Theory: Church culture is a "face culture"

[Anonymous]

Today, while speaking with colleagues at work about how creative collaboration is challenging to do in China, I realized that Church culture is totally a face culture.

This paper has a good description of face culture (e.g. Asian cultures) and dignity culture (e.g. Northern US and to a slightly lesser extent Northwestern European cultures), and also reports on 3 experiments on people from such cultures and what the results might mean:

The Jury and Abjury of My Peers: The Self in Face and Dignity Cultures (2010)

From the introduction:

Quote:

There are two ways to know the self: from the inside and from the outside. In all cultures, people know themselves from both directions. People make judgments about themselves from what they “know” about themselves, and they absorb the judgments of other people so that the judgments become their own. The process is one of constant flow, but there is variation, from both person to person and culture to culture, in which direction takes precedence.

In this article, we outline the way face cultures tend to give priority to knowing oneself from the outside, whereas dignity cultures tend to give priority to knowing the self from the inside and may resist allowing the self to be defined by others. We first distinguish between face cultures and dignity cultures, describing the cultural logics of each and how these lead to distinctive ways in which the self is defined and constructed. We discuss the differing roles of public (vs. private) information in the two cultures, noting the way that such public information becomes absorbed into the definition of face culture participants and the way that it can become something to struggle against among dignity culture participants—even when it might reflect positively on the participant.

This paragraph in particular seemed to describe Church culture very well:

Quote:

One’s own self-assessment is not particularly relevant because one cannot effectively claim more face than others are willing to grant. In fact, there is a penalty for trying to claim more face than one is entitled to. Such behavior violates the rules for how status is distributed in a hierarchy, and thus, it threatens to violate the much-valued harmony of the system. Such behavior is seen as boorish and will ultimately lead to humiliating losses of face when the person learns a painful lesson about their true place in the hierarchy and how much status others are willing to accord him or her. Thus, there is a built-in humility bias in face cultures. For an individual to operate within the hierarchy of a face culture, his perception of himself may be no greater than others’ perception of him and should probably be a little lower, so that he can exercise the humility necessary to not overreach on status claims. Harmonious functioning in a face culture requires common, consensual judgments about who belongs where in the hierarchy. Thus, the public representations about a person—the information about a person that is acknowledged as publicly known and consensually shared—take on extreme importance in a face culture.

It describes face culture in terms of three Hs: hierarchy, harmony, and humility.

Here are some face culture characteristics:

[Anonymous]

Hi Reuben,

I do recognize some elements of face culture in the LDS subculture.

Quote:

Face Culture

This type of culture is predominant in East Asia and can be a bit elusive to an outsider, myself included. Face is similar to honor in that it’s largely determined by your reputation which depends on the judgments of other people. Shame is the motivating emotion so like honor culture it’s sometimes called a shame culture. But while honor culture enables a power struggle, face culture is intended as a way of cooperating within existing hierarchies. If you deprive someone of his honor then shame on him, but if you make someone lose his face – then shame on you. Face is a way of keeping the peace by helping each other to maintain a sense of self-worth. As such I think you can call it a feminine culture. It’s less competitive than honor and dignity cultures and more concerned with group cohesion. And while honor is determined heavily by your place in the hierarchy, face is also about how well you perform at your station. So it’s similar to dignity culture in that you can maintain a high sense of self-worth even if your role in society is minor. As you might expect reciprocity works like in dignity culture: returning favors is a virtue but getting personal revenge is not ok.

JS in giving the priesthood to all male members gave them all a stake in the church and kingdom they were building. Richard Bushman talks in RSR how this simultaneously builds power in the center as well spreads it wide – like the spokes of a wheel.

I am reminded of the David O. McKay saying of “Whetever thou art, Do well they part” and the BRM talk “Only an Elder.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/06/only-an-elder?lang=eng

On the other hand, other aspects of the LDS subculture are very much dignity cultures. Consider this description:

Quote:

Dignity Culture (AKA Guilt Culture)

The dignity culture is characterized by the conviction that all individuals have an inner, inalienable worth. The ideal person of dignity is one who stands by his principles and doesn’t listen to gossip. This attitude will of course not protect your life or property so it requires a state that enforces the rule of law. The person of dignity is less prone to corruption since he follows his internal standards and is less swayed by what other people say. And unless he is at odds with society he will abide the law even when he knows he could get away with breaking it. Because knowing he did something bad will trouble him even if no one else knows about it. The motivating emotion in dignity culture is that of a guilty conscience. This is why it’s also known as guilt culture.

There is definitely much that is LDS in here as well.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting theory but are guilt and shame really that different?

LDS can be a face culture but needn’t be. I set my own agenda.

I would argue that the US mainstream is a face culture masquerading as a dignity culture. Wealth is seen as a big social marker.

England on the other hand is a face culture which is trying to evolve into a dignity culture. Lineage was traditionally the social marker, but wealth is creeping up.

Germany is very much a face culture which has had forcible attempts to make it a dignity culture. Hard work is the social marker there.

Ireland is very much a dignity culture although there are face aspects in the north, and to a lesser extent in Catholicism. There is a historical trend to rebellion there and the aristocracy is irrelevant.

Canada and Australia strike me as dignity cultures.

[Anonymous]

The thing about face cultures is that in such a culture, you lose face if you allow someone else to lose face. In our culture, including in the church, we love to tear down the face of others.

[Anonymous]

“In our culture, including in the church, we love to tear down the face of others.” But only those perceived as outsiders.

It’s definitely a high Power Distance Index culture. There are elements of face culture, but I think it’s a valid criticism of the theory that plenty of Mormons enjoy tattling on each other, something that is simply not done in Asian “face” cultures. If you want to know whom to blame in an Asian work setting, good luck. Nobody is a stoolie.

[Anonymous]

Tatting on the leaders is not the done thing.

[Anonymous]

SamBee – Tattling on leaders (whistleblowing) would be evidence of low power distance, though.

Face culture is also about erasing individuality in favor of communitarian values. The face of the group matters, and it’s not OK to call out individuals (because that weakens the group). I think you’re talking about authoritarianism more than “face culture.” Here’s a great example of face culture from my time living in Singapore. The Occupy protests were happening while I lived there. Singapore hates to be left out even though, give me a break, if any country has different values from the Occupy protests it’s materialistic banking mecca Singapore! A group applied for a permit to stage an Occupy protest in Singapore. Nobody showed up. The reason? Nobody wanted to stand out. It’s a face culture. Another example is that I (naively) tried to introduce performance metrics into my teams in Asia. Team leaders would not differentiate performance feedback by individual. The group would hide poor performance to protect the under-performing individual. However, a person might step forward to volunteer to be let go to allow the team to flourish. And they viewed my role (as the boss) to be their protector, not to assess performance and strengthen the team by weeding out weaker members. If needed, they would work harder to cover for a weak person. They would take a pay cut. They would work more hours. In the US, there would be a revolt if people had to cover for the weak link.

I think you’ve got a sense for the embarrassment factor, but in a face culture, it’s not so much about personal as it is about relational. This is a pretty good article on it: http://www.internationalman.com/articles/what-is-face-in-asian-culture-and-why-should-we-care

Quote:

Face is important in Asia in the same way that an American’s Self is important. Both Face and Self are at the core of the persons being (with some very interesting implications for Asian-U.S. personal and business relationships.) Just as many Westerners get extremely concerned and threatened when their self-respect is compromised, Asian people are very concerned about losing Face, which means losing the respect of others. . . .It is important to remember that many Chinese see themselves as seamlessly integrated with a wide range of other people, including their schoolmates, co-workers, and extended family, as well as their social, professional, and friendship networks. Since Americans don’t have this same strong sense of integration with an extensive community, the concept of Face is based on a kind of relationship between people that is literally foreign to us. By explaining Face as shame, embarrassment, or loss of honor we are individualizing and personalizing the concept in a very American way, which prevents us from truly understanding it.

So, the one way in which I think the church is a face culture (but it really is limited because let’s face facts, this church is about as American in its values as they come) is missionary work. We don’t like anyone making the church look bad from a PR perspective. The problem is that the veneer of perfection that some church members want to portray does the opposite: it drives people away rather than attracting them. But once again, I think most members who insist on no criticism are really just authoritarians. They don’t want leaders to be criticized. They want to use leaders in place of their own conscience and relationship to God.

Reuben, I don’t actually think Mormonism is a face culture for the reasons I’ve given, but I do see it as authoritarian. It’s much more individualistic than communitarian.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

So, the one way in which I think the church is a face culture (but it really is limited because let’s face facts, this church is about as American in its values as they come) is missionary work. We don’t like anyone making the church look bad from a PR perspective.

Maybe it’s my area, but I still see a lot of it even in non-public settings. People are far more concerned with avoiding the appearance of evil than avoiding the evil itself.

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

Why people who smoke feel uncomfortable at church

Based on how much emphasis we place on things at church I’d say that WoW violations come third only to murder in terms of severity. It goes:

Deny the HG

Murder

Law of chastity violations

WoW violations

I think we dun goofed by spending so much time at church emphasizing things that make us different from other churches, not only the WoW but in our beliefs as well. I think the amount of time we spend on subjects steers people towards believing that those subjects are more important than others. Who cares whether or not someone believes in the golden plates if they are a good, charitable person? We care, because we spend most of our time at church talking about golden plates. Yeah, it’s an exaggeration but I think it factors into the culture.

Sorry for the thread jack.

[Anonymous]

NightSG wrote:

Maybe it’s my area, but I still see a lot of it even in non-public settings. People are far more concerned with avoiding the appearance of evil than avoiding the evil itself.

I do not disagree NightSG. I once read that the two groups that are successful in the church are the saints and the liars. It can be more important to look good than to actually be good on the inside.

However, I believe what is meant by “face culture” goes much deeper than that.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It describes face culture in terms of three Hs: hierarchy, harmony, and humility.

Here are some face culture characteristics:

Good at mobilizing the group to act as one

Groupthink dominates discussions at every level

Change almost always comes from the top

Loyalty is greatly prized

Dissent is seen as treason; continued criticism is seen as dissent

Self-control is mediated by shame (rather than guilt as in dignity cultures)

Secrecy, at the top and bottom (those at both ends keep secrets to save face)

My theory explains a whole host of things about the Church. A few off the top of my head:

Why people who smoke feel uncomfortable at church

Why the doctrine of common consent has been changed to a show of support vs. exposing the heretics

Why I can do nothing directly to change things

Why Elder Holland is angry with people who leave (he’s lost face)

Why those who leave are angry with the group (shame is used to try to keep them in)

Why there’s usually no way to leave gracefully

Why women don’t say much in ward councils

Why women in leadership will be second-class until they get the priesthood

Why intellectuals and independent thinkers are often squeezed out

I would love to know how Church culture got like this. The seed cultures for the Church were almost exclusively dignity cultures.

Could it be because we have a crazy investment in Joseph Smith’s particular face? There is still a strong Sunday/”chapel Mormon” expectation that he will be spoken of nothing but positively. Just this last Sunday, the GD teacher talked about his name being known for good and evil meaning, “not that he would ever do anything evil, but some people….”

We have been so focused on defending him, minimizing his flaws and missteps, that maybe it’s become second-nature.

(Sorry I wrecked your bullet points in the quote. 🙂 )

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Just this last Sunday, the GD teacher talked about his name being known for good and evil meaning, “not that he would ever do anything evil, but some people….”

We have been so focused on defending him, minimizing his flaws and missteps, that maybe it’s become second-nature.

I believe that it is in direct response to his martyrdom. So much of our Patriotic Zeal, I believe, comes from there. It harnessed our ancestors and we still carry the banner.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think we dun goofed by spending so much time at church emphasizing things that make us different from other churches, not only the WoW but in our beliefs as well. I think the amount of time we spend on subjects steers people towards believing that those subjects are more important than others.

Right, which is why there are so many people who justify lying (in various forms, and sometimes to extreme degrees) on a regular basis but are horrified at the thought of drinking a cup of coffee.

[Anonymous]

I know there are members who justify lying, but I think the number is very small. Of course, that will vary by congregation and specific location, but I don’t think it is anywhere near a common trait.

[Author]

Posts