[
    {
        "id": 212967,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1993",
        "page_number": 35,
        "title": "RAS-1993",
        "content_text": "14\n\nFace: Power, Not Authority\n\nAt this point, it may be necessary to discern face from authority. Although face allots influence to a person over others, it is not authority. A high official has the authority to carry out policies because his status grants him so, and he may have face to influence other officials, not under authorized control, to carry out actions favourable to him. A mandarin has face in a village and has influence to persuade many people in his village to favour certain issues. Another mandarin does not necessarily have the face to exert this influence. Face goes with persons who display performance concordant to social expectations. It does not go directly with status, and is therefore not authority. Face is a means of social control based on reciprocity whereas authority is unidirectional (Ho, 1975: 874).\n\nFace As A Means Of Social Control\n\nEven though the power that goes with face is not authority, it is attractive enough for people to act accordingly. Once a person has a big face, he would protect it and, in addition, he would also try to gain more face so that he could gain more honour, influence and deference. Having these and gaining more of these would provide a person with the basis for soliciting other 'goods' in society. Naturally, a person would be tempted to place himself in an advantageous position by complying with the rules of the game. To gain more honour, influence and deference and thereby other desired goods, a person would try to gain more face, by enhancing either or all of the variable dimensions: status, role performance, moral conduct or others' reactions.\n\nMore so, the fundamental concern for face means a concern for looking like what one is supposed to be with respect to status and role. If one wants to be treated with face, one must act according to the expectations of one at one's specific status and role in society. Otherwise, his status or his position in society will be undermined, and his face, at the same time, will be at stake.\n\nFace is seen as “status rectitude” (Stover, 1962: 347). It serves to bind people in role-relationships with regard to their positions in society. In this sense, losing face would result in a loss of control over one's status, a loss of power over others in a bargaining situation, and a loss of identity in a social interaction in which a person may have to resign to the favour of other members in an interaction.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212968,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1993",
        "page_number": 36,
        "title": "RAS-1993",
        "content_text": "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.\n\nFace 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.\n\nIt 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).\n\nFeelings 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.\n\nConversely, 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.\n\nSome 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.\n\nWarlords 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",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1993.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/66833t302",
        "rank": 0
    }
]