Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Chapter1.Onculture,faceandpoliteness.Again
17
thateverymemberwantstoclaimforhimself,”consistingoftwointerrelated
albeitsomewhatconflictingaspects:“positiveface”referstothedesiretobe
appreciatedandapprovedofbyatleastsomeothersand“negativeface”refers
tothedesiretobefreefromimpositions.
However,inmostlanguages,faceisapolysemouswordbasedonvari-
ousmetaphoricalandmetonymicmeaningextensions.Asthefaceisoneof
themostsignificantpartsofthehumanbody,itsmeaninghasextendedfrom
thephysicalobjectitsignifiestothewholehumanbeing,includingphysical
andnon-physicalaspects.Moreover,thephysicalfaceprovidesaccesstoone’s
psychologicalstates,feelingsandemotions,andtoone’scharacterandbehav-
iour(Yu,2001;Bogdanowska-Jakubowska,2010;Marmaridou,2011).Itisthus
notsurprising,thatataveryearlystage,BrownandLevinson’sdichotomous
conceptualisationoffacewascriticisedastoonarrow,ethnocentricandindi-
vidualistic(see,e.g.,Watts,Ide,&Ehlich,1992;Werkhofer,1992;Matsumoto,
1988;Mao,1994;Eelen,2001;Bargiela-Chiappini,2003;Watts,2003;Mills,
2003),andthusinapplicableinmanysocieties.
ItisfairtoaddatthispointthatfaceforBrownandLevinson(1987,p.13)
isnotjustanindividual’sclaimedself-imagebutratheranimage“attributed
byinteractantstooneanother”and“subjectofmuchculturalelaboration.”
However,despitesuchcommitments,whichentailthesocialattributionofface
inactualinteractions,BrownandLevinsonhavefocusedonother-facecon-
cernsthroughthemitigationofface-threateningacts.Oneproblemwithsuch
aconceptualisationoffaceisthatitignoresself-faceconcerns.Moreover,face
ispresentthroughoutinteractionsandnotonlywhenface-threateningactsare
likelytoemerge(see,e.g.,O’Driscoll,2007),asitis“diffuselylocatedinthe
flowofeventsintheencounter”(Goffman,1955;1972,p.320).1
Inadditiontobeingpresentthroughoutaninteraction,facemayalsoin-
volveissuesbeyondanyspecificencounter.Thiswasinitiallyacknowledged
byWerkhofer(1992,p.176),whoarguedthatfaceisnotonlyconnectedto
thenarrow“hereandnow”butalso“toprocessesthatmaygoonoverlonger
stretchesoftime.”Morerecentresearchonfolkoremicconceptualisations
offacerevealsthat“faceisoftenseenasenduringacrossinteractionsunless
otherwisechallenged”(seeHaugh&Bargiela-Chiappini,2010,p.2073).Alucid
illustrationofthisdurablenatureoffaceisprovidedbyHaugh(2010,p.13),
whodiscussesanexampleofafootballer,whosaidinaninterview:“Theloss
awokeus.Wehadtosavefaceaftersuchadefeat,”arguingthatinthisspecific
instance,andinsportingcontextsmoregenerally,facereferstothereputation
oftheteamanditscollectivehonour,bringingalsohistoricityintoplaysince
1
BrownandLevinson(1987,p.233)notebutdonotelaborateonthisdiffusenessbysug-
gestingthenotionof“face-threateningintention”(insteadofface-threateningact),whichcovers
conversationalsequencesmadeupofanumberofturns.
