Mianzi (China) - Revision history

Editor2018 at 16:56, 7 June 2023

2023-06-07T16:56:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 7 June 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\| authorwebsite =		\| authorwebsite =
	}}		}}
	<big>'''By Long Zhang, Department of Sociology, Nankai University of Tianjin, China'''</big>		<big>'''By Long Zhang, Department of Sociology, Nankai University, Tianjin City, China'''</big>
	[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]		[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]
	[[Category: Instrumentality of sociability]]		[[Category: Instrumentality of sociability]]

Editor2018 at 07:55, 12 June 2021

2021-06-12T07:55:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 12 June 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\| categories = [[:Category: China\|China]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Personal connections\| Personal connections]] – [[:Category: Sociability\| Sociability]] – [[:Category: Sociability of instrumentality\| Sociability of instrumentality]] – [[:Category: Reputation\| Reputation]] – [[:Category: Bureaucracy\| Bureaucracy]] – [[:Category: Gender\| Gender]]		\| categories = [[:Category: China\|China]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Personal connections\| Personal connections]] – [[:Category: Sociability\| Sociability]] – [[:Category: Sociability of instrumentality\| Sociability of instrumentality]] – [[:Category: Reputation\| Reputation]] – [[:Category: Bureaucracy\| Bureaucracy]] – [[:Category: Gender\| Gender]]
	\| authorofpiece = Long Zhang		\| authorofpiece = Long Zhang
	\| authorinstitution = Department of Sociology, ~~The~~ University of ~~Hong Kong~~		\| authorinstitution = Department of Sociology, Nankai University of Tianjin, China
	\| authorwebsite =		\| authorwebsite =
	}}		}}
	<big>'''By Long Zhang, Department of Sociology, ~~The~~ University of ~~Hong Kong~~'''</big>		<big>'''By Long Zhang, Department of Sociology, Nankai University of Tianjin, China'''</big>
	[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]		[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]
	[[Category: Instrumentality of sociability]]		[[Category: Instrumentality of sociability]]

Editor2018 at 16:00, 15 May 2021

2021-05-15T16:00:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 15 May 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\| nameofpractice = Mianzi		\| nameofpractice = Mianzi
	\| flagemoji = 🇨🇳		\| flagemoji = 🇨🇳
	\| definition = ~~Mianzi refers to the recognition of an individual’s~~ social ~~status~~ and ~~prestige by others, which can be earned, saved, borrowed, and maneuvered.~~		\| definition = Lit. ‘face’, a person’s reputation and its social implications and consequences
	\| location = China		\| location = China
	\| imagemap = China map.png		\| imagemap = China map.png

Editor2018 at 11:21, 21 April 2021

2021-04-21T11:21:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:21, 21 April 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\| imagemap = China map.png		\| imagemap = China map.png
	\| clusters = [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence\|Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Instrumentality of sociability\| Instrumentality of sociability]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours\| Economies of favours]]		\| clusters = [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence\|Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Instrumentality of sociability\| Instrumentality of sociability]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours\| Economies of favours]]
	\| categories = [[:Category: China\|China]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Personal ~~Connections~~\| Personal ~~Connections~~]] – [[:Category: Sociability\| Sociability]] – [[:Category: Sociability of instrumentality\| Sociability of instrumentality]] – [[:Category: Reputation\| Reputation]] – [[:Category: Bureaucracy\| Bureaucracy]] – [[:Category: Gender\| Gender]]		\| categories = [[:Category: China\|China]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Personal connections\| Personal connections]] – [[:Category: Sociability\| Sociability]] – [[:Category: Sociability of instrumentality\| Sociability of instrumentality]] – [[:Category: Reputation\| Reputation]] – [[:Category: Bureaucracy\| Bureaucracy]] – [[:Category: Gender\| Gender]]
	\| authorofpiece = Long Zhang		\| authorofpiece = Long Zhang
	\| authorinstitution = Department of Sociology, The University of Hong Kong		\| authorinstitution = Department of Sociology, The University of Hong Kong
Line 17:		Line 17:
	[[Category: China]]		[[Category: China]]
	[[Category: East Asia]]		[[Category: East Asia]]
	[[Category: Personal ~~Connections~~]]		[[Category: Personal connections]]
	[[Category: Sociability]]		[[Category: Sociability]]
	[[Category: Sociability of instrumentality]]		[[Category: Sociability of instrumentality]]

Editor2018 at 06:53, 7 April 2021

2021-04-07T06:53:20Z

Editor2018 at 10:43, 23 March 2021

2021-03-23T10:43:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:43, 23 March 2021
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Because ''mianzi'' can be maneuvered to a certain degree, variations exist to the extent to which a person’s ''mianzi'' is ‘valid’ (实) or ‘hollow’ (虚). If a person is wealthy or possesses a certain ability commensurate with one’s reputation, we can consider the person’s ''mianzi'' to be ‘valid’. In contrast, if a person produces an image of him or herself through subterfuge or posturing, then that person’s ''mianzi'' is hollow. According to this understanding, exaggerating a particular ''guanxi'' with a powerful figure is a specific strategy for establishing ‘hollow ''mianzi''’. However, the distinction between ‘valid ''mianzi''’ and ‘hollow ''mianzi''’ is not absolute; for example, a businessman gaining hollow mianzi mainly through exaggerating his ''guanxi'' with a powerful official may still have more advantage in a competitive bidding, thus turn the hollow ''mianzi'' into a valid one.		Because ''mianzi'' can be maneuvered to a certain degree, variations exist to the extent to which a person’s ''mianzi'' is ‘valid’ (实) or ‘hollow’ (虚). If a person is wealthy or possesses a certain ability commensurate with one’s reputation, we can consider the person’s ''mianzi'' to be ‘valid’. In contrast, if a person produces an image of him or herself through subterfuge or posturing, then that person’s ''mianzi'' is hollow. According to this understanding, exaggerating a particular ''guanxi'' with a powerful figure is a specific strategy for establishing ‘hollow ''mianzi''’. However, the distinction between ‘valid ''mianzi''’ and ‘hollow ''mianzi''’ is not absolute; for example, a businessman gaining hollow mianzi mainly through exaggerating his ''guanxi'' with a powerful official may still have more advantage in a competitive bidding, thus turn the hollow ''mianzi'' into a valid one.

	[[File:Mianzi_logogram.jpeg\|thumb\|300px\|left\|~~CAPTION~~. Source: Long Zhang. © Long Zhang.]]		[[File:Mianzi_logogram.jpeg\|thumb\|300px\|left\|The logogram for ''mianzi'' realised by the author. Source: Long Zhang. © Long Zhang.]]

	Many Chinese people are concerned about protecting the ''mianzi'' of others, especially those of higher social status. Hurting someone’s ''mianzi'' may cause embarrassment or even anger to that person and could damage their interpersonal ''guanxi'' (Kipnis 1995). Common strategies to save other’s ''mianzi'' include avoiding public criticism preferring more euphemistic, general, and vague comments; avoiding outright refusal of requests and, instead, making a perfunctory effort even when the request cannot be really fulfilled; avoiding public confrontation with elders and superiors and, instead, behaving as submissively as possible (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987).		Many Chinese people are concerned about protecting the ''mianzi'' of others, especially those of higher social status. Hurting someone’s ''mianzi'' may cause embarrassment or even anger to that person and could damage their interpersonal ''guanxi'' (Kipnis 1995). Common strategies to save other’s ''mianzi'' include avoiding public criticism preferring more euphemistic, general, and vague comments; avoiding outright refusal of requests and, instead, making a perfunctory effort even when the request cannot be really fulfilled; avoiding public confrontation with elders and superiors and, instead, behaving as submissively as possible (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987).

Editor2018 at 10:39, 23 March 2021

2021-03-23T10:39:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 23 March 2021
Line 38:		Line 38:

	Because ''mianzi'' can be maneuvered to a certain degree, variations exist to the extent to which a person’s ''mianzi'' is ‘valid’ (实) or ‘hollow’ (虚). If a person is wealthy or possesses a certain ability commensurate with one’s reputation, we can consider the person’s ''mianzi'' to be ‘valid’. In contrast, if a person produces an image of him or herself through subterfuge or posturing, then that person’s ''mianzi'' is hollow. According to this understanding, exaggerating a particular ''guanxi'' with a powerful figure is a specific strategy for establishing ‘hollow ''mianzi''’. However, the distinction between ‘valid ''mianzi''’ and ‘hollow ''mianzi''’ is not absolute; for example, a businessman gaining hollow mianzi mainly through exaggerating his ''guanxi'' with a powerful official may still have more advantage in a competitive bidding, thus turn the hollow ''mianzi'' into a valid one.		Because ''mianzi'' can be maneuvered to a certain degree, variations exist to the extent to which a person’s ''mianzi'' is ‘valid’ (实) or ‘hollow’ (虚). If a person is wealthy or possesses a certain ability commensurate with one’s reputation, we can consider the person’s ''mianzi'' to be ‘valid’. In contrast, if a person produces an image of him or herself through subterfuge or posturing, then that person’s ''mianzi'' is hollow. According to this understanding, exaggerating a particular ''guanxi'' with a powerful figure is a specific strategy for establishing ‘hollow ''mianzi''’. However, the distinction between ‘valid ''mianzi''’ and ‘hollow ''mianzi''’ is not absolute; for example, a businessman gaining hollow mianzi mainly through exaggerating his ''guanxi'' with a powerful official may still have more advantage in a competitive bidding, thus turn the hollow ''mianzi'' into a valid one.

			[[File:Mianzi_logogram.jpeg\|thumb\|300px\|left\|CAPTION. Source: Long Zhang. © Long Zhang.]]

	Many Chinese people are concerned about protecting the ''mianzi'' of others, especially those of higher social status. Hurting someone’s ''mianzi'' may cause embarrassment or even anger to that person and could damage their interpersonal ''guanxi'' (Kipnis 1995). Common strategies to save other’s ''mianzi'' include avoiding public criticism preferring more euphemistic, general, and vague comments; avoiding outright refusal of requests and, instead, making a perfunctory effort even when the request cannot be really fulfilled; avoiding public confrontation with elders and superiors and, instead, behaving as submissively as possible (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987).		Many Chinese people are concerned about protecting the ''mianzi'' of others, especially those of higher social status. Hurting someone’s ''mianzi'' may cause embarrassment or even anger to that person and could damage their interpersonal ''guanxi'' (Kipnis 1995). Common strategies to save other’s ''mianzi'' include avoiding public criticism preferring more euphemistic, general, and vague comments; avoiding outright refusal of requests and, instead, making a perfunctory effort even when the request cannot be really fulfilled; avoiding public confrontation with elders and superiors and, instead, behaving as submissively as possible (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987).

Editor2018 at 10:34, 23 March 2021

2021-03-23T10:34:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:34, 23 March 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:
	\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| The Chinese word ''mianzi'' (面子) means literally ‘face’, and it refers to the recognition of an individual’s social status and prestige by others. ''Mianzi'' can be earned, saved, borrowed, and maneuvered (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987; Kinnison 2017). As demonstrated by Goffman’s (1972) research on face-work, concern for self-image (i.e. how one is perceived by others) is a commonplace worldwide. However, in the social-cultural context of China, there are especially prominent concerns related to the practice of ''mianzi''. These concerns highlight aspects of personal relations and interactions largely ignored in non-Chinese societies (Qi 2011).		\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| The Chinese word ''mianzi'' (面子) means literally ‘face’, and it refers to the recognition of an individual’s social status and prestige by others. ''Mianzi'' can be earned, saved, borrowed, and maneuvered (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987; Kinnison 2017). As demonstrated by Goffman’s (1972) research on face-work, concern for self-image (i.e. how one is perceived by others) is a commonplace worldwide. However, in the social-cultural context of China, there are especially prominent concerns related to the practice of ''mianzi''. These concerns highlight aspects of personal relations and interactions largely ignored in non-Chinese societies (Qi 2011).

	For Chinese people, ''mianzi'' is perceived to be not really relevant in both close relations and among complete strangers (Hwang 1987). In close relations, such as with family members, an individual tends to be more relaxed and display a more ‘authentic’ version of him or herself. Among complete strangers, interactions are often superficial and short-lived and an individual is rarely worried about what strangers think of them. Rather, ''mianzi'' is most prominent in intermediary or mixed relations, or within the ''[[guanxi]]'' ([[关系]]) network ~~(see more at [[Guanxi (China)]])~~. This network includes friends, colleagues, classmates, fellow villagers, neighbours, and so on.		For Chinese people, ''mianzi'' is perceived to be not really relevant in both close relations and among complete strangers (Hwang 1987). In close relations, such as with family members, an individual tends to be more relaxed and display a more ‘authentic’ version of him or herself. Among complete strangers, interactions are often superficial and short-lived and an individual is rarely worried about what strangers think of them. Rather, ''mianzi'' is most prominent in intermediary or mixed relations, or within the ''[[guanxi]]'' ([[关系]]) network. This network includes friends, colleagues, classmates, fellow villagers, neighbours, and so on.
	\|}		\|}

Editor2018: Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Mianzi | flagemoji = 🇨🇳 | definition = Mianzi refers to the recognition of an individual’s social status and prestige by others, which can..."

2021-03-23T10:33:56Z

Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Mianzi | flagemoji = 🇨🇳 | definition = Mianzi refers to the recognition of an individual’s social status and prestige by others, which can..."

New page

{{infobox
| nameofpractice = Mianzi
| flagemoji = 🇨🇳
| definition = Mianzi refers to the recognition of an individual’s social status and prestige by others, which can be earned, saved, borrowed, and maneuvered.
| location = China
| imagemap = China map.png
| clusters = [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence|Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Instrumentality of sociability| Instrumentality of sociability]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours| Economies of favours]]
| categories = [[:Category: China|China]] – [[:Category: East Asia| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Personal Connections| Personal Connections]] – [[:Category: Sociability| Sociability]] – [[:Category: Sociability of instrumentality| Sociability of instrumentality]] – [[:Category: Reputation| Reputation]] – [[:Category: Bureaucracy| Bureaucracy]] – [[:Category: Gender| Gender]]
| authorofpiece = Long Zhang
| authorinstitution = Department of Sociology, The University of Hong Kong
| authorwebsite =
}}
<big>'''By Long Zhang, Department of Sociology, The University of Hong Kong'''</big>
[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]
[[Category: Instrumentality of sociability]]
[[Category: Economies of favours]]
[[Category: China]]
[[Category: East Asia]]
[[Category: Personal Connections]]
[[Category: Sociability]]
[[Category: Sociability of instrumentality]]
[[Category: Reputation]]
[[Category: Bureaucracy]]
[[Category: Gender]]
[[Category: Entry]]
[[Category: 2021 entry]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|style="font-size:1.1em;"| The Chinese word ''mianzi'' (面子) means literally ‘face’, and it refers to the recognition of an individual’s social status and prestige by others. ''Mianzi'' can be earned, saved, borrowed, and maneuvered (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987; Kinnison 2017). As demonstrated by Goffman’s (1972) research on face-work, concern for self-image (i.e. how one is perceived by others) is a commonplace worldwide. However, in the social-cultural context of China, there are especially prominent concerns related to the practice of ''mianzi''. These concerns highlight aspects of personal relations and interactions largely ignored in non-Chinese societies (Qi 2011).

For Chinese people, ''mianzi'' is perceived to be not really relevant in both close relations and among complete strangers (Hwang 1987). In close relations, such as with family members, an individual tends to be more relaxed and display a more ‘authentic’ version of him or herself. Among complete strangers, interactions are often superficial and short-lived and an individual is rarely worried about what strangers think of them. Rather, ''mianzi'' is most prominent in intermediary or mixed relations, or within the ''[[guanxi]]'' ([[关系]]) network (see more at [[Guanxi (China)]]). This network includes friends, colleagues, classmates, fellow villagers, neighbours, and so on.
|}

In a ''guanxi'' network, the amount of ''mianzi'' reflects the individual’s social status and, to a certain extent, the person’s position in the network. Those who have more ''mianzi'' usually find it easier to utilise their ''guanxi'' to gain resources (Hwang 1987). If A makes a request to B, and B accepts, then we can say that B gives ''mianzi'' to A. Meanwhile, the fact that B has helped A means that B is owed social debt now, so A should provide ''mianzi'' to B in return. If A does not have enough ''mianzi'' to gain help from B, then A may need to ‘borrow’ ''mianzi'' from C, asking B to help A for the sake of C’s ''mianzi''. In general, C should be a person who has close ''guanxi'' with A and has ''mianzi'' for B.

In order to increase one’s ''mianzi'', some people may deliberately highlight their special ''guanxi'' with powerful figures, by inviting a powerful figure to give a speech at a wedding ritual, hanging a celebrity’s calligraphy or painting in a prominent place at home, etc. In addition, daily interactions between an individual and other people in the network also affect one’s ''mianzi''. Such interactions may include whether gifts are exchanged in accordance with commonly recognized rules, whether one gives ''mianzi'' to another in certain situations, and so on.

Because ''mianzi'' can be maneuvered to a certain degree, variations exist to the extent to which a person’s ''mianzi'' is ‘valid’ (实) or ‘hollow’ (虚). If a person is wealthy or possesses a certain ability commensurate with one’s reputation, we can consider the person’s ''mianzi'' to be ‘valid’. In contrast, if a person produces an image of him or herself through subterfuge or posturing, then that person’s ''mianzi'' is hollow. According to this understanding, exaggerating a particular ''guanxi'' with a powerful figure is a specific strategy for establishing ‘hollow ''mianzi''’. However, the distinction between ‘valid ''mianzi''’ and ‘hollow ''mianzi''’ is not absolute; for example, a businessman gaining hollow mianzi mainly through exaggerating his ''guanxi'' with a powerful official may still have more advantage in a competitive bidding, thus turn the hollow ''mianzi'' into a valid one.

Many Chinese people are concerned about protecting the ''mianzi'' of others, especially those of higher social status. Hurting someone’s ''mianzi'' may cause embarrassment or even anger to that person and could damage their interpersonal ''guanxi'' (Kipnis 1995). Common strategies to save other’s ''mianzi'' include avoiding public criticism preferring more euphemistic, general, and vague comments; avoiding outright refusal of requests and, instead, making a perfunctory effort even when the request cannot be really fulfilled; avoiding public confrontation with elders and superiors and, instead, behaving as submissively as possible (Hu 1944; Hwang 1987).

According to Zhai’s (2013) research, defence of leaders’ ''mianzi'' constitutes a distinctive feature of the relationship between superiors and subordinates in the Chinese bureaucracy. For example, if a superior makes a mistake, that person rarely admits it voluntarily in order to save ''mianzi''; moreover, even if the subordinates are aware that their superior has made a mistake, they often choose to cover up the mistake or justify the misconduct to assist their leader with saving ''mianzi''. This phenomenon exists both in the traditional Chinese bureaucracy and among the Communist cadres, which shows considerable historical continuity.

This is true also the other way around. In Chinese bureaucracy, wise leaders also know the importance of maintaining the ''mianzi'' of their subordinates and avoid embarrassing their subordinates in public. The business magazine Forbes once reported how, in a large multinational company located in Shanghai, a U.S. superior severely criticized his Chinese subordinate in a meeting, which caused the Chinese subordinate to go silent and then leave the meeting. Based on this story, the Forbes reporter advised foreign managers to be fully aware of Chinese people’s sensitivity to public criticism: ‘when your Chinese employees lose face, you lose them’ (Vorhauser-Smith 2012).

In traditional Chinese culture, maintaining ''mianzi'' perpetuates unequal gender relations. According to the traditional principles of Confucianism, the expected relation of a couple in public is ‘husband sings and wife echoes’ (夫唱妇随), which means that a wife should show her deference and give her husband as much ''mianzi'' as possible in front of other people. According to Chan’s (2006) research, the perception that their ''mianzi'' has not been preserved constitutes an important reason why some Chinese husbands feel dissatisfied with their wives and even commit domestic violence.

The ''mianzi'' practice also perpetuates gender inequality in that having a son is traditionally viewed as generating ''mianzi'' for all family members, while having a daughter does not add anything to their ''mianzi''. Given this perception, giving birth to a boy represents more than mere security; it is linked to the status and prestige of the family members in the community and network (Li & Shang 2012). Some young mothers may even feel that giving birth to a son affects their ''mianzi'' in the entire kinship network and community. This link of a child’s gender with the parents’ ''mianzi'' has led to intentional gender selection and lower survival rates of girls.

However, the ''mianzi'' brought by raising son is a double-edged sword. When a young man prepares to get married, his parents are often obliged to prepare a substantial ''[[caili]]'' (see [[Caili (China)]] for more) and even to buy a wedding apartment, for which the parents may accumulate huge debt. The amount of ''caili'' and the quality of the wedding apartment will affect the ''mianzi'' of the bridegroom’s family in the previous community and in the newly established network with the bride’s family (Wang et al. 2020). If, despite the heavy financial burden for this, the bridegroom’s parents do not gain enough return from their son, their life actually become much harder with their overly investment in gaining a hollow ''mianzi''. As one Chinese proverb goes, people may ‘suffer in life because dying to gain ''mianzi'' (死要面子活受罪).

==References==

Chan, K. L. 2006. ‘The Chinese Concept of Face and Violence against Women’, International Social Work, 49(1): 65–73.

Goffman, E. 1972. ‘On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’, In E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behaviour. London: The Penguin Press: 5–46.

Hwang, K. 1987. ‘Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game’, American Journal of Sociology, 92 (4): 944–974.

Hu, H.C. 1944. ‘The Chinese Concepts of “Face”’, American Anthropologist, 46 (1): 45–64.

Kinnison, Li Qing. 2017. ‘Power, Integrity, and Mask – An Attempt to Disentangle the Chinese Face Concept’, Journal of Pragmatics, 114: 32-48.

Kipnis, A. B. 1995. ‘Face: An Adaptable Discourse of Social Surfaces’, Positions, 3 (1): 119–148.

Li, W. D., Shang W. J. ‘Nanhai Pianhao Zuowei Yizhong Shengyu Wenhua de Shengchan yu Zaishengchan’, Funv Yanjiu Luncong, 110 (2): 36-43.

Qi, X. 2011. ‘Face: A Chinese Concept in a Global Sociology’, Journal of Sociology, 47 (3): 279–296.

Vorhauser-Smith, Sylvia. 2012. ‘When Your Chinese Employees Lose Face, You Lose Them’, Forbes 29 May,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sylviavorhausersmith/2012/05/29/when-your-chinese-employees-lose-face-you-lose-them-2/?sh=2e26f92964ba.

Wang, S. N., Jia Y. J., Tian G. 2020. ‘Yi Caili: Lun Nongcun Caili Xingcheng Jizhi Zhong de Daode Qianruxing–Jiyu Gansu L Xian de Anli Fenxi’,

Shehui, 40 (1): 1-24.

Zhai, X. W. 2013. Renqing, Mianzi yu Quanli de Zaishengchan. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, 7 April 2021
Line 55:		Line 55:
	==References==		==References==

	Chan, K. L. 2006. ‘The Chinese Concept of Face and Violence against Women’, International Social Work, 49(1): 65–73.		Chan, K. L. 2006. ‘The Chinese Concept of Face and Violence against Women’, International Social Work, 49(1): 65–73

	Goffman, E. 1972. ‘On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’, In E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behaviour. London: The Penguin Press: 5–46.		Goffman, E. 1972. ‘On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’, In E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behaviour. London: The Penguin Press: 5–46

	Hwang, K. 1987. ‘Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game’, American Journal of Sociology, 92 (4): 944–974.		Hwang, K. 1987. ‘Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game’, American Journal of Sociology, 92 (4): 944–974

	Hu, H.C. 1944. ‘The Chinese Concepts of “Face”’, American Anthropologist, 46 (1): 45–64.		Hu, H.C. 1944. ‘The Chinese Concepts of “Face”’, American Anthropologist, 46 (1): 45–64

	Kinnison, Li Qing. 2017. ‘Power, Integrity, and Mask – An Attempt to Disentangle the Chinese Face Concept’, Journal of Pragmatics, 114: 32-48.		Kinnison, Li Qing. 2017. ‘Power, Integrity, and Mask – An Attempt to Disentangle the Chinese Face Concept’, Journal of Pragmatics, 114: 32-48

	Kipnis, A. B. 1995. ‘Face: An Adaptable Discourse of Social Surfaces’, Positions, 3 (1): 119–148.		Kipnis, A. B. 1995. ‘Face: An Adaptable Discourse of Social Surfaces’, Positions, 3 (1): 119–148

	Li, W. D., Shang W. J. ‘Nanhai Pianhao Zuowei Yizhong Shengyu Wenhua de Shengchan yu Zaishengchan’, Funv Yanjiu Luncong, 110 (2): 36-43.		Li, W. D., Shang W. J. ‘Nanhai Pianhao Zuowei Yizhong Shengyu Wenhua de Shengchan yu Zaishengchan’, Funv Yanjiu Luncong, 110 (2): 36-43

	Qi, X. 2011. ‘Face: A Chinese Concept in a Global Sociology’, Journal of Sociology, 47 (3): 279–296.		Qi, X. 2011. ‘Face: A Chinese Concept in a Global Sociology’, Journal of Sociology, 47 (3): 279–296

	Vorhauser-Smith, Sylvia. 2012. ‘When Your Chinese Employees Lose Face, You Lose Them’, Forbes 29 May,		Vorhauser-Smith, Sylvia. 2012. ‘When Your Chinese Employees Lose Face, You Lose Them’, Forbes 29 May,
Line 76:		Line 76:
	Wang, S. N., Jia Y. J., Tian G. 2020. ‘Yi Caili: Lun Nongcun Caili Xingcheng Jizhi Zhong de Daode Qianruxing–Jiyu Gansu L Xian de Anli Fenxi’,		Wang, S. N., Jia Y. J., Tian G. 2020. ‘Yi Caili: Lun Nongcun Caili Xingcheng Jizhi Zhong de Daode Qianruxing–Jiyu Gansu L Xian de Anli Fenxi’,

	Shehui, 40 (1): 1-24.		Shehui, 40 (1): 1-24

	Zhai, X. W. 2013. Renqing, Mianzi yu Quanli de Zaishengchan. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe.		Zhai, X. W. 2013. ''Renqing, Mianzi yu Quanli de Zaishengchan''. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe