The Nature of Trust: From Georg Simmel to a Theory of Expectation, Interpretation and Suspension

Abstract

This article undertakes a substantial theoretical reorientation of research into the concept of trust. Analysing key passages in the work of Georg Simmel, it is argued that the link between trust bases and a trustful state of expectation is much weaker than is commonly assumed. In particular, Simmel recognises a `further element', a kind of faith, that is required to explain trust and its unique nature. His work has influenced key authors in the field such as Luhmann and Giddens, but the `further element' that concerns the crucial, proverbial leap of trust is still underdeveloped. Hence, the article proceeds to conceptualise trust as a mental process of three elements that further research should embrace: expectation, interpretation and suspension. Expectation is the state (outcome) at the end of the process. It is preceded by the combination of interpretation and suspension. The former concerns the experiencing of reality that provides `good reasons'. It is recognised that current trust research already moves away from the rational choice model and allows for affective and abstract (moral) trust bases. However, any form of interpretation is limited and does not inevitably enable expectation. Therefore, an additional element (in line with Simmel) is introduced in this article: suspension. This is the mechanism of bracketing the unknowable, thus making interpretative knowledge momentarily certain. Suspension enables the leap of trust. Functional consequences of trust such as risk-taking, co-operation, relationships or social capital should not be confounded with trust.

Why Social Capital Subverts Institution Building in Risky Settings

“…Following Mollering (2001), Luhmann (1979Luhmann ( , 1988 and Seligman (1997), this study stresses that confidence and trust are products of very different sets of relations. Confidence relates to positive expectations about contingent events that attach to general systems, not to specific individuals (Luhmann, 1988).…”

“…Furthering this notion of context-specific trust, Mollering (2001) extends Simmel's work to see trust forming over a three-step process in which the truster engages in interpretation of the complex conditions in which he or she must act, suspending those elements that are unknown in order to achieve an expectation that an outcome will be positive. Mollering's approach appreciates the vast number of interpretations actors may give to their environments and-counter to deterministic approaches-does not accept a direct relationship between interpretation and expectation, since actors themselves have their own notions about what kinds of uncertainty they can and cannot suspend.…”

Maintaining Trust and Credibility in a Continuously Evolving Organic Food System

“…When actors cannot act based on certainty, actions are based on expectations regarding the future state of affairs (Simmel 1991;Möllering 2001). To be perceived as credible a social actor must appear capable, able and motivated to meet the expectations of other social actors (Luhmann 1979;Möllering 2006).…”

“…Building trust and credibility is thus an ongoing reflexive process which requires continuous communication and openness where trust is generated and extended step by step (Möllering 2006). Knowledge contributes to the formation of expectations by providing ''good reasons'' (Möllering 2001).…”

“…To be perceived as credible a social actor must appear capable, able and motivated to meet the expectations of other social actors (Luhmann 1979;Möllering 2006). Credibility is generated based on an interpretation of personal experiences and various forms of information (Möllering 2001). Reputation and openness about values are therefore important aspects of credibility because this stabilise our Maintaining Trust and Credibility in a Continuously… 769 expectations of other social actors' conduct and imply a certain degree of predictability.…”