Member selection raises internal trust while formalizing specific distrust as supervisory duty.

Evidence

A system-rational increase in the effectiveness of trust will depend on all the aspects of trust formation which we have treated in the course of our inquiry and cannot catalogue once again here. Nevertheless, perhaps the decisive question remains open as to whether and how it is possible for trust and distrust to be co-ordinated through the creation of systems, and so increased in tandem. For reasons of general systems theory which cannot be adequately developed here, two closely connected processes ought to be decisive. These are the differentiation of the system from its environment, i.e. the drawing of boundaries, and the inner differentiation of the system, i.e. the functional specification of its subsystems and mechanisms. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313; Trust and distrust can be institutionally interlocked without undermining each other; Distrust strategies can become autonomous habitual routines (+1 more)

Related

• Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. (similarity 0.87)
• Organizations require the truster to retain a modicum of distrust (similarity 0.83)
• A system’s trust decisions depend on which membership system it refers to. (similarity 0.82)
• Reducing distrust is different from generating trust (similarity 0.81)
• External trust becomes necessary for systems that must partner with outsiders. (similarity 0.81)
• Trust and law evolved from a common root into differentiated mechanisms (similarity 0.81)
• Systems that need distrust must also neutralize it to survive. (similarity 0.81)
• Trust and distrust are asymmetric when interests visibly conflict (similarity 0.81)
• Some systems must invest trust externally, while programmed roles reduce internal trust needs. (similarity 0.80)
• Trust requires freedom be transferred from uncontrollable potency to institutionalized personal responsibility. (similarity 0.80)
• System boundaries enable specifying where trust or distrust applies (similarity 0.79)
• Distrust functions as an equivalent alternative to trust (similarity 0.78)
• System trust operates independently of individuals’ personal readiness to trust (similarity 0.78)
• Trust reduces the complexity created by other people’s freedom (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. #exemplifies (0.70) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313
• Trust and distrust can be institutionally interlocked without undermining each other #exemplifies (0.70)
• Distrust strategies can become autonomous habitual routines #exemplifies (0.60)