Political trust rests on small-group solidarity amid complex indeterminacy

Evidence

Talcott Parsons was right in regarding the expressive solidarity of the small group as the basis of political trust precisely in relation to the unavoidable indeterminacy of complex political processes. The same circumstance points to the fact that subsystems of society such as the political, and perhaps the economic system, which are not adequate for present-day requirements, remain dependent on other fields of action where the orientation to the present, required for the formation of trust, has been preserved. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 130

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Giddens’s ‘facework’ — expressive small-group solidarity is the face-to-face base from which faceless commitments (political/economic systems) remain dependent. Also to Stevens’s craving of small interpersonal dignities (bantering with Miss Kenton) as his only residue of facework. — connects to: Growing social complexity increases the need for trust in the present; Moral trust requires temporally stable social contexts to operate; Social complexity forces the shift from personal to impersonal, system-governed trust. (+1 more)
• QUESTION: This implies faceless institutions still depend on preserved face-to-face trust enclaves — does Luhmann here concede that system trust cannot fully decouple from personal trust? Relevant to whether Stevens ever escapes facework.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 130

Broader Connections

• Growing social complexity increases the need for trust in the present #corroborates (0.70)
• Social complexity forces the shift from personal to impersonal, system-governed trust. #expands (0.70)
• Moral trust requires temporally stable social contexts to operate #qualifies (0.60)