About one-in-ten of these respondents say they blame the news media and its focus on divisive and sensational coverage. Viewing everything through hyperpartisan political lenses.
Lost the art of compromise. Empathy as well as generally attempting to understand and to help each other are all at disturbingly low levels. People are quick to attack and to vilify others, even without clear proof, solely on the basis of accusations or along partisan lines. Their written responses urge various political reforms, starting with more disclosure of what the government is doing, as well as term limits and restrictions on the role of money in politics.
A small share believes confidence will rise when Trump is out of office. Additionally, some offer specific roadmaps for rebuilding trust, often starting with local community-based solutions that rise upward to regional and national levels. If members of each party would be less concerned about their power and the next election and more concerned with how they can serve their people.
Term limits a possibility. Importance of ethics laws and follow through for violators. Promoting fact-based legislation. Better relations among both parties and leaders; this is not a war. One-in-ten make the case that better leaders could inspire greater trust between individuals. Some suggest that a different approach to news reporting — one that emphasizes the ways people cooperate to solve problems — would have a tonic effect.
If people feel engaged with their environment and with each other, and they can work together even in a small way, I think that builds a foundation for working together on more weighty issues.
Some mention political leaders. Trust cannot be repaired without truth — which is in short supply. Some also cite environmental issues, tax and budget matters, or political processes like voting rights and gerrymandering. Trust in the federal government is low due to, in my opinion, unqualified people running it who are often dishonest. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values.
Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.
Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Newsletters Donate My Account. Research Topics. Democratic challenges, democratic choices. The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Denters, B. Political confidence in representative democracies. Socio-cultural vs. Westholm Eds. A comparative analysis pp. London: Routledge. Inglehart, R.
Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Mishler, W. What are the political consequences of trust? A test of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. In this last part, 1 my remarks will focus less on the nature of the specific relationship of trust than on a style of relations with public institutions, which, to my eye, seems to correspond to a civic ideal granted to the political regime of modern liberal democracy. I will therefore pass from a descriptive analysis to a normative reflection, which relates to political theory, and not to the sociology of institutions.
This is also why I will analyse examples from common experience, and not methodically collected empirical data. I will start with the case of the hospital, then move on to the more complex case of the school. Their bodies, when an intervention in a hospital is required; their children when they go to school.
This assumes a high degree of trust, and one can first look at the reasons for that trust, without reducing those reasons to a calculation of odds, and trust to a particular form of risk-taking, as economists rightly do.
It can be built up over time and justified, without implying a form of risk-calculation. I will see that when it comes to institutions, the appreciation of their social function is a very important element of the trust placed in them. This trust is based on common sense: to believe that hospitals have a secret function, hostile to the ill and the patients, would be considered a form of paranoia. Common sense receives the help of the professional rules of medical ethics the Hippocratic Oath , and legal control.
Quite regularly, the public is informed of cases involving abuse of power by health care workers, such as the clandestine administration of lethal substances for the purpose of euthanasia. This information is such as to show that trust should not be blind, but also that it has reasons, since these cases are exceptional, and detected by control procedures.
It depends on the efficiency of the recruitment system, and before that, of the training. Trust in the public hospital envelops trust in other institutions: the law, which has just been mentioned, and now public education, along with the degrees it delivers. An institution works in coordination with others, within a system, that owes its cohesion to certain general principles.
Part of the trust one places in this institution is explained by these principles, as will be seen in this essay. Trust in competence, or in authority, is a personal relationship: one trusts a particular doctor or nurse. But this personal relationship can be fostered, and preceded, by an impersonal one: it makes sense to say, before any personal relationship, that one trusts hospital doctors because they have received a very high level of training, that only the best can access these positions, that their function gives them a great experience, etc.
They depend on the funding of public hospitals, i. In a schematic, or ideal way, one could say that we trust the public hospital because we want to have that trust, and we want the State to provide the corresponding financing.
One could speak here of a condition of dignity : to be treated as a person who lives individually a certain situation, and who deserves a quality of attention. Childhood means being in need of others, and certain situations, such as illness, remind us that from this need we cannot be completely free.
Aristotle sees in friendship the compensation of dependence: the autarchic god has no friends. In the same vein, the importance of trust lies in this dependence on the other, which characterizes childhood, and that illness reminds us of.
In the case of children, to be taken into account depends on the parental love, and how the parents enjoy the presence of the child. The comparison with childhood indicates that this is not necessarily a superficial or secondary element of trust. Presumably, the dignity condition plays an important role in choosing a residential care institution for a dependent elderly person.
It is good sense, or common sense. It would be inappropriate to have trust in a hospital that is thought to be incompetent or defective. Under the Nazi regime, parents of people suffering from mental illness or mental deficiency had good reasons to be wary of asylums and specialized institutions, whose social function was suspect. Under certain conditions, you cannot rely on the hospital. In the case of a person, the reasons justify the attribution of qualities honesty, sincerity, benevolence, competence, etc.
Trust is then a personal binary relation x T y , on the basis of which the person is expected to act in a certain way, in a more or less wide range of situations that it is not necessary to determine beforehand to justify our trust. Because x trusts y, when a certain situation arises, they expect y to act in a certain way. But this expectation is open , general and undetermined: x thinks that it is not necessary to contractually define the acts expected from y. There is no need to stipulate or control these acts.
To a varying extent, x allows y to act at their own discretion, by granting them a degree of initiative. One must therefore distinguish the reasons for our trust in a person, and the expectations that this trust induces.
They do not equate: in the case of trust as a binary relationship, the reasons I have to trust a person are not that I rely on them to do such and such, to fulfil such mandate or perform such mission.
It is rather trust as a personal relationship that is likely to engender expectations in such and such situation that presents itself. This is the logic of the very particular binary relationship that is trust. This is not the case for an institution like the hospital: our trust is equivalent to our well-weighed expectations.
We rely on the hospital to perform its function with competent staff, using the adequate equipment, and paying sufficient attention to the individuals being cared for. It is this system of expectations that we call trust. This trust is then developed, not because we would trust the hospital as a person, but because we rely on the means implemented, the internal rules of operation and external control procedures, to regulate its effective operation and adjust it to its function and our expectations.
So, my hypothesis is that while we trust individuals, we rely upon the hospital to meet certain expectations. We entrust to it our body on the basis of a mandate or a commission, and we trust it, as long as we expect this mandate or this commission to be fulfilled satisfactorily. This question seems essential, and complicated, when it concerns a school, because it relates to the social function of this institution, which I made the first reason for the trust in a public institution.
The social function of a school is more complex and more opaque than that of a hospital. What is expected is similarly more complex, more opaque, and also more diverse according to people and social positions. Therefore, before deepening the nature of trust in institutions, and the type of mandate or expectation to which it corresponds, it is necessary to dwell on the relationship between trust and the social function of institutions. Since this need stems from the vulnerability of our nature, it is a social need, not an individual one, especially since the State cannot be indifferent to the health of the population in many ways.
With the progress of medicine, the social need for hospitals or body care centres has replaced that of churches in charge of the salvation of the souls. This raises a problem of solidarity, and of the choice of the distributive justice principle corresponding to the type of goods constitutive of healthcare: to each according to their needs, to each according to their ability to pay for services as is often the case for dental care , to each according to their merit their past sanitary conduct, their life expectancy.
The special relationship of trust in one institution entrusted with a specific function encompasses a more global relation to the principles of justice that institutions must achieve and respect. It is in these two senses that one can say that the institution produces trust. But when it comes to an institution, an impersonal agent , these two modalities of trust are crucial, and if they are absent, trust becomes difficult to understand, or even blind in some cases.
It seems normal to experience apprehension before surgery, which is often both more dangerous and riskier than repairing an automobile, for example. More generally, many diseases arouse apprehension, as long as their fate is partly unknown and their symptoms contain some ambiguity or uncertainty. But the trust that one attaches to this answer cannot be blind:.
This assessment may vary from one institution to another. People who break their leg in medium-sized towns sometimes prefer to be transported by ambulance to a big city, or to a hospital they know, rather than being operated on the spot, even though this only involves a routine intervention;.
In case of complex pathologies, or serious or risky interventions, it seems prudent to consider a second opinion. But this initiative already assumes a certain ease or social authority, since it amounts to allowing some mistrust of the practitioner who gave the first opinion.
In addition, there is not always a choice, and this choice tends to disappear in the context of the hospital, which is similar to what Erving Goffman calls a total institution, 5 except in terms of the duration of the stay.
Entering the hospital is giving entrusting yourself to an apparatus of people, rules and things prescribing to us clothes often a ridiculous gown open in the back , the menu and time of our meals and more generally all the rhythm and the use of our time, which deprives us of our intimacy all kinds of people come in and out of our room at will, and often without knocking , and which submits us to a hierarchy where we are at the very low end we cannot tell the housekeeping staff to come back later.
Of course, a total institution is not as such a binding institution. By this I mean an institution that neither expects nor produces, or at least not primarily, trust , but rather obedience — for example, prison or slavery. The nature of the binding institution is that it does not work in the interests of those it constrains. It cannot be given a purpose similar to that of benevolence in relations between people. The hospital is thus not a binding institution. But in its operation as a total institution, it risks getting closer to it.
It is precisely the function of what I have called the condition of dignity to give the relationship a sense of trust, not mere obedience. This claim is about the relationship between trust and authority , which should not be mechanical. Because if it is, whether it is negative or positive, it is not appropriate;. As long as the hospitals have not solved the problem of nosocomial diseases, it is inevitable that people who are aware of this problem consider a surgery, even benign, as a serious risk-taking, in a context of not insignificant uncertainty.
It is in this respect that it usually raises questions because it is, first of all, a relation or a practical disposition. From a practical point of view, what interests us is not whether trust is a particular type of risk-taking, a three-place relation, or a two-place one, but rather to place our trust appropriately.
Whatever the essence or nature of the trust, it has not only a being, but a value, and different modalities: it can be blind, reasonable, tested, and so on.
Institutional Confidence, is actually a three-place relation of reliance. The way we relate to institutions does not fit the two-place relationship distinctive of trust Domenicucci, Holton The authors show, convincingly in my opinion, that trust is a specific and binary relationship, whose two places are occupied by autonomous agents. The unorthodox thesis of the two authors is that it is not because we trust y to do Phi1, Phi2… Phin that finally, we can say that we trust y. From the three-place relation, one cannot understand the two-place; it is rather the other way.
Relying on is a three-place relation, which cannot be reduced to a two-place relation. We can count on y for a lot of things. But this does not have the significance or the consequence of relying on them simpliciter. The reliance is based on a mandate, not on a personal relationship.
Trusting is a two-place relation, which can give rise to all sorts of three-place trust relations in very different contexts I trust you, so I lend you my car, I lend you my house, or money, I entrust you my son for the holidays, etc.
The relationship precedes these contexts, and it justifies our actions in these contexts. Finally, three-place trust is not the addition to the trust of the reliance relationship. Trust and reliance are two different relationships: it is different to trust a friend with your child because you trust them, and to entrust them to a host family you do not know, because you rely on the organization putting you two in touch to carefully select families.
It is a specific relationship of trust, a consequence of the two-place trust, one of its manifestations in a particular situation. It is primarily a binary relation:. In other words, it does not rely on control, regulation, or contract procedures; and it dispenses with it. Thus, a marriage contract is neither the condition nor the manifestation of trust between the spouses, but the mark of its limit.
Monsanto , governments, public institutions? Is it appropriate? It must be remembered here that when such institutions ask to be trusted, they ask to be allowed to act or function without control, regulation, or inspection; or without fixating their action by imperative mandates. With regard to public institutions, I will present some reasons to answer negatively to the first descriptive question; and consequently to the second one, which is normative. Trust in a government is either political support for MPs, which is a very different thing from trust; or trust in people — in which case we are dealing with a two-place relation if we accept the hypothesis of Domenicucci and Holton.
It is not about trust in an institution the government , but in people who exert executive power. Can one reduce relations to institutions to relationships with people within these institutions?
I will show that one cannot, and I have already suggested that one must distinguish trust for personal reasons I trust this surgeon , and for institutional reasons the French School of Surgery arouses my trust. If one takes companies such as Monsanto or the pharmaceutical company Servier, their main purpose the rational search for maximum profit and their sector of activity chemistry, pharmacy is likely to create distrust.
Moreover, the caveat emptor maxim, well received in Anglo-Saxon law, encourages us to do so. In addition, depending on the sector of activity of companies, this maxim requires being tempered by legal rules, and public control procedures. It can be satisfied when it comes to ties, not pesticides, drugs, or automobiles. When a company sells potentially dangerous products for profit, it can only build trust if it meets specific trust criteria.
These can be of two types:. The legal regulation aims to ensure that the relationship between a pharmaceutical company and the public is not a kind of state of nature where all means are good for profit;.
An example can be the trust in German car brands: their solidity, reliability, longevity. Is this a form of trust similar to the one I have in my plumber? No, because in the case of Mercedes or Bmw, the reasons for the trust lie in our expectations of the products of these companies: we expect their cars to have certain qualities because this is part of their reputation built in time.
These expectations are the fabric of our trust. We do not, or we should not attribute to them provisions or qualities such that we expected that, in a range of delimited but not determined situations, they would act in a manner that we would consider satisfactory, or well-intentioned. I have seen that the distinction between reasons and expectations is characteristic of trust as a binary relation: binary trust is based on reasons, but these open a more indefinite horizon of expectations.
So, I do not trust Mercedes as a person or agent deemed to be trustworthy. On the other hand, and disturbingly so, mistrust towards a company seems analogous to the mistrust towards a person. If a company is known for its lack of transparency, for knowingly disseminating false information, and for engaging in intense lobbying, it cannot engender trust, it even breeds mistrust.
Here one can observe the difference between the reasons for mistrust, which are determined, and the expectations , which are not. Hence I can say that because of its lack of transparency and its information policy, I do not trust Monsanto in general, simpliciter.
In the case of lucrative enterprises, I therefore seem to notice an asymmetry between trust, which is a reliance, and mistrust, which is general. The brand no longer functions as the abbreviation of a list of well-defined guarantees, but as the proper name of a moral entity from which nothing good is expected.
That is why we are inclined to support a strengthening of the regulation and the control towards this kind of companies, which seek to evade it a little too much. But for the moment, I do not see how one could relate to a firm otherwise than on the mode of the reliance, i. I offer the following explanation: from a company, because of its social function , one should positively expect products with certain qualities, possibly with an aura of prestige, and not a general style of appropriate attitudes; on the other hand, in the negative mode, one can have reasons to think that with such an enterprise one should expect the worse.
By nature, a company can only build trust as an agent of production ; but certain acts or ways of behaving provoke a reprobation that targets the enterprise as a moral agent , in much the same way as it would a person.
This asymmetry therefore means that the social function of companies does not allow them to display the moral qualities that base trust as a two-place relation. It is not in the same sense that we can say that we trust Mercedes if we are a taxi driver who always buys vehicles of this brand , and Amnesty International, or the Ipcc.
In the latter two cases, the trust is partial , because it is delimited by the function claimed by these institutions; but it establishes itself in a quasi-personal mode since it aims at moral qualities identical or analogous to those attributed to individuals.
The function of the institution corresponds to a mandate, it induces a three-place relation: we rely on the Ipcc to produce reliable information and forecasts on climate change, its causes, its consequences; we rely on Amnesty International to conduct justified opinion campaigns on violations of individual freedoms by States.
But fulfilling these mandates requires dispositions, or qualities, which have a moral value and go beyond mere technical skills, or even the love of a job well done. These dispositions give rise to trust, not reliance. If we rely on an institution to fulfil a positive function, it is possible to develop a different relationship with the institution, a trust relationship justified by the constant dispositions that we attribute to it.
These dispositions are not necessarily virtues in the Aristotelian sense of dispositions of character. They can depend on regulations, or standards of practice. It is more reasonable to trust the Ipcc reports because of the actual ethical rules of scientific work, as outlined by Merton than because one believes in the perfect intellectual honesty of all its members.
It would be an undue personification. It suffices that the function it claims presupposes a set of practices invested with a moral meaning to be fulfilled: veracity, knowledge, verification, courage, relevance, and skill.
Such provisions lead to more general expectations than those relating to a particular skill. It is this type of expectation that characterizes trust as a two-place relation: it is not linked to specific expectations or mandates. Rather, it constitutes a horizon of open expectation for everything relating to the fulfilment of a claimed function.
The rules of the social world do not provide them with the same possibilities as individuals;. But that does not mean that we give them a character and trustworthy dispositions — while we can do that with our banking advisor, a person to whom we can attribute qualities of honesty, benevolence, and competence.
This means even less that we think it is in their character or nature to act in the sense of the public good, and that it is not necessary to subject them to public regulation and control. Trust in banks may be appropriate, but it is not directed at personal dispositions.
0コメント