Trust, social dilemmas and the strategic construction of collective memories



Baixar 96.4 Kb.
Página3/3
Encontro21.10.2017
Tamanho96.4 Kb.
1   2   3

Source: SOM 1996 survey. N= 1760



Even though all of these correlations are weak, they all point in the same positive direction The more people trust other people, the more they tend to have confidence in the societal and political institutions. But again, the difficulty is to understand in what direction the causal ling goes. One noteworthy result here is that the two strongest correlations in the table above are the ones between horizontal trust and trust in the institutions of law and order, that is, the courts and the police. At a first glance, there seems to be no reason why there should be a causal mechanism between trusting other people and trusting these two particular institutions. On the contrary, you could argue that if you trust other people, you don't need the services provided by these two institutions.
One possibility on how to understand this is that the causal link runs the other way around; the more you trust the institutions that are supposed to keep law and order, the more reason you have to trust other people. The argument, inspired from non-cooperative game theory, runs as follows. In a civilized society, institutions of law and order have one particularly important task: to detect and punish people who are “traitors”, that is, those who break contracts, steal, murder and do other such non-cooperative things and therefore should not be trusted. Thus, if you think (i.e., if your cognitive map is) that these particular institutions do what they are supposed to do in a fair and effective manner, then you also have reason to believe that the chance people have of getting away with such treacherous behavior4 is small. If so, you will believe that people will have very good reason to refrain from acting in a treacherous manner, and you will therefore believe that “most people can be trusted.” Psychological and survey research confirms that social trust acts as a constraint on immoral behavior. People who believe others are trustworthy, are themselves less likely to lie, cheat, or steal (Laurin 1986; Rotter 1980).
If the above reasoning is correct, then trust in other people may have more to do with the way in which the political institutions of this type are operating. If people believe that the institutions that are responsible for handling "treacherous" behavior act in fair, just and effective manner, and if they also believe that other people think the same of these institutions, then they will also trust other people. However, it should be added that it is probably not the formal institution as such that people evaluate, but its historically established reputation in regard to fairness and efficiency. What matter is the collective memory about the actual operations of the institutions. The wordings of Joseph Stalin's extremely democratic constitution from 1936 did probably not increase trust in the Soviet society. Again, it is the "history of play" more than the formally enacted rules of the institutions that matter.


Trust as collective memory
While there are now several good analyses regarding the importance of ideas in politics, there are fewer that are useful on the production of ideas and ideologies, and especially, why some ideas come to dominate over others (Berman and McNamara 1999). Many theories on this topic are unfortunately not very helpful because of their strong functionalist tendency. Whichever ideology or norm is "needed" to secure the established configuration of power in society is also "produced" because there is such a "need". The critique of such functionalist logic in the social sciences for its lack of microfoundations is well known and doesn't need to be repeated here (Elster 1983; Hedström and Swedberg 1998).
A different approach, which I have found very helpful, is a part of the literature on collective memory. Compared with many other approaches to the study of the impact of ideology, culture and history, it has the advantage of viewing the creation of ideas and social norms as a strategic process. Collective memories are not something given by "history", or created because the present society "needs" a specific social construction of the past (cf. Schwartz 1991). Instead, what is emphasized in this literature is that "collective memories" are deliberately created by strategically acting political entrepreneurs in order to further their political goals and ambitions.5 In other words, a group's or a society's collective memory is contested ideological terrain, where different actors try to establish their particular interpretation of the past as the collective memory for a particular group (cf. Hardin 1995).
An excellent recent study in this tradition is Nachman Ben-Yehuda's book on the creation of "The Masada Myth" in Israeli politics. Ben-Yehuda shows convincingly that "The Masada Myth" is a "fabricated moralistic claim" that was produced in the 1940s to spur national pride among young Israelis, in particular. The myth was supported by "the central Israeli regime, as well as by key political, social, military, and academic figures". Ben-Yehuda's analysis shows that the collective memory (Jews in ancient times fighting heroically against much stronger Roman forces and, when defeat could not be avoided, chose a honorable death instead of loss of freedom and slavery) is according to generally available historical sources a genuinely false story.6 This is not the place to recapitulate Ben-Yehuda's very interesting analysis, but it will serve as an argument for the importance of using the concept of "collective memory" to solve the problem of how to explain the theoretical puzzle laid out previously. A fine summary of the role played by "collective memory" in politics is given in Baker's analysis of pre-revolutionary France:
Politics in any society depends upon the existence of cultural representations that define the relationships among political actors, thereby allowing individuals and groups to press claims upon one another and upon the whole. Such claims can be made intelligible and binding only to the extent that political actors deploy symbolic resources held in common by members of the political society, thereby refining and redefining the implications of these resources for the changing purposes of political practice. Political contestation therefore takes the form of competing efforts to mobilize and control the possibilities of political and social discourse, efforts through which that discourse is extended, recast, and - on occasion - even radically transformed (Baker 1985).
The purpose of trying to combine the analysis of (large n) social dilemmas/collective action problems, with the analysis of collective memory, is to offer an explanation for when there is a change from sup-optimal to optimal equilibria (or vice versa), that is, when collaboration for mutual benefit is possible. Thus, what does it take for a society to move from "Palermo" to "Milan", or from "Moscow" to "Stockholm"? The hypothesis is that what is needed is a change of the collective memory concerning three questions. 1) who are we, 2) who are the others, 3) and what can these others be expected to do if we choose to trust them. Within rational choice theory, Bates et. al. have argued that different forms of cultural or interpretavist theory would serve to fill this function. I agree in part when they argue that "(g)ame theorist often fail to acknowledge that their approach requires a complete political anthropology". My argument is that the theory of collective memory is superior to their use of cultural theory, because ideas, norms and culture are not taken just "shaped by history". Instead, these are themselves to be seen as part of strategic action, albeit on a different societal level (Bates, de Figueiredo Jr, and Weingast 1998, p. 244). When they argue that the problem with existing theories of the role of ideas is that they do not explain why one idea gains prominence over others, the collective memory approach will do just that.
In order to solve a social dilemma, it is necessary for the agents have accurate information about the "others", if they will betray trust, or if they will be trustworthy. My argument, which is inspired by the literature about collective memory, is that the answer to these questions is not something given by "culture" or "history" in any historically determined or functionalist way. Instead, this is a field for strategic action by political leaders, they fight over what is to be our collective memory of ourselves and of "the others". Things well known to political scientists working in the historical-institutionalist approach, such as the importance of institutionalized power and the specific configuration of resources in different settings, will help us explain this (Rothstein 1996; Steinmo 1993). As Katznelson has argued, instead of taking preferences as a given point of departure (i.e., rational choice), or behavior as simply revealed preferences (i.e., behavioralism), the historical institutional approach "(c)onnects institutional design to the formation and existence of political agents who possess particular clusters of preferences, interests, and identities" (Katznelson 1997, p. 104). This view is also prominent in John Rawls writing about social justice, especially in his idea that political institutions should be "framed so as to encourage the virtue of justice in those who take part in them" (Rawls 1971, p. 261). The eternal dilemma in the social sciences between explanations centered on individual agency and on social structures can be overcome though a careful and detailed analysis of the creation and impact of political institutions.

References
Baker, Keith Mikael. 1985. Memory and Practice: Politics and the Representation of the Past in Eighteenth-Century France. Representations 11:134-164.

Bardhan, Pranab. 1997. Corruption and Development: A Review of the Issues. Journal of Economic Literature 35 (3):1320-1346.

Baron-Cohen, Simon. 1995. Mindblindness. An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Bates, Robert H., Rui J. P. de Figueiredo Jr, and Barry R. Weingast. 1998. The Politics of Interpretation: Rationality, Culture, and Transition. Politics & Society 26 (2):221-256.

Bendor, Jonathan, and Dilip Mookherje. 1987. Institutional Structure and the Logic of Ongoing Collective Action. American Political Science Review 81 (1987):137-156.

Bendor, Jonathan, and Piotr Swistak. 1997. The Evolutionary Stability of Cooperation. American Political Science Review 91 (2):290-307.

Ben-Ner, Avner, and Louis Putterman, eds. 1998a. Economics, Values and Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ben-Ner, Avner, and Louis Putterman. 1998b. Values and Institutions in Economic Analysis. In Economics, values, and organizaiton, edited by A. Ben-Ner and L. Putterman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berman, Sheri. 1998. The Social Democratic Moment. Ideas and Politics in the Making of Interwar Europe. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Berman, Sheri, and Kathleen McNamara. 1999. Ideas, Norms and Culture in Political Analysis. Princeton: Department of Politics, Princeton University.

Braithwaite, Valerie. 1998. Communal and Exchange Trust Norms: Their Value Base and Relevance to Institutional Trust. In Trust in Government, edited by V. Braithwaite and M. Levi. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Braithwaite, Valerie, and Margaret Levi, eds. 1998. Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dawes, Robyn H. 1980. Social Dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology 5:163-193.

Denzau, Arthur T., and Douglas C. North. 1994. Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions. Kyklos 47:3-31.

Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 1999. The Human Face of Game Theory: Trust and Reciprocity in Sequential Games. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Trust Working Group Meeting, Febr. 19-20, 1999.

Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press.

Elster, Jon. 1989. The Cement of Society. Vol. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Elster, Jon, ed. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitutions of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Granovetter, Mark. 1988. The Sociological and Economic Approaches to Labor Market Analysis: A Social Structural View. In Industries, Firms and Jobs, edited by G. Farkas and P. England. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.

Hardin, Russell. 1995. One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hardin, Russell. 1998. Trust in Government. In Trust & Governance, edited by V. Braithwaite and M. Levi. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hechter, Michael. 1992. The Insufficiency of Game Theory for the Resolution of Real-World Collective Action Problems. Rationality and Society 4 (1):33-40.

Hedström, Peter, and Richard Swedberg. 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay. In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by P. Hedström and R. Swedberg. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Katznelson, Ira. 1997. Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics. In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, edited by M. I. Lichbach and A. S. Zuckerman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Katznelson, Ira. 1998. The Doleful Dance of Politics and Policy: Can Historical Institutionalism Make a Difference (Book Review Essay). American Journal of Political Science 92 (1):191-197.

Laitin, David. 1988. Political Culture and Political Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 82 (2):589-597.

Laurin, Urban. 1986. På heder och samvete : skattefuskets orsaker och utbredning. Stockholm: Norstedt.

Ledyard, John O. 1995. Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research. In The handbook of Experimental Economics, edited by J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Levi, Margaret. 1988. Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Levi, Margaret. 1991. Are There Limits to Rationality. Achives Européennes de Sociologie 32 (1):130-141.

Levi, Margaret. 1998a. Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Levi, Margaret. 1998b. A State of Trust. In Trust & Governance, edited by V. Braithwaite and M. Levi. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Levi, Margaret. 1999. When Good Defenses Make Good Neighbors: A Transaction Cost Approach to Trust and Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lichbach, Mark I. 1995. The Rebel's Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lichbach, Mark I. 1997. Social Theory and Comparative Politics. In Comparative Politics. Rationality, Culture and Structure, edited by M. I. Lichbach and A. S. Zuckerman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mailath, George J. 1998. Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory. Journal of Economic Literature 36:1347-1374.

March, James B., and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Basic Books.

McNamara, Kathleen. 1998. The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Miller, Gary, and Thomas Hammond. 1994. Why Politics is More Fundamental Than Economics: Incentive-Compatible Mechanisms are not Credible. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (1):5-26.

Miller, Gary J. 1992. Managerial Dilemmas. The Political Economy of Hierachy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morrow, James D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

North, Douglas. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, Mancur Jr. 1996. Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why Some Nations are Rich, and Others Poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives 10 (1):3-22.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. American Political Science Reveiw 92 (1):1-23.

Platt, John. 1973. Social Traps. American Psychologist 28:641-651.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rapoport, Anatol. 1987. Prisoner's dilemma. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman. London: Macmillan Press.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ringmar, Erik. 1996. Identity, interest and action: A cultural explanation of Sweden's intervention in the Thirty Years War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothstein, Bo. 1996. Political Institutions - An Overview. In A New Handbook for Political Science, edited by R. E. Goodin and H.-D. Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rothstein, Bo. 1998. Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothstein, Bo. 1999. Social Capital in the Social Democratic State. The Swedish Model and Civil Society. In A Decline of Social Capital? Political Culture as a Precondition for Democracy, edited by R. D. Putnam. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag.

Rotter, Julian. B. 1980. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist 35:1-7.

Sally, David. 1995. Conversation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas - A Metaanalysis of Experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society 7 (1):58-92.

Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Scholz, JohnT., and Mark Lubell. 1998. Trust and Taxpaying: Testing the Heuristic Approach to Collective Action. American Journal of Political Science 42 (2):398-417.

Schwartz, Barry. 1991. Social Change and Collective Memory: The Democratization of George Washington. American Sociological Review 56:221-236.

Steinmo, Sven. 1993. Taxation and Democracy. Swedish, British and American Approaches to Financing the Modern State. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Stolle, Dietlind. 1998. Bowling Together, Bowling Alone: The Development of Generalized Trust in Voluntary Associatons. Political Psychology 19 (3):497-526.

Tyler, Tom R., and Peter Degoey. 1996. Trust in Organizational Authorities: The Influence of Motive Attributions on Willingness to Accept Decisions. In Trust in Organizations, edited by R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler. London: Sage Publications.

Weingast, Barry R. 1993. Constitutions as Governance Structures - The Political Foundations of Secure Markets. Journal of institutional and theoretical economics 149:286-311.

Weingast, Barry R. 1997. The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law. American Political Science Review 91 (3):245-263.

Williams, John T., Brian Collins, and Mark I. Lichbach. 1995. The Origines of Credible Commitments in Economic Cooperation. Paper read at Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Aug 28-Sept 1, 1998, at Chicago.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1998. The Foundations of Trust. College Park, Maryland: Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy.

Young, H. Peyton. 1998. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.



Ziegler, Rolf. 1998. Trust and the Reliability of Expectations. Rationality and Society 10 (4):427-450.

1 I thank Piotr Swistak for reminding me that every important problem in the social sciences may have an explanation, but they may not have a solution that we like.

2 Technically there are many different types of equilibria. When the term is used here, it refers to what is known as a Nash-equilibrium: "a pair of strategies that are best replies to each other on the equilibrium path" Morrow, James D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.. It is a situation where non of the players can do better by making a unilateral change of strategy.

3 I admit, this is a very unfair caricature of Robert Putnam's argument, but think of it as an "ideal-type" instead, that usually makes things easier for social scientists.

4 Game theorists usually use the term “opportunistic behavior”, which I think is a much too nice term to describe what this is all about.

5 I'm grateful to Fredrick C. Harris, for pointing me to this literature.

6 Another very good analysis of collective memory is Yael Zerubavel's Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition (University of Chicago Press 1995). It may come as no surprise that in a newly established nation state like Israel, the demand for a common "collective memory" has been particularly high, and therefor also more easy to analyze for social scientists.




1   2   3


©aneste.org 2017
enviar mensagem

    Página principal