Specifically, the theory tries to explain differing approaches to conflict. It bases these differences on the differences in cultures, distinguishing between individualistic and collectivistic orientations, or what is termed high-context and low-context cultures.
As Em Griffin explains in our textbook (Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.) "Ting-Toomey assumes that people of every culture are always negotiating 'face.' The term is a metaphor for our public self-image, the way we want others to see and treat us"(42).
The ways which various cultures view "face" and their individual role in "face-work" will determine the approach to conflict management.
The other pages in this site will explain the details of the theory more fully. It may help to think of the individualistic, "me centered" culture that Americans are part of when low-context cultures are discussed. Typical examples of high-context cultures are the Japanese, Chinese, and other groups which are highly "other oriented."
To learn about the real-life applications of this theory, click on Chris's application page.
An evaluation of the theory can be found on Suzanne's critique page.
To see a summary and analysis of the theory in other articles, click on Dave's or Heath's or research report pages.
Because it is intercultural in nature, it shares similarities with the Speech Codes Theory. Click on the name to link to pages designed by another group in our class to explain this theory.
Both theories separate people into cultural groups. The Face Negotiation theory uses high- and low- context designations, for example, comparing the Japanese culture with the American culture. Gerry Philipsen saw the cultural boundary drawn between groups of people separated by economic status: he contrasted the communication processes of "Teamsterville" with "Nacirema."
You can also see parallels between Face Negotiation and Deborah Tannen's Genderlect Styles theory. Two groups in our class created pages devoted to this theory. Click here to visit one, or here to view the other.
Like Stella Ting-Toomey, Tannen tries to explain discrepancies in communication by examining differences in the interacting cultures. Just like the Face Negotiation theory explains the characteristic of high- and low-context cultures, Tannen shows that men and women communicate in radically different ways: women's talk is focused on 'connection,' whereas men tend to use communication to achieve status and maintain independence. Because Tannen herself recognized that like Face Negotiation, her theory was dealing with cross-cultural communication, she used the term "genderlect" to describe it.
Both theories maintain that people's inter-cultural conflict can be reduced by recognizing, understanding, accepting, and adapting to the differences with another's culture.