Even committed system insiders need facework to sustain their own internal trust.

Evidence

Trust mechanisms do not relate only to the connections between lay persons and experts: they are also bound up with the activities of those who are “within” abstract systems. Codes of professional ethics, in some cases backed by legal sanctions, form one means whereby the trustworthiness of colleagues or associates is internally managed. Yet even for those who might seem most intrinsically committed to the abstract systems they sustain, facework commitments are generally important as a mode of generating continuing trustworthiness. This forms one type of example of the reembedding of social relations. Re-embedding here represents a means of anchoring trust in the trustworthiness and integrity of colleagues. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 209

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant: the reader’s thesis is that Stevens’s trust is exclusively faceless/systemic with no facework reembedding among colleagues, which is precisely what leaves him ethically ungrounded. — connects to: Some systems must invest trust externally, while programmed roles reduce internal trust needs.
• DEFINE: Introduces ‘reembedding of social relations’ as the mechanism the reader likely wants to contrast with Stevens’s pure systemic devotion.

Related

• System trust is faceless while personal trust and reembedding depend on facework. (similarity 0.86)
• Giddens distinguishes ‘facework commitment’ from ‘faceless commitment’ to depict the difference between expert systems and their representatives, with trust located between the two. (similarity 0.85)
• In Giddens, systems obtain a ‘face’ at their ‘access points,’ which sustains or transforms ‘faceless commitments’ through the interplay of disembedding and re-embedding. (similarity 0.85)
• Personal intermediaries are the default route to new trust (similarity 0.83)
• Modern systems demand trust for entities one cannot feel toward (similarity 0.81)
• External trust becomes necessary for systems that must partner with outsiders. (similarity 0.81)
• A distinction is drawn between faceless and face-work commitments; involvement with abstract systems is routinized and often unconscious, with trust necessitated by ignorance. (similarity 0.80)
• System trust underwrites ontological security but yields no psychological reward (similarity 0.80)
• Some systems must invest trust externally, while programmed roles reduce internal trust needs. (similarity 0.79)
• External trust depends on learning and system cover, not internal structural reasons. (similarity 0.79)
• Trust reduces complexity through internal structures, not only external conditions (similarity 0.79)
• System trust produces a compulsion to trust a system one cannot correct (similarity 0.79)
• System trust rests on expectations that most won’t test the system (similarity 0.79)
• Giddens describes how trust in abstract systems develops as ‘faceless commitments,’ yet notes relations of trust are always ambivalent because confidence is needed amid fundamental ignorance of… (similarity 0.79)
• System trust cannot supply the mutuality that personal trust provides (similarity 0.79)