Social order can emerge from distrust rather than trust.

Evidence

Does social order grow out of trust? It might prosper better with widespread trust and trustworthiness, but it does not follow that it must initially be grounded in such trust. Consider the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989. Masses coordinated behind the expression of hostility to the prior regimes (see further Sztompka 1996). Distrust must have been endemic in, for example, East Germany at that time, with a large fraction of the population implicated in the STASI (secret police) oversight of citizens at all levels. It was partly distrust that stimulated the quest for a new order. On Piotr Sztompka’s (1999, 160–90) account, the new order soon produced higher levels of trust in Poland after 1990. It would be odd to suppose that the Polish quest was grounded in trust. Many moves signaled the commitment to joint action against the dying Communist regime, and these enabled people to think that the risks of their opposition would not be disastrous. The last days of the regimes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Romania saw mass actions in major public squares in which, by coordinating with so many, all were substantially protected against violent reprisals from the regimes. There were some individuals who had charismatic appeal for leadership of new regimes. Hence there may have been some degree of confidence in the behavior of many others, but it seems unlikely that the dramatic actions for change were founded on trust. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 784

Categorization

• XREF: Challenges Hardin’s own baseline argument by showing collective coordination — not trust — sustained the velvet revolutions; parallels the Saramago integration where mass action replaces individualized trust. — connects to: Hostile larger societies drive stronger localized trust enclaves; Trust and distrust can be institutionally interlocked without undermining each other; Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313 (+9 more)
• SEED: Angle: ‘Distrust as architect’ — historical cases where mass participation (fear of free-riding on risk, protection-in-numbers) more than trust powered regime change.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 784

Broader Connections

• Trust and distrust can be institutionally interlocked without undermining each other #corroborates (0.85)
• Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. #expands (0.82) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313
• Trust can be deliberately created by fabricating distrust #exemplifies (0.80) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1666