Several weeks ago, we had a session of diversity training. We were placed in moderately large groups--about a dozen people--and we chose from pairs of descriptors which characteristics individually suited us most. Choices were between, for example, "show me" and "tell me", "small details" and "big picture", "quick results" and "accurate results"... that sort of thing. One that really stuck with me was the dichotomy of "saving face" and "being honest". When this pair came up, everybody in the room raised their hands for "being honest" except me. As the only one that differed, I was called upon to present my reasoning. I said that it isn't always necessary to place blame on people and giving them a graceful way out, if they already recognize the problem, can be a more appropriate thing to do. I was told that "saving face" meant denying fault and passing the blame even in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. I let it go and said that I had simply misunderstood the question. The group moved on.

The next day, a coworker that had been in my group (a middle-aged woman, like all the technologists that work in haematology) approached me and revisited the discussion from the night before. "I knew you'd choose 'saving face'--it's a cultural thing," she said. I explained that, setting aside group pride and shame, saving face on an individual level is still an option instead of always searching out who's at fault and confronting them. Her response was unforgettable: she reiterated how the group had defined the term the night before and added in a reaffirming way, "In the English language, that's what 'saving face' means." I did a double take.

I couldn't believe she had just said that and was in total shock. If I were white and had a different (but equally valid) definition of a term, would she have said the same thing? Would she have stressed that my misunderstanding was rooted in the apparent inability to handle the English language? I did not riposte with the fact that English is my first language and the only language in which I'm fluent. I simply apologized for my faulty grasp of what the term meant and she walked away satisfied with her cultural knowledge and sensitivity.

Perhaps I'm overly affected by things like this since I'm one of two Asian people in the whole entire lab. Perhaps I'm lingering on this incident longer than I should. But it got me wondering several things. Firstly, what caused differences in the definition of "saving face" to being with? I suppose we were, after all, actually talking about the same thing but from opposite sides. I saw "saving face" and "being honest" as alternatives in dealing with other people's errors. Apparently the rest of my group internalized the question as approaches to dealing with one's own mistakes. I suppose in valuing respect more than pride, I associated "saving face" with respecting others in a way to "俾面人". I still don't see how they failed to realize that my position merely represented the flipside of theirs. Secondly, if "saving face" is a Chinese thing and "saving face" means stubborn denial of one's own flagrancy, what does that say about the American perception of Chinese people? We must all just be a bunch of proud idiots constantly stammering to maintain that we are right.