Niklas Luhmanns Concept of Trust - Term Paper Example

Outline: A) Introduction B. Niklas Luhmann’s concept of trust 1. Trust in modern sociological theories 2. Trust and certainty 3. Trust and risk C) Conclusion. A. Introduction N. Luhmann’s sociological theories are not simple academics of a cabinet scientist, as due to his managerial experience the basis of his treatises is empirical. However, the complex character of his views shows that they have been built not only upon experience, but also upon profound knowledge of sociology, philosophy, psychology and other disciplines, and using analytical skills. In his work he views trust as s very important sociological phenomenon that makes possible the functioning of individuals within society, and at the same time the very existence of this society. B. Niklas Luhmann’s concept of trust 1. Trust in modern sociological theories Beginning from the 1990s, the sociologists began developing the concept of trust as a key element of social relationships, and the upsurge of interest to the problem of trust is conditioned, among all, by certain characteristics of the modern society, those being more active position of people towards their own future, and at the same time the uncertainty of this future, increased interdependence of individuals and communities, multiple opportunities offered by social and technological development, and the risks connected with them. All these presuppose the necessity of trust for normal and efficient life and social functioning. 2. Trust and certainty Earlier, trust was often characterised as a purely personal attitude, but Luhmann regards is as an aspect of interpersonal relations and a motivating factor for individuals to act. For the scholar, trust is an important element of social, political, personal, and cultural life of any human being. For N. Luhmann, trust is, above all, the absence of sureness, and the result of the impossibility to predict the future. So, there is no wonder that that the key terms for Luhmann’s understanding of the concept of trust are risk and uncertainty. He, however, offers a way to solve the contradiction between trust and certainty. The main problem when analysing the contemporary society is making no division between trust and non-trust. For Luhmann, there are two structural changes of paramount importance that are happening in the modern world: the diversification and insulation of the known and the unknown, and the growing tendency to substitute risk for danger, i.e. considering and envisaging all the dangerous consequences that may occur as a result of human actions or non-actions. Differentiating between trust and certainty, Niklas Luhmann pinpoints the fact that in the modern conditions of openness and lack of integration, the nature of relations between trust and certainty are changing. Certainty, for the researcher, is something that presupposes complete absence of any disappointment; whereas trust always takes into account some possible risks, or at least an element of risk. The main difference between trust and certainty depends on the peculiarities of personal perception and attitude. If a person does not consider any alternatives to some event of action, it means he is certain – that is, in the state of certainty. If, however, a person prefers one action or event to the rest that are potentially possible, this situation is described as a situation of trust. Therefore, even if there is a high possibility of disappointment, preferring a particular line of actions is referred to by Luhmann as trust. Consequently, it is impossible to either trust or not trust to something that is completely unknown. “[T]rust is only possible in a familiar world; it needs history as a reliable background”1. Only awareness of how the things are (familiarity) makes both trust and distrust possible – it makes any expectations possible, however it does not guarantee that what we are expecting is going to happen. Awareness is not knowledge of how somebody will act, or what will happen – it is the expectation that can, on the one hand, be fulfilled, but on the other hand, it can also lead to complete disappointment. Disappointment, however, does not mean the denial of any future expectations – if, say, a person or system does not come up to someone’s expectations, it does not mean that this somebody will lode confidence in this person or system immediately; nevertheless, at the same time whoever or whatever has not proven trustworthy cannot become such by one good action only – this would require a system of actions. Familiarity… makes it possible to entertain relatively reliable expectations and, as a consequence, to contain the remaining elements of risk as well. In itself, however, familiarity denotes neither favourable nor unfavourable expectations, but he conditions under which both are rendered possible. Familiarity is the precondition for trust as well as distrust, i.e. for every sort of commitment to a particular attitude towards the future. Hazardous as well as propitious outlooks require a certain familiarity, a socially constructed typicality, so ad to make it possible to accommodate oneself to the future in a trustful or distrustful manner.2 Whether the decision that is taken on the basis of trust is right or wring can only be checked after some action has been actualized, and that is why trust cannot be based upon knowledge but only upon presumptions, and consequently it is not rational from this viewpoint; the rationality of trust is not in taking decisions but in the emotion that manages to overcome the uncertainty of the future. 3. Trust and risk The category of trust is closely connected with the category of risk. To trust means to neglect risk, act as if there is no risk. That is why N. Luhmann’s concern about the problem of trust is connected with the problem of risk, and the role of trust as a “neutraliser” of any negative consequences of uncertainty and risk. Trust is a way to cope with the complexity of future that is caused by technological development. Trust is separated from the everyday events, and it is basically taking risk. Trust is not just a hope that everything will happen exactly the same way that we want it to happen. In fact, Luhmann differentiated between trust and hope: Trust is only involved when the trusting expectations makes a difference to a decision; otherwise what we have is a simple hope. Trust therefore always bears upon a critical alternative, in which the harm resulting from a breach of trust may be greater than the benefit to be gained from the trust proving warranted. Hence one who trusts takes cognizance of the possibility of excessive harm arising from the selectivity of others’ actions and adopts a position towards that possibility. One who hopes has confidence despite uncertainty. Trust reflects contingency. Hope ignores contingency.3 For Luhmann, the rational scheme of orientation is a choice between trust and distrust. “Distrust is not just the opposite of trust; as such, it is also a functional equivalent for trust. For this reason only is a choice between trust and distrust possible (and necessary)”.4 In the process of life and activity, people build up quite a complicated strategy of trust/distrust, and that is what helps them behave in a rational way. N. Luhmann’s concept of trust presupposes that in the modern world, a human being has a sort of new individual liberty – trusting or non-trusting “traditional” institutions and experts. Risk appears not because of lack of rationality – vice versa, risk is a result of rational activity. It does not mean that a person refuses to act and take decisions – in fact, everyone had to take more individual decisions, and there are no “experts” in the questions of risk, so everyone has to be an expert for himself. Risk appears together with uncertainty of the future, and that is why it is surely connected with the concept of trust. However, Niklas Luhmann warns his readers against confusing risk and danger. There is always danger of some kind, and it is utterly impossible to lead the life without any dangers. It would be wrong to identify risk and danger, because, according to Luhmann, risk is everywhere where there is decision. Since danger can be a consequence of a decision, in this case it can be regarded as risk. However, something that is risk for one person can be danger for other. Speaking about motivational structures of trust, N. Luhmann comes to the conclusion that trust is a kind of attitude that should be learned (and consequently, taught)5. The scholar emphasizes the fact that it is impossible to “trust chaos”6, and therefore for him trust is inseparable from generalizations and systems. Of course, it is important to discuss the problem of trust within the scope of social functioning of individuals, and therefore Luhmann writes about the ways for different systems to confer or earn trust of people, and comes up with the basic rule: “The basis of all trust is the presentation of the individual self as a social identity which builds itself up through interaction and which corresponds to its environment”7 In order to evoke trust in people, it is necessary to give them the feeling of inner security.8 Conclusion All in all, according to Niklas Luhmann’s theory, trust is only possible in those situations where there is a serious risk, and if the expectations do not actualize, it will mean that the decision taken was wrong. In fact, taking any decision, one is aware of the fact that anything might happen, and that is why trust for N. Luhmann is not a way to escape from reality but a kind of rational approach. Trust appears in cases when there is a lack of information (that prevents us from being sure), yet it is necessary for taking decisions. Read More