The existence of Face-Work in a Technological Society. Erving Goffmans essay On Face-Work, defined face.

by dawnyday (student)

The existence of Face-Work in a Technological Society

Erving Goffman’s essay On Face-Work, defined face “as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman 7). Both verbal and nonverbal actions contribute to the social value being claimed. “Face-Work,” as he describes it, is “the actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face” (Goffman 8). A person, then, establishes a line by which he/she can communicate during a specific encounter, whether face-to-face or mediated with other participants. Today much of our social contact with others differs from what Goffman was writing about 50 years ago. More and more of our interactions take place from a distance, brought together by mobile phones, text messages and computer posts to networks of perhaps thousands of people. Physical presence permits us to see the subconscious indications of reliability and sincerity through emotions of the person we are interacting with. Physical and oral indicators are transmitted resulting in an interpretation. Can Goffman’s theory of Face-Work still be applied with the absence of actually seeing the bodily movements and facial expressions of the individual we are interacting with?

There are various degrees of physical interaction in all modes of electronically mediated communication. Each participant still possesses a face and face work is still exercised, just in a different way. Using body movements and facial expressions to establish a face are now replaced with other strategies such as choice of words and pictures.”Electronic communication has established a new range of frames of interaction with a developing etiquette” (Miller). Two or more people participants are still involved and the cooperation of these participants to maintain a face is based on similar rules that apply to a regular face-to-face interaction. This essay will examine four popular forms of electronic social interactions, online social networking, real time chatting, text messaging and video chatting, and show how Goffman’s theory of Face-Work is still applicable.

Facebook is the leading online social network in the world. With more than 400 million active users, essentially there are millions of social interactions between individuals and groups each day. Goffman states that when a person begins an encounter, he or she already has some sort of established social relationship with the person or persons concerned (11). Previous research suggests that Facebook users engage in "searching" for people with whom they have an offline connection more than they "browse" for complete strangers to meet (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield). Most of these relationships did start in a face-to-face encounter and Facebook ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Online social networking can go in the other direction as well. While Facebook and other online social networking sites do help people maintain existing relationships of people who first met face-to-face, there is the formation of new ties. Many users of these online social communities do go out with the intention to look for people to connect with in regards to a specific interest or geographical location. However research has found that a lot of the time online relationships turn to face-to-face relationships. Parks and Floyd report that one-third of their respondents later met their online correspondents face-to-face. As they write, “These findings imply that relationships that begin on line rarely stay online” (n.p). Considering these findings, the individuals establishing a relationship online will develop a certain face and eventually when meeting in person they will either “lose face” or “save one’s face” (Goffman 7). “Losing face” would be when one or both of the individuals are not what they appeared to be online and “saving face” would be when one or both individuals maintained the identity they portrayed online.

Even though non-verbal messages are limited with online talking, that doesn’t mean that they are nonexistent. Electronic conversations opened up a whole new window of non-verbal actions that can be easily deceiving, but are clues to an easier interpretation of a message if thought about long enough. During real time conversations, such as the ones that you use with popular Instant Messaging Software such as Microsoft Messenger and ICQ, you can pick up hidden messages by the way your chat partner responds. These hidden messages are all a part of nonverbal communication. There are different ways non verbal communication can be expressed in online chatting. For example, an extended delay between responses can signify that the person you’re talking to is either busy, talking to multiple people, uninterested in talking to you, or simply might be slow at typing. On the other hand, quick responses may indicate that your chat partner is interested in what you have to say, thinks the conversation is important, or maybe is just excited The use of exclamation points mean excitement and all caps mean yelling. There are many ways to imply emotion into writing a message. This allows each participant to develop their own face and interpret the face of the other.

Texting on cell phones is fairly similar to real time conversations with one big difference. Majority of the time a face-to-face relationship exists between the two individuals texting. “Mobile phones increase the amount of contact in a bodily network that already exists” (Collins). The face-work has been done already and texting is a continuation of the social relationship. Most popular with the younger generation, many parents are quick to interpret their son or daughter’s texting as a sign of lacking social interaction. Majority of the time it is the opposite. While face-to-face interactions of young people are the foundation of developing their self, it continues into texting. With people’s schedules being so busy in this time of age, sometimes texting is the only possible way to maintain a social connection. Texting is a supplement to face-to-face encounters.

With technological advancements, new forms to have electronic social interactions are developing. Video chatting through programs like Skype and cell phones having the capability of transmitting the speakers’ video, the face-to-face interaction is more prominent. With live video of the speakers’ tone of voice and non-verbal actions are now parts of the social interaction. Using this technology is virtually like being in the same room as the other person. The term face, saving face, losing face and face-work are all in existence as Goffman had wrote about over 50 years ago.

Electronically mediated social interactions are a unique medium because it strips down communication to the bare minimum. Without non-verbal actions and voice tones of the participants, an environment is created where text is the only part of conversation, sometimes resulting in creating a false sense of face or an incorrect face. Although electronic mediums are limited in the depth of face we can create compared to face-to-face interactions, there is still room for face to be developed or deciphered. By utilizing established technical lingo to express our emotions and using photos to represent self image, the other party or parties involved in the social interaction have more information to base their interpretation of the face being presented. This is how the participant providing the information performs face-work in a technological society.

Bibliography

Collins, Randall. “Interaction Rituals and the New Electronic Media”. The Sociological Eye. 25 Jan 2011. Accessed 28 Mar 2011. <>.

Goffman, Erving. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”. Reflections. 4.3 (n.d): 7-13.

Hepburn, Aiden. “Facebook Facts and Figures”. Digitalbuzz Blog. 22 Mar 2010. Accessed 29 Mar 2011. <>.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. “A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing”. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, 2006: 167-170.

Miller, Hugh. “The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet”. Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space Conference. June 1995, University of London. n.p. n.d. Print.

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). “Making friends in cyberspace”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 1.4 (1996). Accessed March 29 2011 < >.