Facework Theories

Origins and Definitions of Facework

Goffman's 1955 publication, “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction,” in which he explicitly linked communication practices and facework, is often credited as the origin of facework theories about communication in the United States. Goffman referenced publications on [Page 375]face from Chinese and American Indian perspectives published between 1894 and 1954. In one of these publications, Hsien Chin Hu linked the word face to two Chinese concepts: mientz, for the kind of prestige that comes from personal success, and lien, for the regard bestowed upon an individual by a group based on his or her moral reputation. Through a series of illuminating contrasts, Yu-tang Lin noted that face is psychological not physiological; not washed or shaven, but granted, lost, fought for, and given as a gift; intangible, but nonetheless regulates interactions; invisible, yet shown in public; governed not by reason, but by social conventions; not purchased with money, but the most prized possession. Goffman conceptualized face as a public image (line) that is performed in front of others, an image that is consistent with approved social values and rules for social interaction.

Even though face is often treated as a psychological concept, as though the face of an individual is distinct from the face of others, it may be more accurate to conceptualize face as a sociological or interactional concept. Scholars have argued that face does not reside in the body or personality of an individual, but in interactions of communicators and the meanings assigned to those interactions. Individuals do not own fixed, unchanging faces; rather faces are coconstructed and reconstructed in social interactions. The specific rules for honoring one's own face or the face of others can vary from culture to culture, group to group, or context to context. The word work is appropriate in reference to face because face is dynamic and ever changing, and one has to work to create and maintain desired faces. The phrase impression management, as a descriptor of one type of face-work, also indicates that maintaining or enhancing images requires labor; face is something communicators “manage.” Unfortunately, there are also some individuals who work at threatening the face of others, as in conflicts between rivals and negative political advertisements. Still, most of the scholarship on facework has focused on its positive applications.

Politeness as One Type of Facework

Brown and Levinson developed a model of politeness grounded in Goffman's notion of face. Brown and Levinson maintained that humans possess two face-wants: the desire to have one's actions unimpeded (negative face) and the desire to be liked by others (positive face). Other scholars have described these desires as the need for autonomy and the need for approval. Tae-Seop Li and John Waite Bowers further subdivided the desire for approval into two, leading them to identify three types of face: fellowship face, the desire to be included; competence face, the desire to be respected; and autonomy face, the desire not to be imposed upon.

...