A recurring concept used in this blog has been social
capital. I have borrowed the idea from
the writings of Robert D. Putnam.[1] I described it as follows: “[Putnam] defines social capital as a
societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry,
egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and
cooperation.” This posting focuses on
the latter part of this quote, “a social environment of trust and cooperation.” I want to put a bit of substance in that
notion. How does this environment come
about? Is it basically a feel-good,
fluffy image that is beyond the realities of modern life? Or is it an ideal
that is, if beyond complete attainment, something we as a people can strive for
and make progress toward? This blog is
dedicated, to a great deal, on the assumption that this quality is a viable
goal and that civics education is one tool in that effort.
It is helpful to think about how to conceptualize trust and
cooperation. I have, in several postings,
expressed the idea that trust is not something that is freely given. On more than one occasion, I have stated that
trust is something that should be earned; one should not just trust whomever
one encounters, but should reserve it for those who have demonstrated that they
are trustworthy. Let me describe this
notion using the language of George Lakoff.[2] He employs a metaphorical concept from
accounting:
When you do something good for
someone, you give something of positive value to him [or her] and what you get
in exchange is “credit.” Credit for
acting morally can accumulate. It is a
form of capital. …
To place your trust in someone
morally is to give him [or her] advance moral credit, credit he [or she] will
repay you by acting morally. If someone
that you place your trust in acts very immorally, then you “lose trust” in him
[or her], that is, you lose the moral credit that you gave him [or her] in
advance as prepayment for acting morally.
He [or she] is “discredited” and “morally bankrupt.” “Trust” is a prepayment of moral credit for
future moral action. But in general, people
do not trust just anyone. To be trusted,
a person has to “build trust,” to establish a history of being trustworthy, a
moral credit rating.
This accounting metaphor is helpful; it provides a mental
handle on what is at stake and what is the potential of generally being able to
build this “trust capital.” But is the exchange
just that, an exchange? I believe that
in addition to this mental give and take, there is more.
And this, in a small way, is what distinguishes a natural
rights way of viewing social intercourse from viewing it from a federalist
perspective. At the risk of citing
another past reference, I have pointed out that all behaviors begin with an
emotion. We must feel we want something
before we actually act to get it – a sentimental angle. And in this, we see that by limiting our view
of trust to an exchange, we do not answer what motivates one to engage in such
an exchange. I have described the natural
rights view as a good fallback way of thinking; it functions well if one has
limited information or understanding of a social arrangement or of a
collective. But it does not give us much
insight into how one encourages the exchanges referred to above. For that, we need to address the elements of
social infrastructure which generate the essential social forces that would
result in increased justified trust to emerge.
One such element is the institution of liberated federalism in our
civics and government classes. Hopefully,
this blog encourages this.
