Goffman

From Interaction Ritual – “On face-work”

“the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes” p.5

“it is the rules of the group and the definition of the situation which determine how much feeling one is to have for face and how thi feeling is to be distributed among the faces involved” p.6

A person may be said to “have” or “be in” or “maintain” face when “the line he effectively takes presents an image of him which is internally consistent, that is supported by judgements and evidence conveyed by other participants, and that is confirmed by evidence conveyed through impersonal agencies in the situation. At such times the person’s face clearly is something that is not lodged in or on his body, but rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter and becomes manifest only when these events are read and interpreted for the appraisals expressed in them” p.6

So the face of an individual is not a given but is actively achieved through interaction with others. You can lose face through your own act, or someone can cause you to lose it.

“a person who can maintain face in the current situation is someone who abstained from certain actions in the past that would have been difficult to face up to later” p.7

“an encounter with people whom he will not have dealings with again leaves him free to take a high line that the future will discredit, or free to suffer humiliations that would make future dealings with them an embarrassing thing to have to face” p.7-8

being in wrong face – when info brought forward about social worth which cannot be integrated into the line she is sustaining being out of face – when a person participates in interaction with others “without having ready a line of the kind participants in such situations are expected to take” . Goffman says that this is the intent of many pranks… (n.b. when someone shouts in the street – you are not prepared)

it seems humiliation could involve either

the person who is in-face “ feels some security and some relief” the one who is out of face “is likely to feel ashamed and inferior because of what has happened to the activity on his account and because of what may happen to his reputation as a participant. Further, he may feel bad because he had relied upon the encounter to support an image of self to which he has become emotionally attached and which he now finds threatened”

“felt lack of judgemental support from the encounter may take him aback, confuse him, , and momentarily incapactitate him as an interactant. His manner and bearing may falter, collapse and crumble. He may become embarrassed and chagrined; he may become shamefaced. The feeling, whether warranted or not, that he is perceived in a flustered state by others, and that he is presenting no usable line, may add further injuries to his feelings, just as his change to being in the wrong face or out of face to being shamefaced can add further disorder to the expressive organisation of the situation. Following common usage, I shall employ the term poise to refer to the capacity to suppress and conceal any tendency to become shamefaced during encounters with others.” P.9

in maintaining face the person “must ensure that a particular expressive order is sustained – an order that regulates the flow of events, large or small, so that anything that appears to be expressed by them will be consistent with his face.” P.9 pride = if this is done primarily from duty to self honour = when this is done because of duty to wider social units, and receives support from these units for doing so dignity = when this has to do with postural things, due to expressive events derived from the way in which the person handles his body, his emotions, and the things with which he has physical contact

“while his social face can be his most personal possession and the center of his security and pleasure, it is only on loan to him from society” p.10

dual considerations - defensive and protective stances – defense of own face, and protection of others. Sometimes one may be at the expense of the other. p.14

“just as the member of any group is expected to have self-respect, so also he is expected to sustain a standard of considerateness; he is expected to go to certain lengths to save the feelings and the face of others present, and he is expected to do this willingly and spontaneously because of emotional identification with the others and with their feelings. In consequence, he is disinclined to witness the defacement of others. The person who can witness another’s humiliation and unfeelingly retain a cool countenance himself is said in our society to be “heartless”, just as he who can unfeelingly participate in his own defacement is thought to be “shameless”” p.11

usually maintainence of face is a condition of interaction, not it’s objective – it is a tool;

"Face-saving is to study the traffic rules of social interaction; one learns about the code a person adheres to in his movement across the paths and designs of others” p.12

Each person, sub-culture and culture has their characteristic repertoire of face saving devices (including rules of politeness) p.13

Homebase: JacquelineHayes/GoffmanNotes (last edited 2006-08-27 22:31:27 by JacquelineHayes)