Goffman (1967) defines 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 1967, p. 5). Brown and Levinson (1978;1987) believe that ‘face’ is ‘public self-image’ which is invested, maintained , lost or enhanced emotionally and must be paid attention to in everyday interaction constantly.
According to these definitions of face, how politicians save face.
Your contribution is highly appreciated in advance.
Asking this question implies that politician are an open book for you, nothing escapes your attention. Thus, politicians don’t save face, but they have brazen face and rhinoceros skin. They weather bad publicity
Hello again Prof. Sirous, where are you? we are all missed you!
Regards, Your old friend Emad
Hi,
Politicians are often asked questions which pose a 'communicative conflict', i.e., a response is required, but the alternatives are negative and thereby potentially face-damaging. When confronted with such a dilemmatic situation, politicians often opt to equivocate in their response - arguably the least face-threatening option. Equivocation can take various forms.
I cover this in more detail in my recent paper (paragraphs 3 & 4 of the Intro). This is based primarily on the work of Bavelas et al. (1988, 1990).
I hope this helps. Please let me know if I can be of further help.
Best regards, Maurice
The relationship between face and equivocation in political interviews is explain the responses of politican to questions
Politicians will often have their asnwers prepared in advance, or have a certain set of arguments ready if the questions get tricky. Alot of the times, the answers will also feature no clear deviation; they will not favor one side or another, try to appear neutral in their response, distracting from the fact that they actually represent a certain side. Thats what politicians are trained to do. And the more you look into it, you may perceive them as saving face, when what they were supposed to do had been known to them from the beginning of the interview.
Hi Masoumeh!
You ask how politicians save face in political interviews, and borrow from Goffman' (1967) definition of face as " the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.’’( p. 5).
Let me begin by saying that it may be risking to think of politicians in general. There are politicians and politicians. We certainly all agree that N. Mandela and D. Trump as politicians should have little, if any, in common.
With basis on Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning and development we can think of three types of politicians: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Pre-conventional politicians are those whose thinking and acting is guided by individualistic and egocentric interests, wants and desires. Because of this, it is likely that when they are interviewed they made everything they can do in order to save their face, that is, to give others an appearance that does not corresponds to what they really are as politicians, individuals, or citizens. As I see it, this type of politicians are even capable of lying when they are interviewed, just to save their face. I would say that Trump is indeed a pre-conventional politician in moral and ethical terms. I guess that pre-conventional politicians would refuse to answer to, as it were, hard moral dilemmas
Conventional politicians are those whose thinking and acting is guided by existing social rules and moral norms and that they are interested, for example, in the social progress of their own and even other countries. Because of this it is likely they do not need, say, to save their face while being interviewed. As I see it, the great majority of politicians are conventional, in the sense they are aware of their rights and duties qua politicians, individual and citizens.
Post-conventional politicians are those whose thinking and acting is guided by prescriptive and generalizable moral principles, such as the principle of justice (i.e., not to treat others unfairly), benevolence (i.e., not to turn away someone in need), social utility (i.e., to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people), or eudemonia (i.e., to bring about the self-actualization and self-fulfillment of every citizen). Because of this, it is likely that post-conventional politicians are truly sincere when they are interviewed for they have nothing to hide. Hence, they do not need to save their faces , because they are lovers, say, of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Nelson Mandela, Luther King, just to cite two examples, would certainly belong to this category of politicians.
All that said, I think that would be interesting and telling to analyze politicians' discourses and answers when interviewed from a Kohlbergian point of view. Although we often think that all politicians save their faces, for example, by promising what they are not committed to doing, smiling, and the like, not all politicians are those bad guys we tend to think they are. As I see it, as far as to save faces is concerned, there are a big difference between what I would call pre-conventional, conventional or post-conventional politicians.
I hope that I have got your question and that this helps.
Best regards
Your detailed explanations regarding the question are highly appreciated Professor Orlando M Lourenco!
Thank you Mr Maurice Waddle for your answer. I will download your article. I think it will give me new insights regarding political interviews.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology