The 鈥渃risis of trust,鈥� that is, the lack of trust or existence of distrust that citizens hold towards their governments, has been continuously featured on media headlines. This Summer, as Professor Stoljar鈥檚 research assistant, I approached the crisis of trust from an alternative angle. I surveyed the multidisciplinary literature on distrust, specifically political distrust. After all, political trust and political distrust are, at the very least, closely related concepts. I primarily examined two key questions: 1. How should political distrust be defined? 2. Is political distrust democratically valuable?
Through my research, I learned that there is an ongoing, invaluable debate regarding those questions. While there is a general consensus in political science regarding the definition of political distrust, there is not one in philosophy, as there is no consensus regarding the definition of distrust in the first place. Two very popular definitions of distrust were the commitment account proposed by Hawley and the attitude account proposed by Jones.
I similarly learned that there is no consensus regarding the democratic value of political distrust. While most generally agree that too much political distrust is detrimental, some scholars have powerfully argued that political distrust is necessary to safeguard against the government鈥檚 misuse of power. I particularly found Lenard鈥檚 account of mistrust compared to distrust and Professor Allard-Tremblay鈥檚 emphasis on distrust to de facto achieve popular control the most interesting.
The highlight of my ARIA was attending the 九色视频-Western Workshop on Institutional Trust and Distrust. Professor Stoljar invited me to come listen in on the workshop, where leading scholars on institutional trust and distrust presented and discussed their work. It was an incredible experience as I could learn and discuss with scholars whom I have been researching.
The biggest challenge for me in researching political distrust was narrowing the scope following its interdisciplinary nature. At one point, I learned that organizational studies, business, sociology, public policy, political science, psychology, philosophy, and international affairs examine distrust differently. For example, regarding the potentially harmful and beneficial nature of distrust, following the disciplines鈥� varying definitions, I was given soft/hard distrust, functional/dysfunctional distrust, and mistrust to describe the same phenomenon. Consequently, I had to filter and narrow the scope of my research, as well as bridge the gap between the varying terminologies utilized by the different disciplines.
I had always been interested in research, and through ARIA, I got an incredible first-hand experience of it. I learned what conducting research is like and how to do it. This experience was invaluable and inspired me to pursue research, whether through post-graduate studies or an alternative form. Furthermore, through my research on political distrust, I learned what kind of philosophy and political science I would like to focus on. I will actually be relying on some of the research I conducted to write my thesis later this year.
I received funds from both AIO and RGCS. Without the Undergraduate Research Award funded by the Arts Student Employment Fund and Research Group on Constitutional Studies鈥� student grant, I would not have been able to have this incredible experience. I would like to thank the Arts Undergraduate Society and RGCS and made this experience possible. Finally, a special thank you to Professor Stoljar for trusting me, helping me, and allowing me to take part in this incredible opportunity.
