Facework/Facework Negotiation Theory

Conflict Facework Negotiation Theory: Core Assumptions and Conditions

The researching of face and facework can be found in a wide range of disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, management, international diplomacy, and human communication studies, among others. The concept of face has been used to explain linguistic politeness rituals, apology acts, embarrassment situations, requesting behaviors, and conflict interactions.

The conflict FNT, developed by the author in 1988 and updated recently in 2014, explains the culture-based, individual-based, and situation-based factors that shape communicators’ tendencies in approaching conflicts. The formal version of the theory, with five core assumptions and 12 theoretical propositions, stating the relationship between individualism/collectivism and different facework/conflict communication styles, became available in 1988. A second rendition of the conflict FNT, with seven assumptions and 32 propositions, was published in 1998, with an extension on the importance of investigating conflict facework competence. Based on the results of several large cross-cultural conflict data sets, a third version of the FNT appeared in 2005, which contained 24 updated propositions.

The seven core assumptions of the FNT are as follows:

• 1.
  People in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations.
• 2.
  The concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or identity-vulnerable situations when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question.
• 3.
  [Page 326]The cultural value spectrums of individualism– collectivism and small–large power distance shape facework concerns and styles.
• 4.
  Individualism and collectivism value patterns shape members’ preferences for self-oriented face concern versus other-oriented or mutual-oriented concern.
• 5.
  Small and large power distance value patterns shape members’ preferences for horizontal-based facework versus vertical-based facework.
• 6.
  The value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, and situational factors, influence the use of particular facework behaviors in particular cultural scenes.
• 7.
  Intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.

It seems that when an individual’s face image is being threatened in a conflict situation, the response is likely to be identity-based frustration, emotional vulnerability, anger, hurt, and even vengeance. The threats to face can be on a group membership level or an individual level. In the 2005 FNT version, the following conditions were posited concerning the valence direction of an intercultural face-threatening process (FTP). First, the more the culturally appropriate facework rule is violated, the more severe the perceived threat. Second, the larger the cultural distance between the conflict parties, the more is the mistrust or misunderstandings that occur in the process. Third, the more important the perceived conflict topic or the greater the imposition of the conflict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe is the perceived FTP. Fourth, the more power the conflict initiator has over the conflict recipient, the more severe the perceived threat by the recipient. Fifth, the more harm or hurt the FTP produces, the more the time and effort needed to repair the FTP. Self-face concern becomes incrementally more salient if several of these conditions are present in a face-threatening process. For example, individuals are likely to move toward self-face-saving and ingroup-face-saving emphasis as they perceive the escalation of the various face-threatening conditions directed at them or their salient ingroups. Cultural worldview perspectives, individual personality tendencies, and situational pressures frame the underlying interpretations of what counts as a severe intercultural “face-threatening” interaction episode.

...