Communication Theories: Face Negotiation Theory, Study notes of Theories of Communication

Download Communication Theories: Face Negotiation Theory and more Study notes Theories of Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

Manning

Face-Negotiation Theory Charles Manning Howard Payne University

Manning

Abstract

This paper is a summary of the Face-Negotiation Theory. It covers the wide range of topics including the individualistic and collectivistic cultures as well as the many “faces of face” and the different styles of conflict management. It tries to relate this theory to the everyday life of people and give examples of how it can be used and is used in today’s world.

Manning believes that people from every culture are always doing this (Ting-Toomey). Facework is the specific way in which people attempt to “negotiate face”, whether it be verbal or nonverbal. A more precise definition is a “specific verbal and non-verbal message that help to maintain and restore face loss, and to uphold and honor face gain (Ting-Toomey, 2007 ).” Taking face one step further, Ting-Toomey states in “Interpersonal Conflict – Face- Negotiation Theory” that there are three types of face. These include self-face in which one is concerned for themself, other face in which one is concerned for the other person, and mutual face in which one is concerned about both people. The Face-Negotiation Theory hypothesizes that the facework of individualistic cultures will be different than those of collectivistic cultures. Ting-Toomey also built her theory around the idea that individualistic cultures are different than collectivistic cultures, especially in the way they handle conflict (Ting-Toomey, 2001 ). Therefore, to apply facework to this theory, we must define and understand the differences between the collectivistic cultures and individualistic cultures. Collectivistic cultures are populated by “people [who] identify with a larger group that is responsible for providing care in exchange for group loyalty” (Griffin). Individualistic cultures, on the other hand, are comprised by people who “look out for themselves and their immediate families. (Griffin).” The most obvious differences between the two are how each perceives self, goals, and duty (Triandis). One story that is brought to mind when talking about differences in cultures and conflict is when the Internet wasn’t working in Jordan. There was a long drawn out adventure in which

Manning my boss tried to get the Internet to work. It had been a few weeks of going back and forth with the company with little to no results. Finally, my boss, D, went up to the company and asked to talk to the top man. When he got the chance to talk to the guy, things started out calm but got heated. The Arab man calmed once again, but D was still fuming. The Arab then offered D some tea as if nothing happened and all was well. Lori DeWitt explains this well. She states that people of a collectivistic culture, the Arab man, see conflict as an issue problem while people of an individualistic problem, D, tend to see conflict as a relational problem. Additionally, DeWitt states that in a collectivistic culture “two people can disagree about a work issue, even to the point of yelling at each other and yet still consider their friendship unharmed and go have dinner together afterwards.” On the scale of collectivistic and individualistic cultures, we can see that cultures vary, and just as cultures vary so do the members of the cultures. This means that some people can be more individualistic than other people of the same culture. The same applies to collectivistic cultures. (Griffin) For example, Texans are part of a individualistic society, but people living here are less individualistic than those in New York. That is because we are sandwiched in between the more individualistic culture to the north and the more collectivistic culture to the south. These variations in cultures help us relate the three different types of face to these two cultures. Self-face is part of the independent values of a person, which would explain why they would be worried about themselves and not others. Other face and mutual face would most likely fall under the collectivism culture due to people’s concern for the group as a whole and for other

Manning and how we band together is trying times such as the attacks on 9/11. This is further evidence of the varying degrees of culture within the individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Knowing how members of different cultures tend to save face, we can look at the different styles of conflict management and identify which culture they would most likely into. These styles include avoiding, obliging, compromising, dominating, integrating, emotional expression, passive aggression, and third-party help (Griffin). Avoiding is just as it sounds, avoiding the conflict or “withdrawing from open discussion” (Oetzel). A great example of this is my best friend in Jordan, Allan. When we would talk about spiritual things, he would be engaged to a point. I shared with him many times the Gospel and he was listening. One night he asked me, “So do you think I’m going to hell?” Taken aback, I responded, “I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the only way to heaven is through Him.” Although I didn’t directly say, “Yes, I think you’re going to hell”, which probably was for the best, he understood what I was saying. After this conversation, he withdrew from conversation with me for a few days and spiritual conversation even longer. He didn’t want to talk about this conflict between our faiths for a while. I simply waited for him to reengage, and he eventually did. Obliging is giving into the other person’s wishes (Oetzel). I also saw this in Middle Eastern culture. Everywhere we went with our Arab friends, they would insist that we do

Manning what we wanted. They didn’t think about what they wanted to do, even when pressed. For example, my friend Allan and I were going out to eat. He wouldn’t even tell me what he was craving. I suggested Pizza Hut since we were in the mall, and I could tell he didn’t want to. I changed my mind, but he refused because he knew that’s what I was wanting. He was insistent on us eating there. Needless to say, we ate there out of his persistence. Compromising is coming to middle ground. Today in America we hear a lot about this, mostly from Washington. We are hearing how the Democrats and Republicans need to find common ground when it comes to budget cuts, or see a government shutdown. Today there was an article that described the situation, which sounded promising of a compromise in which cuts would be made, but not too deeply. Both parties recognize the need for cuts, but Democrats don’t want to cut welfare items as deep; thus there have been “give-and-take” on the issue. Dominating is “competing to win when people’s interests conflict (Griffin).” This can be seen in American culture everywhere. In my own household it is seen quite a bit, usually between my step-mom and myself. All throughout high school and even today, she is very dominating when it comes to some topics. At times, I attributed it to her just being a mother, but I can now see that it’s a cultural thing as well and that everyone does it. It’s the varying degree of culture per individual that makes it seem as if she is more so dominating than others.

Manning The final style of conflict management is third-party help. This style is when the people in conflict find someone to mediate the conflict. A perfect example of this is at the beginning of the movie “Wedding Crashers” when the two mediators are helping the people that are divorcing split their property. The way individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures do third-party help is different though. People in collectivistic cultures go to someone they both admire and are close to them to “give face” to them. People in an individualistic culture, like in “Wedding Crashers”, go out of a concern for themselves. (Ting-Toomey, 2001 ) Applying this theory to life and putting it to practice requires three things: Knowledge, mindfulness, and interaction skill. People must have a knowledge about different cultures and practice being culturally sensitive. This is extremely important and is considered the “most important dimension of facework competence.” (Griffin) Mindfulness is being aware of your surroundings and acknowledging that things might not be the way you think they should be. In Griffin’s words, “It’s a conscious choice to seek multiple perspectives on the same event.” Part of this is not jumping to conclusions. Interaction skill is “your ability to communicate appropriately, effectively, and adaptively in a given situation (Griffin).” This skill is adding everything that you have learned about how humans communicate if your own culture as well as others and using it to communicate to the highest level of effectiveness possible.

Manning This theory has proven it’s worth time and time again. Griffin states that it passes the “put-up-or-shut-up” test. Putting that aside, however, and using this theory in my personal life and experiences, I can look back and see how this theory almost looks flawless. Of course there are places in which it can develop, but overall this theory is really solid. It’s one of the few that can certainly be used in everyday life. This theory covers how we manage conflict in various ways and instances across all cultures of every level. This, in and of itself, can help us to contain the damage that future conflicts we have could possibly inflict on our relationships.