- 期刊
「可信任的陌生感」：關於將複雜性概念引入民主（化）與社會信任之連結的另種思考
＂To-be-trusted Strangeness＂: An Alternative to Concerning the Introduction of Complexity into the Relationship between Democracy/-tization and Social Trust
摘要
本文主要論點是，社會信任與民主（化）的關係或許不如過去研究所呈現的如此直觀，過去研究多指出（社會）信任是民主化發展的基石，而民主也會滋養（社會）信任。然而，兩者間或許不一定呈現正向關係。其原因之一可能在於有關以個人為核心而產生之信任，以及以社會或系統為核心所產生之信任，兩者在性質與功能上之區別的討論未受到關注。信任研究多將社會信任視為一種個人所擁有的特質，並藉以指出信任與民主之間相互強化、滋養的關係。本研究一方面嘗試在文獻回顧部分先指出過去對兩者區別之探究，另一方面則嘗試論述，在民主社會及朝向民主化發展的過程中，除了伴隨著社會複雜性（socialcomplexity）之增加外，民主化進程與民主的深化亦要求更高度的複雜性，以回應社會信任內涵在現代社會中的轉化。據此，本文將論述，有關社會信任的討論需要輔以對複雜性的觀察，而社會信任的內涵則轉化並表現為「社會不信任」：一種能夠施以不信任的可能性。此外，複雜性與民主（化）的共同演化（co-evolving）使得在對此種可能性持續論題化（thematization）的過程中，迸生出一種「可信任的陌生感（to-be-trusted strangeness）」。本文從「全球信任度調查」的結果作為切入點，除了嘗試論述人際信任與社會信任在分析上是能夠區別開來的，但在研究方法上卻不容易進行操作與測量之外，民主（化）與社會信任不一定呈正向關係。這指出的是，在民主社會中，社會信任度低不一定表示不支持民主，而是人們更清楚其所擁有能夠施予不信任的可能性。社會信任度低表示民主的發展與深化更要求以「社會不信任」作為複雜性化約之機制，以處理隨時可能因「信任」而發生的風險與危機。
並列摘要
This article examines the relationship between social trust and democracy/democratization, and indicates its not so intuitively positive correlation. One of its reasons may lie in the confusion between personally generated trust and socially or systematically generated trust. They were seldom discussed with regard to their qualitative and functional differences. It will be the task of this article, on one hand, to clarify what either of them means, and on the other hand, to bring to the forth the idea of complexity in response to the changing meaning of social trust in the modern society. Democracy or democratization makes the world more complicate and hence its development or consolidation requires higher ability to reduce complexity. One of our arguments will be that the observation on complexity will be needed in discussing social trust, and the content of social trust will be transformed into social distrust: a possibility of showing distrust. Besides, this article will also argue that a kind of ＂strangeness that can be trusted＂ will emerge from the co-evolution of complexity and democracy/democratization. Based on the results from 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer and 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Results, we conclude that personally generated trust and socially or systematically generated trust can be differentiated analytically yet difficult to evaluate methodologically. On the other hand, democracy/ democratization and social trust are not intuitively positively correlated. This is not to say that democracy requires no more social trust to maintain and consolidate. In democracy, lower degree of social trust does not mean that democracy will not be supported; in this case, people know clearly that they have the possibility to show distrust. It also indicates that the development and consolidation of democracy require this social distrust as a mechanism of reducing complexity in order to handle with the risk and danger generated by ＂(social) trust＂.