Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (75) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (75)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (75)
Keywords
- Arbeitsverhältnisse (5)
- Globalisierung (4)
- Prekarität (4)
- Finance (3)
- Global Financial Class (3)
- Globale Finanzklasse (3)
- Globalization (3)
- Pierre Bourdieu (3)
- Transnational Capitalist Class (3)
- Vertrauen (3)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (75) (remove)
This paper challenges widespread assumptions in trust research according to which trust and conflict are opposing terms or where trust is generally seen as a value. Rather, it argues that trust is only valuable if properly justified, and it places such justifications in contexts of social and political conflict. For these purposes, the paper suggests a distinction between a general concept and various conceptions of trust, and it defines the concept as a four-place one. With regard to the justification of trust, a distinction between internal and full justification is introduced, and the justification of trust is linked to relations of justification between trusters and trusted. Finally, trust in conflict(s) emerges were such relations exist among the parties of a conflict, often by way of institutional mediation.
Over the last three decades, countries across the Andean region have moved toward legal recognition of indigenous justice systems. This turn toward legal pluralism, however, has been and continues to be heavily contested. The working paper explores a theoretical perspective that aims at analyzing and making sense of this contentious process by assessing the interplay between conflict and (mis)trust. Based on a review of the existing scholarship on legal pluralism and indigenous justice in the Andean region, with a particular focus on the cases of Bolivia and Ecuador, it is argued that manifest conflict over the contested recognition of indigenous justice can be considered as helpful and even necessary for the deconstruction of mistrust of indigenous justice. Still, such conflict can also help reproduce and even reinforce mistrust, depending on the ways in which conflict is dealt with politically and socially. The exploratory paper suggests four proposition that specify the complex and contingent relationship between conflict and (mis)trust in the contested negotiation of pluralist justice systems in the Andean region.
The resurgence of populism and the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic have consolidated an appeal to the language of trust and distrust in the political arena, but any reference to these notions has often turned into an ideological and polarized debate. As a result, the possibility of developing an appropriate picture of the conditions for trust in politics has been undermined. To navigate the different demands for trust raised in the political arena, a notion of political trust must cover two partially unfulfilled tasks. One is to clarify what trust means when referring specifically to the political context. The other is to connect political trust to other notions that populate the debate on trustworthiness in the political arena - those of rational, moral, epistemic, and procedural trust. I will show how the political categories I use to define the scope of a political notion of trust function as normative leverages to develop politics-compatible versions of rational, moral, procedural, and epistemic trust.
Der Beitrag bietet eine Einführung in das Thema „Vertrauen als Topos der Plattformregulierung“. Dazu wird in einem ersten Schritt das allgemeine Verhältnis zwischen dem sozialen Tatbestand „Vertrauen“ und dem Recht als das einer komplementären, wechselseitigen Wirkungsverstärkung beschrieben. Im Hinblick auf die vertrauensfördernde Rolle des Rechts wird in einem zweiten Schritt zwischen der Funktion des Vertrauens bzw. der Vertrauenswürdigkeit als Tatbestandselement einer Vorschrift und den hieran geknüpften Rechtsfolgen unterschieden. Auf der Basis dieser Grundlagen gibt der Aufsatz in einem dritten Schritt einen Überblick über Bezugnahmen auf „Vertrauen“ in der deutschen und europäischen Plattformregulierung seit 2015. Hierzu zählen sektorale Regelungen gegen Hasskriminalität und Desinformation sowie zum Schutz des Urheberrechts, die 2022 in den horizontal angelegten Digital Services Act mündeten, der ein insgesamt „vertrauenswürdiges Online-Umfeld“ gewährleisten soll. Viertens stellt der Beitrag ein abstrakt-analytisches Konzept des Vertrauens vor, das sich gut zur Analyse der aufgezählten Vertrauensbeziehungen und ihrer rechtlichen Regelungen eignet. Ein abschließender Ausblick deutet die Proliferation des Vertrauenstopos als Ausdruck einer Vertrauenskrise im digitalen Zeitalter. Die erstrebte Vertrauenswürdigkeit des Online-Umfelds bildet ein normatives Minimum, das über gesetzliche Verhaltenspflichten und Privilegien für vertrauenswürdige Akteure der Zivilgesellschaft erreicht werden soll. Ob dies gelingt und überhaupt wünschenswert ist, ist freilich offen. Die juristische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Topos des Vertrauens in der Digital- und Plattformregulierung hat gerade erst begonnen.
My aim in this paper is to make the debates about epistemic injustice fruitful for an analysis of trust in the knowledge of others. Epistemic trust is understood here in a broad sense: not only as trust in scientific knowledge or expert knowledge, but also as trust in implicit, positioned and experience-based knowledge. Using insights from discussions of epistemic injustice, I argue for three interrelated theses:
1. Questions of epistemic trust and trustworthiness cannot be answered with reference to individual virtue alone; rather, they have a structural component.
2. The rationality of epistemic trust must be analyzed against the background of social structures and social relations of domination.
3. Epistemic trust is (also) a political phenomenon and epistemically just relations depend on political transformation processes that promote equality.