Written in a clear, engaging style Facework: Bridging Theory and Practice introduces a new paradigm that identifies facework as the key to communication within the management of difference. Authors Kathy Domenici and Stephen W. Littlejohn illustrate how facework is a central process in the social construction of both identity and community.
Frequently asked questions
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access Facework by Kathy L. Isaacson, Stephen W. Littlejohn in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Lingue e linguistica & Studi sulla comunicazione. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Seventy years ago, the great sociologist George Herbert Mead (1934) taught that mind, self, and society are outcomes of symbolic interaction. How we think about the world, including our views of ourselves, is always created in everyday talk. Identity is never pre-formed, but is constantly being made in human interaction in a process that our colleague Barnett Pearce (1994) refers to as making social worlds.
We once went to a graduation party, where we met a relative of the graduate. This man, intoxicated, told us that he was carrying a gun; that he needed it to defend his friends; that several people he knew had been shot; and that when it was time for him to die, he hoped it would be in a gunfight. To say that we made a hasty departure would be an understatement, but this incident did give us reason to think about the social worlds in which people live and the kinds of identities they create within these worlds. Here was a world in which dignity and honor was established by loyalty, where the group itself gained position through prevailing in violent conflict, where the larger community was defined as a battleground, and where individuals were judged, at least in part, by how well they defended a certain code of honor, even their willingness to die for it. How do such identities arise?
ACCOMPLISHING IDENTITY
As we make judgments and decisions in the actual situations of life, we have a sense of agency or purpose, and we act to meet our goals. As we talked to the man at the party, we understood what he said in a certain way. We assigned meaning to his statement, made a judgment about its implications, and responded in a very particular way. At this moment, we were acting within what Pearce (1994) calls the first-person perspective, viewing the situation through our own eyes. In this perspective, we experienced ourselves as actors within the situation, but other times we experience ourselves not just as actors, but also as objects. Let’s see how that happens.
When we interact with other people, we see ourselves reflected back to us in their reactions—like a “looking glass self” (Cooley, 1902). In other words, people’s reactions over time create a generalized meaning that we come to recognize. Interaction leaves an impression that builds up to provide a sense of personal identity. When we become conscious of our identity, we are taking what Pearce (1994) calls the third-person perspective, looking at ourselves as an object. Thus, there are two senses of self, which Mead calls the “I” and the “me.” When we are in the first-person perspective (the “I”), we are busy deciding what to do; when we are in the third-person perspective, we step back to reflect on ourselves from some distance (the “me”). Who I am from a third-person perspective certainly influences what I think and do within the first-person perspective; and, reciprocally, what I think and do influences who I am from a third-person perspective.
Robyn Penman (1994) writes:
The nature of our self-identity and the constancy of it are a function of the communicative practices in which we are situated. If, for example, our practices are constant, then so too will the self-identity we avow. And if our practices are varied and complex then so too will be our self-identity. (p. 21)
The identities you co-construct with your mother, your best friend, and your rabbi are not the same, because these relational contexts are different. You are always re-making yourself in interaction with others. In other words, identity is a social accomplishment, always re-negotiated in the discourse of everyday life (Tracy & Trethewey, 2005). Your identities have implications beyond specific relationships, however, as relationships connect to one another within larger communities.
SIDEBAR 1.1 Who Am I?
On a piece of paper or computer, make a list of 20 answers to the question, “Who am I?” Work quickly, making the list as fast as you can.
After you have completed the list, look back at what you wrote. These first thoughts are good indicators of some of the things that are most important to you. You can tell a lot about yourself by the kinds of things you include in the list. You might, for example, put down a lot of affiliations, like “I am a Baptist … student … union member … American,” and so forth. Or perhaps you wrote qualities like, “I am smart … hard worker … sometimes depressed.” Another possibility are roles such as, “I am a mother … manager … designer … city council member.” You may have written down a mix of things.
Now identify the relationships and communities that seem to be reflected in your list and write these down. For example, if you wrote “student,” you might find that the college is an important social group. If you wrote “Christian,” you might find that your church is important. Someone who listed “mother” might say that family is important.
Ask now, “In what groups do I show these qualities? Who sees me this way? How do I show this when I am with others?” As you work through this exercise, become conscious of your identities—personal, relational, and community.
Source: Adapted from Kuhn & McPartland (1954).
Perhaps Rom Harré (1984) was the first to make a distinction between the social construction of the person and that of the self. Personhood is the concept of the human being shared widely within a community, while the self is one individual’s personal view of how he or she fits into that ideal. Another way of saying this is that the group has a “theory” of personhood, and you have a “theory” of what kind of person you are. The social construction of identity, then, consists of both shared and personal images—an idea of persons-in-general and I myself as a person. You cannot separate your self-identity from your relationships and the larger communities of which you are a part.
Take body and dress as a case in point. How do you dress? How do you dress in different situations? When would an outfit that is quite comfortable in one situation be embarrassing in another? What parts of your body are you shy about exposing? What parts don’t matter? Are you always comfortable exposing the top of your head in public? Are you never comfortable doing so? Are you usually comfortable exposing your legs? Your feet? The bottom of your feet? These are all issues for some persons in certain cultures. Body issues are only one of many aspects of identity that are defined and governed through socially constructed categories of personhood, and your sense of self is always framed by some larger relational or community context.
People can have a continuum of identities, but we want to make this concept easier to talk about by focusing on three points, or “ranges,” on this continuum. These we will call personal identity, relational identity, and community identity (Hecht, 1993; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003; Jung & Hecht, 2004). Personal identity involves the individual—self and other (Who am I, and who are you?). Relational identity consists of expectations negotiated within a very small group, usually two individuals (Who are we together?). Community identity is something larger—groups, organizations, cultures, and systems of all types (Who are we all?). These are not discrete points, but are woven together, as illustrated by Figure 1.1. Our intent is just to introduce these three levels here, as we will return to them in much more detail later in this chapter and throughout the book.
Identity and the Lifescript
Each of us possesses a dynamic and changing lifescript that guides our personal, relational, and community identities. The lifescript is a roadmap for how to live a life and how to respond to the constantly changing landscapes in which we exist. We like to use the term moral order to capture the assumptions that drive the lifescript (Pearce, 1989,p. 104). The moral order is a socially constructed set of understandings we carry with us from situation to situation. It is moral because it guides our sense of right and wrong, good and bad. It is an order because it is reflected in a patterned set of personal actions. The moral order is a tradition of thought worked out over time within a community. It is normally implicit and sub-conscious, but it is powerful in driving human action. The moral order guides our sense of how the world is divided up into categories; it establishes the place of humanity in the larger scheme of the universe; it delineates individual rights, roles, and responsibilities; it provides a set of values for characterizing the worlds of people and of things; it creates a logic of relations among things, or a sense of how things work together; and the moral order provides notions of how groups and individuals should act or respond to the conditions of life (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997).
Figure 1.1 Identities
If you believe that human life is intricately connected to a larger ecology or spirituality of nature, your lifescript will take a different shape than if you believe that humans are separate and have dominion over the earth. Your lifescript will present a certain narrative if you believe that God has a plan for each person and a different narrative if you believe that people control their own destiny. You will tend to respond one way if you think that earthly life is only a stage in ongoing eternal life, and you will behave another way if you think that human beings are merely biological animals that exist only between birth and death.
We do not mean to imply here that one’s lifescript is constant and consistent. If the individual is the unique merger of his or her social worlds, each of those worlds contributes to this sense of reality. Most people today do experience paradox and contradiction. We live in many social worlds, so the lifescript may contain numerous avenues for meaning and action. At any given time, a relatively coherent order may prevail, but as we live through life, our lifescript will shift, and we will not always know clearly how to act because of the inevitable contradictions we face.
Therefore, we do have moments of confusion, times when we are unsure about how to interpret events, how to act in those events, and how to respond to the messages of others. Other times, we may feel quite sure about what is going on and show a strong sense of how to behave. In general, however, individuals work out a way to feel that they are living in a coherent life. They tell stories that will demonstrate to others (and to themselves) that they are not reduced to a string of random acts, but that they are guided by a relatively coherent sense of identity.
SIDEBAR 1.2 Your Moral Order
Pick up a copy of a recent newspaper and scan the various headlines. Pick out three or four of the current controversial issues explored in these articles and read them. For each issue, ask yourself:
What do I believe about this issue?
What am I unsure about in considering this issue?
How have my beliefs changed over time about this issue?
If I had a chance to act on this issue in some way, what would I do?
What do the answers to Items 1–4 above tell me about my moral order?
The Coherent Identity
The sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) was firm in the belief that no one has a single, unified self. People often think that if they are honest, they will come in touch with who they “really” are. We agree with Goffman that this is a mistake. Because your sense of self-identity is always being constructed in relationship to others, you have many “selves” (Tracy & Trethewey, 2005). Because you are a member of many communities, you are influenced by numerous ideas of personhood. We also believe with Goffman that your identity is always made in how you present yourself, how you act within the situations in which you live and work.
Sometimes, you may experience a contradiction, or gap, among various identities. This can happen, for example, when your preferred personal identity conflicts with an important relational identity (Jung & Hecht, 2004). For example, you may pride yourself on your personal independence while finding yourself quite dependent on another person in a relationship that is very important to you.
Although moments of contradiction are challenging, you do organize your many portrayals into a picture or idea of your identity at any given time in your life. You may not “perform” all aspects of this coherent self at all times, but it lies there in your consciousness as an overall context or picture of who you think you are. Others also see patterns in your behavior that make it possible for them to identify you as a coherent being. This is what Mead meant by the “generalized other,” or the “me.” Indeed, a coherent sense of self is vital to mental health, as it gives our lives meaning. Identity confusion, which we all experience from time to time, can be a problem; when it persists, such confusion can become a mental health issue as well.
Coherence does not necessarily imply consistency. We often have a complex sense of identity. You might, for example, define yourself as a “complicated, adaptable, growing person.” With this definition, you would eschew consistency and value diversity in your own behavior. You might pride yourself on thinking through each situation. Others, who tell you that you are amazingly complex and unpredictable, would actually reinforce this view. In this scenario, behavioral diversity is not a source of confusion, but...
