Conclusion
Face negotiation theory addresses intercultural communication on cultural, individual, and inter-relational levels. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures will have different methods of maintaining face and resolving conflict. What comes naturally to people from one culture may not seem an appropriate communication style to individuals from another culture.
An example of this was in 2003 when the United States went to war with Iraq. The Iraqi information minister was adamant that US troops were not in the country, despite the obvious fact that they were. Why use such a tactic? Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation theory would recognize Arabic culture as collectivistic. Thus, one might say it was a method of face management to maintain credibility with the ingroup (i.e., the Iraqi people) rather than dealing with the problem more directly.
As Greenberg, Simon, Pyszczynski, Soloman, and Chatel point out, one’s cultural worldview is taken as an absolute, and the fact that there are other people who share that view reinforces it. So, face negotiation theory can be an effective and necessary tool in developing intercultural communication competence.
Read more about this topic: Face Negotiation Theory
Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:
“I have come to the conclusion that the major part of the work of a President is to increase the gate receipts of expositions and fairs and by tourists into town.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)
“of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness
of the flesh.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep
his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
—Bible: Hebrew Ecclesiastes (l. XII, 13)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)