Neither 'face' or 'self' is central to my analysis. The reason I emphasized Goffman's connection of 'face' to 'self' was that I wanted to treat 'face' as wholly a member's formulation. But to do this is was necessary to connect it to 'self'/'other' - but a 'self'/'other' that was respecified as a consequential feature of the organization of action, rather than the otherwise useless and ever-shifting sack of attitudes and opinions.