CRITIQUE OF STELLA TING-TOOMEY'S FACE NEGOTIATION THEORY


by Brian Gittinger

INTRODUCTION

Stella Ting-Toomey's Face Negotiation Theory relates the cultural differences that appear in certain conflict situations. In the chapter from A First Look at Communication Theory she uses the example of herself as a mediator in situations where families,friends, or just aquaintances have problems they need to work out. She suggests that there are differences between the way people react in a high-context culture(ex:Eastern cultures) as opposed to a low-context culture(ex:Western cultures). You may ask why this is called Face Negotiation? Ting-Toomey defines face as a metaphor for our public self-image, the way we want others to see us and treat us. So Face Negotiation is basically how we deal with our own "face".

ANALYSIS

The first thing that needs to be known before applying a critique to this theory is what high-context and low-context are. A high-context culture is one of collective needs and goals. People in this culture identify as "we" instead of "I". A low-context culture value individualist needs and goals and identify as "I". Peoples' behavior in this culture are governed by the personal rules of a freewheeling self that is concerned with individual rights rather than group responsibilities.
After searching through the article for clues about what this theory is classified as I found that it represented a strong link to the humanistic approach. The criteria which I based this on is found in the text A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION THEORY,by Em Griffin.
The scientific theory deals with Explanation of data, prediction of future, relative simplicity, testable hypotheses, and practical utility. The Humanistic theory is defined by understanding of people, clarification of values, aesthetic appeal, community of agreement, and reform of society.

I am going to state that this theory is humanistic based on the criteria from which it is defined. The first point in which I will evaluate is understanding of people. In the chapter Ting-Toomey talks about positive face(inclusion)and negative face(autonomy). Also she mentions about self-face concern and other-face concern. I believe that this theory does a great job of showing an understanding of people. Not only does it break up cultures and shows their way of life and it also steps into the culture and tries to understand why. With the whole group needs and individualistic needs Ting-Toomey proves that she understands people of different cultures and applauds both for they way they are.

Clarification of Values is highly defined in this theory. It is one of the major components is Face Negotiation. The theory does a very good job of showing clarification of values. The high-context culture values group inclusion and group needs. This culture would rather please the group before they please themselves. They value avoidence and compromising as conflict management controls. The low-context culture values individuality and autonomy and would rather govern themselves then the group have any say. You see this example everyday in the United States. Everyone wants to run their own lives the way they want to and don't want much help from anyone. If you show you want help then it is a sign of weakness. The theory has a lot of relevance in the real world.

The aesthetic appeal is defined as how closely the theory is wrapped together. Is the theory consistent with the rest of its parts and is it held together well by the contents. Face Negotiation Theory of Stella Ting-Toomey is a theory that is highly aesthetic. She does throw lots of terms out there for everyone to see and try to understand but if you look closely they all are consistant with what she is trying to prove. She uses two very broad concepts to prove her points; they are high-context culture and low-context culture. From these two components she describes the face work and conflict management of other cultures in her own terms. She doesn't ever come off of this argument and stray from the theory itself. I was able to read the theory smoothly and without having to look for the next step. This is why I am attesting that it is high on aesthetic appeal.

The next criteria to examine is the community of agreement. It was hard for me to decipher whether or not this theory was well backed by the community of scholars or if there was some doubt on the validity of it. After searching through some search engines and reading the critique from chapter 32 in A First Look at Communication Theory by Em Griffin, I came to the conclusion that this theory is accepted. Since it is not widely known, such as one of Berger's theories, there is not a lot of material supporting it or defaming it. I found one link about Stella Ting-Toomey's Face Negotiation Theory that sites Toomey herself. The page takes you to other views about her theory and discusses why it works for cross-cultural studies. To view this click here. The study done on Toomey's work varifies that there is 38% overlap between culture type and face concern, which is very high for a communication theory. Also there is 58% overlap between culture type and style of conflict management. These numbers were enough to convince the community of scholars to agree with Face Negotiation. So therefore I state that it does fit the 4th criteria for a good communication theory.

The final criteria on which to base my critique on is reform of society. I believe that this criteria is very closely linked to classification of values. I know that values are more personal than society but I came across some other terms Ting-Toomey uses to describe cultures and I think they can help to explain reform of society and fit with classification of values as well. The terms I am talking about are face-restoration, face-saving, face-assertion, and face-giving. Face-restoration and face-assertion deal with the automony and inclusion of one self using the low-context methods. Face-saving and face-giving are terms that deal with the others person's need for inclusion and autonomy. These are terms which are most tightly linked to high-context cultures. This theory is a strong theory in that it can back up the information about these terms. My job isn't to give you the definition but is to show you why these definitions apply to this criteria. Ting-Toomey uses these different kinds of face to show how society reforms to the times. I am sure that these kinds of "face" have been around for a long time and I am also sure that variations of them have changed over time as well. The terms will always be there but the way society reforms to them will change.

CONCLUSION

This will conclude my critique of Face Negotiation theory by Stella Ting-Toomey. The theory did a good job of meeting the criteria of the humanistic approach to communication theory. As I read this chapter from A First Look at Communication Theory I could see it was humanistic even before I did this critique. Ting-Toomey's view on how cultures react to certain situations involved not only time but patience as well. In conclusion Face Negotiation is humanistic from the criteria I just evaluated it on.

LINKS

To return to the title page click here

To check out Heidi's and Tony's reseach.

To see Julia's examples and applications click here

To view Natalie's useful links click here

This page on Genderlect Styles relates to Face Negotiation through distinct patterns of communication between men and women much like Face Negotiation deals with cultural patterns of communication. To see this humanistic critique click here.