure 3.12 Three major concerns in facework (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998)

Self-face concern, other-face concern and mutual-face concern are three described

perspectives (see Figure 3.12) during a conflict situation that people may be

concerned about (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998). There are five styles of facework:

(1) integrating, which is high on both self and other-face concern; (2) compromising,

which is middle on both self and other-face concern; (3) dominating, which is high

on self-face concern and low on other-face concern; (4) obliging, which is low on

118

self-face concern and high on other-face concern; and (5) avoiding, which is low on

both self and other-face concern (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998; Oetzel,

Ting-Toomey, Masumoto et al., 2001). Oetzel, Ting-Toomey and associates (2001)

illustrate 13 types of facework behaviour, and are categorized into dominating

facework style, avoiding facework style and integrating facework style. The

dominating facework style includes aggression and self-defence. The avoiding

facework style refers to avoidance, giving in, involving a third party and trying to

pretend. The integrating facework style consists of making an apology, compromise,

considering others, choosing private discussion, remaining calm and talking about

problems. Expressing feelings is regarded as both dominating and integrating

facework styles.

Figure 3.13 Five types of facework with consideration of in-group and out-group influence (adapted from Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998; Oetzel,

Ting-Toomey, Masumoto et al., 2001; Sun, 2008).

119

In Chinese society, there is a clear distinction between in-group and out-group

members. I have tried to incorporate the in-group and out group influence in the

five types of facework (see Figure 3.13). In-group members may be family

members, friends, co-workers and someone who has a relationship with you.

Out-group members may refer to strangers and enemies. The differentiations of

in-group and out-group members are not merely in different relational circles, but

also the communication pattern and face concern (Bond, 1996). The insider effect

has an influence on communication patterns and face concerns. As harmony and

relationship maintenance are the most essential considerations of in-group

members, the consideration of other-face concerns would be higher because people

do not want to harm the relationship (Oetzel, 1999). Therefore, communication

within insiders is usually more respectful and enthusiastic. Since outsiders are those

people with whom we do not have relationships or oppose us, it is not essential for

us to protect their face or feeling (Oetzel, 1999). Therefore, there is a higher

tendency for Chinese to speak their mind when facing outsiders. It is less likely for

us to consider how to gain face for outsiders.

Face permeates Chinese daily life activities, which shows that it is essential for the

supervisors and educators to pay attention to the face issues in the supervision

process. I am curious to know whether facework has been executed in the

120

supervisory relationship. Will these face-work strategies be operated? How are they

executed in the counselling supervision process? If the facework style is not

appropriate and not being realized, supervisors and supervisees may feel that they

are living in different worlds. Supervision efficacy is undermined. Research in this

area is insufficient.

3.2.5 Key theme (5): Critiquing current challenges and