Trust arises where there is no government, while fear maintains order in towns.
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 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Trust is related to absence in time and in space. There would be no need to trust anyone whose activities were continually visible and whose thought processes were transparent, or to trust any system whose workings were wholly known and understood. It has been said that trust is “a device for coping with the freedom of others,”30but the prime condition of requirements for trust is not lack of power but lack of full information. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 84 (
#complicates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Social order can emerge from distrust rather than trust. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 784; Trust arises not from powerlessness but from lack of full information about others. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 84
Related
- Social order can emerge from distrust rather than trust. (similarity 0.92)
- Uncoordinated private passions can yield orderly civil institutions unintentionally (similarity 0.87)
- Social order produces the conditions that generate trust, not vice versa (similarity 0.82)
- Trust arises not from powerlessness but from lack of full information about others. (similarity 0.81)
- Generalized trust is not necessary for social order (similarity 0.80)
- Trust substitutes knowledge of system structure for unavailable information about others. (similarity 0.80)
- Trust is willed action taken despite an information deficit. (similarity 0.80)
- Trust alone cannot explain modern social order. (similarity 0.80)
- Falling social trust creates a void that instrumentarian power fills with certainty. (similarity 0.79)
- Trust is conceived both as one societal element and as social order itself (similarity 0.79)
- Trust involves a calculable asymmetry of possible harm, while hope does not (similarity 0.78)
- External trust depends on learning and system cover, not internal structural reasons. (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Social order can emerge from distrust rather than trust.
#corroborates(0.80) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 784 - Trust arises not from powerlessness but from lack of full information about others.
#complicates(0.75) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 84