A high official has the power to exercise important political and administrative actions, and as a result the face to influence others, to solicit compliance from others who treat him with awe, with the face due to him so that he may grant favour from the other end. For example, he may grant policies advantageous to those who give him face. If there are some policies beyond his control and he fails to trade in the favour of those in control of those policies, then he will lose face before those in control and before those who look upon him for the grant.
Face does not stand alone. It forms a coercive force on participating members. It forms the rules for favourable behaviour. It restricts actions of those who want power, who do not want to lose face, nor that control over what they are originally entitled to.
It has been cited by many scholars that loss of face may result in embarrassment (Brown, 1968; 1970; Brown and Garland, 1971; Garland and Brown, 1972; Modigliani, 1971; Aitkenhead, 1984; Saraydar, 1984; Schlenker, 1980). But the loss of face, as Stover has stated, not just results in embarrassment or humiliation of an individual at one time, it disturbs the original status hierarchy and role relationships (Stover, 1962: 360).
Feelings of embarrassment or humiliation are agents which could reinforce face as a means of social control. It is reasonable to believe that people would protect themselves against these negative feelings. They would therefore act within social expectations in order to avoid negative opinions or treatment.
Conversely, there are people who do not act accordingly, who do not give others face. They may not want further interactions. They may try to disturb the role relationships, or moral standards etc., in the hope of producing a new environment favourable to them and to the judgment of their face.
Some people, because of their below-average role performance, may have little face, relative to those who are above average. They have to be content with less social/positional face. Also, there are people who care for social/positional face but not moral face.
Warlords of the early Republican era, for example, might enjoy a lot of social/positional face, but not moral face. They might have influence in their region of rule and they might have deference in that their presence
15
A high official has the power to exercise important political and administrative actions, and as a result the face to influence others, to solicit compliance from others who treat him with awe, with the face due to him so that he may grant favour from the other end. For example, he may grant policies advantageous to those who give him face. If there are some policies beyond his control and he fails to trade in the favour of those in control of those policies, then he will lose face before those in control and before those who look upon him for the grant.
Face does not stand alone. It forms a coercive force on participating members. It forms the rules for favourable behaviour. It restricts actions of those who want power, who do not want to lose face, nor that control over what they are originally entitled to
It has been cited by many scholars that loss of face may result in embarrassment (Brown, 1968; 1970; Brown and Garland, 1971; Garland and Brown, 1972; Modigliani, 1971; Aitkenhead, 1984; Saraydar, 1984; Schlenker, 1980). But the loss of face, as Stover has stated, not just results in embarrassment or humiliation of an individual at one time, it disturbs the original status hierarchy and role relationships (Stover, 1962: 360).
Feelings of embarrassment or humiliation are agents which could reinforce face as a means of social control. It is reasonable to believe that people would protect themselves against these negative feelings. They would therefore act within social expectations in order to avoid negative opinions or treatment.
Conversely, there are people who do not act accordingly, who do not give others face. They may not want further interactions. They may try to disturb the role relationships, or moral standards etc, in the hope of producing a new environment favourable to them and to the judgment of their face.
Some people, because of their below average role performance, may have little face, relative to those who are above average. They have to be content with less social/ positional face. Also, there are people who care for social/positional face but not moral face.
Warlords of the early Republican era, for example, might enjoy a lot of social/positional face, but not moral face. They might have influence in their region of rule and they might have deference in that their presence
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.