Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Frontispiece
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors and Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction and Theoretical Framework
- Part I Theoretical Foundations of Intercultural Training
- Part II Practice of Intercultural Training
- Part III Indigenous Psychology and Intercultural Training
- 15 Brazilian Cultural Patterns and Intercultural Training
- 16 Russian Cultural Patterns and Intercultural Training
- 17 Indian Psychology and Intercultural Training
- 18 Culture-Inclusive Theories for Intercultural Training in Confucian Societies
- 19 Japanese Psychology and Intercultural Training
- Part IV New Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intercultural Training
- Part V Summing Up
- Index
- References
18 - Culture-Inclusive Theories for Intercultural Training in Confucian Societies
An In-Depth Analysis of Face Dynamism
from Part III - Indigenous Psychology and Intercultural Training
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Frontispiece
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors and Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction and Theoretical Framework
- Part I Theoretical Foundations of Intercultural Training
- Part II Practice of Intercultural Training
- Part III Indigenous Psychology and Intercultural Training
- 15 Brazilian Cultural Patterns and Intercultural Training
- 16 Russian Cultural Patterns and Intercultural Training
- 17 Indian Psychology and Intercultural Training
- 18 Culture-Inclusive Theories for Intercultural Training in Confucian Societies
- 19 Japanese Psychology and Intercultural Training
- Part IV New Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intercultural Training
- Part V Summing Up
- Index
- References
Summary
As a crucial concept for understanding Chinese social behavior, face derives from the complicated structure of Confucianism and has continued to develop as a consequence of modernization. This chapter aims to present a series of culture-inclusive theories from the psychological perspective to illustrate face dynamism in Chinese societies. Specifically, the aims of this chapter are threefold: First, to present culture-inclusive theories of face dynamism in Chinese societies as potential materials for intercultural training related to social interactions with the Chinese. Second, to present a glossary of face-related concepts, each defined and reinterpreted in the context of current culture-inclusive theories, and to illustrate their usage as language games by Chinese people in daily social interactions. Third, the discussion of face extends from the interpersonal level to the international level, in order to highlight its cultural significance in intercultural interactions with the Chinese. We focus on the most significant and unique cultural element during intercultural interactions with the Chinese, namely face, by illustrating various roles it plays in Chinese societies. From traditional to modern usage, from personal to national level, we hope that the discussions will shed light on the why and how of face in Chinese social interactions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training , pp. 564 - 583Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Alexander, C. N., & Knight, G. W. (1971). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 34, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, C. N., & Lauderdale, P. (1977). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 40, 225–233.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. N., & Rudd, J. (1981). Situated identities and response variables. In Tedeschi, J. T. (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. N., & Wiley, M. G. (1981) Situated activity and identity formation. In Rosenberg, M. & Turner, R. (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishing.Google Scholar
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1995). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training: A comparative evaluation of culture-specific, culture general, and theory-based assimilators. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training: A multimethod study of culture-specific, culture-general, and culture theory-based assimilators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 630–655.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., & Wang, S. H. (1981). Aggressive behavior in Chinese society: The problem of maintaining order and harmony. Acta Psychologica Tawanica, 23, 57–73.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cardon, P. W., & Scott, J. C. (2003). Chinese business face: Communication behaviors and teaching approaches. Bus. Commun. Q. 66, 9–22. DOI: 10.1177/108056990306600402Google Scholar
Chang, D. S. (1989). The order complex of the Confucian ethics: Sociological interpretation of Chinese thinking. Taipei, Taiwan: Ju-Liu Press.Google Scholar
Chang, H., & Holt, R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The challenge of face work: Cross cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 95–132). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Chen, R., & Hwang, K. K. (2016). Nation, face, and identity: An initial investigation of national face in East Asia. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1557. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01557Google Scholar
Cheng, C. Y. (1986). The concept of face and its Confucian roots. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 13, 329–348.Google Scholar
Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. A. (1967). Chinese mediation on the eve of modernization. In Buxbaum, D. C. (Ed.), Traditional and modern legal institutions in Asia and Africa (pp. 54–76). Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Druckman, D. (1994). Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: A social psychological perspective. Mershon International Studies Review, 38, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In Thibaut, J. W., Spence, J. T., & Carson, R. C. (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 99–131). New York, NY: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Gabrenya, W. K., & Hwang, K. K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In Bond, M. H. (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday, Anchor.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to face behavior. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 1976–1977.Google Scholar
Gries, P. H. (2004). China’s new nationalism: Pride, politics, and diplomacy. Ewing, NJ: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Haltiwanger, J. (2017). Did North Korea’s Kim Jong Un Just Slap China in the Face? Supreme Leader Didn’t Meet Senior Envoy From Beijing. Newsweek. Available at: www.newsweek.comGoogle Scholar
Ho, D Y. F. (1991). Relational orientation and methological relationalism. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 26 –27, 81–95.Google Scholar
Ho, D Y. F. (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methological relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.Google Scholar
Hsu, F. L. K. (1953). Americans and Chinese: Two ways of life. New York, NY: Henry Schuman.Google Scholar
Hsu, F. L. K. (1971). Psychological homeostasis and jen: Conceptual tools for advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropologist, 73, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (1995). Knowledge and action: A social psychological interpretation of Chinese cultural tradition (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publisher.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: The types of social identification in Confucianism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 129–149.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (2001). The deep structure of Confucianism: A social psychological approach. Asian Philosophy, 11(3), 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (2006). Moral face and social face: Contingent self-esteem in Confucian society. International Journal of Psychology, 41(4), 276–281.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (2010). Reflecting on oneself: Self-cultivation in modern society (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Hung Yeh Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (2011). A proposal for scientific revolution in psychology (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, K. K. (2013).Confucian culture and “face” dynamism in international politics. Int. Polit. Q. 34, 20–34.Google Scholar
Jia, W. (2001). The remaking of the Chinese character and identity in the 2lst century: The Chinese face practices. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
King, A. Y. S. (1988). “Face,” “shame” and analysis of Chinese behavior. In Yang, K. S. (Ed.), Psychology of Chinese people (in Chinese) (pp. 319–345). Taipei, Taiwan: Laureate Pub. Co.Google Scholar
King, A. Y. S., & Myers, J. T. (1977). Shame as an incomplete conception of Chinese culture: A study of face. Hong Kong: Social Research Center, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Ma, R. (1992). The role of unofficial intermediaries in interpersonal conflicts in the Chinese culture. Communication Quarterly, 40, 267–278.Google Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.Google Scholar
Rauhala, E. (2018, March). North Korean leader meets with China’s president during “unofficial visit” to Beijing. The Washington Post. Available at: www.washingtonpost.comGoogle Scholar
Rauhala, E., & Fifield, A. (2018, March). Kim-Xi meeting presents a new challenge for Trump on North Korea. The Washington Post. Available at: www.washingtonpost.comGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, C. Y. (1988). Face diplomacy: The psycho-cultural cybernetic model of Chinese foreign policy behavior (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology: What is it? In Stigler, J., Herdt, G., & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R., Markus, H., & Miller, P. (1998) The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In Damen, W. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, pp. 865–937). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Kim, Y. & Gudykanst, W. (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, S. (1990). Intergroup diplomatic communication: A face-negotiation perspective. In Korzenny, F. & Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), Communicating for peace: Diplomacy and negotiation (pp. 77–95). International and Intercultural Communication Annual, XIV. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wen, C. Y. (1982). Repaying and revenge: An analysis of exchange behavior (in Chinese). In Yang, K. S. (Ed.), The psychology of Chinese people (pp. 347–382). Taipei, Taiwan: Gui-Guan Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1945). Philosophical investigation. (Anscombe, G. E. M., Ed. & Trans.) New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Xiao, X. F. (2004). Li and Chinese communicative behaviors. In Chen, G. M. (Ed.) Theories and principles of Chinese communication (pp. 381–405) (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-nan Culture Enterprise.Google Scholar
Yang, K. S. (1992). Social orientation of the Chinese people: A social interactionist perspective. In Yang, K. S. & Yu, A. B. (Eds.), The psychology and behavior of the Chinese people. Taipei, Taiwan: Lauréat Publications.Google Scholar
Yang, M. F. (1994). Gift, favor and banquets: The act of social relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by