I think there are two fundamentally different types of "trust" being described in those writings and conversations, and it can confuse the audience enough that it's worth separating them.
The first kind of trust is a feeling of security -- you trust your neighbors, in the sense that you don't believe they're likely to do you harm, steal your stuff, spread nasty gossip about you, etc. Other people might do those things, but not your neighbors. You trust them. Or, if you don't trust your neighbors, it's because you believe they're likely to harm you in any of those ways.
The second kind is more about behavior than belief -- you show charity toward someone because you trust them, in the sense that you might have reasons to be suspicious, but you're setting aside those reasons, and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Say one of your friends has a tendency to break small promises about 1/4 of the time, and now is the first time that the promise is a big one, so you can't judge based on an equivalent case in the past. If you trust him to keep his word in this unfamiliar case, you're acknowledging the risk but setting it aside (not denying that the risk actually exists). If you don't trust him, you can't bring yourself to give him the benefit of the doubt.
A sub-class of this second type is hospitality -- you always have reasons to be wary of guests you're hosting because they could take advantage of your letting your guard down. Ditto for the guest -- they always have reasons to be suspicious that their host could have ulterior motives for acting so generous. But the guest and host are putting those reasons aside, and trusting each other.
Putting aside these risks is not naive -- you recognize that they're there, but you are showing your faith that they won't blow up in this case.
Charity, hospitality, faith, compassion, mercy, forgiveness -- you get the idea of what this second kind of trust is about. Security, comfort, ease of mind, carrying on worry-free -- that's what the first kind of trust is about.
You read a lot about how the Nordic and Scandinavian countries are "high trust," but I think it must be in the sense of security and comfort. One Swede, surrounded by a lot of other Swedes, feels safe from possible harm or wrongdoing.
But what about charity and hospitality? My favorite example of hospitality in the modern world is hitch-hiking -- that's a solid example that no one will dispute as being a guest-host relationship. And you have to have pretty high trust (in the second sense) to pull it off. Otherwise, the driver thinks that the hitch-hiker might try to rob or kill them. Or the would-be hitch-hiker decides against asking for a ride because he assumes that the drivers will hit him up for money, take him hostage, kill him, or whatever.
Fortunately there's a website, Hitchwiki, that provides information to travelers about how easy or difficult it is to hitch-hike around the world. Each country has their own entry.
No strong consensus comes up for Finland. How about the liberal utopia just to the west? "Many say that hitching in Sweden sucks." Also: "Norway is not an easy country to hitch in ... Like in Sweden, foreign tourists and immigrants are more likely to pick up hitchhikers." Denmark is the only country that sounds close to Britain or America: "Most drivers are very friendly and hospitable." From my limited experience, I buy the idea that Danes are more extraverted and hospitable than Swedes or Norwegians. No clue about Finns, though.
It may not be impossible to rely on the hospitality of strangers in Scandinavia, but it sure sounds more difficult than in other Western countries. The entries for Norway and Sweden are defensive, trying to convince you that it's not hopeless, and again that most of the host drivers will not be native Scandinavians.
On the discussion page for Norway, there's a good explanation of why hospitality is not very strong in socialist Scandinavia:
...the very good welfare system in scandinavia. People are not used to help each other, because the goverment takes care and there is no need for solidarity (even the homeless in stockholm have a mobile haha) to each other.
Hospitality is a face-to-face, approaching form of trust. Scandinavians don't want unfortunate people standing on the side of the road waiting for a ride -- but they think the solution should come from the government, not from the everyday driver. This is distancing and avoidant -- outsource the job to a remote group like a bureaucracy, and the problem will be solved without the average citizen having to take part personally.
By the way, I don't think that state involvement erodes hospitality, but the other way around -- people who are uncomfortable providing hospitality find an alternate solution, creating a state bureaucracy to handle the job instead.
You see this in Sweden even more clearly with their immigration problem. They don't have a general fear of foreigners, or they wouldn't let so many in. Rather, they are OK with them arriving -- as long as they can be handed over to government workers to be taken care of. Letting a foreigner into the country who will be supported by the welfare system -- OK. Picking up a foreign hitch-hiker -- no way.
What countries do show high trust in the form of hospitality?
Iran is a very friendly country. [...] Finding a place to sleep in Iran is generally as easy as knocking the first door you come across. If you get tired of the unrelenting hospitality however, the city parks offer an excellent alternative. Many parks, even in big cities, are designated as camping zones, with toilets open all night. Camp fires are tolerated, but it's best to ask before.
Also:
Turkey is an extremely hitchhiking-friendly country. [...] You will never have to worry about lack of food in Turkey. Many truck drivers have coffee makers in their truck. Turkish people are very generous, and it is rare that you will get a lift without a driver offering you food. ... The tea (black tea or apple tea in Istanbul) is the national drink, and almost all the people that you meet offer you a tea − this is probably the most common way of showing you their hospitable culture.
The flip-side to the "culture of honor" is the culture of hospitality. You do unto others as they do unto you, though starting off with a caring gesture. If it continues, you're in the hospitality side of their culture. If you show them disrespect, you've started a possible feud, and are now in the honor-based side of their culture. Both of these seemingly different treatments are in fact the same -- an obsession with reciprocation, face-to-face.
Cultures of honor (and hospitality) are most common among pastoralist people, most famously around the Mediterranean and through the Middle East. Cultures of law (and order) are found more among sedentary agrarian farmers, with East Asia being the best example. Western Europe reflects both traditions because its people come from agro-pastoralist stock.
The two cultures have different ways of helping out a stranded stranger -- the one in a more personal, hospitable way, and the other in a more distancing and bureaucratic way. Evidently, these two approaches create two different forms of trust -- one where average people give the stranger the benefit of the doubt, and the other where they outsource it to third parties and rest safe and secure knowing that someone else is taking care of the problem.
Interesting reversal of the normal hbdchick-ish argument, wherein Scandos are trusting of their government, and their government behaves trustworthily because they are more emotionally capable of caring for and trusting unknown others without first approaching them, while the more anxious and neurotic Meds have to make the approach first and have to have constant approach and interaction to placate them and build trust and care (which helps explain the culture of hospitality - the constant need for reinforcing signals of "respect", like an insecurely attached and clingy person who needs constant reassurance, unlike Scandos who don't need as much palavering and performance).
ReplyDeleteIf we have to invoke Occam's Razor, I'd still jettison your argument for the above - I find that it much more plausible that the Scandos have additional emotional capacity that means they don't need to approach so much, rather than that they aren't capable of approach so much - but possibly they can both operate in a complementary fashion.
By the way, I don't think that state involvement erodes hospitality, but the other way around -- people who are uncomfortable providing hospitality find an alternate solution, creating a state bureaucracy to handle the job instead.
ReplyDeleteOne issue with this for me is that the Scandos, for one, tend to have pretty respectable levels actual personal involvement in charitable institutions and groups (civic involvement). Not Anglo high, but good compared to much of the world, including compared to Med Europeans, and certainly compared to the oh so interpersonal cultures of honor people. Including charities.
e.g.
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/civic-societies/
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/civic-societies-ii/
These only show active membership rates, which would presumably be more personal involvement than inactive or token membership rates.
So that would be at odds with them having less desire for personal involvement, but not necessarily at odds with them being more comfortable approaching problems via groups rather than personally approaching people and representing themselves as individuals.
"Interesting reversal of the normal hbdchick-ish argument, wherein Scandos are trusting of their government"
ReplyDeleteNot a reversal, but a drawing of an important distinction. People cannot "trust" their government in the sense of charity and hospitality. They "trust" it in the sense of worry-free security.
"and their government behaves trustworthily because they are more emotionally capable of caring for and trusting unknown others without first approaching them"
Again this is "trust" in the worry-free security sense. They are not emotionally capable but incapable of caring for others -- hence handing responsibility over to a remote team of experts. It comes from an avoidant attachment style.
"I don't want to deal with people, so let someone else do it -- I'll pay, of course, but I don't want to interact with or even be aware of them."
The bureaucrats do not even act as mediators, who would keep you in touch with the effects of your paying taxes. Not like a religious charity or do-gooder NGO that shows you the clothing, food, housing, etc., that your donation has provided.
"while the more anxious and neurotic Meds have to make the approach first and have to have constant approach and interaction to placate them and build trust and care"
See, this is "trust" in a different sense. It's the hospitality sense -- having reason to be suspicious, but setting that aside and giving the stranger the benefit of the doubt.
So, the difference in behavior is not that Scandinavians "trust" at a distance while Mediterraneans "trust" up close and personal -- they are not showing the same form of "trust" in the first place. The Swedes are not showing hospitality, and the Mediterraneans are not feeling worry-free security.
"I find that it much more plausible that the Scandos have additional emotional capacity that means they don't need to approach so much, rather than that they aren't capable of approach so much"
Well if we're invoking Occam's Razor, then emotionally blunted Scandinavians wins over the argument that they're emotional ubermenschen.
But we don't need Occam's Razor when we have a direct test -- hitch-hiking. When called on to directly and personally approach a person in need, who goes for it and who shies away? Mediterraneans prove their faith in the stranger, while the Scandinavians are more likely to let them fend for themselves.
(They can't use the excuse that a government bureaucrat will swoop in to save the day -- they know there's no such governmental group to take care of hitch-hikers, so they know that it's up to individual drivers to help or refuse help.)
"Scandos, for one, tend to have pretty respectable levels actual personal involvement in charitable institutions and groups (civic involvement). Not Anglo high, but good compared to much of the world, including compared to Med Europeans, and certainly compared to the oh so interpersonal cultures of honor people. Including charities."
ReplyDeleteI reject the secular weighting of the "civic society" literature, although some people like Putnam are good about emphasizing the important role of religious institutions.
Who organized all those Central America solidarity activities when the US was funding death squads during the civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1980s? Nuns, bishops, churches, etc.
Looking at those World Values Survey results show that they must have worded the question wrong, if hardly anybody in the Middle East and Maghreb is a member of a "church or religious organization." Maybe they took it too literally, like "no, a church is for Christians, and I'm a Muslim," or "religious organization sounds like some kind of NGO, rather than regular religious commitment and practice, so no, I guess I don't belong to one of those either."
For a more accurate picture, here's the Pew Forum's survey of religious commitment among Muslims in various parts of the world:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-2-religious-commitment/
A couple reminders of how much Muslims give to charity:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/22/19611201-muslims-give-more-to-charity-than-others-uk-poll-says?lite
http://www.irinnews.org/report/95564/analysis-a-faith-based-aid-revolution-in-the-muslim-world
The second article features lots of hand-wringing by Westernized elites about how alms go to immediate, personal needs like clothing, food, housing, orphanages, mosques, etc. -- rather than long-term sustainable development.
But that reinforces the point about pastoralist folks wanting to see their charity go toward real, pressing needs whose effects they can appreciate, rather than remote and abstract and impersonal benefits.
Let's move beyond the fact that much of the "civic society" tasks are carried out under a religious umbrella, so that the net effect is unclear and may swing even farther toward pastoralists (giving to charity).
ReplyDeleteLabor unions obviously bias things in favor of industrialized nations because they're a response to gigantic scale managerial hierarchies, workers needing to team up against such a powerful boss.
In developing or 2nd-world countries, they bias things in favor of agricultural rather than pastoralist groups because unions are a form of collectivization, which works for agriculture but not for herding livestock. No pastoralist group has ever gone Commie. Even pastoralist Yugoslavia was market socialist. China, Vietnam, Russia, Cuban plantations, etc. -- that's where you find proto-labor union / Commie activity.
The sports, recreation, and arts groups are more a signal of how formalized those group activities are, not how often they take place, how important they are in local life, and so on.
"Civic society" is not so much a measure of how personally involved a person is in the lives of others in the community, but how formalized, regulated, and institutionalized these relations are. And again, a lot of it misses the huge role of religious involvement.
"the constant need for reinforcing signals of "respect", like an insecurely attached and clingy person who needs constant reassurance, unlike Scandos who don't need as much palavering and performance"
ReplyDeleteIt's not about clinginess so much as reciprocation. Is everything on the up and up? If not, better worry and ask for an honest (costly) signal of reassurance.
Look at the handling of third world immigration into Sweden vs. Italy.
Swedes feel uncomfortable looking into anything personally, they outsource that job to a bureaucracy who they fairly worry-free and safe from.
Then either reflecting the popular will or elite conspiracy, they start letting in any old bunch of immigrants, local crime rates shoot up, the feeling of community belonging plummets, and there goes a lot of that built-up social capital.
If they manage to fix the problem, it will be in a reactive way, and could potentially flare up into a violent conflict to kick out the foreigners and keep new ones from coming in.
They wouldn't need such a high-pressure reaction if they would've taken a hospitality approach in the first place. Like, we're rightly suspicious of you entering and staying in our country, and you're here as guests. So, behave according to guest-host norms, or you're out.
Hence why Italy has no massive third-world immigration problem. Or Lebanon, or Iran, or etc. Hospitality is more stable against invasion than feel-good bureaucracy.
Also worth pointing out the natural boundary on numbers of strangers accommodated by the two forms of trust.
ReplyDeleteOutsourcing to bureaucracy allows an almost unbounded number to be supported -- however high up the organization can be scaled. And it can last indefinitely. (This includes religious bureaucracies as well as state and corporate ones.)
Hospitality can only allow, I don't know, a couple of guests per host, and only for a short period of time. Give them a ride, put them up for the night, take them out for a kebab and tea, and then wish them the best on the rest of their journey.
Faceless trust leaves you unaware of the size of the group of strangers being supported, at what expense, and for how long. You're just praying that it all ends up well.
Face-to-face trust keeps you in touch with all those potential danger signals.
Faceless trust, leading to large-scale support bureaucracies, looks nice at first -- so many are helped by so little personal thought, feeling, or involvement.
But that's just a snapshot from the tranquil phase of the cycle. It's far more precarious of a social arrangement. Too many parasites will ultimately flood in, blow the whole thing up, cause supporters to withdraw their support, hunker down in isolation until they feel it's safe to start building up social capital once again.
By keeping support institutions closer to the ground, it makes the whole system more robust to the occasional parasite. He'll be identified and kicked out immediately, and probably won't even bother trying to invade a second time. (He'll head off for a place where there's a faceless bureaucracy instead!)
It doesn't have to be 100% face-to-face hospitality, but that's the direction things will have to move toward if we want less fragility in our social/economic/political/cultural system.
Folks who've studied differential equations might think of fast-slow dynamics here.
ReplyDeleteWhen the societal body gets invaded by parasites, how long does it take to effectively respond, compared to the time scale of the in-flow and reproductive rate of parasites?
If they're on the same scale, you might not even get boom-and-bust cycles. It's like if you get dirt on your arm, and brush it off. Dirt doesn't fall onto and spread over / colonize your arm much faster than you can wipe it off. You don't go through long periods of cleanliness and long periods of dirtiness.
Face-to-face trust leads to this kind of response -- you flick the fly away as it tries to land on your hamburger. Occasionally it scores a hit, and you get angry, but over the long haul, it keeps your food safe to eat.
Fast-slow dynamics can lead to all manner of cyclical or oscillatory behavior. Like getting infected by pathogens. They can invade and reproduce faster than your immune system can deal with them. So your health level is not steady, but goes through phases of vigor and phases of lethargy and sickness.
Faceless trust is like each cell in the body outsourcing the job of keeping out germs to a specialized immune system. They don't bother to inspect and possibly confront or destroy invading organisms -- the experts in the Ministry of Immunity are taking care of that.
Also note the link back to how large the scale of organization is. Cells in the human body are part of a huge-scale organism. Division of labor.
So to get societies away from the boom-and-bust dynamics, we'll have to shift our psychology away from faceless trust and more toward face-to-face hospitality.
do you think falling-crime/reclusiveness is part of an inevitable cycle? or can we escape it permanently?
ReplyDelete-Curtis
Looks to be an enduring part of life. Even the Yanamamo have periods of rising and falling violence. After heavy warfare, they take a generation off to have kids.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about hunter-gatherers being prone to waves one way and the other.
OK, thanks for the response, haven't read them in great detail, but I do think I see better where you're going with this.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think has thrown me a little was seeing the willingness to approach and offer hospitality as any kind of "trust".
What you term as being worry free and secure about unknown other people seems more clearly like trust, whereas being willing to approach others and interact isn't driven just by giving strange individuals the "benefit of the doubt" (i.e. trust) but is driven by a cluster of qualities like the desire for social attention, desire for reciprocal benefits, confidence / overconfidence about your ability to handle an interaction if goes wrong.
It seems simpler to me to continue to see trust and approach as two separate qualities, rather than both as two kinds of trust.
(It would be nice to test directly whether Scandos or Meds are more willing to give a favorable interpretation or motivation to the actions of unknown individuals, as a way to test whether either of them are more willing to give strangers the benefit of the doubt, in a way that is separate from actual desire to approach, which is probably not very much to do with favorably interpreting others intentions. I might try and see if I can track down any social experiments on this.)
Similarly, greater hospitality is not really a positive result of greater willingness to give others the benefit of the doubt, but driven by the paranoid neuroticism necessary in violent pastoralist societies, where offering an extremely loud and unambiguous signal of good intentions is necessary to placate suspicions and ensure you're on good relations with people you're suspicious of, and was unnecessary in the less violent hunting and farming culture of Sweden.
Other than that, I think it's pretty plausible that you could be right that willingness to approach and interact could be a more useful quality in the long run to hold society together, more than secure and worry free trust.