Intercultural Communication

The Most Prominent Cultural Value in Singapore:
‘Face Value’

Tutor | Professor Stefanie Stadler

Done by:
Low Nan Wu Darren (U0930545A)

Date of Submission:
5th Sep 2011

Introduction
The term cultural values refer to our conception of the commonly held standards of what is acceptable or unacceptable, important or unimportant in a community or society. All values are learned values. Humans are not inherently born with the understanding of the kinds of values they should uphold. Instead, values are passed down and inculcated from one generation to another through intricate agents such as experiences, interaction, friends, families and cultural norms. Needless to say, different cultural groups espouse different values.
Studies on culture have shown a saliency of difference in both Asian and western values (Schwartz, 1994). Due to the nature and diversity of their beliefs and practices, Asian and western cultures have been largely distinguished as being collectivistic and individualistic respectively (Victor, 1992; Wagner & Moch, 1986). In the case of an individualistic culture, an individualist would consider his or her own personal interest and goals more important than the group’s interest (Victor, 1992; Earley 1989; Wagner & Moch, 1986). On the other hand, a collectivistic culture would value membership in a group, show stronger loyalty to their social groups and place their own interests before the groups’ interest (Victor, 1992; Wagner & Moch, 1986).

Collectivistic Singapore
Schwartz (1994:111) described Chinese in Singapore as “closest to the pure Hofstede conception of collectivism, high in conservatism and hierarchy, and low in autonomy and mastery”. In addition, in a survey conducted by Hofstede (1997), Singapore was ranked extremely low in individualism – 39th place out of 41 countries. This clearly indicates that Singapore belongs to a collectivistic, high power distance culture (Hofstede, 1994; Hofstede, 1997; Schwartz, 1994). It is important to identify Singapore as a collectivistic nation, as the notion of collectivism plays a key role in illustrating how cultural values in a collectivistic community can influence attitudes and cultural values differently from an individualistic community, especially in the case of face value in Singapore.

Concept and importance of face in Singapore
In all cultures, face is a ubiquitous concept. However, the concept of face is affected by cultural norms and types of communication strategies. An important value in Singaporean culture is that of saving and maintaining face. To avoid losing face, Singaporeans tend to control their behavior and emotions in public. They do not confront or criticize other people openly and employ an indirect communication style. Losing face be considered to be a great shame as it results in negative consequences on a person’s reputation and credibility as well as a person’s family and other social groups to which the person belongs.
The Singaporean concept of Kiasuism, which literally means ‘fear of losing’, reflects the social attitudes of Singaporeans always wanting to be the best and never to lose out. Thus, kiasuism can also be factor entailing to the prominence of wanting to maintain face by not losing out to others in the context of Singapore (Hwang, Ang & Francesco, 2002).

Face value in Singapore Chinese lifestyle
Compared to westerners, Asians are seen as more subjected to the idea of social harmony and respect. The reason for this is believed to be influenced by the harmonious interpersonal relationship of the Confucian teaching (Dragga, 1999). This is especially so for Chinese Singaporeans. According to Redding (1990), saving face is an important value in the Chinese culture. The meaning of saving face is the notion of a person being concerned with others perception of him or herself in order to maintain their reputation or status (Lee & Green, 1991). This act of face saving is especially more prominent among higher social groups (Kim & Nam, 1998).
Great importance is placed on status and ranks when it comes to who is more liable in gaining or receiving face among Singaporean Chinese. The amount of face a person has or receives is an indication of his or her social status, depending on which group he or she interacts with. This means that an individual’s amount of face relies largely on their background, status and income. The higher the rank is, the more face the individual possesses, and the more likely so others would offer them face to show respect. This reveals that the concept of face among Singaporean Chinese is inherently a hierarchical one (Chang & Holt, 1994). Naturally, in the context of a domestic situation in Singapore, a son will not argue with his parents in public, nor will an employee with the supervisor so as to give face and pay respect to the one holding a higher social rank. For one to gain face or receive face be a reputable and honorable thing.
On the other hand, to lose face would just be the complete opposite: complete humiliation and embarrassment. For Singaporean Chinese, losing face does not pertain to the offender’s own loss of face, but it also directly affects the face of the entire family. In order for one to lose face, an act of immoral behaviors or a degrading action would suffice. For Chinese communities in Singapore, usually if an act of immoral behavior is displayed it is more than just an individual’s face on the line, the families’ face are also put to shame. Because of this, it is not surprising that Chinese communities in Singapore tend to emphasize group conformity and solidarity, especially by the first generation. In Singapore, children are taught not to lose the family face when they are very young. Parents would often say “You are such a disgrace. You’ve completely lost all our face,” when they believe their children have failed their expectations or done something wrong. An employee’s error may cause the company to lose face. Similarly, an individual’s achievement is not just considered an honor for him or herself, but more so for their families, the community he or she functions in or even the entire country. In order to avoid a loss of face, one would have to adhere to accepted norms of behaviors in one’s immediate social setting and to keep in mind the social norms and expectations of the community.

Chinese business practices in Singapore
In Chinese organizations, building rapport and continuing relationships are important in businesses. In fact, socialization or offering gifts are practiced in order to give face to ensure harmony to build trust and strong business relationships (Tan, 1990). Sometimes, in order to protect the good name of the business and family, Singaporean Chinese will also try to maintain their business even if is no longer profit-making, in order to maintain their face. It would be deemed as most disgraceful to have to shut down a business. Singaporean Chinese also tend to prefer to do business with large and prestigious companies with strong reputations. If an individual was able to seal a deal, he or she would be well received and respected by family members, which would lead to an increase in face value.

Conclusion
Face is a strongly advocated value that obviously has great significance in the daily lives and actions among Singaporean Chinese. Whether someone gains or loses face depends on one’s status, actions, tolerance and beliefs. It must also be recognized that face value does not simply reflect the negative or positive actions of a single person, but affects also their loved ones and closest kin in the Singaporean Chinese context. In addition, we can also surmise that the dissimilarity of values cross different cultures is by and large due to the collectivistic and individualistic nature of Asian and western cultures respectively (Wagner & Moch, 1986).
Although Singapore may be a modernized and westernized society, it would seem that Singaporean Chinese still maintains their values by traditional means and methods (Chang, Wong & Koh, 2003). This illustrates the strong influence in the teachings of Confucian (Dragga, 1999). Finally, if one wishes to be a competent member of the Chinese culture one must be able to prevent, avoid, tolerate and ignore conflicts through the use of face-work strategies, as encouraged in a Chinese society.

References

Beamer, L., & Varner, I. (2001). Intercultural communication in the global workplace.
Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Chang, H., & Holt, R. (1994) A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.). The Challenge of facework (95-132) Albany: State University of New York Press.

Chang, C. W., Wong, K. W., & Koh, K. B. J. (2003). Chinese values in singapore: Traditional and modern. Asian Journal of Psychology, 6, 2-29.

Dragga, S. (1999). Ethical intercultural technical communication: looking through the lens of confucian ethics. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8, 365-381.

Early, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of the united states and the people's republic of china. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 34, 565-581.

Hofstede, G. (1994). The business of international business is culture. International Business Review, 3(1), 1-14.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Hwang, A., Ang, S., & Francesco, M. A. (2002). The silent chinese: The influence of face and kiasuism on student feedback-seeking behaviors. Journal of Management Education, 26,
70-98.

Kim, Y. J., & Nam, H. S. (1998). The concepts and dynamics of face: Implications for organizational behavior in asia. Organization Science, 9, 522-534.

Lee, C., & Green, R.T. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the fishbein behavioral intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 289-305.

Redding, S.G. (1990). The spirit of chinese capitalism. The Chinese University Press: Hong Kong.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism /collectivism: Newcultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (85-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tan, C.H. (1990). Management concepts and chinese culture. In Campbell, N. (Eds.). Advances in Chinese Industrial Studies, 1, 277–88. JAI Press: London.

Victor, D.A. (1992). International business communication. New York: Harper
Collins.

Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 280-304.