10 Intercultural Communication (by Amanda Williams)

Introduction

Intercultural communication is at the intersection of cultural diversity and human interaction, offering insights into the complexities of communication across diverse cultural boundaries (Bennett, 2013). In this chapter, we delve into one of the central frameworks that illuminate the complexity and richness of intercultural dynamics: face negotiation theory (FNT).

FNT offers valuable insights into intercultural communication and is just one of many theories worth exploring. Other approaches such as Cultural Adaptation Theory (Zhang & Imamura, 2017), Communication Accommodation Theory (Giles, 2015), and Cultural Identity Theory (Collier & Thomas, 1988), provide additional perspectives and insights into the complexities of communication across cultural boundaries worth exploring if you are intrigued by this chapter.

There are two reasons that FNT was selected. First, FNT has been extensively studied and applied across various cultural contexts. It provides a framework for understanding how individuals from different cultural backgrounds navigate conflicts and maintain harmony in communication. Its applicability in diverse settings makes it a valuable theory in intercultural communication research and practice.

Secondly, FNT has garnered significant empirical support through research studies conducted in different cultural contexts. This empirical foundation lends credibility to the theory and enhances its usefulness in understanding intercultural communication dynamics.

At its core, FNT is a comprehensive toolset which investigates how individuals manage their self-image and social identity within intercultural interactions. In this chapter, we’ll draw upon pop culture, and personal and professional examples to illustrate the practical applications of FNT in intercultural contexts. Ultimately, by exploring FNT, we’ll enhance our understanding of intercultural communication and equip ourselves with valuable insights and strategies for navigating the diverse and dynamic landscape of cultural diversity in today’s interconnected world.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to

  • Identify ways FNT can be used to describe intercultural communication practices.
  • Recognize the historical development of FNT.
  • Describe the foundational concepts of FNT and apply these concepts to both popular culture and case study examples.
  • Identify potential limitations of FNT in explaining communication practices.

History of Face Negotiation Theory

According to Littlejohn & Foss (2009), the foundation of the face negotiation theory (FNT) draws inspiration from several key works in different disciplines including,  Hsien Chin Hu’s 1944 anthropological essay “The Chinese Concept of Face,” Erving Goffman’s 1955 sociological article “On Face-Work,” and Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s 1987 linguistics monograph on “Politeness.” All of these works significantly influenced the development of this theory.

Stella Ting-Toomey’s (1985) groundbreaking research in the 1980s was instrumental in popularizing this theory, which she further developed until 2005. Since then, it has undergone extensive testing and has served as a fruitful foundation for scholars to build upon.

Central to Ting-Toomey’s approach was an examination of cultural values and norms and their profound influence on the strategies individuals employ to manage face in various interpersonal encounters  (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). By delving into the intricacies of face-saving behaviours, she sought to provide a comprehensive framework that could shed light on the dynamics of cross-cultural communication in a systematic and organized manner

Ting-Toomey’s contributions not only filled a gap in communication scholarship but also offered researchers and practitioners invaluable insights into fostering effective communication across cultural divides  (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009). Her work underscored the importance of understanding the diverse ways in which individuals from different cultural backgrounds negotiate face, whether in the context of conflict resolution, relationship maintenance, or everyday social interactions  (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009).

Face Negotiation Theory Foundational Concepts

After almost four decades of refinement and discussion, FNT has many key concepts, which have culminated in seven fundamental assumptions (Ting-Toomey, 2015), the building blocks of which are explored below. The basic idea behind FNT is that face-saving, culture, and conflict are all intertwined.

The notion of face, facework and face concern

At its core, FNT revolves around the concept of face, which represents the public identity individuals strive to maintain during social interactions. The concept of face revolves around how we desire others to perceive and treat us, as well as our actions towards others in alignment with their self-image and expectations. In various contexts like interpersonal interactions, workplaces, and international settings, individuals continuously navigate decisions, whether deliberate or subconsciously, to preserve their dignity and respect that of others as they negotiate (Ting-Toomey, 2015).

While face pertains to the asserted identity we present in specific situations, facework encompasses verbal and nonverbal communication strategies aimed at safeguarding our face (Ting-Toomey, 2015).

Face concern, as part of facework, refers to the importance individuals place on maintaining their own face, or the face of others, during communication.  There are three positions associated with face concern as proposed by Ting-Toomey(2015) which are summarized below.

Table 11.1

Components of Face Concerns in FNT

Face Concern Description
Self-face concern Concern for one’s own self-image or public identity in an interaction. Individuals strive to present themselves positively and avoid actions that may damage their reputation or self-esteem.
Other-face concern Sensitivity to the image or face of others in an interaction. Individuals are attentive to the feelings, desires, and social standing of others, adjusting their communication to avoid threatening or undermining the face of others.
Mutual-face concern Concern for both one’s own face and the face of others simultaneously. In intercultural communication, individuals strive for mutual respect and understanding while maintaining positive face for themselves and others, balancing the needs and desires of all parties involved to preserve harmony and positive relationships.

The decision to prioritize self-face protection or mutual-face protection is often influenced by a combination of factors, including our cultural upbringing, individual personality traits, and the specific circumstances of the situation (Ting-Toomey, 1988).

When interacting with others on a personal level, recognizing their face concerns allows you to empathize with their emotional needs and desires. For instance, if a friend seems hesitant to share their opinion on a sensitive topic, understanding their self-face concern may indicate that they are concerned about preserving their own reputation or self-esteem. By acknowledging and respecting their need to maintain face, you can create a supportive environment where they feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of judgment or embarrassment. This understanding fosters deeper connections and trust within the relationship, enhancing mutual respect and emotional well-being for both parties involved.

Understanding face concerns becomes especially crucial in intercultural interactions, where cultural norms and expectations around face may differ significantly. One prominent area where this understanding is essential is in international business negotiations. In such settings, individuals from different cultural backgrounds come together to discuss deals, partnerships, or agreements. For example, in negotiations between Western and Eastern cultures, there may be distinct approaches to face concerns. Western cultures often prioritize direct communication and assertiveness, which can sometimes lead to a perceived disregard for others’ face concerns in more indirect or hierarchical cultures, such as those in East Asia.

By recognizing and respecting the other party’s face concerns, negotiators can build trust and rapport, facilitating smoother and more successful negotiations. This might involve being attentive to cues indicating discomfort or offence, such as nonverbal signals or indirect language usage. Adjusting communication strategies to align with the other party’s cultural norms demonstrates respect and consideration, ultimately enhancing the likelihood of reaching mutually beneficial agreements.

An Example in Practice

In popular culture, the concept of self-face concern versus mutual-face concern can be observed in various contexts, such as movies, TV shows, and music. Here are a few examples:

In the television show Friends, there’s an episode where Ross accidentally reveals Rachel’s pregnancy to her boss before she’s ready to announce it. Rachel feels embarrassed and her self-esteem takes a hit because her news was shared without her consent. She becomes concerned about her self-image at work and worries about how her boss and colleagues will perceive her. This situation highlights self-face concern as Rachel strives to maintain her reputation and control over her personal information.

In the movie The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, the powerful and demanding editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, often communicates bluntly and critically. However, her assistant, Andy, learns to navigate Miranda’s communication style by being attentive to Miranda’s other-face concerns. Despite Miranda’s tough exterior, Andy realizes that Miranda values competence and efficiency. Andy adjusts her communication style to anticipate Miranda’s needs and preferences, demonstrating other-face concern by considering Miranda’s image and preferences in their interactions.

In the animated film Moana, the main character Moana embarks on a journey to restore the heart of her community, encountering the demigod Maui along the way. Throughout their adventure, Moana and Maui initially clash due to their differing goals and personalities. However, as they learn to work together, they demonstrate mutual-face concern by considering each other’s perspectives and needs. Moana encourages Maui to embrace his true identity and strengths, while Maui helps Moana navigate the challenges of their journey. Together, they preserve harmony and positive relationships by balancing their individual goals with mutual respect and understanding.

Horizontal versus Vertical Facework

Horizontal and vertical facework are two dimensions added to the FNT to provide a more nuanced understanding of how individuals manage face concerns in communication (Ting-Toomey, 2004).

Horizontal-based facework refers to facework strategies that emphasize equality and solidarity between interactants. In horizontal-based facework, individuals strive to maintain or enhance their social standing through approaches that emphasize mutual respect, reciprocity, and egalitarianism. This might involve collaborative problem-solving, compromise, and affirming the equality of all parties involved.

In contrast, vertical-based facework involves strategies that acknowledge and reinforce hierarchical differences between interactants. In vertical-based facework, individuals may be more focused on demonstrating deference, respect, and adherence to social norms that reinforce status differentials. This might include behaviours such as deferential speech, deferential body language, and deferential actions that acknowledge and respect the hierarchical structure within the interaction.

These concepts are often applied in intercultural communication and social psychology to understand how individuals navigate social interactions within different cultural contexts and organizational settings. The choice between horizontal-based and vertical-based facework strategies may depend on factors such as cultural norms, power dynamics, and the nature of the relationship between interactants.

Recognizing the distinction between horizontal and vertical facework allows you to navigate intercultural communication with greater sensitivity and effectiveness. In cultures where egalitarianism is valued, such as many Western societies, emphasizing horizontal-based facework strategies like collaborative problem-solving and mutual respect can foster rapport and understanding. Conversely, in cultures where hierarchical structures are prominent, such as some Asian cultures, vertical-based facework strategies emphasizing deference and respect for authority may be more appropriate.

Within organizational settings, understanding the interplay between horizontal and vertical facework sheds light on power dynamics and communication patterns. In egalitarian workplaces, horizontal-based facework strategies may be favoured to promote teamwork, innovation, and inclusivity. On the other hand, in hierarchical organizations, vertical-based facework strategies may be more prevalent, reinforcing the established chain of command and maintaining organizational stability.

Overall, understanding horizontal and vertical facework enriches your ability to communicate effectively across diverse cultural and organizational contexts, enabling you to build stronger relationships, navigate power dynamics, and resolve conflicts with skill and cultural competence.

An Example in Practice

Let’s consider a workplace scenario that illustrates horizontal-based and vertical-based facework strategies associated with a team-based situation.

During a team meeting, several colleagues are brainstorming ideas for a new project. One team member, Freya, suggests an innovative approach to solving a problem. Another colleague, Alex, responds positively, acknowledging Freya’s contribution and building upon her idea. Instead of dismissing Freya’s suggestion or asserting dominance, Alex validates her input and collaborates with her to further develop the idea. This horizontal-based facework strategy fosters a sense of teamwork, mutual respect, and cooperation among team members.

In the same meeting, the team leader, Marcus, decides the project direction without consulting other team members. He communicates his directive and expects immediate compliance from the team. Marcus’s behaviour exemplifies vertical-based facework, as he emphasizes his authority and maintains a hierarchical structure within the team. While this approach may ensure efficiency and adherence to deadlines, it could also create tension and diminish morale among team members who feel their input is undervalued.

In this workplace scenario, the interactions between colleagues demonstrate both horizontal-based and vertical-based facework strategies, which impact team dynamics, communication patterns, and organizational culture.

Situational Appraisal Factors

According to Ting-Toomey & Kurogi (1998), the factors of situational role appraisal and ingroup/outgroup distance are also relevant to FNT because they influence how individuals perceive and manage face.

Situational role appraisal refers to how individuals assess their roles and responsibilities in specific social situations. In face negotiation theory, individuals may adopt either an independent or interdependent self-construal based on their appraisal of their role within a given context. For example, if someone perceives themselves as having a leadership role or high status in a particular situation, they may prioritize their own goals and autonomy (independent self). Conversely, if they perceive themselves as part of a cohesive group or team, they may prioritize harmony and cooperation with others (interdependent self).

Ingroup/outgroup distance factors pertain to the perceived social distance between oneself and others, particularly in terms of ingroups (groups to which one belongs) and outgroups (groups to which one does not belong). In FNT, individuals may adjust their self-presentation and communication strategies based on their relationship with ingroup and outgroup members. For example, individuals may emphasize their distinctiveness and autonomy when interacting with outgroup members to assert their independence (independent self). Conversely, they may prioritize group cohesion and harmony when interacting with ingroup members to maintain social harmony and avoid face threats (interdependent self).

Overall, situational role appraisal and ingroup/outgroup distance factors are important considerations within face negotiation theory as they shape individuals’ self-construals and influence their facework strategies in diverse social contexts.

Understanding situational role appraisal and ingroup/outgroup distance is important because it helps individuals recognize how they see themselves in different social situations and how they perceive their relationships with others. Situational role appraisal involves assessing whether one sees oneself as independent or part of a group, influencing their communication style and behaviour. For example, someone might prioritize their own goals and autonomy if they see themselves as a leader, while they might prioritize harmony and cooperation if they see themselves as part of a team. On the other hand, ingroup/outgroup distance factors involve understanding the social distance between oneself and others, especially in terms of belonging to certain groups. By recognizing these dynamics, individuals can adapt their communication to foster cohesion within their own groups and minimize conflicts with others. Overall, understanding these factors helps in navigating social interactions, resolving conflicts, and building positive relationships both within and across different social groups.

An Example in Practice

Let’s take a family holiday example to understand these concepts more fully.

During a Thanksgiving dinner at the Smith family’s home, Tom, the father, assumes the role of host and organizer. He perceives himself as responsible for ensuring that the dinner proceeds smoothly and that everyone feels welcomed and included. Tom’s situational role appraisal influences his presentation of self, he prioritizes his role as a provider and leader within the family. In this situation, Tom may adopt an interdependent self, emphasizing harmony and cooperation to maintain familial relationships and create a positive holiday atmosphere.

As family members gather around the dinner table, Tom feels a strong sense of belonging and camaraderie with his immediate family members (ingroup), including his spouse and children. He adjusts his communication style and behaviour to foster closeness and shared experiences within the family unit. However, when distant relatives or acquaintances (outgroup) arrive at the gathering, Tom may feel a slight sense of distance or unfamiliarity. In these interactions, he may prioritize maintaining boundaries and preserving the intimacy of his immediate family relationships while still extending hospitality and warmth to the outgroup members.

Throughout the holiday gathering, Tom’s situational role appraisal and consideration of ingroup/outgroup distance influence his self-presentation and facework strategies. By navigating these factors thoughtfully, Tom can effectively manage his self-image and foster positive social interactions within the family dynamic during the holiday celebration.

Facework Communication Competence

According to Ting-Toomey (2015), competent practitioners of facework must heighten their understanding of both their own and others’ cultural and individual facework conditioning.

Achieving an optimal level of facework proficiency underscores the fusion of culture-sensitive knowledge, mindfulness, and adaptable communication skills.

Among these components, culture-sensitive knowledge stands out as paramount. Without a grasp of cultural nuances, parties in conflict cannot dismantle the implicit “ethnocentric lenses” (i.e. a viewpoint through which individuals perceive and interpret the world primarily based on the values, norms, and beliefs of their own culture) through which they assess behaviours in cross-cultural conflicts. Moreover, lacking this awareness, negotiators struggle to accurately reframe conflict situations from the perspective of the opposing culture.

Mindfulness is another essential facet of competence (Ting-Toomey, 2015). It entails not only introspection into one’s assumptions, cognitions, and emotions but also attunement to those of others involved in the conflict. To navigate intercultural disparities adeptly, individuals must learn to perceive unfamiliar behaviours from a multifaceted, comprehensive viewpoint, akin to a 360-degree lens. Mindfulness can be honed through deep, attentive listening that clears the mind of preconceptions and biases (Ting-Toomey, 2015).

In cultivating proficient facework, adapting communication skills is indispensable. Techniques such as decentering, face validation, empathetic resonance, artful reframing, productive power balancing, adaptive code-switching, dialogue bridging, and common ground seeking are invaluable tools (Ting-Toomey, 2015). More on each of these “communication competence techniques” are outlined below.

Table 11.2

Communication competence techniques in FNT

Technique Description
Decentering Shifting perspective away from one’s viewpoint to consider alternative perspectives.
Face Validation Acknowledging and affirming the feelings, concerns, and identities of others involved in the conflict.
Empathetic Resonance Emotionally connecting with the experiences and emotions of others, demonstrating genuine concern and empathy.
Artful Reframing Skillfully altering the perspective or interpretation of a conflict situation to uncover new insights or possibilities.
Productive Power Balancing Managing power dynamics in the conflict situation to promote fairness, equity, and inclusivity.
Adaptive Code Switching Flexibly adjusting communication style, language, or behaviour to effectively engage with diverse cultural backgrounds.
Dialogue Bridging Facilitating communication and connection between parties with divergent perspectives or interests in the conflict.
Common Ground Seeking Actively searching for areas of agreement, shared values, or mutual interests among parties involved in the conflict.

Competent navigation of facework is essential for successful communication, particularly in cross-cultural contexts. Understanding both your own and others’ cultural and individual facework conditioning is crucial for effective conflict resolution and relationship building. Culturally sensitive knowledge helps dismantle ethnocentric biases, allowing negotiators to reframe conflict situations from diverse cultural perspectives. Mindfulness, involving introspection and attunement to others’ emotions and perspectives, facilitates perceiving unfamiliar behaviours comprehensively, essential for navigating intercultural disparities. Moreover, refining communication skills through adaptive techniques like decentering, face validation, and adaptive code-switching enables effective engagement across diverse cultural backgrounds, fostering mutual understanding and collaboration. Ultimately, these skills contribute to building rapport, resolving conflicts, and achieving mutually beneficial outcomes in diverse social and cultural contexts  (Ting-Toomey, 2015).

An Example in Practice

Let’s delve into a case study involving a fictional Canadian renewable energy company, EcoSolutions, seeking to collaborate with a Chinese manufacturing firm, SunTech, to introduce eco-friendly solar panels into the Chinese market.

Recognizing the significance of cultural understanding in international business dealings, EcoSolutions prepares meticulously for the negotiation process with SunTech. They acknowledge the importance of face-saving and maintaining harmony in Chinese business culture.

As negotiations commence, EcoSolutions’ team demonstrates mindfulness by attentively listening to SunTech’s representatives, respecting their cultural nuances, and refraining from imposing their Western perspectives. They observe subtle cues such as body language and tone to gauge the sentiment of their Chinese counterparts.

Decentering becomes a crucial strategy for EcoSolutions’ team as they shift their focus away from their Canadian-centric viewpoint to consider the collective interests of both parties. They validate SunTech’s concerns and viewpoints, acknowledging the importance of preserving face in Chinese business interactions.

Adaptive code-switching is employed to ensure effective communication. EcoSolutions’ team adapts their language and communication style to align with Chinese cultural norms, fostering clarity and understanding throughout the negotiation process.

Empathetic resonance guides EcoSolutions’ team in understanding the challenges faced by SunTech within the context of the Chinese market. They artfully reframe disagreements, presenting solutions that resonate with SunTech’s objectives and values while addressing EcoSolutions’ interests.

By employing these facework principles adeptly, EcoSolutions’ negotiation team cultivates a positive and collaborative atmosphere, leading to a successful partnership agreement with SunTech. The collaboration honours the face of both companies, paving the way for the introduction of eco-friendly solar panels into the Chinese market and advancing sustainable energy initiatives.

Facework and its relationship to the dimensions of culture

Ting-Toomey’s research expanded upon existing concepts by incorporating insights from Hofstede’s seminal work on intercultural frameworks dating back to the 1970s. Hofstede’s comparative framework laid the foundation for understanding cultural dimensions such as individualism versus collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 2011).

Individualism versus collectivism is a key dimension wherein individualistic cultures prioritize personal goals, independence, and self-expression, whereas collectivistic cultures emphasize group harmony, interdependence, and loyalty to the community or family (Hofstede, 2011).

Another significant concept introduced by Hofstede is power distance, which refers to the degree to which less powerful members within a culture accept and expect unequal distribution of power. Cultures with high power distance exhibit strong hierarchical structures and respect for authority, whereas those with low power distance favour equality and possess a more relaxed attitude towards authority (Hofstede, 2011).

Ting-Toomey further posits that the facework, or management of social identity, varies significantly between individuals from individualistic cultures like the United States or Germany and those from collectivistic cultures like Japan or China (Griffin, Leadbetter & Sparks, 2023)

Facework and conflict

Ting-Toomey (2005) argues that there are two aspects in which conflict styles are classified.

People belonging to individualistic culture try to maintain a face to preserve one’s own face while in a collectivistic society, people maintain a face for the sake of the society.

Based on these dimensions, there are five types of conflict styles: domination, avoiding, obliging compromising, and integrating.

Table 11.3

Summary of Original Conflict Approacher in FNT in Individualistic versus Collectivist Cultures

Conflict

Approach

 Individualistic Tendency Collectivistic Tendency
Domination Emphasizes making decisions by exerting control or dominance. May not align with collectivistic values, seen as assertive.
Avoiding Less common, as it may be perceived as avoidance of conflict. Reflects a tendency to prioritize harmony within the group.
Obliging Less common, as it involves giving up individual preferences. Reflects a willingness to prioritize group harmony.
Compromising Reflects a willingness to negotiate and reach a mutual solution. May not align with collectivistic values if seen as conceding too much.
Integrating Reflects a collaborative effort to find a solution together. Less common, as it may involve individualistic initiative.

Each of these conflict resolution approaches can be understood and analyzed through the lens of the face negotiation theory, which provides insights into how cultural factors influence facework strategies and interpersonal communication in conflict situations.

Three additional conflict communication styles were added to the original five (Ting-Toomey-2005). These three have further enhanced our understanding of conflict communication across cultures: emotional expression, third-party help, and passive aggressive.

Table 11.4

Summary of New Conflict Approacher in FNT in Individualistic versus Collectivist Cultures

Approach Individualistic Tendency Collectivistic Tendency
Emotional Expression Articulating personal feelings to manage conflict Focusing on maintaining group harmony and cohesion
Third-Party Help Seeking external assistance independently Relying on community involvement and consensus
Passive Aggressive Utilizing indirect tactics for conflict resolution Engaging in indirect communication to preserve social harmony

Understanding conflict styles and their alignment with cultural tendencies is crucial for effective conflict resolution, interpersonal communication, and cultural competence. By recognizing the various conflict resolution approaches and their compatibility with individualistic and collectivistic cultures, individuals can navigate conflicts more strategically and adapt their communication styles accordingly. This knowledge enables individuals to approach conflicts with cultural sensitivity, choosing conflict resolution strategies that resonate with the cultural norms and expectations of the parties involved. Moreover, understanding the cultural implications of conflict styles enhances interpersonal communication skills, fosters better relationships in multicultural environments, and promotes effective leadership and teamwork by facilitating open dialogue, mutual understanding, and collaborative problem-solving across diverse cultural contexts. Overall, awareness of conflict styles and their cultural dimensions equips individuals with the tools and insights needed to navigate conflicts successfully and build strong, harmonious relationships in a globalized world.

An Example in Practice

In a study by Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003), the core assumption of face negotiation theory (FNT) was empirically tested across four national cultures: China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. They found that how people deal with conflicts is directly influenced by the culture they belong to. This influence is mediated through two key factors: how individuals perceive themselves (self-construal) and their concerns about maintaining their own reputation or how others see them (self-face concern), as well as their sensitivity to how others feel (other-face concern). For instance, individuals who are more concerned about how they are perceived by others may tend to adopt dominating styles in conflicts to assert themselves. Some notes about their findings and how they might translate into some general hypotheses about conflict styles in each of these countries is presented below.

In the United States, which is often characterized as individualistic, conflict resolution approaches may tend towards domination or integration. Individuals may assert their own preferences and strive for win-win solutions, reflecting values of independence and autonomy. However, there is also a recognition of the importance of compromise and collaboration, particularly in diverse and multicultural settings.

Moreover, in Japan, a collectivistic culture, conflict resolution approaches may prioritize harmony and group cohesion. Obliging and compromising styles may be common, as individuals prioritize maintaining relationships and avoiding disruption to the group dynamic. Emphasis is placed on consensus-building and preserving social harmony, even if it means sacrificing individual preferences.

Germany, however, with its strong emphasis on efficiency and direct communication, may lean towards domination or compromising conflict styles. There is a value placed on assertiveness and clarity in communication, which may lead to a preference for direct confrontation and negotiation to resolve conflicts. However, there is also a recognition of the importance of finding mutually acceptable solutions and maintaining harmonious relationships, especially within the context of teamwork and collaboration.

Finally, in China, where collectivism and hierarchical structures are prominent, conflict resolution approaches may emphasize group harmony and deference to authority. Obliging and avoiding styles may be common, as individuals prioritize preserving face and avoiding confrontation. However, there is also a tradition of indirect communication and third-party mediation to address conflicts while maintaining social harmony.

As you can see there is some diversity to be expected and each country’s citizens may brings different situational experiences to how they approach conflict.

Summary of Seven Key Principles

According to Ting-Tommey (2015), FNT rests on seven fundamental assumptions all of which have been reviewed above.

  1. Across diverse cultures, individuals aim to uphold and navigate their face in all communication contexts.
  2. Face becomes particularly complex in situations that challenge emotions or threaten identities, prompting an examination of the communicators’ situated identities.
  3. The cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism and power distance dictate concerns and approaches to facework.
  4. Preferences for self-oriented, other-oriented, or mutual-oriented face concerns are shaped by individualism-collectivism value patterns.
  5. Preferences for horizontal-based or vertical-based facework are influenced by small and large power distance value patterns.
  6. These cultural value dimensions, coupled with individual, relational, and situational factors, impact the selection of specific facework behaviours within cultural settings.
  7. Intercultural facework competence denotes the adept integration of culture sensitive knowledge, mindfulness, and adaptable communication skills to effectively manage identity-based conflicts.

The theory has undergone several revisions since its inception.

Understanding the assumptions about facework in intercultural communication offers valuable insights for navigating diverse cultural contexts. Recognizing that individuals across cultures prioritize face in communication helps interpret behaviours and responses, reducing misunderstandings. Moreover, acknowledging the complexity of face in emotionally charged or identity-threatening situations prompts consideration of others’ face concerns, fostering positive outcomes and preserving relationships. By understanding the influence of cultural dimensions like individualism-collectivism and power distance, one can adapt communication styles effectively. This knowledge also informs the selection of appropriate facework behaviors, tailored to cultural settings. Ultimately, integrating these assumptions into one’s approach enhances intercultural competence, facilitating effective management of identity-based conflicts with adaptability.

Connections to Why We Study Communications

Studying face negotiation theory aligns with the four primary reasons for studying communication outlined in Chapter 1. Firstly, this theory offers valuable insights into how communication shapes our self-concept and identity formation. Face negotiation theory explores how individuals manage their self-image, or “face,” in social interactions, taking into account cultural norms and situational factors. Understanding how communication affects our sense of self and how we present ourselves to others is crucial for navigating diverse social contexts and building meaningful relationships.

Secondly, face negotiation theory highlights the role of communication in civic engagement and democracy. By examining how individuals manage their self-presentation and interact with others to maintain positive social identities, this theory sheds light on the dynamics of interpersonal communication within larger social and political contexts. Understanding these dynamics can help us navigate conflicts, negotiate differences, and foster constructive dialogue in diverse civic and democratic settings.

Thirdly, face negotiation theory offers essential perspectives on audience reception and interpretation. By emphasizing the negotiation of social identities and the management of interpersonal relationships through communication, this theory provides insights into how messages are received, interpreted, and responded to by different audiences. Understanding audience dynamics is crucial for effective communication strategy development and message dissemination in various contexts.

Finally, face negotiation theory addresses the crucial issue of power dynamics and social justice. By examining how individuals navigate face concerns and negotiate their identities in communication, this theory sheds light on the ways in which power influences interpersonal interactions and social relationships. Understanding these dynamics can help us identify and challenge inequitable communication practices, promote cultural sensitivity, and foster more inclusive communication environments.

Limitations

Criticism has surrounded FNT since its inception, notably regarding its complexity. With numerous concepts and components, it becomes challenging to discern which to prioritize and how best to apply them. Since its initial formulation by Ting-Toomey, FNT has undergone significant revisions, which can make it appear daunting upon first encounter. The sheer volume of concepts and propositions to test within FNT can often feel overwhelming, posing a challenge for scholars and practitioners seeking to navigate its intricate framework effectively.

Overall, FNT has a susceptibility to cultural essentialism, which refers to the tendency to oversimplify cultural differences and potentially perpetuate stereotypes (Cai & Fink, 2002). While the theory acknowledges the influence of cultural norms on facework strategies, it runs the risk of portraying cultures as monolithic entities with uniform communication patterns. This oversimplification can overlook the diversity of experiences and behaviours within cultural groups, failing to account for individual variability and reinforcing stereotypes about cultural identities (Cai & Fink, 2002). Furthermore, Ting-Toomey’s reliance on fundamental assumptions regarding the dynamics of individualistic and collectivist cultures often fails to comprehensively capture the real-life behaviours observed within such cultural contexts.

Griffin and colleagues (2023) further emphasize a methodological concern prevalent in much FNT research: the heavy reliance on self-reported data from participants, typically college-aged individuals who tend to possess greater wealth and social status compared to their peers of similar age.

In light of these limitations, it is essential to critically evaluate face negotiation theory and consider its contextual and cultural relevance in understanding interpersonal communication processes. Researchers and practitioners should strive to incorporate diverse perspectives and recognize the complexities of communication dynamics within multicultural settings. By acknowledging the limitations of face negotiation theory and adopting a more inclusive approach to studying interpersonal communication, we can develop a richer and more comprehensive understanding of human interaction across cultures.

Summary

Face negotiation is a complex and useful theory for understanding how to negotiate conflict from an intercultural perspective.

Key takeaways:

  • Intercultural communication requires a deep understanding of cultural nuances and the ability to adapt communication strategies accordingly. Face negotiation theory (FNT) emphasizes the importance of considering cultural values and norms in managing face concerns during interpersonal interactions. By being mindful of cultural differences and adapting communication styles, individuals can foster mutual understanding and harmony across cultural boundaries.
  • FNT provides valuable insights into how individuals navigate conflicts and maintain social harmony in intercultural settings. Understanding the various facework strategies, such as self-face concern, other-face concern, and mutual-face concern, can help individuals effectively manage conflicts while preserving interpersonal relationships. By employing techniques like decentering, face validation, and adaptive code-switching, individuals can navigate conflicts with sensitivity and skill.
  • While FNT offers a comprehensive framework for understanding intercultural communication dynamics, it’s essential to recognize its limitations and continue learning and evaluating its applicability in diverse contexts. Scholars and practitioners should critically evaluate FNT and incorporate diverse perspectives to enrich their understanding of intercultural communication. By remaining open to new insights and approaches, individuals can enhance their intercultural communication competence and contribute to meaningful cross-cultural interactions.

By understanding the principles of face negotiation theory (FNT), individuals are empowered to navigate the complexities of intercultural communication, fostering effective interactions and harmony across diverse cultural contexts.

References

Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 67-87.

Bennett, M. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, and practices. Hachette UK.

Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. Theories in intercultural communication, 99, 122.

Giles, G. (2015). Communication accommodation theory (CAT). Key concepts in intercultural dialogue, (48), https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/key-concept-cat.pdf

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1014&context=orpc&gt

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Face negotiation theory. In Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 2, pp. 395-398). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384

Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599–624.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. B. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225.

Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, W., Wright, T., & Oetzel, J. G. (2000). Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four U.S. ethnic groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. Handbook of intercultural training, 3, 217-248.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2015). Facework/facework negotiation theory. In The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence (Vol. 2, pp. 325-330). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346267

Zhang, Y., & Imamura, M.  (2017, July 27). Communication Accommodation Theory and Intergroup Communication. Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-484

License

Insights into Communication Studies: Understanding Foundational Theories for Media Literacy Copyright © 2024 by Amanda Williams; Amber McLinden; Cassandra Riabko; Kyle Napier; Kylie Robertson; and MRU Instructional Team. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book