'saving Face' 'losing Face'

[astromash]

Westerners talk a lot about the Thai concern with 'face' and 'saving face' and 'losing face'. How do the Thais themselves talk about this (supposedly) national obessession?

My dictionary has:

face: bai-naa, naa

to preserve, maintain, keep: gep-rak-saa

to lose (eg a loved one): sia

to lose (eg money): kaat-tun

but I somehow doubt it's that simple!

Cheers.

PS: Sorry if this topic has been covered in the forum many times before. I've been unable to do a search because the TV search engine doesn't allow you to search on words of less than 5 characters.

[DavidHouston]

See the last several postings at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Tantrum-and-...ing-t38415.html

[astromash]

See the last several postings at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Tantrum-and-...ing-t38415.html

Thanks for that, although for a crude Thai speaker like myself it's a bit difficult to pick through those later posts and make much sense of them.

However I do see there the phrase "sia naa". Presumably this is 'lose face'?

So, for the purposes of communication at a primitive level, maybe it is that simple? With my very lumpy Thai language skills I will have a chance of being understood if I say things like:

Pom sia naa (I lose face).

Kun mai chorp sia naa. (You no like losing face).

??

Cheers.

[Galong]

I find the whole idea of losing face in a Buddhist culture rather odd (inconsistent with the source text), since one of the foundational tenets of the philosophy (or religion if you choose to call it that) is to lose the perception/concept of a personal identity. So, if there's no "you", there's no face for "you" to lose.

This is the doctrine of the Anatman. It leaves no room for self-hood. It was Sidhartha's awakening.

[astromash]

I find the whole idea of losing face in a Buddhist culture rather odd (inconsistent with the source text), since one of the foundational tenets of the philosophy (or religion if you choose to call it that) is to lose the perception/concept of a personal identity. So, if there's no "you", there's no face for "you" to lose.

This is the doctrine of the Anatman. It leaves no room for self-hood. It was Sidhartha's awakening.

Well, you're taking the thread rather off topic so why don't I continue the trend for a moment?

Personally I think we westerners overstate the importance of 'face' in Thai culture. In the west we're not so different. We too are obssessed with status, pride, not looking bad, keeping up with Joneses etc etc. Where Thais truly are different from us is in their desire to avoid confrontation/conflict.

Anyway, I'd be grateful if a seasoned Thai speaker (or two) would just confirm that my elementary "pom sia naa" (I lose face) and "kun mai chorp sia naa" (you no like losing face) are reasonably on the mark.

Thanks.

[siamesekitty]

Anyway, I'd be grateful if a seasoned Thai speaker (or two) would just confirm that my elementary "pom sia naa" (I lose face) and "kun mai chorp sia naa" (you no like losing face) are reasonably on the mark.

Pretty much, although of course there might be small variations depending on the situation.

[realthaideal]

I made an inquiry about losing face awhile back. It was more about how to 'gain face' or build reputation, the opposite/antonym of losing face. I was pleased by all of the phrases that people offered up. Maybe worth a look too.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Gaining-Face-Good-t146566.html

[astromash]

I made an inquiry about losing face awhile back. It was more about how to 'gain face' or build reputation, the opposite/antonym of losing face. I was pleased by all of the phrases that people offered up. Maybe worth a look too.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Gaining-Face-Good-t146566.html

Very interesting, thanks. The expression about 'sticking gold foil on the back of the statue' is fascinating.

[DavidHouston]

Here is an example from a news magazine from last weekend:

ก่อนหน้านี้ นายสมัคร ก็ต้องเสียหน้า เสียความเชื่อถือ เมื่อต้องกลับลำอย่างกะทันหัน หลังจากประกาศที่จะแตกหักกับพันธมิตรฯ ด้วยการสลายม็อบ แต่กลับทำให้มวลชนมาร่วมชุมนุมร่วมกับพันธมิตรฯ เพิ่มขึ้น จนไม่สามารถจะดำเนินการอะไรได้

gòn nâa née naai sà-màk gôr dtông sĭa nâa sĭa kwaam chêua tĕu mêua dtông glàp lam yàang gà tan hăn lăng jàak bprà-gàat têe jà dtàe-gà-hàk gàp pan-tá-mít ฯ dûay gaan sà-lăai móp dtàe glàp tam hâi muan chon maa rûam choom-noom rûam gàp pan-tá-mít ฯ pêrm kêun jon mâi săa-mâat jà dam-nern gaan à-rai dâai [per Thai2English]

Prior to this time Mr. Samak lost face and credibility when he did a sudden about-face after he announced that he was breaking with the PAD and was going to disburse the (protest) mob. However, (these actions) galvanized the media who joined with the PAD such that (Mr. Samak) was unable to accomplish anything.

Edited July 15, 2008 by DavidHouston

[somluck]

what about the expression Khai Naa? Meaning 'sell face'?

[DavidHouston]

Here is yet another phrase: From Lexitron,

เสียรังวัด ("sǐa raŋ wát") [V] to share the blame; be disgraced; lose face Syn. ขายหน้า

The sample sentence in the dictionary is"

ถ้าเรื่องปูนที่ตนเองเชี่ยวชาญทำได้ไม่ดีคงจะเสียรังวัดเอามากเหมือนกัน

Notice that the synonym for this phrase is "ขายหน้า" (khǎay nâa), as noted in Somluk's post.

"If the reason that the cement crumbled and fell is due to the fact that the experts did not do a good enough job, they will certainly share the blame [for the disaster]."

I would appreciate any corrections to the translation of the sentence. Thanks.

Edited September 19, 2008 by DavidHouston

[DavidHouston]

I just received a correction to my translation of the sample sentence by PM:

ถ้าเรื่องปูนที่ตนเองเชี่ยวชาญทำได้ไม่ดีคงจะเสียรังวัดเอามากเหมือนกัน

"If I, an expert in cement work, could not do a good job [of construction], I would lose my credibility."

Thank you, anonymous poster.

[bitterbatter]

To lose ones face is often associated with embarrassment. But to go a little deeper I can give some examples. If you are upset by someones behavior it is best not to criticize them in public. For example if you are in a restaurant and don't like the service or the food, then you should kindly tell them that you are dissatisfied, but do not go into detail as to why. If you don't want some thing then say "mai ao krup", to speak about the reasons why causes embarrassment and will make you look like an jerk. As westerners we often believe it is necessary to give detailed reason as to why we do things. In the traditional Buddhist way, it is best to teach by setting an example and if we have trouble accepting a situation then it is considered proper to internalize your feelings and deal with them privately. To drag someone else into your emotional viewpoint is not accepted as being polite.

Losing face is often a complex issue but if you follow those basic guidelines then you should do OK.

Here is another example: I was sitting down with friends and was offered some unappetizing food, intestine soup and some funky looking duck. I replied no thank you or "mai ao krup". This was accepted and they didn't ask me again. But a german man was asked the same thing before I was there and he replied that he doesn't eat dog food. This really upset the man who had paid what little money he had to share with people this meal that he really liked. The rest of the evening I listened to them speak about how upsetting this farang's behavior was.

another example: I was very upset with my girlfriends behavior and I spoke loudly about it and criticized her in front of her friends and broke up with her. When asked by her mother if I was leaving, I decided to tell her in great detail the reasons why. In both cases I was incorrect and ended up looking like the jerk. I should have told my girlfriend privately I simply had enough, and the same with the mother. Explaining the reasons why are the responsibility of my girlfriend. Admitting your own mistakes is very different then pointing out someone else's. You should never provoke humiliation but take responsibility for why you ended up in this situation to begin with and simply deal with it.

I may not be entirely correct in my assessment, but this is what I have gathered so far in my three years in Thailand.

[Slip]

I have a friend who says หน้าแตก (Naa Dtaek)- literally translates as 'shattered/ cracked' face.

[AjarnPasa]

<br>I have a friend who says <font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, helv"><font color="#1C2837"><font face="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"><b><font size="3"><a href="http://thai-language.com/id/132375#def2" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">หน้า</a></font></b></font></font><font size="3"><a href="http://thai-language.com/id/132375#def2" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">แตก</a>  (Naa Dtaek)- literally translates as 'shattered/ cracked' face.</font></font><br>

<br><br

เสียหน้า

ขายหน็า

หน้าแต่ก

All appropriate ways to say 'loose face'

Edited July 17, 2010 by AjarnPasa

[RickBradford]

On the social side of this question, a number of social scientists, psychologists and what-not have looked into the Asian notion of face and conclude: it is a very different and more fundamental emotion than what we might call 'shame' or 'embarrassment'.

They also point out that if you don't understand 'face', you will never understand Asians.

Consider the essential difference between Asian cultures and Western culture.

Western culture is the culture of individuality, of personality, even of egocentrism. It's just the way our societies have developed -- since the Renaissance, when we cast off old myths, and started down the path of rationality, individual endeavor and individual respect.

Like it or not, Asian societies do not think so much in this way; we emphasize 'I' over 'we', most Asian societies are the opposite, and you can see it right there in the languages with their extensive use of kinship terms ( is he พี่ or is he น้อง or is he old enough to be ลุง?) Vietnamese has no polite neutral pronouns at all -- you're always someone's big brother or little sister and so on, your status in the group firmly determined.

And now we're getting to it. Asian societies follow these status hierarchies much more closely than the individualistic West does; in the jargon, they are 'role-rule' societies, where everyone knows their role and the rules associated with that role. Essentially, these are group-oriented societies more than individual societies. The crucial thing for an Asian is to feel part of a group -- family, of course, but also friends and workplace as well. What is important is the integrity of the group and its conformity with the comforting rules that its members have grown up with. Hence, the worst possible thing for an Asian is to be excluded or, even worse, expelled from a group; it's a form of psychological death.

This is how Ken Wilber puts it:

"The self identified with the role mind [see above - Ed.] escapes to some degree the narcissistic imprisonment of its own being and begins to enter the community of other viewpoints. Initially, however, it is captured by those viewpoints -- hence, conformity.

"And the self would actively seek this conformity because that is now its locus of identification, preservation and life -- to lose conformity is to 'die'. To lose face, to be an outsider, to not belong -- there is the terror of the self that is identified with the role mind."

So, to us Westerners, embarrassment is something we take at a personal level and deal with it accordingly. For many Asians, it is a complete loss of psychological identity, which is why they take it so seriously and can act in ways we think are bizarre and irrational on occasions.

Getting back on the linguistic track, it is possible to chart the decline of the group-oriented society through language use. Vietnamese university students now use formerly very impolite (but status-neutral) pronouns with one another, to the horror of their parents, and I gather that the same sort of egalitarian shift is happening in Japanese.

[Tod Daniels]

I agree with the poster known as RickBradford and his mini-dissertation on the how/why of thai or asian face. I also wholeheartedly agree with the premise that to not understand it is to not know asians. A clear understanding of the why they do things can make for a more enjoyable stay here in the long haul. The thais are mostly predictable in a given situation to a fault, due to their cultural indoctrination which starts at infancy and continues their entire lives. The concept of 'face' is at the forefront in their behavior.

Not being asian, and in fact being american, I totally ignore anything remotely to do with the concept of face as it pertains to me when dealing with the thais. I operate under the premise that I can neither gain nor lose face. If Im unhappy with service or goods, I want them to know about it in no uncertain terms. If something is offered to me that I dont want, Ill let em know the reason why I dont want it.

For the most part, foreigners simply by being foreign are exempt from a great many allegedly cultural things here which thais follow without question. These are things which I simply write off as thai oxymoronic cultural aberrations and discount out of hand as things I accept as theirs yet I don't participate in at all.

FWIW: Ive never had a thai when pressed for information or to rectify a problem NOT help me to the best of their ability. Neither have I perceived that they looked down on me (not that Id particularly care if they did) for acting foreign. I find the foreigners who act like a sheep-like sock-puppet in accepting what ever is supposed to be the status quo for a thai in a given situation a tiresome lot of wanna-b-thai pseudo-morphs.

Obviously this type of non-thai behavior comes with the caveat that you MUST know your audience. Overall, its my experience; thais can be pushed quite far in most situations. BUT!! As there is no line painted on the ground, pushing them past this invisible, yet very real, line can and often does result in a sudden display of violence which runs totally counter to the ever smiling, soft spoken ใจเย็น ๆ demeanor they are portrayed as possessing.

I think most foreigners read way tooo much into all thingz thai regarding their culture. I am never rude to the thais I deal with; but am curt, to the point and blunt in my communication with them. Then again, knowing well and good that Im not here to win a frickin popularity contest with these people has its advantages too .

I also agree with the last paragraph of the post by "RickBradford". The younger generation of thais has a much more loosely defined idea of hierarchy in their social groups especially in regards to forms of address, politeness in their interactions with one another and their conduct. Now whether this is a devolution or evolution of their culture, language or identity; well thats for more learned minds than mine to ponder and expound upon.

To the O/P's question about the correct words for lose face; other posters have listed the most popular forms of it in colloquial speech.

Edited July 19, 2010 by tod-daniels

[RickBradford]

Now whether this is a devolution or evolution of their culture, language or identity..

Oh, it's certainly an evolution, and equally clearly one that is opposed by many of the older Asian generation, who believe their youth is being 'corrupted' by 'bad' Western habits. What they are actually doing is discovering the freedom to think for themselves, outside the restrictive cultural norms which have prevailed for so long. It can't be stopped, and it will certainly bring bad qualities (particularly increased selfishness) along with the good, as happens with all developments.

For example, Singapore has been forced to pass a law requiring people to care for their aged parents, something which would not have been needed in the days of unquestioning 'filial piety'. Language will certainly change along with the cultural changes.

[Tod Daniels]

It reminds me of an article I read a while back in the paper which cannot be named written by evidently a scholarly older thai, wise in the ways of language preservation who was lamenting the fact that the language was, in his scholarly opinion; 'devolving'.

He mentioned how the language was losing its cultural identity with the use of god forbid; imported words from america, and other countries . He also was overly critical about the extensive use of chat-speak where thai is abbreviated and often misspelled on porpoise <sic> to facilitate a faster method of communication via the internet.

His take on thai language was really sad, especially so if it is shared by any of the powers that be here.. At least to me, language of any country is a living thing which constantly evolves to meet the demands of the current generation using the language. I know of many things which have migrated into colloquial speech in the US which I've never even heard of (being 51 y/o ) and hafta look up online with in a contemporary slang dictionary.

While a static language may meet some cultural bar in terms of readability. IMHO, a language that doesnt evolve is one which is doomed to die a slow lingering death.

In keeping with the topic of this thread; Certainly a country which tries to do that would เสียหน้ามากเกินไป in the long run.

Edited July 19, 2010 by tod-daniels