god Kuang Yu Kong

god Kuang Yu Kong

The general Kuan Yu during the Battle of the Three Kingdom in China, later known as
Kwan Kung, is the one of the more famous general in Chinese history. Deified as the
God of War, Kwan Kung eventually became known as the God of Wealth. Thus he has
many roles and is a most useful personage to have in the house.

Exploring the Life, Myth, and Art of Ancient China

De Edward L. Shaughnessy

Ancient Rituals RELIGIOUS-POLITICAL RITUALS

Art, Myth and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China 1st Edition
by K. C. Chang

Leading scholar K. C. Chang challenges long-standing conceptions of the rise of

political authority in ancient China. This strikingly illustrated book is a
persuasive demonstration of the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to the
study of early civilizations.
https://www.sensasia.com/senses-activity/kuang-kong-temple-manila-philippines/
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1525/aa.1944.46.1.02a00040

Handbook Of Chinese Mythology.

Other myths were passed down through oral traditions, such as theater and song
before being recorded as novels such as Epic of Darkness. Historical documents and
philosophical canons such as Book of Rites, Records of the Grand Historian, Book of
Documents, and L�shi Chunqiu all contain Chinese myths.
?Major sources and concepts � ?Time periods � ?Dragon � ?Important deities and ...
Snakes in Chinese mythology - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_in_Chinese_mythology
Traducerea acestei pagini
Snakes (also known as serpents) are an important motif in Chinese mythology. There
are various myths, legends, and folk tales about snakes. Chinese mythology refers
to these and other myths found in the historical geographic area(s) of China. These
myths include Chinese and other languages, as transmitted by Han ...
Chinese Mythology - Dictionary definition of Chinese Mythology ...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/.../chinese-mythology
Traducerea acestei pagini
Throughout Chinese history, myth and reality have been intertwined. Historical
figures have been worshipped as gods, and ancient myths are sometimes treated as
historical truths. In addition, three great religious traditions�Confucianism,
Taoism, and Buddhism�have played a role in shaping the mythology. The result is ...
Art, Myth and Ritual � K. C. Chang | Harvard University Press
www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674048089
Traducerea acestei pagini
Leading scholar K. C. Chang challenges long-standing conceptions of the rise of
political authority in ancient China. This strikingly illustrated book is a
persuasive demonstration of the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to the
study of early civilizations.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The term face idiomatically refers to one's own sense of self-image, dignity or
prestige in social contexts. In the English-speaking world and the West, the
expression "to save face" describes the lengths that an individual may go to in
order to preserve their established position in society, taking action to ensure
that one is not thought badly of by his or her peers. It is a fundamental concept
in the fields of sociology, sociolinguistics, semantics, politeness theory,
psychology, political science, communication, and face negotiation theory, and
translates at least somewhat equivalently into many world languages, both Germanic
and otherwise.

Contents
1 Definitions
2 By country
2.1 Chinese ?? and ??
2.2 English
2.3 Arabic
2.4 Persian
2.5 Indian
2.6 South Slavic
2.7 Thai
2.8 Korea
3 Academic interpretations
3.1 Sociology
3.2 Politeness theory
3.3 Communication theory
3.4 Intercultural communication
3.5 Face-negotiation theory
3.6 Psychology
3.7 Political science
3.8 Semantics
4 See also
5 References
6 Sources
7 External links
Definitions
Although Chinese writer Lin Yutang claimed "Face cannot be translated or defined",
[1] compare these definitions:

The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively
claims for himself or herself by the line others assume he or she has taken during
a particular contact. Face is an image of self, delineated in terms of approved
social attributes.[2]
Face is the respectability and/or deference which a person can claim for himself or
herself from others, by virtue of the relative position he or she occupies in his
or her social network and the degree to which he or she is judged to have
functioned adequately in that position as well as acceptably in his or her general
conduct. (Ho 1975:883)
Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained,
or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people
cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction,
such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. (Brown and
Levinson 1978:66)
Face is a sense of worth that comes from knowing one's status and reflecting
concern with the congruency between one's performance or appearance and one's real
worth. (Huang 1987:71)
"Face" means "sociodynamic valuation", a lexical hyponym of words meaning
"prestige; dignity; honor; respect; status". (Carr 1993:90)
"Face" has more meaning based on Chinese culture context.
By country
"The concept of face is, of course, Chinese in origin" (Ho 1975:867), yet many
languages have "face" terms that metaphorically mean "prestige; honor; reputation".
The French sociologist Marcel Mauss, who sociologically studied the Kwakwaka'wakw
(formerly known as Kwakiutl) and Haida nations in British Columbia, Canada
interpreted the Kwak'wala word q'elsem ("rotten face") meaning "stingy potlatch-
giver; one who gives no feast".
Kwakiutl and Haida noblemen have the same notion of "face" as the Chinese mandarin
or officer. It is said of one of the great mythical chiefs who gave no feast that
he had a "rotten face". The expression is more apt than it is even in China; for to
lose one's face is to lose one's spirit, which is truly the "face", the dancing
mask, the right to incarnate a spirit and wear an emblem or totem. It is the
veritable persona which is at stake, and it can be lost in the potlatch just as it
can be lost in the game of gift-giving, in war, or through some error in ritual.
(1954:38)

Michael Carr (1992, 1993) lexicographically investigated "face; prestige"

dictionary forms in Chinese, Japanese, and English. Within this sample, Chinese
dictionaries include 98 forms, e.g., sipo lian ??? ("rip up face") "have no
consideration for someone's feelings"; Japanese dictionaries list 89, e.g., kao o
uru ???? ("sell face") "become popular; gain influence"; and English dictionaries
include 5 forms, e.g., lose face (borrowed from Chinese diulian ?? "lose face").
Carr found that the Chinese and Japanese lexicons have roughly equal numbers of
words for "losing face" and "saving face", while English has more for "saving
face".

Chinese ?? and ??
Two influential Chinese authors explained "face". The Chinese writer Lu Xun
referred to the American missionary Arthur Henderson Smith's (1894:16�18)
interpretation.

The term "face" keeps cropping up in our conversation, and it seems such a simple
expression that I doubt whether many people give it much thought. Recently,
however, we have heard this word on the lips of foreigners too, who seem to be
studying it. They find it extremely hard to understand, but believe that "face" is
the key to the Chinese spirit and that grasping it will be like grabbing a queue
twenty-four years ago [when wearing a queue was compulsory] � everything else will
follow. (1934, 1959:129)

Lin Yutang considered the psychology of "face".

Interesting as the Chinese physiological face is, the psychological face makes a
still more fascinating study. It is not a face that can be washed or shaved, but a
face that can be "granted" and "lost" and "fought for" and "presented as a gift".
Here we arrive at the most curious point of Chinese social psychology. Abstract and
intangible, it is yet the most delicate standard by which Chinese social
intercourse is regulated.[1]

Lin refers to liu mianzi ??? "grant face; give (someone) a chance to regain lost
honor", shi mian zi ??? "lose face", zheng mianzi ??? "fight for face; keeping up
with the Joneses", and gei mianzi ??? "give face; show respect (for someone's
feelings)".

The Chinese language has three common words meaning "face":

mian (Chinese: ?; pinyin: mian; Wade�Giles: mien)

lian (Chinese: ?; pinyin: lian; Wade�Giles: lien)
yan (Chinese: ?; pinyin: y�n; Wade�Giles: yen).
Mian ? "face; personal esteem; countenance; surface; side" occurs in words like:

mianzi ?? "face; side; reputation; self-respect; prestige, honor; social standing"

mianmu ?? ("face and eyes") "face; appearance; respect; social standing; prestige;
honor"
mianpi ?? ("face skin") "facial skin; complexion; feelings; sensitivity; sense of
shame"
timian ?? ("body face") "face; good looking; honor; dignity; prestige"
qingmian ?? ("feelings face") "face; prestige; favor; kindness; partiality"
Mianmu, which occurs in the Shijing, Guanzi, and other Chinese classics, is the
oldest Chinese word for figurative "face" (Carr 1992:43). David Yau-fai Ho
(1974:241) describes timian as "an expression without an exact equivalent in
English", meaning "the social front, the ostensible display of one's social
standing to the public. It is both a prerogative and an implicit obligation for the
socially prominent to be particular about." Mianzi is a measurable and quantifiable
concept of "face". Face, Hsien-chin Hu says,

can be borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded, � all terms indicating a gradual
increase in volume. It is built up through initial high position, wealth, power,
ability, through cleverly establishing social ties to a number of prominent people,
as well as through avoidance of acts that would cause unfavorable comment.
(1944:61)

Lian ? "face; countenance; respect; reputation; prestige" is seen in several "face"

words:

lianshang ?? ("face on/above") "one's face; honor; respect"

lianmian ?? ("face face") "face; self-respect; prestige; influence"
lianpi ?? ("face skin") "face; sensitivity; compassion"
While the use of the word "mian" is more common outside Mainland China, in China
PRC, it is the word "lian" ?that is more commonly used.

Hu (1944:51-52) contrasts meiyou lian ??? ("without face") "audacious; wanton;

shameless" as "the most severe condemnation that can be made of a person" and buyao
lian ??? ("don't want face") "shameless; selfishly inconsiderate" as "a serious
accusation meaning that ego does not care what society thinks of his character,
that he is ready to obtain benefits for himself in defiance of moral standards".

Note that Cantonese uses ? instead of ?. However, Chinese people generally use the
term ?? more commonly when speaking in Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua).

Yan ? "face; prestige; reputation; honor" occurs in the common expression diu
yan ?? and the words:

yanhou ?? ("face thick") or houyan ?? "thick-skinned; brazen; shameless; impudent"

yanmian ?? ("face face") "face; honor; prestige"
Chinese uses yan less often in expressing "face; prestige" than either mian or
lian.

Carr (1992:58�60) summarizes four common Chinese lexical patterns for "face" words.
First, the lexicon antithetically modifies all three "face" words with hou ?
"thick; deep; great" and bao or bo ? "thin; slight; weak" to describe
"(in)sensitivity to prestige", for example, mianpi hou "thick-skinned; shameless"
and mianpi bao "thin-skinned; diffident". Second, owing to the importance of the
visible face, kan ? "see; look" meaning "have consideration for" and buhaokan ???
"not good looking" describe "face". Third, several expressions reciprocally
describe you ? "having" or meiyou ?? "not having" "face", such as dajia you mianzi
"everybody has mutual honor" and meiyou mianzi "lacking prestige". Fourth, "losing
face" can be expressed with the common "lose" verb shi ? and the rarer diu ?, for
instance, shi mianzi and diu mianzi "lose face; lose prestige".

Recent studies of Chinese "face" have principally accepted Hu Hsien-chin's original

distinction between a person's mianzi "social status" and lian "moral character".
Hu (1944:45) dichotomized mianzi as "a reputation achieved through getting on in
life, through success and ostentation" versus lian which "represents the confidence
of society in the integrity of ego's moral character, the loss of which makes it
impossible for him to function properly within the community". Ho qualified this
dichotomy:

although the distinction between the two sets of criteria for judging face � based
on judgments of character and, broadly, of the amoral aspects of social performance
� is justified, it cannot be anchored to a linguistic distinction between the two
terms, lien and mien-tzu, as proposed by Hu. However, we may continue to use these
terms in the senses that Hu has defined. (1975:868)

On the basis of experiments showing that Chinese high school students defined
losses of mianzi and lian interchangeably, while university students distinguished
them, Huang Shuanfan concluded that:

Succinctly, among college subjects, loss of mianzi is more definitely tied to

failure to measure up to one's sense of self-esteem or to what is expected by
others, whereas loss of lian is closely tied to transgression of social codes. Hu's
(1944) forty-year-old distinction between the two Chinese concepts of faces appears
to stand very well, even today. (1987:73)

Lian is the confidence of society in a person's moral character, while mianzi

represents social perceptions of a person's prestige. For a person to maintain face
is important with Chinese social relations because face translates into power and
influence and affects goodwill. A loss of lian would result in a loss of trust
within a social network, while a loss of mianzi would likely result in a loss of
authority.

Two "face"-related concepts in Chinese social relations are guanxi "connections;

relationships" and ganqing "feelings".

English
The English semantic field for "face" words meaning "prestige; honor" is smaller
than the corresponding Chinese field, but historical dictionaries more accurately
record its history. The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989) documents how the
English community in China originated lose face and save face in the late 19th
century, and how morphological variants like face-saver subsequently developed.

Lose face is a linguistic calque from Chinese diulian ?? "lose face". The OED2 Face
10 definition distinguishes meanings between native 10a. "Outward show; assumed or
factitious appearance; disguise, pretence; an instance of this; a pretext" (for
instance, to put a good face on) and borrowed:

10b. to save one's face: see save v. 8f; also to save face; to lose face [tr.
Chinese diu lien]: to be humiliated, lose one's credit, good name, or reputation;
similarly, loss of face. Hence face = reputation, good name.

Robert Hart originally translated lose face in a January 23, 1876 Zongli Yamen
customs memorandum, "The Inspector General's Memorandum Concerning Commercial
Relations" (Appendix II in Hart 1901:182-251).

The country begins to feel that Government consented to arrangements by which China
has lost face; the officials have long been conscious that they are becoming
ridiculous in the eyes of the people, seeing that where a foreigner is concerned
they can neither enforce a Chinese right, nor redress a Chinese grievance, even on
Chinese soil. (1901:225)

Loss of face occurs in The Times (August 3, 1929): "Each wishes to concede only
what can be conceded without loss of 'face'."

Save face was coined from lose face applying the semantic opposition between lose
and save [tr. Chinese ???/bao mianzi/guard/save face; when successful, it's called
"????/bao zhu mianzi/saved/guarded face "].

OED defines Save 8 "To keep, protect or guard (a thing) from damage, loss, or
destruction", and elaborates,

8f. to save one's face: to avoid being disgraced or humiliated. Similarly, to save
(another's) face. Hence save-face adj. = face-saving � Originally used by the
English community in China, with reference to the continual devices among the
Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace. The exact phrase appears not to
occur in Chinese, but �to lose face� (diu lien), and �for the sake of his face�,
are common.

For the earliest usage examples, the OED gives the following. Save one's face is
recorded in the Westminster Gazette (April 5, 1898): "Unquestionably the process of
saving one's face leads to curious results in other countries than China." Save-
face is found in Chambers Journal of Literature, Science and Arts (1917): "The
civilian native staff had bolted at the first sign of trouble, 'going to report to
the authorities' being their 'save face' for it!" Face-saving first appears in
Enoch A. Bennett's Lilian (1922): "She had been trapped beyond any chance of a
face-saving lie." Face-saver, defined as "something that 'saves one's face', "
originated in Edgar Snow's Scorched Earth (1941): "As a face-saver, however,
Doihara was given enough support, from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria." Carr
(1993:74) notes, "It is significant that the earliest usages for English lose face,
save face, save-face and face-saver refer to China, while later ones are more
international in application."

By expanding "lose face" into "save face", English developed oppositely from
Chinese, which has many "lose face" collocations, but none literally meaning "save
face". Yao mianzi ??? "eager to gain reputation; be concerned about appearances" is
(Hu 1944:58) "the closest Chinese approximation" for "save face".

The underlying reason for this difference is that English "face" lacks the
sociological contrast between Chinese lian and mianzi. Since Chinese lian is
ethically absolute while mianzi is socially quantitative, losing the former is more
significant. According to Huang:

The fact that Chinese lexicalizes losing face (??, ???), but not gaining face is a
potent reminder that losing face has far more serious implications for one's sense
of self-esteem or decency than gaining face. (1987:71)

Ho explains how "losing" one's "face" is more sociodynamically significant than

"saving" it.

Previous writers on face have treated losing face and gaining face simply as if
they were opposite outcomes in a social encounter and have thus failed to notice
the basic difference between two social processes that are involved. In the first
instance, while it is meaningful to speak of both losing and gaining mien-tzu it is
meaningful to speak only of losing lien. One does not speak of gaining lien
because, regardless of one's station in life, one is expected to behave in
accordance with the precepts of the culture; correctly conceptualized, exemplary
conduct adds not to one's lien, but to one's mien-tzu. (1975:870)

"Losing face" brings into question one's moral decency and societal adequacy, but
not "gaining face".

The lose verb in lose face means "fail to maintain" (cf. lose one's life), while
the save in save face means "avoid loss/damage" (cf. save one's honor). "The
English creation of save face as the opposite of lose face was arbitrary because
lose has other antonyms: win, find, keep, catch, maintain, preserve, gain, and
regain", Carr (1993:77) notes, "Speakers occasionally use the last three (esp.
gain) regarding face 'prestige', though less frequently than save". Another usage
example is give face, which is included in the Wiktionary but not the OED2.

Among the English words of Chinese origin, lose face is an uncommon verb phrase and
a unique semantic loan translation. Most Anglo-Chinese borrowings are nouns (Yuan
1981:250), with a few exceptions such as to kowtow, to Shanghai, to brainwash, and
lose face. English face meaning "prestige; honor" is the only case of a Chinese
semantic loan. Semantic loans extend an indigenous word's meaning in conformity
with a foreign model (e.g., French realiser "achieve; create; construct" used in
the sense of English realize). The vast majority of English words from Chinese are
ordinary loanwords with regular phonemic adaptation (e.g., chop suey < Cantonese
tsap-sui ?? "miscellaneous pieces"). A few are calques where a borrowing is blended
with native elements (e.g., chopsticks < Pidgin chop "quick, fast" < Cantonese
kap ? "quick" + stick). Face meaning "prestige" is technically a "loan synonym"
owing to semantic overlap between the native English meaning "outward semblance;
effrontery" and the borrowed Chinese meaning "prestige; dignity".

John Orr (1953) coined the term "invisible exports" to describe how French forme,
ouverte, and courir borrowed the sports meanings of English form, open, and run.
Chinese lose face is an imperceptible English import because it appears to be a
predictable semantic extension of face, and not a noticeable foreign borrowing.
This invisible face "prestige; status" loan is, Chan and Kwok (1985:60) explain,
"so firmly established in the English vocabulary that the average native speaker is
unaware of its Chinese origin."

When face acquired its Chinese sense of "prestige; honor", it filled a lexical gap
in the English lexicon. Chan and Kwok write,

The Chinese has supplied a specific "name" for a "thing" embodying qualities not
expressed or possibly not fully expressed, by a number of terms in English. The
aptness of the figurative extension has probably also played a part (1985:61-62).

Carr concludes,

The nearest English synonyms of the apt figurative face are prestige, honor,
respect, dignity, status, reputation, social acceptance, or good name. Ho
(1975:874-880) explains how "face" is a more basic meaning than "status",
"dignity", or "honor". "Prestige" appears to be semantically closest to "face",
however a person can be said to have face but not prestige, or vice versa. Prestige
is not necessary; one can easily live without it, but hardly without "face".
(1993:87-88)

Arabic
In Arabic, the expression hafi?a ma' al-wajh (??? ??? ?????), which literally
translate as save the face's water, is used to mean save face. The entire Arab
culture of social and family behavior is based around Islamic concepts of dignity,
or "Face", which has its basis in the social and family ranking system found in the
Treatise of Rights, Al-Risalah al-Huquq, Islam's primary source for social
behaviors.[3]

Persian
In Persian, expressions like "Aab ro rizi" (????????) literally - losing the face's
water, is used to mean save face and "Dou roi" (??????) (lit. two-facedness), "Ro
seyahi "(???????) (lit. Black-facedness) meaning "ashamed and embarrassed" and "Ro
sepidi" (???????) (lit. White-facedness) meaning "proud" (opposite of Ro seyahi)
are used.

In Iranian culture the meaning of linguistic face is much closer to the meaning of
"Personality". So Persian speakers use some strategies in saving the face or
personality of each other while they communicate. The most frequent way to express
face saving act is the application of first person plural pronoun "???" instead of
first person singular "??". The other common way of expressing care about the face,
is the indirectenss. Instead of saying "??? ?? ??? ?? ??" (pass me the salt) you
can say "?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????" (Can I ask you to pass me the
salt?)

The entire Iranian culture of social and family behavior is based around Islamic
concepts of dignity, or "Face", which has its basis in the social and family
ranking system found in The Treatise of Rights, Al-Risalah al-Huquq, Islam's
primary source for social behaviors.[3] "To Ask, Listen, Know" is how Irani
children learn this concept.[further explanation needed]

Indian
Hindu standards of ethics (Nitisastra) are based upon the Upanishads of the Vedas
and are from which the ten Yamas & the ten Niyamas (Codes of Behavior) are derived.
[4]

South Slavic
Among South Slavs, especially in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, the word obraz
(Cyrillic: ?????) is used as a traditional expression for honor and the
sociological concept of face. Medieval Slavic documents have shown that the word
has been used with various meanings, such as form, image, character, person,
symbol, face, figure, statue, idol, guise and mask. The languages also have a
derived adjective bezobrazan (Cyrillic: ??????????) "without face", used to
associate shame to a person.[5]

Thai
The Thai word for face is ????, meaning literally face. There are basically two
main ways of expressing loss of face. One, ????????, [sia naa] translates literally
as 'lose face.' Another term, ???????, or [khai naa], means sale of face - actual
connotation is that the person who lost face did so through fault of self or
through the thoughtless action of another. As in China and other regions where loss
of face is important, the Thai version involves sociodynamic status.

Korea
The concept of "face" or "chemyon" (Hangul: ?? hanja: ??, Korean: [/t???e?mj??n/])
is extremely important in Korean culture.

Academic interpretations
Figurative "face" meaning "prestige; honor; dignity" is applied across many
academic disciplines.

Sociology
"Face" is central to sociology and sociolinguistics. Martin C. Yang analyzed eight
sociological factors in losing or gaining face: the kinds of equality between the
people involved, their ages, personal sensibilities, inequality in social status,
social relationship, consciousness of personal prestige, presence of a witness, and
the particular social value/sanction involved.[6]

The sociologist Erving Goffman introduced the concept of "face" into social theory
with his (1955) article "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social
Interaction" and (1967) book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.
According to Goffman's dramaturgical perspective, face is a mask that changes
depending on the audience and the variety of social interaction. People strive to
maintain the face they have created in social situations. They are emotionally
attached to their faces, so they feel good when their faces are maintained; loss of
face results in emotional pain, so in social interactions people cooperate by using
politeness strategies to maintain each other's faces.

"Face" is sociologically universal. People "are human", Joseph Agassi and I. C.

Jarvie (1969:140) believe, "because they have face to care for � without it they
lose human dignity." Ho elaborates:

The point is that face is distinctively human. Anyone who does not wish to declare
his social bankruptcy must show a regard for face: he must claim for himself, and
must extend to others, some degree of compliance, respect, and deference in order
to maintain a minimum level of effective social functioning. While it is true that
the conceptualization of what constitutes face and the rules governing face
behavior vary considerably across cultures, the concern for face is invariant.
Defined at a high level of generality, the concept of face is a universal.
(1976:881-2)

The sociological concept of face has recently been reanalysed through consideration
of the Chinese concepts of face (mianzi and lian) which permits deeper
understanding of the various dimensions of experience of face, including moral and
social evaluation, and its emotional mechanisms (Qi 2011).

Politeness theory
Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson (1987) expanded Goffman's theory of face in
their politeness theory, which differentiated between positive and negative face
(Miller 2005).

Positive face is "the positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially

including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed
by interactants"
Negative face is "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction�i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition"
In human interactions, people are often forced to threaten either an addressee's
positive and/or negative face, and so there are various politeness strategies to
mitigate those face-threatening acts.

Communication theory
Tae-Seop Lim and John Waite Bowers (1991) claim that face is the public image that
a person claims for himself. Within this claim there are three dimensions.
"Autonomy face" describes a desire to appear independent, in control, and
responsible. "Fellowship face" describes a desire to seem cooperative, accepted,
and loved. "Competence face" describes a desire to appear intelligent,
accomplished, and capable (Miller 2005).

Masumoto, Oetzel, Takai, Ting-Toomey, & Yokochi (2000) defined "facework" as "the
communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or
challenge another person's face". In terms of interpersonal communication, Facework
refers to an individual�s identity in a social world and how that identity is
created, reinforced, diminished, and maintained in communicative interactions.

Intercultural communication
Face is central to intercultural communication or cross-cultural communication.
Bert Brown explains the importance of both personal and national face in
international negotiations:

Among the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in negotiation are the
intangible issues related to loss of face. In some instances, protecting against
loss of face becomes so central an issue that it swamps the importance of the
tangible issues at stake and generates intense conflicts that can impede progress
toward agreement and increase substantially the costs of conflict resolution.
(1977:275)
In terms of Edward T. Hall's dichotomy between high context cultures focused upon
in-groups and low context cultures focused upon individuals, face-saving is
generally viewed as more important in high context cultures such as China or Japan
than in low-context ones such as the United States or Germany (Cohen 1977).

Face-negotiation theory
Stella Ting-Toomey developed Face Negotiation Theory to explain cultural
differences in communication and conflict resolution. Ting-Toomey defines face as

the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to
another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for
respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party
in a given situation. (1990)

Psychology
The psychology of "face" is another field of research. Wolfram Eberhard, who
analyzed Chinese "guilt" and "sin" in terms of literary psychology, debunked the
persistent myth that "face" is peculiar to the Chinese rather than a force in every
human society. Eberhard noted

It is mainly in the writings of foreigners that we find the stress upon shame in
Chinese society; it is they who stated that the Chinese were typically afraid of
"losing their face". It is they who reported many cases of suicide because of loss
of face, or of suicide in order to punish another person after one's death as a
ghost, or to cause through suicide endless difficulties or even punishment to the
other person. But in the Chinese literature used here, including also the short
stories, I did not once find the phrase "losing face"; and there was no clear case
of suicide because of shame alone. (1967:119-120)

The Chinese University of Hong Kong social psychologist Michael Harris Bond
observed that in Hong Kong,

Given the importance of having face and of being related to those who do, there is
a plethora of relationship politics in Chinese culture. Name dropping, eagerness to
associate with the rich and famous, the use of external status symbols, sensitivity
to insult, lavish gift-giving, the use of titles, the sedulous avoidance of
criticism, all abound, and require considerable readjustment for someone used to
organizing social life by impersonal rules, frankness, and greater equality.
(1991:59)

Political science
"Face" has further applications in political science. For instance, Susan Pharr
(1989) stressed the importance of "losing face" in Japanese comparative politics.

Semantics
Linguists have analyzed the semantics of "face". Huang (1985, cited above) used
prototype semantics to differentiate lian and mianzi. George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson's Metaphors We Live By (1980:37) emphasizes "the face for the person"
metonymy. Keith Allan (1986) extended "face" into theoretical semantics. He
postulated it to be an essential element of all language interchanges, and claimed
(1986:10): "A satisfactory theory of linguistic meaning cannot ignore questions of
face presentation, nor other politeness phenomena that maintain the co-operative
nature of language interchange."

See also
Dignitas (Roman concept)
Shame society vs Guilt society
Honor killing
Izzat (honor)
References
Yutang, Lin (1935). My Country and My People (Hardcover). New York: Reynal &
Hitchcock. pp. 199�200.
Goffman, Erving (1955). "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social
Interaction". Psychiatry; Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. 18 (3):
213�231.
The Treatise of Rights, see various Chapters https://www.al-islam.org/treatise-
rights-risalat-al-huquq-imam-zain-ul-abideen
The Yamas and the Niyamas
https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1659
Stoianovich, Traian (1994). Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe. USA: M.E.
Sharpe. pp. 48�49. ISBN 1-56324-032-7.
Yang, Martin C. (1945). A Chinese Village; Taitou, Shantung Province (1967 ed.).
Kegan Paul Reprint. pp. 167�179.
Sources
Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, I.C. (1969). "A Study in Westernization," In Hong Kong:
A Society in Transition, ed. by I.C. Jarvie, pp. 129�163. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Allan, Keith. (1986). Linguistic Meaning, 2 vols. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bond, Michael Harris (1991). Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-585116-8.
Brown, Bert. (1977) "Face Saving and Face Restoration in Negotiation." In D.
Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Sage. pp. 275�300.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31355-1
Carr, Michael. (1992). "Chinese "Face" in Japanese and English (Part 1)", The
Review of Liberal Arts 84:39-77.
Carr, Michael. (1993). "Chinese "Face" in Japanese and English (Part 2)", The
Review of Liberal Arts 85:69-101.
Chan, Mimi and Kwok, Helen. (1985). A Study of Lexical Borrowing from Chinese into
English with Special Reference to Hong Kong. University of Hong Kong Press.
Cohen, Raymond. (1977). Negotiating Across Cultures. Communications Obstacles in
International Diplomacy. Washington DC: U.S. Institute of Peace Press.
Eberhard, Wolfram. (1967). Guilt and Sin in Traditional China. University of
California Press.
Goffman, Erving (1955). "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social
Interaction." Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3),
213-231. Reprinted in Goffman (2005, pp. 5�46)
Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-8446-7017-1
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. Random
House. (2nd ed. with Joel Best, 2005). Aldine Transaction.
Hart, Robert (1901). These from the Land of Sinim: Essays on the Chinese Question.
Hyperion.
Ho, David Yao-fai. (1974). "Face, Social Expectations, and Conflict Avoidance, " in
Readings in Cross-cultural Psychology; Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Hong Kong, August
1972, ed. by John Dawson and Walter Lonner, 240-251. Hong Kong University Press.
Ho, David Yau-Fai (1976), "On the Concept of Face, " American Journal of Sociology,
81 (4), 867�84.[1](subscription required)
Hu, Hsien Chin (1944). "The Chinese Concept of "Face", " American Anthropologist
46(1), 45-64.
Huang Shuanfan. (1987). "Two Studies of Prototype Semantics: Xiao 'Filial Piety'
and Mei Mianzi 'Loss of Face', " Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15: 55-89.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of
Chicago Press.
Lim, T.S., & Bowers, J.W. (1991). "Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact, "
Human Communication Research 17, 415-450.
Lu Xun. (1959). "On 'Face'," tr. by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang, Selected Works of
Lu Hsun, 4:129-132. Foreign Language Press.
Masumoto, Tomoko, Oetzel, John G., Takai, Jiro, Ting-Toomey, Stella, & Yokochi,
Yumiko (2000). "A Typology of Facework Behaviors in Conflicts with Best Friends and
Relative Strangers, " Communication Quarterly 4(48), 397-419.
Mauss, Marcel. (1954). The Gift, tr. by Ian Cunnison. Cohen & West.
Miller, Katherine (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and
Contexts (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Orr, John. (1953). Words and Sounds in English and French. Oxford University Press.
Pharr, Susan J. (1989). Losing Face, Status Politics in Japan. University of
California Press.
Qi, Xiaoying (2011). "Face: a Chinese Concept in a Global Sociology". Journal of
Sociology 47, 279-296.
Smith, Arthur H. (1894). Chinese Characteristics. Fleming H. Revell.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. (1990). A Face Negotiation Perspective Communicating for
Peace. Sage.
Yang, Martin C. (1945). A Chinese Village: Taitou, Shantung Province. Columbia
University Press. Kegan Paul reprint. 1967.
Yuan Jia Hua. (1981). "English Words of Chinese Origin," Journal of Chinese
Linguistics 9:244-286.
External links
Look up face in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of 'face' and 'politeness'
in Chinese, English and Japanese, Michael Haugh and Carl Hinze
Learning About "Face" � "Subjective Theories" as a Construct in Analysing
Intercultural Learning Processes of Germans in Taiwan, Doris Weidemann
Facework as a Chinese Conflict-Preventive Mechanism � A Cultural/Discourse
Analysis, Wenshan Jia
What does our face mean to us?, Ning Yu
Face in Chinese, Japanese, and U.S. American cultures, Akio Yabuuchi
Face Negotiation in Conflict Resolution in the Chinese Context,[dead link] Li
Xiaoshi and Jia Xuerui
Politeness, Face and Facework: Current Issues, Liisa Vilkki
The Concern of a Nation's Face: Evidence in the Chinese Press Coverage of Sports,
Karina Lam Wai-ling
The Chinese Concept of Face: A Perspective for Business Communicators, Qiumin Dong
and Yu-Feng L. Lee
How Does Culture Influence Conflict Resolution? A Dynamic Constructivist Analysis,
Michael W. Morris and Ho-Ying Fu
The universality of face in Brown and Levinson's politeness theory: A Japanese
perspective, Peter Longcope
Face Saving, Conflict Research Consortium
Face, Sarah Rosenberg
face (n.), Online Etymology Dictionary
Lincoln, Bruce. "�EHR". Encyclopadia Iranica. Retrieved 2016-05-31.