The trust theory of Simmel
Overview of Simmels Forex rebate k cashbackinforexg theory "Trust" has become one of the important Forexrebatekingsues of common concern in many disciplines, especially in the field of sociology, social psychology, economics, the most attention, both internationally forexrebateindonesia domestically, the literature on trust studies is increasing day by day The emergence of the trust problem is almost as old as the history of mankind In the pre-modern period, the study of trust was mainly from the ethical point of view, and the transition from ethical to sociological research was accompanied by social changes from pre-modern to modern times. However, looking at the current literature on trust studies, especially the domestic literature on trust studies, we find cashback forex there is a general phenomenon that underestimates Simmels contribution to the theory of trust Simmel initiated the contemporary sociological study of trust, but his contribution has not received the attention it deserves. In contemporary times, the main form of interaction is exchange, especially money-mediated exchange, which cannot take place without trust, and thus, society as a whole cannot function without trust. earlier than Georg Herbert Mead (1863) and Max Weber (1864), and died in 1918 His recognized masterpieces are his two major works, The Philosophy of Money, published in 1900, and Sociology, published in 1908 Jurgen Habermas commented in his essay "Simmel on Money and Culture" that "Simmel represents a different type" Despite his extraordinary influence on the pre-World War I German philosophical climate, despite his important influence on German sociology and on American sociology, Habermas argues: "Simmel was an angry rather than a systematic thinker who tried to make a philosophical diagnosis of his time with the tendencies of the social sciences, rather than sticking to one corner of philosophy or sociology" Once published, The Philosophy of Money immediately created a ripple in the academic community of the time Exactly which category to classify this work, some believe that the approach of the book is metaphysical, the content is economic, and the general framework of the treatment of human relations is The sociological Mead argues that Simmels analysis of the form of economic phenomena in the Philosophy of Money, rather than their content, is clearly different from Marxs Capital In fact, in 1889, before the publication of the Philosophy of Money, Simmel wrote a paper, "The Psychology of Money," in which Simmel outlined many of the ideas that were later developed in the Philosophy of Money from In the years from 1896 to 1899, Simmel intermittently wrote the main part of the Philosophy of Money, which was no longer called the "Psychology of Money" because Simmel wanted to try to construct a philosophy of money that differed from economics and psychologys account of money. sociological and psychological concerns, showing not only his concern with the sociology of the monetary economy as it affects social and cultural life, but also his ultimate goal of building a philosophy of culture and a metaphysics of life that focuses on the everyday world The Sociology - In the Study of Forms of Socialization (hereinafter referred to as "Sociology") is Simmels In this book, Simmel discusses his sociological ideas in detail. As early as in The Philosophy of Money, Simmel had already elaborated on the basic ideas of his sociology: the emphasis on social exchange and social relations. In the analytical volume of the Philosophy of Money, chapter 2, section 3, under the heading of "Social Exchange and Social Relations", Simmel mentions the issue of trust. In addition to the one just mentioned, there are two other places, respectively in chapter 5, "Secrets and Secret Societies", and in the notes of the book "Sociology". The starting point of Simmels theory of trust is interaction. Simmel believes that it is interaction that forms the complex relations between people, and that interaction between individuals in society is the starting point for the formation of all social constitutions. Simmel argues that the dominant form of interaction or social relation in modern society is exchange. Although Simmel does not make an in-depth historical examination of this, we still think his assessment is appropriate. In the economic sphere, we use money to evaluate the give and take of both sides of the exchange, so our evaluation of the exchange is the exchange value, thus, Simmel believes that it is the exchange that determines the value of the commodity, which is biased Marx believes that the value of the commodity is the abstract undifferentiated human labor condensed in the commodity but In the pre-capitalist period, when the money economy was not yet developed and the main form of exchange was barter, reciprocity was more obvious, otherwise exchange would not have been possible. In modern societies, exchange is one of the prerequisites for the creation of intrinsic bonds and organic solidarity among people in a society. In modern society, with the fully developed division of labor, exchange has become more widespread, the forms of social relations have become richer, exchange has brought people into more contact and contact, and it has opened up the possibility of developing new and more personal relations and other forms of social relations, opening up new Therefore, the prerequisites of the exchange mechanism also constitute the prerequisites for the continuity of society One of the most important conditions of exchange is trust If people do not have a general trust in each other, society itself will disintegrate, because few relationships can be based exclusively on definite perceptions of others If trust is not as strong or stronger than rational evidence and personal experience, it is also rarely possible to have a relationship that is not based on a definite perception of others The modern economy is a monetary economy, and the dominant form of exchange is monetary exchange, with money as the medium of exchange. This form of trust seems to be trust in money as a thing, but Simmel emphasizes that trust must be trust in the person or government that gives money its validity. In his Philosophy of Money, "without general trust between people, society itself would become a scattered mass" and in his Sociology, "trust is one of the most important integrative forces within society". For individual actors, the function of trust is "to provide a reliable assumption on which to base actual behavior as a guarantee". Although there is a great deal of disagreement, and even though such a fundamental issue as the concept of trust still does not have an accepted and clear definition, there is a high degree of agreement among researchers from different disciplines on the importance of trust. 2. From personality trust to systemic trust Although Simmel does not consciously divide trust into personality trust (both particularistic and universalistic trust) and systemic trust, in his text we can see that Simmel has indirectly referred to this The problem Simmel writes: "The inventory bonds issued by the government before the eighteenth century were the first invented form of claim to the taxation of the state as a whole In this example, the certainty of availability of repayment does not depend on the kind of special circumstances that must necessarily be identified, but on a general trust in the solvency of the state" This This form of state credit is distinguished from the form of personal credit in that it is impossible to know the creditworthiness of another person, as in the case of personal credit Simmel believes that the transition from traditional to modern times was accompanied by a shift in the type of trust in society from predominantly personal trust to predominantly systemic trust and he believes that it is money that has played a huge role in the transformation of personal trust into systemic trust. In his "Philosophy of Money", Simmel gives a historical survey, arguing that money has gradually acquired an abstract and eternal status in modern society. Weber also discusses this issue in detail, arguing that particularistic trust is based on blood or geopolitical communities, and that the emergence of universalistic trust was largely influenced by Protestantism, which promoted brotherly relations that generated universal trust among believers. From Simmels text we can infer that the "general trust" or "universal trust" was not a universalist trust in the sense of personal trust, but a trust in the system. In his 1979 book Trust and Power, he proposed three main mediums of exchange: money, truth, and power. Giddens gives a new overview of the typology of trust, which he considers to include: personality trust, symbolic systems, and expert systems. 3. trust is different from weakly reductive knowledge In The Philosophy of Money, Simmel gives an example: "If a farmer has no confidence that his land will produce grain as it did the year before ( confidence), he will not sow; if a merchant does not believe (belief) that the public will want his goods, he will not offer them, etc. This trust is only a weak form of inductive knowledge" Simmel argues that this weak inductive knowledge is not trust, it does not provide a reliable basis for trust, similar to He distinguishes this weak inductive knowledge from examples of lending behavior and trust in others in that the former is only weak inductive knowledge, while the latter has, in addition, another "indescribable element" that he calls most clearly embodied in religious beliefs. Luman distinguishes between risk and danger, calling threats from nature danger and threats from the consequences of mans own actions risk. Luman inherits weak inductive knowledge, which he believes is determined by a permanent epistemological gap Luman writes: "induction has no exact basis for supplying trust; but trust is always an inference from existing evidence; as Simmel points out, it is a fusion of knowledge and ignorance" Giddens also sees this, using the term "Although weakly inductive knowledge is not trust, trust in people is always inseparable from weakly inductive knowledge, and in any case from weakly inductive knowledge, except in the case of religious beliefs, Simmel argues that we always have to act, and trust dares us to act, because this trust is based on the prediction of the reliability of future possible events and on the trust of the future. on the prediction and calculation of the reliability of possible events, reliance as a hypothesis is a state between knowing and not knowing for a person who knows thoroughly does not need to trust (others), and who does not know at all, rationally speaking, cannot trust (others) at all Therefore, reliance is between knowing and not knowing Through the above analysis, we can affirm that between reliance (confidence, also zer for "This distinction is necessary in the process of a deeper analysis of trust. Some people are willing to give trust when a high percentage of the trust factor is present, while others may not give their trust when a high percentage of the trust factor is not present. And what factors other than trust play an important role in trust giving? We think it is at least possible to see that none of the current explanatory models of the foundations of trust can be claimed to be universally applicable, e.g. rational choice theory, institutional theory, moral foundations theory, etc. Trust needs to be contextualized. After talking about the relationship between monetary transactions and trust, Simmel used the phrase: "There is something else about this trust that is extremely subtle". He goes on to say that in the case of borrowing and in the case of believing in a person (befieveinsomeone), there is another element that lies outside of knowledge and ignorance, that is, it cannot be grasped in the realm of knowledge, it is transcendental. This example does not involve weakly inductive knowledge at all, that is, it is not related to knowledge. In the Chinese translation of the Philosophy of Money, there is a mistranslation: "Economic credit does not include this element of supra-theoretical belief" should read "In the English translation, we can see that the translator prefaced the word "contains" with 1, which contains not only the element of weak inductive knowledge, but also this element of transcendental knowledge. In the Philosophy of Money, Simmel wanted to limit this factor to religious beliefs, as he did not talk too much about it, and even said he would try to eliminate it. In Sociology he finally affirms the existence of this factor, arguing that it is present not only in religious beliefs but in all instances of belief in others1 This writing style is not quite in line with Simmels usual style, and some scholars believe that he was trying to draw attention to it, although it also allows many to leave out this very crucial comment about trust, such as Luhmanns failure to pay attention to Simmels theory of trust in The transcendental element, which Giddens apparently noted, is that trust differs from weakly reductive knowledge in that "trust implies a crossing over to commitment (commitment), which is an irreducible belief Trust combines weakly inductive knowledge with this transcendental element. He argues that trust belongs to the cognitive domain or the explanatory domain, and the situation of trust belongs to the expectation domain, and that the way to bridge the gap between the two domains is to "suspend", which means, in laymans terms, to forget about it and not to think about what factors contribute to this suspension. For example, the role of institutions, laws, practices, etc. in this "suspension" process needs to be further studied.
No reproduction without permission： Forex rebate king » The trust theory of Simmel