Face and Morality in Confucian Society

K.-K. Hwang, Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relations, 265

International and Cultural Psychology 1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-1439-1_10,

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract A critical review of previous literatures indicated that Chinese concepts

of face can be differentiated into social face ( mianzi ) and moral face ( lian ). The

face dynamism in Confucian society was explained in terms of Confucian ethics

for ordinary people, which aimed to maintain one’s psychosocial homeostasis

either in dyad interaction or among persons-in-relation within one’s psychosocio￾gram. The main arguments of the current research were demonstrated by a series

of empirical research on seeking help from afar for what lies close at hand; com￾paring episodes of losing face in Taiwan and mainland China; face concern in a

personality orientation; intergenerational difference of face concern for two types

of face events with relational others; and emotional reactions to two types of face

incidents caused by others of different relationships. The predictive validity of the

current approach was compared with that of the cross-cultural approach which

attempted to explain face feelings in terms of cultural differences on the dimension

of individualism–collectivism.

Keywords Social face ( mianzi ) • Moral face ( lian ) • Greater self ( da wo ) • Losing

face • Having face • Psychosocial homeostasis • Face saving • Face maintenance •

Ethics of community • Making face • Sharing glory • Serving relationship • Formality

of the situation • Face dynamism

The Mystery of Face in Confucian Society

Since the early 1900s when Western contact with the East increased in frequency,

many missionaries, diplomats, and travelers have attempted to describe their experi￾ences in the Orient to the people in their home countries. Many mentioned the fact

that Chinese emphasize the importance of face and felt it to be a key concept for

understanding Chinese psychology and behavior (Gilbert 1927 ; Smith 1894 ;

Wilehlm 1926 ) . They advised that anyone who doesn’t know about face would

Chapter 10

Face and Morality in Confucian Society

266 10 Face and Morality in Confucian Society

certainly encounter trouble in dealing with Chinese people. They also agreed that it

is diffi cult for Westerners to understand the Chinese concept of face because it

implies meanings that are much more complicated than what they could narrate or

comprehend (Gilbert 1927 ) .

The principles that regulate “face” and its attainment are often wholly beyond the intellec￾tual apprehension of the Occidential, who is constantly forgetting the theatrical element,

and wandering off into the irrelevant regions of fact. To him it often seems that Chinese

“face” is not unlike the South Sea Island taboo, a force to be abolished and replaced by

common sense. At this point Chinese and Occidentals must agree to disagree, for they can

never be bought to view the same things in the same light (Smith 1894 , p. 17).

The reason why Western people think that the Chinese concept of face is so

abstruse and diffi cult to understand is because they lack a profound understanding

of the deep structure of Confucian culture. In fact, even a Chinese person might

have the same feeling if s/he knows little about the deep structure of Confucianism.

For example, during the period of May Fourth Movement, the famous writer Lu

Xun, who had devoted his whole life to studying the national character of Chinese

people and the reconstruction of Chinese culture, also said that: “What is going on

about ‘face’? It is fairly not to think about it. When you think of it, you will get

confused.” (Lu 1991 , p. 126).

Early Exploration

In the 1940s, Chinese anthropologist Hu ( 1944 ) explained the meanings of many

Chinese terms and phrases related to lian and mianzi that are frequently used in

daily life. Inspired by Hu’s work, American sociologist Goffman ( 1955 ) studied

face in interpersonal interaction. His book The Presentation of Self in Everyday

Life (Goffman 1959 ) even became a sociological classic. Goffman defi ned face as

the public-image people create, which enables them to receive and is also depen￾dent on praise from others, In any social interaction, one of the participants may

claim to possess some values praised by society, such as wealth, achievement, or

ability. When others recognize this claim, the person gains face. If the claim is

rejected, the person loses face. According to this defi nition, individuals do not have

a constant presentation of face. An individual’s face varies with the situation

(Goffman 1955 ) .

Goffman’s work ( 1955, 1959, 1967 ) resulted in a series of experimental studies.

Because an individual’s face is defi ned to a certain extent by changes in social

circumstances, several psychologists conducted studies in which they deliberately

arranged situations that would threaten the individual’s sense of self. Then they

recorded the responses for further analysis. For instance, they asked university stu￾dents to suck nipples, sing awkward songs in public, learn of their poor performance

on an ability test, and made them frustrated in a negotiation process (B. R. Brown

1968, 1970 ; B. R. Brown and Garland 1971 ; Garland and B. R. Brown 1972 ) .

However, careful examination of Goffman’s work and the follow-up studies reveals

The Cultural Origin of the Chinese Concept of Face 267

that what was actually studied were interaction rituals in American society, which

are signifi cantly different from ideas about mianzi and lian in Chinese culture.

American anthropologists P. Brown and Levinson ( 1987 ) further investigated the

relationship between face and the language of politeness used in daily life. In their

view, maintaining face is a kind of human need. Every competent adult in every

society needs it and knows that others also need it. People are rational enough to

realize how to use a specifi c language of politeness to express concern for face and

to protect their own face from being threatened. P. Brown and Levinson separated

face into two categories: positive face and negative face. Positive face referred to the

need to be recognized or praised by others for a particular aspect, which allows one

to value him/herself more highly. Negative face referred to the need for freedom of

action and freedom from being obstructed or compelled.

Though P. Brown and Levinson regarded face as a universal need, the concepts

of face in their discourse, especially the public image of independence emphasized

by negative face, carry certain cultural values that are different from the concept of

face in Confucian cultures.

The Cultural Origin of the Chinese Concept of Face

The German missionary Wilehlm ( 1926 ) who lived in China for 25 years was the

fi rst author to trace the cultural origins of the Chinese concept of face. He indicated

that Confucianism and Taoism are the cultural roots of Chinese character. Confucian

emphasis on harmony traditionally caused Chinese people to strive for what they

deserved within the social order of their clan. This striving could result in two types

of character – namely, face loving ( ai mianzi ) and having no way ( mei fazi ).

In the 1940s, Hu ( 1944 ) used an anthropological approach to analyze situations

for using various words relevant to lian and mianzi in Chinese social life. She indi￾cated that as shown in the ancient literature, the emergence of the term mianzi in

Chinese verbal communication was much earlier than the term lian . Before the

fourth century B.C., the term mianzi was symbolically used to denote the relation￾ship between an individual and society. Lian has been used only in relatively modern

times. It was fi rst cited in the Kangxi Dictionary in a reference to the Yuan dynasty

(1227 ad to 1367 ad ). The term lian originated in northern China. It gradually

replaced the physical meaning of mianzi (a person’s physical face) in usage and then

became endowed with the symbolic signifi cance.

Lian and Mianzi

In daily usage, mianzi represents the kind of social reputation that is highly valued

by Chinese. It is the kind of status that has been deliberately accumulated by a