Embedded Files
From: Nicolas Lainez
Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear list,
I have a question about how b?t hi?u (undutiful, lack of filial piety) is sanctioned. In my fieldwork, people say that those who b?t hi?u are at risk of losing their prestige (m?t uy tín) and face (m?t m?t). It seems that those who b?t hi?u may be pressured by both their families and the society (fear of ngu?i ta nói). People fear that their lack of hi?u may excite a great deal of comment, which could potentially affect their social position and relationships.
I’m trying to draw these ideas on existent literature, but I struggle to find references that connect b?t hi?u with issues of ti?ng, uy tín, m?t, etc. I’m tempted to compare ti?ng and m?t with the Chinese concept of face (lien), but I am not sure whether this makes sense or not. I would much appreciate any reference or comment, especially about the connection between ti?ng/m?t and lien.
Thanks and regards,
Nicolas Lainez
PhD Candidate
EHESS / NUS
----------
From: le phuong
Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:48 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Nicolas Lainez,
In the traditional approach about a man (male) in the ancient times, there are 3 important characteristics: Trung (faith) to the King, Hieu (dutiful) to the parents, and Nghia (good willing) to the people around, especially to the brothers (huynh de)... If a man didnot comply with 3 above rules, he wasnot worth to be a man-being. So he would lose his prestige, no one believed him, he could not raise his face to everybody.
So the meaning of the word "face" (mat, and dien in Han Viet) is prestige (uy tin), honour (danh du), reputation (tieng tam) of a man in the society. And now, this approach still has a great impact on the modern living.
Best
Phuong L. Nguyen
Managing Editor
Datviet newspaper
----------
From: NGUYEN THE ANH
Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To Nicolas Lainiez,
You should look into: Phan Ke Binh, Viet Nam Phong Tuc (Moeurs et coutumes du Vietnam). Presentation et traduction annotee par Nicole Louis-Henard. Paris, 1975 (Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient, Collection de Textes et Documents sur l'Indochine, XI), especially at t. 1, pp. 22-41, and t. 2, "Moeurs et coutumes dans la societe (Noi ve phong tuc xa hoi)", p.3 sq.
Nguyen The Anh
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
Paris-Sorbonne
----------
From: Tai, Hue-Tam
Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Nicolas:
I think that the general idea, since filial piety is the most fundamental virtue, someone who is not filial is untrustworthy, and, as a result, loses face. The loss of face is shared by the individual,s whole family for having produced an unfilial child.
Incidentally, the phrase "uong nuoc nho nguon" is of Chinese origin, probably from the Book of History or Poetry. Ellen Oxfeld recently published a book based on fieldwork in Guangdong, Drink the Water but Remember the Source.
Hue Tam Ho Tai
----------
From: Jérémy Mousset
Date: Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:47 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Dear Nicolas,
With some time on my hand and an interest in the subject of the notion of self in vietnam, I found the following.
On the connection between the chinese "lien" and the notion of face in vietnamese (m?t, th? di?n), H?ng Nhung Ph?m, in "Khám phá Khái ni?m Th? di?n trong Ti?ng Vi?t:
B?ng ch?ng t? K?t h?p T?", Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2007, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 257–266, ( http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v4n22007/pham.pdf ), states the following, page 258:
" Trong ti?ng Vi?t, hai khía c?nh tuong ?ng c?a khái ni?m này [i.e: the notion of face] là “m?t” du?c coi là t? thu?n Vi?t (Vu, 2002) và “th? di?n” v?i “di?n” t? “lien/lian ”.
Vu's article would certainly be of interest too.
The psychological and/or linguistic studies on the subject of "face" in vietnamese seems to use the word "th? di?n" more often than the word "m?t".
I hope this helps somehow,
Best wishes,
Jérémy Mousset
----------
From: David Marr
Date: Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I published the following article that may be relevant: "Concepts of 'Individual' and `Self' in Twentieth century Vietnam", Modern Asian Studies 34, 4 (2000), 769-796. We should not assume that attitudes of filial piety and face are the same now as they were 75 or even 25 years ago in Vietnam. Also, it's useful to compare Vietnam beyond China, to America or Australia, where `face' is important too, but in different ways.
David Marr
Page updated
Report abuse