Trust is political

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Guido Möllering
{"title":"Trust is political","authors":"Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.2030892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is a sign of the times that an increasing proportion of papers submitted to, and published in, Journal of Trust Research (JTR) address the broad area of political trust. These studies mostly consider how members of the public do or don’t trust in various societal institutions. At the same time they work on the premise that such trust matters in the sense that, notably, an erosion of trust could severely impede cohesion and collaboration at large (see, for example, Festenstein, 2020; Hetherington, 2005). This makes trust and trusting political. Trust as an attitude with behavioural consequences connects, enables and comforts – or, when it is lacking or even turning into distrust, it separates, prevents and worries – in social relations. Thus, from the interpersonal to the institutional level, we might see trust as a vote on whom people are prepared to cooperate with (e.g. Hamm et al., 2016). The politics of trust revolve around securing allegiance and maintaining alliances of people with common interests. And trust implies a special form of reliance on others whom we can control and understand only partly at best. Especially in times of grand challenges, transformations and disruptions, ‘Who trusts whom?’ is just as much a political as a personal question. Any answer given reflects and affects ongoing social dynamics. The articles contained in this new JTR issue all speak to some extent to this political interpretation of trust and trusting. As usual, they were not curated based on this theme, but were simply next in the publication pipeline. Still, as I will attempt below, they can be connected as they all show us the political implications of trusting in current societies. First, Adam Seligman’s (2021) article on ‘Trust, experience and embodied knowledge or lessons from John Dewey on the dangers of abstraction’ essentially (re-)conceptualises trust as distinct from confidence. In short – and in my personal interpretation – to Seligman trusting means to suspend judgement and, in particular, to be able to deal with ambiguity, relying on experience rather than abstract knowledge. What makes his conceptual exploration ‘political’ is that he frames it in the context of (the troubles of) civil society. In particular, Seligman points out that trust matters where people lack the knowledge and ability to rely on abstractions of others – which would be a matter of confidence. This means that trust is essentially relevant in relation to strangers. The strangeness we all represent to each other could prevent us from starting cooperative interactions or relationships and from gaining the experiences that enable us to further extend trust. If we lose the ability to trust in this sense, ‘there can be no civil society to speak of’ (Seligman, 2021, p. 19). We might imagine it this way: Populists tell us to rely only on the people and things we (already) know. Hence they ask us to use confidence. Trust as experience, in contrast, lets us be open to what we do not know (yet). It enables an open society that can handle diversity and ambiguity. Refusing trust thus becomes a political move of denying strangers the benefit of the doubt, which effectively means exclusion, or worse. The damage to trust that populism might do politically is a strong theme in the second article contained in this JTR issue, too, Matt Bergbower and Levi Allen’s (2021) ‘Trust in the American political parties and support for public policy: Why Republicans benefit from political distrust’. Their core contribution is to analyse how support for public policy is affected by whether people believe the political parties to govern ethically and honestly when in power. They find, in short, that those who trust the Republican party are more reluctant to","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.2030892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

It is a sign of the times that an increasing proportion of papers submitted to, and published in, Journal of Trust Research (JTR) address the broad area of political trust. These studies mostly consider how members of the public do or don’t trust in various societal institutions. At the same time they work on the premise that such trust matters in the sense that, notably, an erosion of trust could severely impede cohesion and collaboration at large (see, for example, Festenstein, 2020; Hetherington, 2005). This makes trust and trusting political. Trust as an attitude with behavioural consequences connects, enables and comforts – or, when it is lacking or even turning into distrust, it separates, prevents and worries – in social relations. Thus, from the interpersonal to the institutional level, we might see trust as a vote on whom people are prepared to cooperate with (e.g. Hamm et al., 2016). The politics of trust revolve around securing allegiance and maintaining alliances of people with common interests. And trust implies a special form of reliance on others whom we can control and understand only partly at best. Especially in times of grand challenges, transformations and disruptions, ‘Who trusts whom?’ is just as much a political as a personal question. Any answer given reflects and affects ongoing social dynamics. The articles contained in this new JTR issue all speak to some extent to this political interpretation of trust and trusting. As usual, they were not curated based on this theme, but were simply next in the publication pipeline. Still, as I will attempt below, they can be connected as they all show us the political implications of trusting in current societies. First, Adam Seligman’s (2021) article on ‘Trust, experience and embodied knowledge or lessons from John Dewey on the dangers of abstraction’ essentially (re-)conceptualises trust as distinct from confidence. In short – and in my personal interpretation – to Seligman trusting means to suspend judgement and, in particular, to be able to deal with ambiguity, relying on experience rather than abstract knowledge. What makes his conceptual exploration ‘political’ is that he frames it in the context of (the troubles of) civil society. In particular, Seligman points out that trust matters where people lack the knowledge and ability to rely on abstractions of others – which would be a matter of confidence. This means that trust is essentially relevant in relation to strangers. The strangeness we all represent to each other could prevent us from starting cooperative interactions or relationships and from gaining the experiences that enable us to further extend trust. If we lose the ability to trust in this sense, ‘there can be no civil society to speak of’ (Seligman, 2021, p. 19). We might imagine it this way: Populists tell us to rely only on the people and things we (already) know. Hence they ask us to use confidence. Trust as experience, in contrast, lets us be open to what we do not know (yet). It enables an open society that can handle diversity and ambiguity. Refusing trust thus becomes a political move of denying strangers the benefit of the doubt, which effectively means exclusion, or worse. The damage to trust that populism might do politically is a strong theme in the second article contained in this JTR issue, too, Matt Bergbower and Levi Allen’s (2021) ‘Trust in the American political parties and support for public policy: Why Republicans benefit from political distrust’. Their core contribution is to analyse how support for public policy is affected by whether people believe the political parties to govern ethically and honestly when in power. They find, in short, that those who trust the Republican party are more reluctant to
信任是政治的
这是一个时代的标志,越来越多的论文提交和发表在信任研究杂志(JTR)上,涉及政治信任的广泛领域。这些研究主要考虑公众如何信任或不信任各种社会机构。与此同时,他们的工作前提是,这种信任很重要,因为值得注意的是,信任的侵蚀可能严重阻碍凝聚力和协作(例如,参见Festenstein, 2020;海瑟林顿,2005)。这使得信任和信任具有政治性。信任作为一种具有行为后果的态度,在社会关系中起着连接、促进和安慰作用——或者,当缺乏信任甚至变成不信任时,它会使社会关系分离、阻碍和担忧。因此,从人际关系到制度层面,我们可以将信任视为人们准备与谁合作的投票(例如Hamm et al., 2016)。信任的政治围绕着确保忠诚和维持有共同利益的人的联盟。而信任意味着对他人的一种特殊形式的依赖,我们可以控制这些人,充其量也只能部分地理解他们。尤其是在面临巨大挑战、变革和颠覆的时代,“谁信任谁?”这既是一个个人问题,也是一个政治问题。给出的任何答案都反映并影响着当前的社会动态。新一期《JTR》所载的文章都在一定程度上说明了这种对信任和信任的政治解释。像往常一样,它们不是基于这个主题进行策划的,而只是发布管道中的下一个。然而,正如我将在下面尝试的那样,它们可以联系在一起,因为它们都向我们展示了信任在当前社会中的政治含义。首先,亚当·塞利格曼(Adam Seligman, 2021)关于“信任、经验和体现的知识或约翰·杜威关于抽象危险的教训”的文章从本质上(重新)将信任概念化为与信心不同的概念。简而言之——以我个人的理解——对塞利格曼来说,信任意味着暂停判断,特别是能够处理模棱两可的问题,依靠经验而不是抽象的知识。他的概念探索之所以具有“政治性”,是因为他将其置于公民社会的(麻烦)背景中。塞利格曼特别指出,当人们缺乏依赖他人抽象概念的知识和能力时,信任至关重要——这将是一个信心问题。这意味着信任本质上是与陌生人相关的。我们彼此之间的陌生感可能会阻止我们开始合作互动或关系,也会阻止我们获得使我们能够进一步扩大信任的经验。如果我们在这个意义上失去信任的能力,“就没有公民社会可言”(塞利格曼,2021年,第19页)。我们可以这样想象:民粹主义者告诉我们只依赖我们(已经)认识的人和事。因此,他们要求我们使用信心。相比之下,信任作为一种经验,让我们对自己(还)不知道的事情敞开心扉。它使一个开放的社会能够处理多样性和模糊性。因此,拒绝信任就变成了一种政治举动,即拒绝陌生人的怀疑,这实际上意味着排斥,甚至更糟。民粹主义可能在政治上对信任造成的损害也是本期《JTR》第二篇文章的一个强烈主题,这篇文章是马特·伯格鲍尔和利瓦伊·艾伦(2021年)的《对美国政党的信任和对公共政策的支持:为什么共和党人受益于政治不信任》。他们的核心贡献是分析人们对公共政策的支持如何受到人们是否相信政党执政时道德和诚实的影响。简而言之,他们发现那些信任共和党的人更不愿意这么做
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信