Journal of Medical Humanities

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 229–243 | Cite as

Face, Honor and Dignity in the Context of Colon Cancer

  • Miles Little
  • Christopher F. C. Jordens
  • Kim Paul
  • Emma Sayers
  • Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah
Article

Abstract

Illness narratives from patients with colorectal cancer commonly record patterns of change in social relationships that follow the diagnosis and treatment of the condition. We believe that these changes are best explained as a process of facework, which reflects losses of face on the part of the patient, and which assists in the creation of new faces that convey new senses of identity. Facework is familiar in the work by E. Goffman (1955) and has been extensively reworked since his time. There is considerable agreement that face is a pervasive and universal constituent of all social interaction, and that it expresses the subject's view of the way he or she would like to be considered by others in interactions. Ho's concept of multiple faces negotiated dynamically according to social context is particularly useful in understanding the purpose and techniques of facework (D. Y.-F. Ho, 1994). We propose a model of face that uses dignity as the face-expression of personal attributes and acquisitions, and honor as the face-expression of systemic capabilities and attainments. This model can be used to examine individual variations in response and adaptation to colon cancer and its treatment, and it provides a useful means of teaching health care workers about the experience of illness.

REFERENCES

  1. Anspach, R. R. (1988). Notes on the sociology of medical discourse: The language of case presentation. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 357–375.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. (1994). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour (5th ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self-gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P. (1984). On the obsolescence of the concept of honour. In M. Sandel (Ed.), Liberalism and its critics (pp. 149–158). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, H.-C., & Holt, R. G. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as intra-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 95–132). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cocroft, B.-A. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(4), 469–506.Google Scholar
  9. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Earley, C. P. (1997). Face, harmony and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior across cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Enteman, W. F. (1993). Managerialism: The emergence of a newideology. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gatens, M. (1989). Feminism and philosophy: Perspectives on difference and equality. Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  13. General Assembly of the United Nations. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights. Google Scholar
  14. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.Google Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Goldsmith, D. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 24–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Grossen, M., & Apotheloz, D. (1996). Communicating about communication in a therapeutic interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(2), 101–132.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity (F. G. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harré, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Ho, D. Y.-F. (1980). Face and stereotyped notions about Chinese face behavior. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 13(1/2), 20–33.Google Scholar
  22. Ho, D.Y.-F. (1994). Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 269–286). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  24. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of ‘face.’ American Anthropologist, 46, 45–64.Google Scholar
  25. Karen, D. (1991). “Achievement” and “atascription” in admission to an elite college: A politicalorganizational analysis. Sociological Forum, 6(2), 349–380.Google Scholar
  26. Kleinman, A. (1988). The illness narratives: Suffering, healing and the human condition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Kristeva, J. (1989). Language the unknown: An initiation into linguistics (AM Menke, Trans.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  28. Levinas, E. (1989). Ethics as first philosophy. In S. Hand (Ed.), The Levinas reader (p. 84). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Lim, T.-S. (1994). Facework and interpersonal relationships. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 209–229). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lim, T.-S., & Bowers, J.W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation and tact. Human Communication Research, 17(3), 415–450.Google Scholar
  31. Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  32. Little, M., Jordens, C. F. C., Paul, K., Montgomery, K., & Philipson, B. (1998). Liminality: A major category of the experience of cancer illness. Social Science & Medicine, 47(10), 1485–1494.Google Scholar
  33. Little, M., Jordens, C. F. C., Paul, K., Sayers, E.-J., & Sriskandarajah, D. (1999). Approval and disapproval in the narratives of patients with colorectal cancer and their carers. Health, 3(4), 451–467.Google Scholar
  34. Maslow, A. H. (1984). Toward a psychology of being. (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mattingly, C. (1998). Healing dramas and clinical plots: The narrative structure of experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Metts, S. (1997). Face and facework: Implications for the study of personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 373–390). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  38. Mirowsky, J., Ross, C. E., & van Willigen, M. (1996). Instrumentalism in the land of opportunity: Socioeconomic causes and emotional consequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 322–337.Google Scholar
  39. Mishler, E. G. (1996). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Morasaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 47–93). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  41. Morris, P. (1996). Community beyond tradition. In P. Heelas, S. Lash, & P. Morris (Eds.), Detraditionalization (pp. 238–245). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Penman, R. (1994). Facework in communication: Conceptual and moral challenges. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 15–45). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pharr, S. J. (1990). Losing face: Status politics in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original Work Published 1932).Google Scholar
  45. Rasmussen, D. (Ed.). (1990). Universalism vs. communitarianism: Contemporary debates in ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing ourselves: Psychology, power and personhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rosow, I. (1994). Lessons from the museum: Claude Monet and social roles. Gerontologist, 34(3), 292–298.Google Scholar
  48. Sartre, J.-P. (1977). Being and nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  49. Schopenhauer, A. (1942). Complete essays of Schopenhauer (T. B. Saunders, Trans.). New York: Willey Book Company.Google Scholar
  50. Stewart, F. H. (1994). Honor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stewart, M., Tudiver, F., Bass, M. J., Dunn, E. V., & Norton, P. G. (Eds.). (1992). Tools for primary care research (Vol. 2). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tolman, C.W., & Maiers, W. (Eds.). (1991). Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209–226). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  55. Vess, J., Moreland, J., & Schwebel, A. I. (1985). A follow-up study of role functioning and the psychological environment of families of cancer patients. Journal of Psychological Oncology, 3(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  56. Vess, J., Moreland, J., & Schwebel, A. I. (1986). Understanding family role reallocation following a death: A theoretical framework. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying, 16(2), 115–128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miles Little
    • 1
  • Christopher F. C. Jordens
    • 2
  • Kim Paul
    • 2
  • Emma Sayers
    • 2
  • Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in MedicineUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in MedicineUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations