Suchergebnisse

The measure of trust that people vest in their fellow citizens or institutions depends on three factors: the `reflected trustworthiness' of the target as estimated by themselves in a more or less rational manner, the attitude of `basic trustfulness' deriving from socialization, and the `culture of trust' pervading their society and normatively encouraging the trusting orientation. The author presents a model of a structural context conducive for the emergence of the culture of trust, and then argues that democratic organization contributes to trust-generating conditions, such as normative certainty, transparency, stability, and accountability. This influence is found to be doubly paradoxical. First, democracy breeds the culture of trust by institutionalizing distrust at many levels of democratic organization. And second, the strongest influence of democracy on the culture of trust may be expected when the institutionalized distrust remains a resource used sparingly and only when there appear significant breaches of trust.

Hypothesizes that the key to rebuilding civil society in postcommunist countries is the restoration of trust in public institutions, roles, & elites. Trust is defined as a kind of bet on the future contingent actions of others. Implied in the conception is the sense that the future actions of others will be characterized by regularity, efficiency, reliability, representativeness, fairness, accountability, & benevolence. In the absence of trust, other social mechanisms -- eg, providentialism, vigilance, ghettoization, paternalization, & externalization -- will emerge; some, if not all, of these alternative social mechanisms have appeared in postcommunist societies. To restore trust & diminish the prevalence of these other social mechanisms, it is suggested that public policies must work against tentativeness, arbitrariness, insecurity, secrecy, monocentrism, & ineptitude. Only in this manner can social trust &, ultimately, democratic habits be restored in these societies. 34 References. D. Ryfe

According to the three-dimensional theory of trust which the author develops in his recent work, the measure of trust that people vest on their fellow citizens or institutions depends on three factors: the reflected trustworthiness as estimated by themselves in more or less rational manner, the attitude of basic trustfulness deriving from socialization, and the culture of trust pervading their society and normatively constraining for each member. The culture of trust is shaped by historical experiences of a society - the tradition of trust, and by the current structural context -the trust-inspiring milieu. The author presents a model of a structural context conducive for the emergence of the culture of trust, and then argues that the democratic organization contributes to the trust-generating conditions, like normative certainty, transparency, stability, accountability etc. The mechanism of this influence is found to be doubly paradoxical. First, democracy breeds the culture of trust by institutionalizing distrust, at many levels of democratic organization. And second, the strongest influence of democracy on the culture of trust may be expected when the institutionalized distrust remains only the potential insurance of trustworthiness, a resource used sparingly and only when there appear significant breaches of trust. Of all three components in the three-dimensional model of trust, the cultural dimension is most susceptible to practical, political measures. And the most promising method to elicit the culture of trust is designing democratic institutions and safeguarding their viable functioning.

The former communist societies of Eastern Central Europe (e.g. Poland) repeatedly experience barriers and blockades on the road toward an open, democratic, market society of the Western type. The author claims that most of the problems are due to the deficiency of cultural resources, the central of which is trust. A theory of trust is proposed, informed by the author's earlier work on `social becoming'. The `culture of distrust' is found to pervade Polish society at all levels of social life. Part of that syndrome derives from the legacy of real socialism, but more attention should be focused on current conditions: the new `risk environments', widespread anomie, inefficiency of political elites, and an enhanced feeling of relative deprivation after revolutionary elation and unrealistic hopes. To restore trust, an indispensable component of robust social tissue, the consistency of reforms must be safeguarded, the rule of law meticulously observed, integration with Western democracies speeded up and trust itself turned into a recognized social value.

"Der Weg der ehemaligen kommunistischen Gesellschaften Mittelosteuropas zu Demokratie und Marktwirtschaft westlichen Typs ist voller Hindernisse. Ein großer Teil der Probleme ist dem Mangel an kulturellen Ressourcen und dabei vor allem dem Vertrauensverlust zuzuschreiben. Ausgehend von der früheren Arbeit über 'social becoming' wird eine Theorie des Vertrauens vorgeschlagen. Eine 'Kultur des Mißtrauens' durchzieht postkommunistische Gesellschaften auf allen Ebenen des sozialen Lebens. Ein Teil dieses Syndroms ist auf das Erbe des Realsozialismus zurückzuführen. Der größere Teil jedoch ist in gegenwärtigen gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen zu suchen: die neuen Risiken, die verbreitete Anomie, die Ineffizienz der politischen Elite und das Gefühl relativer Deprivation nach der revolutionären Euphorie und enttäuschten Hoffnungen. Zur Wiederherstellung von Vertrauen werden verschiedene Maßnahmen vorgeschlagen, wie konsistente Reformpolitik, stärkere Einhaltung der Gesetze, beschleunigte Eingliederung in die westlichen Demokratien und schließlich Anerkennung von Vertrauen als sozialem Wert." (Autorenreferat)

An integration of the competing approaches of resource mobilization & new social movements in the form of a theory of social becoming is advocated. It is argued that the opposition between structure & actions theories is a false dichotomy that should be dismantled. The structures & actions of social movements have reciprocal effects; they are the "emerging appearance" of each other. Some have called for a pluralistic approach of disciplinary eclecticism, but this risks a chaos of theories, whereas disciplinary integration would incorporate approaches under an umbrella concept. Social becoming can serve as such a concept & build a third sociology in the study of social movements. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

The societal myth of revolution and the sociological theory of revolution flourished in the nineteenth century - together with the idea of progress and reason - as cornerstones of the era of triumphant modernity. The myth was seriously challenged by the tragic experience of revolutions in the twentieth century; they never produced what they promised, and often replaced reason with irrational violence, and progress with crisis. With some inevitable time-lag, the theories of revolution were revised too. They abandoned developmentalist assumptions (of fatalism, finalism, utopianism, linearity), and focussed on the role of human agency (especially social movements) in bringing about revolutions; and on contingent, variable contribution of revolutions to social change (alternative scenarios of the future). New, agential theories of revolutions attempt to incorporate insights and hypotheses from a plurality of earlier theories. For this effort not to degenerate into eclecticism, it must be controlled by a more general, integrating conceptual framework. The author elaborates a model of `social becoming', which is then applied to the phenomenon of revolution, and engenders a set of hypotheses combining wisdom from traditional `volcanic' approaches with recent emphases on `resource mobilisation' and `political opportunities'. The proposed theoretical sketch promises to overcome the opposition of totalities and individualities, holistic and individualistic approaches, macro and micro foci, as well as static and dynamic biases.

The perennial sociological problem of the incommensurability of concepts becomes acute in the context of comparative research. In theoretical discourse second degree sociological concepts and the first degree societal concepts of the members of societies are both subject to this problem to which the unsatisfactory responses have been either radical relativism and theoretical anarchism, or ethnocentrism and dogmatism. Now actual historical tendencies, the globalisation of society and internationalisation of sociology are providing trans-societal and trans-theoretical concepts. At the same time the naturalistic model of comparative study of independent cases becomes less possible. Research shifts its emphasis from seeking uniformity to seeking uniqueness, and by cross-tabulating the focus and direction of comparative research we can develop a six-fold typology of comparisons: (1) encompassing, (2) universalising, (3) generalising, (4) individualising, (5) specifying, (6) particularising. The new opportunities for individualising comparisons take sociology away from natural science patterns to the logic of interpretation in history and the humanities.