User:Celina Garcia/Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory

Lead
Conflict Face Negotiation theory originally focused on explaining how cultural, individual, and situational factors impact a person's ability to communicate in situations where they feel their face may be threatened. Conflict FNT occurs when an individual's self image (their ego) is hurt by interpersonal conflict. This theory aims to examine the tactics that individuals use to save face in different situations. Conflict communication, specifically in an intercultural context, consist of the differences within a cultural group along with face identity dissonances. Whenever these differences amongst individuals cause disharmonies within a rhetorical situation, facework skill sets can be used to show mindfulness when we deem the situation to be face sensitive. To further understand Conflict-face Negotiation theory, the meaning of 'face" needs to be understood. Conceptually "face" is what an individual wants others to see them as, which bases how they are treated by others as well as how the individual treats others . Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory helps to identify face threatening acts that can lead to an act of face saving or face restoration. Conflict Face-Negotiation theory shows ways in which individuals adapt and manage face in times of vulnerability.

Article body
Key Points

Conflict Face Negotiation Theory lays out four different paths that an individual can take when their face is threatened. The first is Self-Face, this is concern for one's self and ego, they would choose to save themselves and not the other person. Other Face is to help out the opposite party, saving them and not yourself. Mutual Face yearns to help out both of the parties, saving each other. Finally, Communal Face is when the parties do not decide to save themselves but rather save the entirety of the group instead. As we would hope that many individuals would partake in other face, and mutual face, the findings from conflict FNT discovered that more people have concern for using self face than the other strategies.

The struggles to have face respect when we are involved in these conflict situations are based on: whether they engage in self, other, mutual, or communal face. Then we can determine if the face is being saved and maintained, and finally then whether or not the face is restored to how it was before the conflict incident.

These five conditions can explain how an individual will react to their face being threatened and how it affects the intercultural face threatening process (FTP). First, during the situation if the cultural framework is violated the higher, it equals a more severe FTP. Second,if there are more cultural differences between the parties, the less trust and understanding arise. Next, if the conflict topic is perceived as important by one or more of the cultural differences, FTP is once again more severe. Fourth, if there is a power difference between the concerned parties, FTP in this situation would be of more severe concern to the recipient. Lastly, the more damage that has been caused due to FTP, the longer that it will take to repair. Through all of these conditions, self-face can be seen as the reliant strategy to rely on in these conflict situations.

Real World Applications

Conflict Face Negotiation Theory is seen in the real world daily. People can identify when Conflict Face Negotiation Theory is taking place based on situational circumstances. For example, if someone may appear to have a hurt ego, Conflict Face Negotiation Theory would be seen in how the individual then chooses to handle the situation. The act of "Saving Face" can be identified in any situation that an individual may feel threatened, hurt, or vulnerable. Not only that, Conflict Face Negotiation Theory is also seen when an individual wants to be perceived in a certain way, which can be found in almost all communication scenarios. The importance of making a good first impression to others when communicating is a good example of where Conflict Face Negotiation Theory can really be identified. Overall, Conflict Face Negotiation Theory is intertwined with many basic elements of communication, which can be seen consistently in the real world.

Strengths

When researchers attempt to answer the question "what makes a theory strong?" they must acknowledge the general criteria and terminology that set forth a guideline to base their determinations upon. In other words, there are similar sets of criteria that are widely accepted in the field of communication that scholars use to remain consistent in sharing information amongst themselves and the public. With that being said, theories can still be strong and effective without hitting all of the criteria mentioned by accurately and effectively explaining the causes of particular phenomenon in social sciences.

Conflict Face Negotiation Theory is a valuable lens through which one can understand communication and social interactions within a public sphere. The theories strength lies in several criteria that make it strong and a valuable resource to scholars and researchers alike. Firstly, it has a high testability and time as it has been evaluated, expanded and polished over the span of three decades of research studies from functional and interpretive methodologies in the field of intercultural communication. The theory also has a broad scope as it is identified as a cross cultural communication theory that emphasizes non-verbal communication to encompass any human population as well as certain animal species. The goal of this theory, after all, is to compare the differences and similarities of different facial alignments with various conflict styles. Conflict Face negotiation theory is also high in utility because it emphasizes how different cultural concerns will shape face saving precedence, explaining the different conflict communication styles people use in their day to day lives. Conflict FNT is consistent within itself as well as the five boundary conditions being in alignment amongst various structural elements within the theory. The theory is also parsimonious in its main assumptions that broadly cover different disciplines to focus on specific assumptions exploring different face sensitive situations. This broad coverage amongst researchers is due to the concise nature of the theories explanation. Lastly, conflict FNT has a high heuristic value as it has been applied across many communication disciplines over the course of three decades and has been resistant to change as well as allowing researchers to readily conduct further research and support the theory easily.

Weaknesses

While Conflict Face Negotiation Theory incorporates many strengths and benefits, there are some limitations to the theory and how effectively it can be applied. First, the theory has been primarily studied in Western cultures such as the United States. Consequently, this can limit the accuracy of the theory as it doesn't represent everyone and can't be applied to people across the world. This theory must be tested in other cultures and social environments to see if it properly accounts for the ways other people communicate and to establish credible applicability. Furthermore, this theory has been founded upon the idea of people communicating with one another in an in-person setting. This theory doesn't account for the growing popularity of communication via technology and how people communicate through looking at a screen on their electronic device which means the theory is low in reliability across mediums. This is an extremely significant factor as people are using technology now more than they ever have and the entire scope of how people communicate has changed because of it. Although Conflict Face Negotiation Theory provides a valuable medium through which one can understand communication and social interactions, it must be strongly considered and recognized that it can't be applied on a global scale due to the lack of the indispensable diversity required in the research so far regarding this theory.

History

Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory was created by Stella Ting-Toomey over thirty years ago. The start of conflict FNT was influenced by three works: Hsien Chin Hu's essay "The Chinese Concepts of Face," written 1944 as well as Erving Goffman's Article from 1955, "On Face Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction," and lastly a monograph called Politeness: Some Universals in language Usage written by Penelope Brown and STephen Levinson in 1987. Conflict Face-Negotiation then went through three stages before becoming fully conceptualized. It started with Ting-Toomey's first approach in 1988. This was an essay she wrote In Kim and Gudyknust's book, Theories in Intercultural Communication. This essay focused on five assumptions and twelve propositions. Which later developed into seven assumptions and thirty-two propositions. This led to Stella Ting-Toomey third version which kept the same seven assumptions but produced a more filtered list of propositions, bringing it down to twenty-four instead of thirty- two. These three renditions led to her fourth version in her advanced text (2019) with Dorjee. Their chapter focused on intercultural and intergroup facework. These steps are what led Conflict FNT to what it is today.

Connections to other theories

When trying to find connections between Conflict Face Negotiation theory and other communication theories it is especially important to look at the overall goal of the theory rather than minute details and tenants. Many communication theories may have small differences but overall are based around the same philosophy or message. For example, Feminist Theory and the Strong Black Women Theory have many key differences; however, both are strongly centered around the idea of empowering and equalizing women and their experiences. Conflict Face Negotiation Theory can be related to many other communication theories as well. First and foremost, the theory was initially based on the Face Negotiation Theory. Face Negotiation Theory explains the culture-based, individual-based, and situational-based factors that shape communicators’ tendencies in approaching problematic face-sensitive situations. This theory has without a doubt the most substantial connection to Conflict FNT given that the two are so intertwined. Additionally, it is important to note that Conflict FNT was one of the first and most important theories in the field of intercultural communications; therefore, many theories related to intercultural communication can also be related to Conflict FNT. For example, the Cultural Contracts Theory and Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory both explore how an individuals identity is developed. CCT is rooted in the sociocultural tradition that explores how identities develop from communication with groups, communities, and cultures. What is referred to as "identity" in terms of the Cultural Contracts Theory can also be referred to as "face" in terms of Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory. There are many other theories similar to the Cultural Contracts Theory that are centered around the idea of an individual's identity that can also be related back to Conflict Face Negotiation Theory. Some of these theories include but are not limited to: Undocumented Critical Theory, Co-Cultural Theory, The Communication Theory Of Identity, and Social Identity Theory. While all of these theories are not exactly comparable to Conflict Face Negotiation Theory, by looking at the broader goal of CFNT, connections to all of the theories can easily be made.

References