Hostile larger societies drive stronger localized trust enclaves

Evidence

Incidentally, the claim of Adam Seligman (1997) and Niklas Luhmann (1980) that trust is a modern phenomenon may be correct if turned into a claim that it arises in relatively large communities in which we must rely on particularized networks and need not arise in small communities in which norms of cooperativeness handle the problems that trust relationships might have handled. The transition from smaller communities to relatively urban communities has proceeded further in many societies than in others, and national differences in the vocabulary of trust may correlate with the differential development. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 823 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Communal trustworthiness can seed willingness to trust in wider society — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 823; Close communities substitute communal sanctioning norms for dyadic trust relationships; Widespread trust consists of pockets of dyadic relationships, not generalized sentiment (+6 more)

Related

• Communal trustworthiness can seed willingness to trust in wider society (similarity 0.89)
• Widespread trust consists of pockets of dyadic relationships, not generalized sentiment (similarity 0.87)
• Widespread civility and flourishing civil society reduce to shared personal trust (similarity 0.83)
• Trust may have evolved from dense small-community interactions (similarity 0.82)
• Growth of communities inevitably pushes trust from personal to institutional forms (similarity 0.82)
• In low-trust societies commerce stays confined within family and friend circles. (similarity 0.81)
• External distrust or threat drives people to build stronger local trust enclaves (similarity 0.81)
• Trust extends kin-group loyalty outward to the whole society (similarity 0.80)
• Trust arguments often assume benign societies that may not exist (similarity 0.80)
• Closed communities enforce trust through overlapping religious, family, and residence ties. (similarity 0.79)
• Relying on collective trustworthiness is a collective, not merely individual, problem. (similarity 0.79)
• Misplaced trust costs far more than forgone trust, making distrust come more quickly (similarity 0.79)
• Small close communities run on norms, while urban networks run on trust (similarity 0.79)
• Social institutions function through trust only at the individual micro level (similarity 0.79)
• Generalized trust is defined as unspecific trust in strangers (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Widespread trust consists of pockets of dyadic relationships, not generalized sentiment #expands (0.85)
• Pervasive distrust is stable because solo cooperation invites exploitation #corroborates (0.85)
• Communal trustworthiness can seed willingness to trust in wider society #exemplifies (0.82) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 823
• Trust limits help explain cliques, familism, and ethnic exclusion. #expands (0.82)
• Collective-retaliation threat, encoded in honour culture, sustains group trust #exemplifies (0.80)
• Social order can emerge from distrust rather than trust. #complicates (0.80) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 784
• Close communities substitute communal sanctioning norms for dyadic trust relationships #qualifies (0.78)
• Trust forms sequentially by reducing social complexity over discrete steps #qualifies (0.75)