what is face?

[pattaya127]

what the fuck do you have to do to "lose face".

 

-------------------------------

 

??? that's the first part of the story

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if the banana skin isn't yours does that make it worse?

 

--------------------------------

 

no, just shows you are built like most of us...

 

 

[gummigut]

"Face is respect without honour. "

 

 

 

While a westerner can get really riled up with the whole concept of Face, I think that many times to much is read into this concept. The mercurial "face" can seem very much like the definition above, but asians would argue that the definition does not come close to fitting their concept of face as it is all about honour.

 

 

 

<<burp>>

[legover]

127

 

OK. it's slowly sinking in (haven't read db's diatribe yet)

 

so ... it?s other people laughing at you laughing at yourself covered in shit is saving face.? ? your own banana skin makes it better. what if you don?t laugh at yourself? laughing, shit and face are connected, in this case?

 

 

[pattaya127]

? your own banana skin makes it better. what if you don?t laugh at yourself? laughing, shit and face are connected, in this case?

 

--------------------------

 

 

 

your own banana skin makes it funnier, not better, LOL. If you keep walking with shit on your face, laughing or not will decide if you are continuously saving face or losing it. If the BKK Post reports on it, you will have to laugh everyday for many years, even clean, to start hoping you may not have lost face eternally, or until you take a plane home where, once there, you will meet a lot of other shit faces, the sheer number of it making you wonder if it's actually the best face you've ever had, therefore encouraging you to keep the shit on (peer pressure) while obviously keeping to laugh for no reason, ie. be happy, may actually be the best way to lose face again. To sum up: in LOS, watch where you walk!

[Guest]

DoxyBlue: Face is respect without honour.

 

 

 

These are immortal words! Face is all about what Ann Rand calls second-handers.

 

 

 

Second-handers are people who derive their sense of value and, ultimately, happiness, from others. Others' opinions, their approval, their admiration. Howard Roark, the main hero of Fountainhead, is an example of an opposite of a second-hander. Roark is an excellent architect. But he is ridiculed and lives in poverty, taking menial jobs rather than compromise his values. He doesn't care what others think about him, about his life, about his work. His own values and his integrity, rather than others and their opinions, are the source of his happiness.

 

 

 

In real life, it's always a blend of both. People are social animals and other people and their opinions allways matter to us, at least to some degree.

 

 

 

The Western concept of "honor" is related to the Eastern concept of "face." Where I see the difference is that ultimately, "honor" is about integrity--following one's values. That alone is a source of satisfaction, even in cases when others disapprove. The social part comes from recognition by others. But the important thing is that the recognition must stem from things that important to us. When we are recognized as experts, good workers, good friends, good parents, etc.--the things that define us as a valuable person in our own mind.

 

 

 

I would reword DBs definition in the following way: face is about recognition without substance.

 

 

 

All these things we see in the LOS everyday: ostentatious display of wealth, inability to accept one's fault or mistake, inability to accept criticism. Ultimately, unwillingness to face reality.

 

 

 

It's all about appearances and it's all about how the person is perceived by others. Substance does not matter. Ultimately, the culture of interpersonal relations in Thailand is a culture of second-handers.

 

 

 

Of course, this is not to say that no one in Thailand transcends their culture. After all, there are plenty of second-handers in the Western culture as well.

 

 

 

PS: DB, thanks for the anthropological discourse. I wasn't aware that the concept of face has been a subject of scientific study.

[JJsushi]

Love the avatar! One of my favorite movie characters. The guy is the epitomy of the failure of the American dream!

[SiLeakHunt]

you want scatology. PM me we can talk shit

[jingjoh]

Hey dont steal my concept!

[Guest]

Excellent research, Doxy. It brings back my reading of Goffman whom I very much enjoyed in college. However, your conclusion that individualistic Westerners are not concerned with face is naive in the extreme.

 

 

 

I have listened for years to stories of the preeminence of ?face? in various Asian cultures, but all of the anecdotes could be retold for Americans after the appropriate substitution of local status markers. As with all assertions about large populations only statistically (!) valid statements are meaningful. We would all like to consider ourselves as outlyers with too much personal integrity or ?inner-directedness? or whatever to engage actively in seeking status, but that is beyond ridiculous. I believe it was the anthropologist, Deborah Tanner, who reported on research that showed that the language of little boys is dominated by concern about social hierarchy and the individual?s place in it. (For little girls that concern was present, but not dominant.)

 

 

 

Consider these examples:

 

 

 

1. According to the 1990 census, most Irish-Americans are Protestant, not Catholic. Surprising? Not really. Here?s the pattern: immigrants huddle among themselves in Irish enclaves on the East coast, but their descendants disperse throughout Protestant America where, sooner or later, they recognize the benefits of status and acceptance in imitating the WASPS. I?ll bet within some percentage tolerance the same is true for every immigrant group that does not remain in a ghetto. Indeed on what else would mass religious conversion be based, if not status-seeking? Personal religious insight? Be serious.

 

2. Marketing in this consumer-base ecomony is based on the pursuit of status. Planned obsolescence in automobile marketing has been based on the accrual of status through the demonstration of wealth by wasteful replacements of perfectly functional machines. Indeed, the ephemerality of all fashion is based on the instability of status.

 

3. Many of the most powerful people do not translate wealth into leisure, through early retirement, for example, but continue to work when the opportunity to gain increased status persists. Here in New York City a successful businessman just spent $65 million to buy the job of mayor, a relatively simple status transaction.

 

4. American consumers have become more sophisticated about make effective expenditures, creating the industry of consumer information epitomized by publications such as Consumer Reports. They evalutate their expenditures in most areas except one: giving to charity. Information identifying which charitable organizations are more effective in benefitting the intended recipients is not easily available for the simple reason that givers don?t care about that. The purpose of giving to charity is to translate wealth into status so the effectiveness of the expenditure will be evaluated by the change in status, rather than the change in well-being of the ultimate recipients of the donation.

 

 

 

The list could go on. It is my contention that Americans are more motivated by the pursuit of status than Asians rather than less. But there is some difference, so what would it be? The difference is that social relations (friends, family, community) are more likely to be seen as a cost in the pursuit of status by Americans than a benefit as they would in more community-oriented value systems. For this reason Americans are more willing to sacrifice friends and family as they climb the ladder of success than traditional Asians. I remember once reading a magazine article giving advice about how to drop your social friendships with people in your office when you are promoted over them. Bowling league participation has declined during the last twenty years, while golf clubs have thrived.

 

 

 

Khun Pad Thai

 

 

[Guest]

jingjoh wrote in a different thread, referring to Fly's post: I think its arrogant to tell people they have to learn the language and immerse themselves into the country to have any understanding of some pretty basic behavioural characteristics. (I am not saying dont learn, but dont make it sound like the only option)

 

 

 

Face is not as complex as you make out, its just not important to our daily lives and therefore is harder to incorporate when trying to interact with a culture that uses it. I am sure over time it becomes a subconcious habit, but its no black magic!

 

 

 

I think in this case Fly is right on the money.

 

 

 

We can intellectually comprehend the concept of face (perhaps). But I believe the actual application as lived by the Thais is far from what we could call basic behavioural characteristic. It's extremely complex, and it happens in a context of the Thai weltanschaung, in interaction with many other behavioural characteristics (such as the hiararchy of inner- and outer circle) which are at play. Several expats who spent years in Thailand told me they still don't fully comprehend it.

 

 

 

I also agree with Fly about the language part. There are many things for which a good grasp of the language is not necessary (eg. that men who dring away and gamble away their prostitute GFs' money are scum). But the issue of face often happens on a verbal level, with subtle nuances that are impossible to understand without an excellent grasp of the language.

 

 

 

To draw a parallel, it's one thing to intellectually understand there are five tones in Thai language. It's another thing to use them correctly.