Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

of face-saving practices. It is to this repertoire that we partly refer
when they ask what person or culture is "really" like. (ibid., 12-13).
Importantly, Goffman saw almost all acts involving others as being
modified, prescriptively or proscriptively, by considerations of face. In quite
general terms, this manifests itself in the display of poise, tact, or savoir-faire,
diplomacy, or social skill (ibid., 12). Although Goffman noted that some acts
may be predominantly defensive (self-oriented and aimed at supporting one's
own face), whilst others protective (other-oriented and aimed at supporting
interlocutors' faces), the majority of practices operated with both orientations
simultaneously guiding action:
In trying to save the face of others, the person must chose a tack that
will not lead to loss of his own; in trying to save his own face, he must
consider the loss of face that his action may entail for others (ibid.,
14).
Specifically, Goffman identified both avoidance (proscriptive) and
corrective (prescriptive) facework practices. Avoidance facework included both
defensive (concerned with self-face) and protective (concerned with other-face)
practices and would include strategies such as politeness. In effect, these
staved off any potential face-threat. Complementing this was corrective
facework, whose function was to effectively repair any face threat incurred.
Such practices would include for instance apologies or accounts for potential or
actual face-threatening behaviour (see Cupach and Metts 1997 for an extensive
overview of work in these areas following Goffman). This basic framework of
pre- and post- face-threat facework is presented in Fig. 1.1.
Ritual equilibrium then, sustained and remedied by facework practices
aimed at supporting proffered images and face claims was demonstrated by
Goffman to be a fundamental framework with which we could interpret western
everyday face to face encounters.
18