Spiers, J. 1998. The use of face work and politeness theory. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 25-48.

Goffman (1967), a seminal author in this area, conceptualized social identity as face, the "positive social value a person effectively claims for himself

by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact" (p. 5).

Face is a social construct to describe the public image of one's self that results from the communicative strategies used to create, maintain, or challenge such an image.

TABLE 1: Central Concepts in Face-Work Theory

Face The public self-image one wishes to claim

Linked to fundamental cultural assumptions about the social persona

Face is emotionally invested and can be lost,maintained, or enhanced

Generally mutual cooperative concern with face is integral to social interaction

Face can be routinely ignored in certain situations of social breakdowns (effrontery), in need for urgent cooperation (emergency), or in interests of efficiency (Brown&Levinson, 1987)

Face needs Specific aspects of face considered essential in a social group

Essentially there are two main related aspects of face:

negative face (autonomy, personal space, freedom from imposition, freedom of action)

and positive face (desire for self-image to be acknowledged and approved)

Other face needs may include needs for competency, tact, poise, freedom from obligation or impingement, in-groupness, or individuality

These face needs, often referred to as desires, are attributed by interactants to one another

Each face need is addressed with specific forms of face work

Face threats Speech acts, verbal or nonverbal communicative actions that by their nature threaten the face needs of the self or other;

for example, loss of bodily control results in loss of poise or loss of competency face; commands, orders, requests, criticism

Face work Communication strategies used to protect, maintain,& enhance face

to satisfy face needs and to mitigate face threats