CIENCIAS Y LETRAS

Imagine that a woman, Sue, works in a law firm, and that nearly everyday Sue�s colleague, Richard, compliments her on some aspects of her physical appearance (e.g. �That�s a very nice suit Sue� or �Sue, you�ve changed your hair. It looks great!�) What kind of social interactional work Richard�s compliments could be said to achieve?

Western societies are still influenced by platonic dualities and the tensions derived from them. We tend to believe that human beings have a dual tendency to be both individualistic and social at the same time;1 we want to be �self-made people� and expect others to shape us. This duality is also present in the case displayed in the wording above. Richard�s compliments may fulfil the primary human need that we have of belonging to a group; of having Richard something in common with Sue,² OR fulfil the other primary human need of making differences between him and her and so, to highlight that idea of individualistic and independent behaviour.

Assuming the first case to be true, Richard�s compliments might correspond to the aspects of face defined by Brown and Levinson as basic �universal� positive wants, i.e. �the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others� (Brown & Levinson: 1987. Pp. 62). In this case, Richard would be displaying his own want of being flattered on his physical appearance by Sue³, what reflects his admiration⁴ towards her and so, his want of her to admire him. This admiration may have its origins in sexual interest/attraction or not; but the only one who can answer to that question is Richard, and we don�t know if Richard is aware even of admiring Sue.

Let us assume also the second interpretation of Richard�s compliments. In this other case, he would be treating Sue as someone who, unlike him, has that need of belonging to a group and so, to have those positive wants mentioned before, but notice that the fact of admiring her does not change.

This duality in the origin of compliments makes the speaker�s (S) work difficult to interpret by the addressee (H), what lead us to wonder about Richard�s performance⁵, his awareness of his own mechanisms, and how this awareness is related to ethics. The relationship between performance and ethics has to be with intentions, but we would need another paper only to define this term. What really matters for us right now is just to take into account that, as much as Richard gets close to the idea of a social individual, his interactional work will be more ethical and so, more respectful⁶.

Imagine a case in which he seems⁷ not to be conscious of his complimenting mechanism:

This �denial of evidence� may be a mechanism of avoiding admitting �to himself OR⁸ to others� something that Richard considers inappropriate according to his cultural background AND⁹ his subjective view of that background.¹⁰ Another option may be to use this �hiding mechanism� in order to protect his own privacy; as a way of saying something like it�s no concern of you.

The two proposed options are claiming for a same �hiding mechanism� as a result of a �negative-face protection mechanism�. Brown and Levinson�s concept of negative face is defined by means of contrast between a �competent adult member� and �others�.¹¹ This duality is based on the idea that a model person (MP) is a rational agent �in the sense that Brown and Levinson are using this expression�¹², but I would �disagree with this idea� XOR¹³ �assert that speakers (S) are not MPs�. In fact, what we are arguing is that Richard may develop those mechanisms in order to protect his own �want that his actions be unimpeded by others OR himself�. This claim may fit with the concept of negative politeness derived from Durkheim�s negative rites, which is defined by Brown and Levinson as a: �redressive action addressed to the addressee�s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded� (Brown & Levinson: 1987. Pp. 129).

Although, I would apply this politeness, not only towards �otherness� but also towards oneself. I would say that Richard is being negatively polite with his own face by means of protecting it OR that he is being negatively polite with You by using this hiding mechanism in order not to threat You�s face.

Both in case of protecting his face¹⁴ from �You� and in case of protecting his face from Richard�s own way of understanding his cultural background, ethics and Richard�s interpretations of moral values are the ones which will give us the clue to understand the lawyer�s social interactional work when he compliments Sue.

In the first case, the lawyer is aware of the hearer�s face and develops a mechanism not to offend �You�, while in the second one, he only takes care of his own face. In between these two extremes, there are degrees of awareness both of You and I and, depending on those degrees, compliments will be more oriented to fulfil Richard�s needs OR Richard�s interpretation of Sue�s needs.

Imagine now that he is completely aware of the fact of complimenting Sue, but that he doesn�t know the reason why he admires Sue. Let us take a case in which Peter (Richard�s friend) asks him if he likes Sue:

When we have no conscious reasons for behaving in a certain manner, we tend to do some kind of introspective analysis. During that process, we develop �rational� explanations for us to behave in such a way, whose truthfulness depends on our self-knowledge, i.e. the less self-knowledge, the more close to fallacy �or even to stupidity� that our �reasoning� is.

Our tendency to �hide� reality has to be with our tendency towards what we understand by �perfection�, a concept closely related to our moral values and understanding of ethics �which are subconscious�. As far as our �real� reasons for acting in a certain way differ from those values, our subconscious develops a fallacy just in case that we wonder about them. This mechanism is not normally applied to others, so that our judgement pattern on everybody�s moral values does not change from ourselves to otherness, but is �hidden� behind this complex �self-politeness� or mechanism of self-face protection.

As politeness seems to have its origins in the concept of respect belonging to a certain culture, we assert that �at least in western society� respect towards others is the result of respect towards the self. The concept of respect derives from the concept of Love¹⁵, which connects directly with the idea of self-knowledge¹⁶ developed before. These premises lead us to the consequence that Richard�s kind of social interactional work depends on his own self-knowledge and so, on his true respect for others. As far as his moral values are not in conflict with what he wants to take in return for his compliments, he will be more conscious of the social interactional work that he is achieving and so, his respect for Sue will grow within those values.

In other words, we may say that compliments are one of the most obvious positive politeness mechanisms in the sense of fulfilling the aspects of positive face.¹⁷ Although, as Brown and Levinson argue, the possibility of them to develop a positive politeness strategy may be sabotaged by one of the exploitations of politeness strategies:

Talking about positive politeness, they argue that its main mechanisms are: the claiming of a �common ground�, the conveying of co-operation between the addresser and the addressee, and the fulfilling of the addressee�s wants. These mechanisms contextualize our sense of respect, and give us the boundaries of it, leading us to conclude that, in social interactional works, the more similar the concept of respect is between the participants, the more successful a certain social interactional work is.

The implications of this last sentence, includes the idea that, in case of being a woman the one who compliments Sue every day, the interactional work she would be doing is exactly the same one described for Richard. The only difference resides in the way that Sue may interpret them as, depending on Sue�s sexual orientations and her expectations of her colleagues� ones, Sue would be more careful to get in debt with the one that is more likely to fit in her sexual behaviour. This explanation of sexual implications is very poor and vague, but I would be glad to go through it in depth in another essay.

Bibliography