System trust rests on real fallback capabilities the trustee could opt into

Evidence

However, one must bear in mind that – with trust in generalized media of communication as with trust in general – a minimum of real foundation is required. The pillars of trust must be built on solid ground. In the cases we have discussed, the supports of trust are mainly found in opportunities for effective communication, that is, in the possibility of exchanging money for things of real and lasting value, in the possibility of reaching a definite agreement in the kinds of statement in which truth is demanded, in the possibility of activating the means of coercion which belong to the state on the basis of set rules. Given these opportunities for communication, the person who gives his trust is in possession of enough reality to be able usually to opt out of using them. Thus he places twofold trust in two different levels of generalization. Firstly, he trusts in the effectiveness of certain opportunities for communication as a safety valve, should it become necessary; secondly, he trusts in the general functioning of the system, which enormously increases the effectiveness of these opportunities. In this he does not normally separate the two aspects in his consciousness and this makes it possible to generalize trust as regarding highly abstract system processes. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 226

Categorization

• DEFINE: Luhmann distinguishes two levels of generalization — trust in concrete opportunities as a safety valve versus trust in the general system functioning — which is central to how ‘system trust’ works as a concept.
• XREF: Directly parallels Giddens’s account of institutional trust as presupposing a minimal ‘real foundation’ rather than blind faith, and invites contrast with Stevens’s loyalty to a system whose foundations (Darlington’s integrity) proved hollow.