Band 25, Heft 1 - Special Issue: Philosophical Perspectives on Trust and Distrust in Contemporary Societies; Issue Editors: Esther Oluffa Pedersen and Arman Teymouri Niknam

We argue that philosophy of trust can be employed to counter the paralysis of action ensuing out of the experience of polycrisis in the current state of international social life. Philosophy of trust can recognize the impact of the polycrisis on contemporary societies all the while that an analysis of trust inevitably takes the concrete life world experiences of humans as a central part of the analysis. Using the philosophy of trust as an analytic tool involves digging into relations of trust and distrust situated in concrete social environments which takes humans’ concrete experiences of trust, distrust, and breaches of trust into account all the while that its theoretical conceptualizations can pay heed to overall societal challenges. As such it provides a means to study our contemporary world of polycrisis without simplifying the social world or succumbing to paralysis. This is shown in short discussions and presentations of the five articles included in the special issue.

Biotechnology proponents claim that the public has a duty to trust biotechnology due to its potential for handling significant future food security challenges. This article uses Kant’s moral and political philosophy as basis for constructing a framework for analyzing trust as a moral duty, both in personal relationships and in institutional settings. This includes trust in technology that is of societal significance. A discussion of key concepts of trust leads to an argument that there is a conditional duty of reflexive trust in fundamental social institutions, including technology. However, reflexive trust in, for example, food biotechnology cannot be conceived of as an individual task. A duty of reflexive trust in technology can only be achieved within a publicly controlled institution of trust-building systematic distrust. This system should ideally clarify which instances and to what extent a technology is ethically justifiable and of benefit to society in general.

The ongoing Post Office scandal in the UK and the 2021 Child Daycare Benefit Scandal in the Netherlands make up exemplary cases of how digital automation has changed and in fact severely harmed trust relations ranging from trust in oneself over trust in social roles, trust in institutions, trust in technology and general trust. By looking closer at how digital automation in these cases generated ruptures in the lives of ordinary citizens and also affected the involved institutions and society at large I discuss how we may begin to discuss the impact of digitalization on trust in societies. I start with an introduction to the panoramic view of trust, followed by a short description of the two scandals. Based on the exploration of the two cases I take an ex post facto perspective on the dynamic social events as they unfolded in the scandals in order to analyze how the introduction of digital automation tools affected trust relations. I draw attention to some of the most noticeable changes in the four relations of trust, which is trust in institutions, interpersonal trust, trust in oneself and trust in technology.

Journalists depend on two vectors of trust: the trust invested in them by their sources, and the trust invested in them by their end-users. For many years, trust has become a key issue in the articulation of the journalistic profession. This paper distinguishes between two traditional approaches to earn public trust: either through an emphasis on the ideal of objectivity, or by a sort of showing one’s cards: an explicit declaration of one’s subjectivity. Through a reading of Løgstrup, Derrida, and Deleuze, we argue that both positions are inadequate solutions to the problem of trust. In as much as subjectivity is continuously negotiated in interaction with the unknown and the uncontrollable, the poles of objectivity and subjectivity cannot define the narrative event without each supplementing the other. To escape from this impasse, we suggest a third approach: a hospitable journalism characterized by a hospitable attitude towards the uncontrollable and the strange, or unknown, which operates to make the individual more aware of herself and her place in the world. This invitation happens through a silencing of the self.

The analytical model of political ideologies offered in this article describes the connection between rising levels of distrust towards societal institutions in modern democracies and how such developments has challenged traditional and long-standing political parties in the Western world, such as the Danish political party Radikale Venstre [the Danish Social-Liberal Party]. Through use of a tripartite model of trust developed by Arman Teymouri Niknam during his interpretation of Mary Wollstonecraft’s attitudes towards trust brought together with different aspects of Axel Honneth’s social-philosophical framework, Teymouri Niknam and Leif Hemming Pedersen show how distrust may be able to act as a progressive tool in the creation of a more just, diverse and equal future and also how a virtuous and healthy form of democracy is an ideal that can be challenging to realise in practice. Teymouri Niknam and Hemming Pedersen are thus able to point to the ways in which a healthy democracy needs a balance of virtuous trust and distrust in order to achieve a good amount of both stability and progress, thus pointing to a difficult balancing act that many traditional political parties find themselves struggling with especially at this point in time in many contemporary democracies.

The effectiveness of vaccination programmes depends on high levels of public trust in political, scientific and health-related institutions, but public trust in vaccines can waver. This article explores aspects of public trust and mistrust on a web media platform about the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine through the statements of a doctor and an anonymised ‘anti-vaxxer’. Thematic analysis identifies commonalities and divergences in both perspectives. Both trust and mistrust of MMR vaccination are presented as moral, reasoned stances by their proponents; they are connected to the individual’s experiences and situations, but are associated with very different trust attitudes to scientific and political institutions. Moreover, both the trustworthiness of the speakers themselves and the (un)trustworthiness of authorities are emphasised. Trust and mistrust are also thematised in relation to contextual matters such as the role of social media and the historical MMR controversy. Further research towards identifying common ground between trust positions is recommended.